 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Experience, Actuality, and Aesthetic Value...oh and Satan too. | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/14/2009 10:22 AM (GMT -6) |   | Even if you want to do with the TR (which is NOT the original reading), all it would mean is that the only nations that walk in its light are those who are being saved (present participle). But that's kinda obvious isn't it?
But consider this. Part of the art/science of textual critics is to hyposthesize reasons and circumstances that best explain variant readings. And there are a list of proven common explanations all critics use to explain how a reading got added, or eliminated, etc. HERE the question would be...
What's more likey?
A) That the original read "and the nations of those saved walked in its light" and some scribe ELIMINATED the words "of those saved"?
or
B) That the original read "and the nations walked in its light" and some scribe ADDED the words "of those saved"?
The best explanation will be an argument in favor of the original reading.
And here (B) is certainly the better explanation. It's far more difficult to imagine a scribe intentionally eliminating these words than it is to imagine them being added. Scribes tended to ADD (innocently) in an attempt to clarify the text and avoid misunderstanding. Here the scribe might have not liked the idea that these nations are the only other nations spoken of frequently throughout the letter, i.e., those judged and thrown into the Lake of Fire. How do they get into the city? Hmm. If a scribe doesn't like that implication, he may have wanted to add the words "of those who are saved" in the hope of leading readers to make PRECISELY THE CONCLUSION YOU MADE, i.e., "Hey, these nations aren't the same nations judged. These are the nations of all the saved folks (saved before any of the judgment narrated in the Book), not the nations of the judged folks."
On the other hand, assuming (A), it's very difficult to imagine any reason a scribe would have for removing the words "of those who are saved"? Why would he do that? Because he's a universalist and wants to secure a universalist reading? Why here? Why make THIS tiny change and leave in the Lake of Fire and all the rest? And even if the words are original, they don't even exclude UR. Scribes weren't always the smartest guys.
Hahahahahaha!
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/14/2009 9:39:06 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2009 11:49 AM (GMT -6) | | |
T: but I still think you need to give that passage a closer reading. what does it mean to you guys when you read "And the nations OF THEM WHICH ARE SAVED shall walk in the light of it"?? Are there nations of them who wont be saved?
J: To me, it's saying the "Gentiles of the saved ones shall walk in the light of it (the New Jerusalem)." Notice it said there would be no night IN THE CITY. And that's whay it's gates won't be closed. The implication is that there may be night outside of the city. THe gentiles bring their glory INTO the city, as if they are not the natural inhabitants of it. Why would they be since Jerusalem is not a gentile city.
So my argument, T, is that we have no need to assume this is the eternal state. If Jesus has already delivered the kingdom to the Father at this point (which seems plausible given the previous texts), then Jesus' reign was finite. So might be the Father's in this new SOFA described in the end of Revelation.
IOW, maybe the idea of "reigning" has an expiration date. If so, UR can happen thereafter. After all, it does seem to imply that folks are in the lake of fire during at least some of the time that the Father's reign is occurring. But if "reigning" is finite, UR can still happen thereafter. Then all we need is evidence that God is THAT benevolent. We don't need explicit texts.
If judgment is finite, then it seems to follow that defiance comes to an end. Because defiance would require judgment. So continual defiance would mean continual judgment, wouldnt' it? But at some point the defiance ends. They bow the knee and confess with the tongue like Phillipians says. We don't need to assume that forgiveness can't come even then. It seems more plausible, given God's nature, to assume that some kind of reconciliation occurs EVENTUALLY simply because there are texts that seem to indicate the defiance DOES eventually stop. The rich man was regretful IMMEDIATELY. Why would we think he is so radically a-typical of the rest of sentient humanity?
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/14/2009 10:52:11 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/14/2009 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff,
Right. If we have a Scriptural basis for believing God is THAT benevolent then we can safely conclude something about the destiny of the world (ECT’s being out of the question would be one of them). But there’s still exegetical work to do in squaring apparent ECT passages with what we think follows from God’s being THAT benevolent. And it’s nice to know we do have some explicit verses that back up what we think follows from divine benevolence (like Phil. 2 you mentioned). So that’s good.
I think there’s something here in Revelation that supports UR. I won’t die on a hill for it, but it sure makes sense given these other things. I’m not sure about the “gentile” (per se) connection. Sure, as a matter of fact all the nations of the earth back then besides Israel were gentiles. But given the way John’s been describing them (with the ‘kings’), I think he has in mind political states and not just ‘ethnic’ groups. But anyhow, in the end it’s the same. Moving on into 22, you have the leaves of the tree of life being used “for the healing of the nations.” Why would that be IF the judged nations are irredeemable and the saved nations are partying in heaven? Something’s going on.
Another interesting thing at the end of ch. 21 is the play or movement going on from v. 26 to v. 27.
26 The glory and honor of the nations are brought into the city, etc. yada yada. Then…
27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Do you see what I see in v. 27? Why say nothing impure “will ever enter it…BUT ONLY…” if all the wicked are finished and done with? Why say that? And then why follow up this fact with the adversative “but only…”? The whole thing implies that those who are outside (in darkness and sin) WILL be entering the city, but on condition of holiness. In other words, the qualifying clause “but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book” (don’t have the Greek in front of me) begs some VERB to complete it? Only those whose names are written what? will what? The previous clause gives it---will enter the city! No evildoer will enter. The only people who will be entering the city from outside are those whose name are in the book of life, i.e., those who are (i.e., who come to be) identified as God’s own.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas Berdyaev | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2009 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Thought:
Given the exegetical "openness" there is to UR...AND thinking about the unbelievability of DIVINE POSSIBILITY (Salvifically, all things are possible with God) ...AND given the INTERNAL WITNESS (God echoing in our souls) that lead people towards graciousness towards God's enemies (for various reasons...)
...isn't it rational to think of UR as a sure hope grounded in faith in God's possibility?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2009 3:52:46 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2009 1:19 PM (GMT -6) | | TOM: Another interesting thing at the end of ch. 21 is the play or movement going on from v. 26 to v. 27.
26 The glory and honor of the nations are brought into the city, etc. yada yada. Then…
27 Nothing impure will ever enter it, nor will anyone who does what is shameful or deceitful, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.
Do you see what I see in v. 27? Why say nothing impure “will ever enter it…BUT ONLY…” if all the wicked are finished and done with? Why say that? And then why follow up this fact with the adversative “but only…”? The whole thing implies that those who are outside (in darkness and sin) WILL be entering the city, but on condition of holiness. In other words, the qualifying clause “but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book” (don’t have the Greek in front of me) begs some VERB to complete it? Only those whose names are written what? will what? The previous clause gives it---will enter the city! No evildoer will enter. The only people who will be entering the city from outside are those whose name are in the book of life, i.e., those who are (i.e., who come to be) identified as God’s own.
Jeff: By my take, the last part of Revelation is describing the divine kingdom in that phase of it after the Son delivers it to the Father that the Father might be all in all. No evildoer will enter that WORLD, much less that city. I'm thinking the evildoer's are in the lake of fire on the former earth, which is fleeing from God's face at that time since there will be no place found for it. THEN, when that kingdom runs it's course, Satan will have been judged and so forth. At that point, there will be no "reigning" per se. That's when, per my UR view, all sentient beings (as opposed to some) will partake of the divine nature in the sense that sin will no longer be possible for anyone. Some will have to be ressurected for that if they have died the second death prior to the completion of the Father's kingdom.
IOW, after the Son's reign, we have the great white throne judgment. Some will be judged and die a second death from that. The Father's reign in the new heavens and new earth will start as Satan's age-abiding judgment starts. I'm thinking that that kingdom will terminate as did the Son's, and distinctions between Israel and "nations/gentiles" will then be moot in every sense (as they are now in the Body of Christ) since all promises will have then been fulfilled. We see the Torah language of God's "servants" vs. "the nations" right there in the New Jerusalem.
But when Satan is finally judged, he can start afresh as an angel of God, as per Phillipians. For he will have bowed and confessed. It may be that all those humans who partook of the second death will remain asleep in death until Satan's judgment is complete. Maybe that will be when the Father's kingdom will be "finished." And maybe then a new beginning will occur that will render ALL the past moot. E.g., there may be no Jerusalem or anything alluding to the past. The point is, at some point in time, Satan confesses that Jesus is Lord. It makes sense to me that it will be after the beginning of his age-abiding judgment.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/14/2009 12:31:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/14/2009 2:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
I must have conveyed something to you that lead you to believe that I'm an advocate of annihilation. That's not the case, though.
(I'll get back to your posts a bit later).
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2009 4:58 PM (GMT -6) | | Makes sense. Reasonable optimism/hope for UR because of God's infinite power and divine possibility. Why does it make sense? Because God's benevolent enough to design us with sentient intelligence to even get THIS FAR with the issue. Like you said before, Jeff, God's grace is previous. We have no ground to stand on to judge God. God IS infinitely gracious to all sinners. And, IMO, this previous activity of Grace is prima facie evidence for most "gracious" interpretation, centering on Jesus' faith, in the God whom loved the world enough to give the Son...and for whom nothing was impossible.
Knowhutimean?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2009 5:01 PM (GMT -6) | | And this is serious thought I have too.
If a person is truly aware of the depth of their own sin before God...and God's constant forgiveness to them, I don't see how they could even LOOK UP enough to judge another person's sin as worthy of condemnation, not even Satan's.
"Lord Jesus Christ, have mercy on me, the sinner."
When we look at the beam in our eye, is even SATAN'S sin a speck compared to that? (Greg always says that. That we should treat every one else's sins as a speck compared to the log of our own sin. )
--------------------------------------------------------
<!-- PAGE TITLE HERE -->
<!-- START BODY HERE -->
The Savior told this parable in response to Peter’s question about how many times one had to forgive one’s brother. The Apostle Peter thought that it would be enough to forgive up to seven times. Christ replied that one should forgive one’s brother "seventy times seven" times, implying that forgiveness must be given always, for an unlimited number of times. As an explanation, He told the following parable:
"Therefore is the kingdom of heaven likened unto a certain king, which would take account of his servants. And when he had begun to reckon, one was brought unto him, which owed him ten thousand talents. But forasmuch as he had not to pay, his lord commanded him to be sold, and his wife, and children, and all that he had, and payment to be made. The servant therefore fell down, and worshipped him, saying, Lord, have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. Then the lord of that servant was moved with compassion, and loosed him, and forgave him the debt. But the same servant went out, and found one of his fellow servants, which owed him an hundred pence: and he laid hands on him, and took him by the throat, saying, Pay me that thou owest. And his fellowservant fell down at his feet, and besought him, saying, Have patience with me, and I will pay thee all. And he would not: but went and cast him into prison, till he should pay the debt. So when his fellowservants saw what was done, they were very sorry, and came and told unto their lord all that was done. Then his lord, after that he had called him, said unto him, O thou wicked servant, I forgave thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me: Shouldest not thou also have had compassion on thy fellowservant, even as I had pity on thee? And his lord was wroth, and delivered him to the tormentors, till he should pay all that was due unto him. So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses" (Mt. 18:23-35).
In this parable God is likened to a king who lent certain amounts of money to his servants. A human is an insolvent debtor before God not only because of his sins, but also because of his lack of good works; those good things which he could have done for others but did not do. These undone works of love are our debts also. In the Lord’s prayer we ask, "And forgive us our debts," not just our sins! By the end of our life, when we await our turn to God to account for the life we have lived, we will find out that we all have been insolvent debtors. The parable of the unjust steward says that we can rely on God’s mercy only if we wholeheartedly forgive offenders. That is why we must remind ourselves every day, "And forgive us our debts, as we forgive our debtors."
Furthermore, with regard to this parable, the offences our neighbors incur upon us are negligible compared to our debt to God; it is like small change compared to capital worth over a million dollars. It must be said that the feeling of injury is very individual. One person might not take notice of the occasional word or act of an acquaintance, while the same words or acts may cause another to take offense his entire life. From the spiritual standpoint, the feeling of injury originates from piqued ambition and hidden pride. The more self-loving and proud a man is, the more touchiness he has. Resentment, if one does not get rid of it at once, may gradually become rancor. Rancor, according to St. John of the Ladder, is the "rust of the soul, worm of the mind, opprobrium of prayers, alienation of love … ceaseless sin." Rancor is hard to fight. In another of his counsels, St. John of the Ladder writes, "Recollection of the sufferings of Jesus will heal the rancor, [which will be] reproached by His goodness." Further on, he says, "When after a long good fight you are not able to remove this thorn, then at least in your words repent and humble yourself before the one whom you are angry with, so that you become ashamed of your sustained hypocrisy and able to love this one perfectly."
It is very important that we pray for those whom we feel offended by, and that this help us to overcome our unkind feelings towards them. If we could see the multitude of debts for which we have to give account to God, we would gladly make haste to forgive all our enemies, even our worst, and to win God's mercy. Unfortunately, such recognition of our wrongs and our guilt before God does not come to us on its own, but requires the continuous and strict trial of our conscience in the Evangelical light. Whoever forces himself to forgive his neighbors will, as a reward for this effort, receive the gift of genuine Christian love which our Holy Fathers called the Queen of Virtues.
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2009 4:06:56 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2009 5:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Here's my thought:
If all the mess that Satan has put me through is to be considered "negligible" compared to my own "debt to God", how could I wish any less mercy upon him than I've received, personally...that I need DAILY, from God's gracious hand. ESPECIALLY if it's genuinely POSSIBLE for God to have that mercy. I'd be a wicked servant...right?
See what I'm saying?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2009 4:24:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/14/2009 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Another thought. if God DOES grant it for his "co-heirs" to judge angels with him (like Paul said), wouldn't they be solidified in divine compassion when they did this judgement? Would those "co-heirs" judge the angels like God judged them?
hmmmm...
I'm just throwing these thoughts into the overall mix of things. 
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/14/2009 4:24:46 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Asher
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 477
| Posted 11/14/2009 6:03 PM (GMT -6) | | " it's the high degree of certainty that you (and other so called intellectuals) hold regarding the UR view"
Certainty. I don't know that anyone is claiming absolute certainty, and that would be the only real problem. As for having a high degree of certainty...well, I think we're just following the logic of love on this one...and GIVEN that agape calculus...it's just extremely unlikely that ECT or annihilationism is correct.
"IN ADDITION to the word gymnastics that are often required that me very wary of the whole UR movement."
Seems to me that every contestant in this here olympics are all doing gymnastics, that is not a burden that only UR folks have to bare.
" Since you seem so completely sure of your reading of scripture about all this, it doesn't make sense for me or any other annihilationist to contribute more to the discussion. I REALLY believe we have to hold this doctrine/opinion more loosely than you guys seem to be willing to hold it.'
If we were to compare this to social inequities...It's ECT people who have the power of dominance. And they seem relatively accepting of annihilationists. It's the UR folks who have the minority position. So, unless someone is relatively certain about that position, it is unlikely they would stick by it. So, I would counsel instead of holding on loosely to hold on for dear life.
"MANY people disagree with your interpretations...not just Teresa. (even GB has gone back and forth!)
Tom's sentence above should have read: "Yeah, I've read you as annihilationist (with Teresa and many if not most christ followers throughout history) this whole time. Haha!"
I'm just speaking for myself on this, but consensus holds VERY little sway with me.
"To me, there's evidence for several views on hell. As I said before, it's not a central issue."
There is evidence for several views, and so with that, on one hand, it's not a central issue...especially with regards to unity. But, on the other hand, it seems to me that it is as central an issue as love is a central issue.
ECT doesn't seem loving to me.
Annihilationism seems more loving.
UR seems most loving.
I place my money on the square that says Jesus is most loving.
Rob | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/14/2009 6:20 PM (GMT -6) | | Regarding Phil 2 – Every knee will bow and tongue confess…
It’s a blanketed statement. It doesn’t have to have a time, a when or a where. It can take place for everyone immediately after death for all I know. I mean, who’s going to argue if, upon one’s immediate demise, the Lord’s burning eyes look at the sinner and say, “First things first: let’s get it straight who’s Lord and God; on your knees and repeat after me!”
Starkman: Unless there is better evidence that we can impress upon these verses what is (I would argue) not allowed by its context, then we still have problems with assuming that aion only means an age that will come to an end.
Tom: I’m not seeing what it is in the context that you see which clinches annihilation. Forget the word “ruination” and “aionios.” What’s outside those words in the context that limits those words to meaning “everlasting annihilation”?
As I noted in my short post, I’m not espousing annihilation. All I ever said was that I, personally, find it less objectionable to annihilate someone than allow them to suffer eternally.
Starkman: Further, that aion is all about ages or eons seems moot when we consider the timing of the use of aion in both II Thess 1:9 and Revelation 20:10; that is, the age that follows is unending. There is no hint of anything after it allowing for another age or a cessation of the judgment.
Tom: Really? There’s no river that flows from the throne out through the “gates” of the New Jerusalem for the healing of the nations AFTER the Great White throne judgment and the nations are cast into the Lake of Fire? Those gates are left open and the nations come to the city. Hmmm. Looks like stuff's still happnin to me. There are some VERY interesting possibilities in Revelation. Just trace John’s attitude about “the nations.”
What from the above—that which is after the Great White Throne judgment—that hints that the age of the Lake of Fire judgment has ended or has begun to end? We have the Great White throne judgment, a new heaven, earth, and the New Jerusalem (which, I would assume, takes place fairly soon after the Great White throne judgment), but then then we start seeing the trickling back into society of those who were tossed into the Lake of Fire (which would be, for some, at least, the end of the Great White throne Judgment “age”). Am I hearing you correctly?
And what’s the basis for this line of thinking? The nations—former enemies converted post-mortem—bringing their glory into the New Jerusalem? Oh, and the healing waters from the Throne are pouring into the Lake of Fire to help those folk, or do they not get those waters poured on them after they’ve come into the city (and maybe even take a bath to get rid of the smoky smell)? Wait, it gets better…
Revelation 22:14-15
Blessed are those who wash their robes, so that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and the sexually immoral and murderers and idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
Oh, I see. This new earth and nice, new city we live in has its own 24-hour Gehenna surrounding it, eh! “Don’t go out through those gates, guys. It’s hot out there. Just stay in this cubicle city, and everything will be all right!” Meanwhile, entering the city is another group (or nation) of the post-mortem converted (formerly Lake-of-Fire dwellers) into the gates!
So, the last convert has come into the city. Now what? Another new heaven and earth? Maybe a makeover for the existing earth (all that trash that burned in Gehenna, you know, has got to be cleaned up).
Come to think of it, wouldn’t it be something if this is what it really is!
Hey, your friend brings a bit of a fresh look at what is often so overlooked in those closing chapters of Revelation, but I don't see the evil kings pre-New Jerusalem necessarily being the same kings as post-New Jerusalem. Earth today is set up with governments, kings, presidents, etc. I see no reason to believe that the New Earth will not be run in similar manner. That means, then, that perhaps governments will function and also bring their glory into the New Jerusalem.
Rather than a UR twist to those closing chapters, I think John’s point was simply that life is found in the City, not outside. But, I could be wrong!
As to your post to me about annihilation, I’ve hopefully cleared up the fact that I’m not an annihilationist, and, further, I am very much hoping that UR is the ultimate plan.
You said,
“To be sure, one’s suffering in hell is just. But it’s just because it’s deserved by abiding states and choices. One doesn’t suffer in hell because he robbed a bank when he was 18. One suffers in hell so long one doesn’t take ownership before God of what one’s actions turned one into. The moment one is able and willing to own up and confess and trust Christ, the suffering ends. I don’t see how suffering of ANY length at all could be anything but remedial.
But it seems that annihilation after varying lengths of suffering misconstrues justice and views hell’s suffering as an equivalent payment by the wicked satisfying some outstanding bill. But if that’s the case, if justice is satisfied, then why annihilate them?
If God annihilates people before they suffer accordingly, those people have not been required to take ownership before God of what they did, have they? They’re non-existent. Haven’t they short-circuited the process, so to speak? Doesn’t something gets skirted past and something important gets missed if God just annihilates people, like sweeping the dust under the rug but claiming the job got done?
Oh, and by the way. Were those early church fathers who believed in UR doing so based on the Greek of the texts of the New Testament (I mean, was this their discussion among themselves?) or did they base their UR conclusions on theology in general? I’d be interested to know more about that.
Thanks, Tom,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 11/14/2009 6:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom,
Starkman: I mean just reading the verse for what it says based on how you've translated it, there isn't anything insinuating dross as part of the process.
Tom: Does he need to say it? On the other hand, I could comment that he doesn’t specify explicitly the annihilation of the person either. He just says “aionios ruination.” Can we not construct Paul’s view on the matter by taking what he says elsewhere that might help us understand his eschatology (Col. 1, Phil 2, 1Cor 15, Rm 5, and others)?
Could you explain a bit more what you're getting at here. I want to be sure to understand you.
Thanks,
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 11/14/2009 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman: Regarding Phil 2 – Every knee will bow and tongue confess…
It’s a blanketed statement. It doesn’t have to have a time, a when or a where. It can take place for everyone immediately after death for all I know. I mean, who’s going to argue if, upon one’s immediate demise, the Lord’s burning eyes look at the sinner and say, “First things first: let’s get it straight who’s Lord and God; on your knees and repeat after me!”
Jeff: I think the verse gives the condition--AT THAT NAME, right? I'm thinking that's Jesus' new name that he was given after his being seated at the right hand of God, as per Ephesians, because of the parallels in thought as to the Christus Victor theme of both passages. AT THE HEARING of that name, we will bow and confess that he is lord, whoever we are. I'm just thinking it seems a bit strained to say that the confession is not done with intellectual assent. The way you're describing it, they don't even have to intellectually assent to the confession so long as they mechanically bow and confess. If that's the case, it has no indications about UR whatsoever. And that may be right. But I'm hoping it implies assent.
Really, all I'm doing is trying to acknowledge the plausibility of the textual arguments for a SOFA that entails less than UR and then show how we don't need to assume they imply eternality. Once we're there, the rest is an argument about the benevolence of God. As D. said, just think of the forgiveness that God grants TO US as believers. So I see UR as plausible merely because it's CONSISTENT with a non-eternal reading of certain passages that are not necessarily eternal in meaning in the first place, on hermeneutical grounds alone. IOW, I'm arguing that UR is consistent with very conservative (i.e., strongly analogical) readings of the text. That's all I need to embrace UR for now.
I know T. would rather believe in UR if it's doable textually. I'm arguing that textual doability only needs to be consistency. It doesn't need to be explicit assertions to the effect that UR is true--at least it doesn't if we're just trying to get to the logical-textual possibility of UR. God's attributes get us the rest of the way.
Post Edited (Similtude) : 11/14/2009 7:08:47 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2009 1:15 AM (GMT -6) | | On the Book of Life, Selah, no open theist can think its contents were fixed before creation. Those are the names of God's own, right? And you don't believe that God can know the free choices of people prior to their making those choices. So we open theists HAVE to believe that the names are entered as folks believe. But again, there is no REAL, material book with pages that some heavenly scribe writes in. What language would that be anyhow? Ha. It's just a literary device that describes God's knowledge of those who are his own. He keeps their names, i.e., their identities safely recorded. Jeremiah said he inscribes our names on the palms of his hand. Which is it? Palms or Book? It's both. Both point to the same reality. And since who belongs and who doesn't belong is constantly changing, those names/contents of the book are constantly changing.
Stark, I read you all along as arguing FOR annihilationism. The who 2Th 1.9 thing, the meaning of the words, the aionios thing, all of it was in support of annihilationism. You seemed pretty certain that the word "destruction" meant not the dross or impurities BUT THE PERSON, etc.
Sorry for misunderstanding ya there.
On what I meant by asking "Do we really need Paul to be explicity?" is just what Jeff and D have been saying. The most we can hope for is consistency in working with texts. They're just not going to make their point explicit and answer every question. But if we take everything a particular author says about a subject, doesn't that make it easier to understand what his words more likely imply when they're not explicit?
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/15/2009 12:32:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 11/15/2009 5:47 AM (GMT -6) | | | Ok. What's written below is influencing my perspective greatly. I believe in the reality testified to here...
----------------------------------------------------------
3. The Means of Facilitating the Prayer
Question: The Athonite Fathers advise us to say the Jesus Prayer with repentance and not mechanically. What can you tell us about this?
Answer: The whole work of the Prayer of Jesus is for repentance! Because we pray: “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, have mercy on me, a sinner!” This means repentance. Because if you pray without repentance it means that you have high-mindedness and are on the wrong path. Why do we pray to our Lord Jesus Christ to have mercy on us? Because we’re sinners. So, we say this prayer only for repentance. If you have high-mindedness, no matter how little, God will not have mercy on you. The devil knows this, because he fell due to his high-mindedness. Because of this, the devil sows the passions in the heart of any man in the world, through his high-mindedness. The enemy whispers to us, “Glory to God! You’re a monk. You’re not like other people. You’re a sinner but you’re not like other people.” This is spiritual destruction for a Christian. The more important the gifts are that you have received from God—whether you are a bishop, priest, deacon, monk, doctor, professor, engineer, etc.—the more indebted to God you should consider yourself to be, and more sinful than other people. If the Holy Apostle Paul—who was raised up to the third heaven and who saw Mysteries which eye hath not seen … neither have entered into the heart of man (I Cor. 2:9), humbles himself, saying, Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief (I Tim. 1:15)—then what can we take pride in, who are full of passions and sins? Because the more you purify yourself of your sins and draw near to God, in the Divine Light you see your passions and sins in their true magnitude, and the darkness in your heart.
So, if you consider yourself to be more sinful than all people and even than the demons who enslave you in every bad thing, then the Holy Spirit will descend upon you. High-mindedness is very harmful for our spiritual life! That’s why St. John of Damascus says in the Canons to the Mother of God, “Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God, by the prayers of Thine All-pure Mother, have mercy on me, a sinner, who am more sinful than any man in the world!” He did not say this out of formality, but thanks to his humble-mindedness he considered himself more sinful than any man in the world. Only in this way will the All-good God help us to inherit the Kingdom of Heaven, because a humble sinner is better before God than a proud righteous man. He who has every good deed but is high-minded will be left by God to fall into sins and to be humbled in this way. That is why our Lord Jesus Christ gave us the parable of the Publican and the Pharisee. The Pharisee had good deeds, but his mind became exalted, and he said, “I am not like everyone else and like that greedy Publican.” God did not bless him for this high-mindedness. And the Publican didn’t even dare look up to heaven and said, “Good Lord, have mercy on me, a sinner!” And God, because of his humbleness, blessed him. Thus, he left the Temple justified and blessed by the Grace of the Holy Spirit.
---------------------------------------------------------
Being real? I take this very, very seriously. I can't be like "Yeah, God, I was a sinner saved ONLY by Your Grace...but I ain't as bad as Satan and never have been! Fry him for a while..." What sense does that even make? Feel me?
"Creation is allowed in intimate love to speak to the Creator as if to a lover. As the Creator loves the creation, so the creation loves the Creator. The whole world has been embraced by this kiss."
Hildegard of Bingen
Know me, Eternal Lover...and help me to know You... Post Edited (One Love) : 11/15/2009 4:52:42 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 11/15/2009 6:33 AM (GMT -6) | | D, I appreciate your heart, but either there is or there is not a difference in "how evil" different beings are. Misrelation either falls along a continuum of greater or lesser or there's one single absolute line that admits no degrees. But I think we have to admit the latter. The whole notion of some being beaten with many stripes and others with few stripes, OT morality and just laws, all that requires an objective difference in degree in offense and misrelation.
Now, IF we agree to admit degrees of misrelation, then it really doesn't make much sense to say I'm MORE evil than Satan. Come on. All the things that go into what we mean when we evaluated relation and misrelation come into play--one's degree of epistemic distance, one's inherent power to influence, and the degree of character solidification. A being is more evil than another if those combined factors yield a greater set of natural capacities that enjoy a wider scope of influence and are more intensely solidified. I hear you saying NONE of these really even exists, and if they did exist, in order to really experience God I HAVE to believe that they exist in me on a degree of intensity and scale of misrelation greater than they do in Satan. That's ridiculous man. Come on. 
Personally, I think the WHOLE idea that MY repenting requires ANY kind of comparison to other beings is a mistake. True, to say, "I'm a sinner BUT I ain't as..." is a mistake in context. What's the but clause for? It can only be self-justifying. The answer is to DROP all such clauses and comparisons (including the opposite mistake of pretending to believe the ridiculous notion that I really are MORE evil than Satan) and just repent of who and what we are before God. To add that I'm "not as evil as X" is to seek to ground our worth and value relative in some comparative state. But saying I'm "more evil than X" is the same mistake on the other other end of things.
Tom
"Man is a person not by nature but by spirit. By nature he is only an individual." Nicolas BerdyaevPost Edited (Tom) : 11/15/2009 5:44:53 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 168 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 10:09 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|