Post Edited (selah) : 4/13/2010 9:27:23 AM (GMT-5)

I believe Selah is spot on pointing out the irony between the title of this thread and what’s being argued.

 “I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, that you have hidden these things from the wise and understanding and revealed them to little children;  yes, Father, for such was your gracious will.”

Post Edited (selah) : 4/17/2010 8:32:15 AM (GMT-5)

So what does hubristic “pride” have to do with the Kingdom of Heaven?  Let’s try moving from apocalyptic language to what the Son of Man himself has to say on the topic:   “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven.  Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.” - Matthew 18:3-4 (ESV)  

Post Edited (Truth Aficionado) : 4/13/2010 9:41:01 AM (GMT-5)

Tom: And I honestly don't get the whole pride thing. Why is that even brought up? You really see us as being led around by our pride on this topic?

TA: So what does hubristic “pride” have to do with the Kingdom of Heaven? Let’s try moving from apocalyptic language to what the Son of Man himself has to say on the topic: “Truly, I say to you, unless you turn and become like children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. Whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.”

Tom: If I’m arrogant, I must be a sloooow arrogant person, because I’m not seeing the point. The humble are the greatest in the Kingdom. Yes. I was just wondering why when discussing UR texts with Selah she chose to conclude that we’re seeing UR in the text because we’re arrogant. Where’s the arrogance in any of the reasons we’ve offered for thinking UR is true? Where is it in HOW we're discussing things? I'm not shouting, cussing, or insulting people who see it differently. Where are ya'll seeing the pride here?

------------------------------

Tom: Do you really think we’re being led around by pride on this issue?

Selah: Yep, I do, Tom.

Tom: I’m very surprised.

------------------------------

Selah: Now, here’s a few questions for you. How many people who have an issue with pride would say “You know, YES, I AM prideful” in response to someone’s concern that they might have a pride issue? Answer: Zero.

Tom: I totally agree, but what’s this got to do with the thread? Just because prideful people are reluctant to admit they’re prideful people (which I agree is true), it follows that D and I are driven by our pride to see universalism in the text?

Selah: Returning to the TEXT: Can you explain this verse to me (or point me to where you already have): Matthew 25:46 “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

Tom: Sure. You and TA won’t buy it because you believe the way the verse is structured requires that “eternal” in both instances (applied to ‘punishment’ and then to ‘life’) refer to an identical length of time, i.e., if “eternal life” is temporally unending (and it is), THEN (so the argument goes) the parallel between life and punishment here must mean that “eternal punishment” also refers to temporally unending punishment, that is, to irrevocable, unending, conscious torment in hell.

But Selah, you don’t believe in temporally unending torment in hell. As I remember, you’re an annihilationist, which means you don’t think the parallel in this verse requires that ‘eternal’ refer to EXACTLY the same length of time applied to punishment and life. You think the life is temporally unending but the punishment ends.

I might ask how YOU as an annihilationist avoid the traditionalist’s argument here for irrevocable/unending conscious torment. Or do you think Mat. 24:36 explicitly teaches irrevocable/unending conscious torment? I thought you were an annihilationist, but I guess I’m wrong.

A universalist would ask you if you had the time to ignore his pride and arrogance and consider how ‘aion’ and ‘aionios’ are used and how they derive their temporal implications from the nouns they describe and not from their own ‘inherent meaning’. It IS a tedious and boring discussion, but that’s what it is.

Selah: Can you explain why there’s a BUT after the kings and nations in the verse D quoted? “…but only those who are written in the Lambs book of life….” Doesn't that IMPLY there are others? Can you give me a yes or no on this one?

Tom: The “but” means that nobody whose name isn’t written in the book gets to enter the city. What this simple little word “but” all by itself does NOT mean is that no person’s name which isn’t recorded therein can ever subsequently become recorded therein. It just sets the qualification for life to those whose names are written therein without assuming anything about whether or if the contents of the book might subsequently change.

Selah: I mean “They will be tormented day and night forever and ever” is pretty explicit, right? I know the whole “That's a mistranslation” argument, but come on. There seems to be a central theme issue here. 

Tom: Well, it IS about translation actually.  

But how about Rev. 5:8-14 for explicit? I don’t see any ambiguity about the universal scope of John’s vision:

8And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. ⁹And they sang a new song: “You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased men for God from every tribe and language and people and nation. ¹⁰You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.” ¹¹Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. ¹²In a loud voice they sang: “Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!” ¹³Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, singing: “To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!” ¹⁴The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.

What’s John see? Notice the movement from the four living creatures worshipping to the angels worshipping and then to all creatures worshipping and the elders then saying “Amen” to our worship. It looks pretty explicit, doesn’t it? No human being is left out. None. But this is early in Revelation. Just chapter 5. So what can it be? Well, it must be a vision of the end-state, of where creation is ultimately heading, where the book ultimately points to. Because there’s never been a time since the Fall when every human being has worshipped. And it doesn’t actually occur prior to the Lake of Fire. If it had, there would never BE a Lake of Fire, right? So what’s John really seeing? More importantly WHEN is he seeing it? Looks to me like John’s getting a glimpse of what SHALL be.

All I’m saying Selah, is this: I see what John sees (or at least what I think John sees). Is that fair? And I’m choosing to LIVE in that vision, to believe it can become reality and to be empowered by it. I really can imagine all creation won back to God; I mean imagine it theologically. And the vision of it has been pretty transformative, easy to appropriate to everyday life. But I gather that for you my reading this passage this way is really just blind pride and arrogance. You said we’re “being led around by pride on this issue,” so...?

Anyhow, yes, it is about translation. It’s always about translation. I don’t know how to get behind the words: ‘aionios’ does not simply MEAN “unending temporal duration.” It just doesn’t. I can take on that connotation given certain contexts, but that meaning isn’t something that inheres in the word and that’s always there. There are just too many passages where it cannot mean unending temporal duration. So we all HAVE to judge when it’s this and when it’s that.

While I think there are some nearly undeniable UR passages, I know it’s not absolutely air-tight. Other views have their favorite passages too. So I’m not dogmatic. But to be told by somebody I love and respect as much as I do you that I only see universalism in the text because I’m a proud and arrogant person is…well, I don’t have words. I see you qualified the “pride” comments a bit, but my head is still spinning.

Your Goulash better be good!

Tom

Post Edited (Tom) : 4/13/2010 3:14:48 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (selah) : 4/17/2010 8:33:05 AM (GMT-5)

Selah: First, I'm not saying you are arrogant, Tom. I'm saying the way you guys talk about THIS SUBJECT seems arrogant.

Tom: Good, ‘cause I was confused. I asked if you thought the D and I were being “led around by pride on this issue” and you said, “Yep.” But if you just mean HOW we’re talking about it, that’s better—though I’m still looking for something in HOW I talk about this issue that looks haughty or arrogant.

Selah: You assert things that I have NO idea how ANYONE in their right mind can get from the text as if it’s just there plain as day.

Tom: I’ve always qualified my assertions with the admission that I could be wrong and that I can’t claim the same confidence about UR as I do, say, the Trinity, or deity of Christ, or salvation by faith, etc. So I’ve never said UR itself, as a view, is as plain as day to me. I have said that some passages look explicit and clear to me. I might have gotten excited and asked, “What else could Paul mean?” but even then I always admit that non-UR folk have their passages too.

But let me ask you, T, you have Rev. 5.13 there in front of you. John says he saw “every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them” signing and worshipping.

I hear you saying that you have NO idea how ANYONE who is in their right mind could come to believe on the basis of these words that every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea and all that is in them will one day sing and worship God? All I did was take John’s words and remove the quotation marks to express myself. I believe that one day every creature in heaven and on earth will worship God. There. John’s words. And you don’t think anybody who is sane could possibly think that’s what John saw or meant to say? Even if they’re wrong—still, you don’t think it’s even a POSSIBLE understanding of John for a sane person?

Selah: Come on... that's gotta be a little pride, dontchathink?

Tom: Did you just pick something from a certain tree, friend? ;o)

I don’t think somebody expressing how clear something seems to them has to be proud, no. I don’t see how one could conclude that pride has to be behind how certain or assertive a person makes a claim. It COULD BE that they’re proud, but it doesn’t HAVE to be—otherwise we could never be certain of anything without being arrogant, and that can’t be right.

Selah: And then when I say it is prideful and ask you to hold your position more loosely (since MANY theologians go before you and totally disagree with your conclusions), you say something along the lines of “Well, selah always gets this way when we assert these brilliant arguments that make sense to everyone but her...we just dont understand why.”

Tom: I don’t think I’ve ever said anything that’s brilliant. Don’t think I ever will. I’m not kidding, T. I wish you could see how absolutely boring and average I believe I am.

I have moments where UR seems super clear, and other moments were I really wonder if it’s true. But I’ve said that too, so nothing new there. I do hold to UR “lightly.” I ‘think’ it’s true. I’ve always made it clear that I’m not claiming to ‘know’ that it’s true. I hold it loosely, but I hold it.

I did say that when we and you discuss this that it usually comes around to the same issues for you (warnings against pride and confidence, the ambiguity of texts, most theologians before us aren’t universalists, etc.), but I don’t think I ever spoke of my own reasons for holding UR in terms of “brilliant arguments.” That would be condescending of me, and I don’t think I could every come close to insulting you like that. (Other people who annoy me, maybe! But never you.)

Selah: Heres one example of what I cannot understand: Can you explain why there’s a BUT after the kings and nations in the verse D quoted? “…but only those who are written in the Lambs book of life….” Doesn't that IMPLY there are others? Can you give me a yes or no on this one?

Tom: The “but” means that nobody whose name isn’t written in the book gets to enter the city. What this simple little word “but” all by itself does NOT mean is that no person’s name which isn’t recorded therein can ever subsequently become recorded therein. It just sets the qualification for life to those whose names are written therein without assuming anything about whether or if the contents of the book might subsequently change.

Selah: I feel like you are speaking arabic. COME ON!

Tom: I don’t know what else to say. It’s just a simple adversative—“but”—that introduces a contrast. “Everybody got ice cream, but those who failed their tests didn’t.” “Tom invited everybody to his house, but those with dirty shoes couldn’t come in.” I mean, that’s basically the grammatical function of “but.” To say, “…but those whose names weren’t written in the book were X instead of Y” means just that—and no more—those whose names aren’t recorded don’t get to come in. The little word “but” doesn’t have implications for all the other possible scenarios. Maybe the guests who couldn’t enter my house because their shoes were dirty got new shoes. Maybe they washed their feet AND THEN COULD COME IN. But word “but” doesn’t say this can never happen. COME ON!

Selah: So you want me to believe that even though the BUT comes after the nations and kings part....it’s just there to let us know that theres a book with names in it? Its just there to tell us about the people who wont enter the city until the book subsequently changes? Hmmmm. I know theres text that says people will be BLOTTED out of the book, but I dont see where the book subsequently changes to include everyone. Do you? If everyone's included why mention a book at all? And why mention a book that excludes?

Tom: There is no literal book with pages and ink, right? This is a description of God’s knowing those who are his. That’s all it means. And since those who are his is a changing fact that God keeps track of, why in the world wouldn’t God know who has JUST come to belong to him in Christ and who has JUST (for example) apostatized and fallen from grace? There will come a day, a day of judgment, when those God does NOT know as his own will be embrace the eschatological (i.e., FULL) pain of what it means to not be known by God as his own. But this doesn’t in itself also mean there can never be subsequent opportunities be enter.

If you have an argument for why this judgment must foreclose all future possibility, I’m all ears. Really I am. I could be wrong. Help me see how I’m wrong—how “but” HAS to imply the irrevocable closure of all possible turning to God. But just saying we’re proud, or sound proud, or aren’t sane because there’s no possible way a sane person who be a universalist, or that many theologians before us weren’t universalists, don’t look like arguments to me. If they are successful—they you and I both would have to give up open theism, for all the same things can been said about us open theists, and we KNOW how certain you are that THAT is true!

Selah: Ah, and for the record, I'm not making goulash ... I'm making paprikash...and it IS good. So good that it will be in Heaven living eternally with those who are written in the Lambs book of life.

Tom: Make a lot of it Sista, ‘cause I’m coming hungry and fired up!

Tom

PS T, gimme the chapter and verse in Revelation where “kings and nations” is followed by “but,” just so I can make sure I’m not talking about a different verse.

1/11/2009 – Tormented in the Flames?, Greg Boyd  –  sermon length is 49:00 minutes
The story of the rich man and Lazarus has often been used to ground our theology when it comes to the doctrine of Hell. This message aims to broaden our imagination about this issue by looking at this passage in the larger biblical context. Focus Scripture – Luke 16:19-24
	Audio - 5.8 mb High-Quality Audio - 22.6 mb QuickTime Video (mp4) - 133.3 mb Windows Media Video (wmv) - 90.4 mb	Presentation Slides Covenant Group Study Guide Individual Study Guide

hmmm...

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/13/2010 9:44:19 PM (GMT-5)

Post Edited (One Love) : 4/13/2010 9:56:47 PM (GMT-5)