 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > Will Everyone ULTIMATELY Be Saved? | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:20 AM (GMT -6) |   | DLW, my question was for Greg Boyd, and it was not posed in order to begin a "smear campaign." I am genuinely interested in whether or not Greg is a universalist.
Honorman, WHAT IS YOUR PROBLEM???
Honorman said, "If I have succeeded in making someone angry because they are not being truthful, I have no problem with that. Jesus made the Pharisees very angry and it didn't seem to bother him."
I agree with RD. You are not Jesus! On that note, RD is not a Pharisee. Who you think you are, I don't know, but man, you need to chill. Since you have touted your "truth speaking" abilities, then let's let the truth be told. Like RD said, you are one of the worst examples of Christianity I've also seen. Truth hurts, doesn't it?
(edited some of my prior anger)
Edited by - Fleetwood on 07/25/2003 8:58:09 PM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:23 AM (GMT -6) | | Greg, are you a Universalist, semi-Universalist, or not at all a Universalist? Would like to know your own personal thoughts on Universalism.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood,
I'm sorry but I get touchy with how non-OpenViewers have treated Doc. I think RD had the right view about how, ideally, this link should proceed.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | DL, no prob. I get touchy myself with the way others treat John Calvin (who ain't even alive to defend himself). I would like to know Greg's take though. My kuddos to RD!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Correction: with the way open theists treat Calvin
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/25/2003 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | | I think most OVTheists have a lot of respect for Calvin. A lot of them were Calvinists at one point and that is why they argue against him so much. Just like I like to take Doc on about his WWV, since I only had four courses from him as an undergraduate and he helped form my early ideas on theology.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/25/2003 12:30 PM (GMT -6) | | RD and Fleetwood: you guys make my day BTW, Fleetwood, do you have a real opinion on anything, or is your job just to make witty comments and protect the dignity of Calvin and all things (people) Calvinists.
RD: I like to compare myself to Jesus. He's my idol (ohyeahohyeah
ohyeah). What is truly funny is neither you nor Fleetwood understand at all what I was saying in my reference. Apparently self examination is not either of your strong suit.
What is my problem, Fleetwood? I don't know...I like to see Christians deal with issues honestly is all.
"I'm the worse example..." Now thats a great compliment coming from a person who curses.
However, since you two are so threathened by criticism I will leave. I wouldn't want the two of you stained by such a "lowly" Christian as I (I mean, comparing myself to Jesus. What blamphesy!)! Next thing you know I might like Pinnock.
Edited by - honorman on 07/25/2003 5:31:41 PM
Edited by - honorman on 07/25/2003 5:34:56 PM
Edited by - honorman on 07/25/2003 5:36:02 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/25/2003 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | I am curious. If universalism is true, would there be any reason to preach the gospel? Except, perhaps, to reassure people that they will be saved no matter what?
(I'm BACK...but I will try my best not to address anything to the two of you)
Edited by - honorman on 07/25/2003 6:09:40 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/25/2003 2:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood - thanks for the kudos! I suppose there's worse things than being called a "Calvinist"= although on this board, I wouldn't know what that would be :)
Anyway, I am not offended by being lumped in with John Calvin , although I don't agree with all of his points or actions. | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 7/25/2003 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Greg and everyone,
I'm sure you (Greg) know John Sanders. For those who don't, he's an evangelical Christian theologian who lately has been noted for what I understand to be his endorsement of open theism. Anyway, I highly recommend his book No Other Name: An Investigation into the Destiny of the Unevangelized for a thoroughgoing academic (but readable) study into that area.
Sanders treats all the Christian options for answering the question on the destiny of those who are not explicitly Christian, universalism being one of those options in his view. He spends about 30 or 40 pages on universalism, IIRC, and ultimately concludes against it - not because he considers it inauthentic and heretical (he does not, and says so), but rather largely because he sees that Scripture includes both universalist passages (some examples with which this thread began) and final-judgement passages, such that any harmonization of the two must do both justice. And while universalism presents a good positive case from the universalist passages, it (in his view) just doesn't reconcile with the repeated emphasis on final judgement and punishment in other passages.
Incidentally, Sanders weighs against exclusivism (ie restrictivism - the idea that all who do not consciously profess Christ are always lost) for much the same general reason - it doesn't reconcile with the many universalist passages. Both universalists and exclusivists tend to emphasize "their side's" proof texts, while "explaining away" the "other side's" in ways that make them mean less than what they plainly mean. For example, a favorite of exclusivists is that "all" doesn't really mean "everyone who has ever lived". And a favorite of universalists is that "eternal" doesn't really mean either "final" (as annihilationists would have it) or "unending" (as traditionalists would have it).
It seems to Sanders that there must be a "middle way" to do both the universalist and judgement passages justice - a "wider hope", of which inclusivism is his preferred approach. As you can probably see, I found his case fairly compelling.
Best regards,
Scott
PS. For more info on No Other Name you can see my review on Amazon.com.
Edited by - scott_jorgenson on 07/25/2003 7:50:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
ReasonableDoubt
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 655
| Posted 7/25/2003 2:56 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hey Scott - I'm curious, have you read any of john Hick's stuff? He's now a pluralist (universalist) - my understanding is he started out as an inclusivist, but then saw no practical difference between inclusivism and universalism...I must say, I would have to agree that the end result is no different, although the means are different . What do you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
scott_jorgenson
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 271
| Posted 7/25/2003 3:30 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Hey Scott - I'm curious, have you read any of john Hick's stuff? He's now a pluralist (universalist) - my understanding is he started out as an inclusivist, but then saw no practical difference between inclusivism and universalism...I must say, I would have to agree that the end result is no different, although the means are different . What do you think?
I've read Hick's chapter in that Zondervan "Counterpoints" book regarding Christianity in a pluralistic world. That's all. I don't recall what he said about inclusivism or how he got to where he's at, if anything. Maybe I'll take a glance at his chapter again this weekend.
In any case, there is significant difference between Christian inclusivism and Christian universalism, and a world of difference between both of those and religious pluralism. Both inclusivism and universalism in Christianity insist on the essential ecumenical confessions: of the reality, centrality, and normativity of one God who is Jesus Christ who is the only Way to salvation. Inclusivism and universalism agree with exclusivism on this. Where they disagree is on the intellectual and/or behavioral prerequisites for a person to be on that Way.
An exclusivist would say you have to know, understand, and confess Christ in this life, and you are necessarily lost if you do not. A universalist would say it doesn't matter (though only as far as one's ultimate salvation is concerned) what one believes or how one behaves in this life, as ultimately all are necessarily saved by Jesus' work (yet there are other reasons for practicing holiness and knowing Christ than one's ultimate destiny, such as avoiding probationary punishment, obeying and pleasing God, etc). An inclusivist would say you have to respond in faith to what true revelation you have been given (which may be little and may be absent of explicit knowledge of Christ) according to your capacity, and Jesus' sacrifice will be "credited as righteousness". Thus, in the inclusivist view, all are not necessarily saved (contra universalism), as not everyone necessarily responds as they are able. (Here I should note that, besides inclusivism, there are other Christian "wider hope" views, such as middle-knowledge - probably not amenable to open theists though! - and evangelism at death. These views have their own and unique ways of speaking to this, too.)
Now, the reason there's a world of difference between any of these authentically-Christian positions, and Hicks' pluralism, is because pluralism rejects any normative truth-value to those simple ecumenical confessions I quoted above. There may be no God, or many Gods; Jesus may be one of many bases of salvation, or none at all; and it doesn't really matter in any case, since all these things are just complementary approximations of The Real whose main value is in how they make us feel in this life. I'm sure you see how the former (exclusivism, universalism, inclusivism and other "wider-hope" views) differ radically from this.
Hope this helps,
Scott
Edited by - scott_jorgenson on 07/25/2003 8:32:47 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:05 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for the info. Scott. Greg, do you agree with Sander's view?
RD, I'm quite happy to be lumped with the likes of you... you, you, you Calvinist!  Nor am I offended at the link to Calvin. Nor do I agree with all Calvinism, mostly hyper-Calvinism. Funny, I never have stated that I'm Calvinist but been called that bad word many times here. Calvinism: the open theist curse word!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
DLW
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 2457
| Posted 7/25/2003 4:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Feel free to yell back pelagianism any time, ya hear!
Then we'll all have areselves a real hoot of a gud time!
I like my hemlock shaken, not stirred.
dlw
I-uh-scream-uh,
You-uh-scream-uh,
We-all-uh-sceam-uh for
Ice-uh-cream-uh!!!
Roberto Bernigni in
Down by Law.
ahehmAmericanzituhsen! This,varrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry! Varrrrrrrybaadfuryur
Cuntry!
Roberto Benigni in
Johnny Stecchenino. | | Back to Top | | |
|
GregBoyd
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818
| Posted 7/25/2003 5:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood: Greg, are you a universalist?
Doc: Please, tell me you're kidding. Purpose of this thread, spoke in openning post: "Maybe its time we chew on some of the key verses universalists use."
"The responsibility is with the chooser -- God is blameless." Plato, Republic, 10.
Edited by - GregBoyd on 07/25/2003 10:38:36 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Springs
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636
| Posted 7/25/2003 6:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood has been spreading her charm on other threads too.
for instance:
quote:
62 Posts Posted - 07/18/2003 : 5:46:12 PM
It cracks me up that you open theists get up in arms at things like bashing homosexuals or, heaven forbid, pointing out flaws, of which there are a plethora, with open theism, but when it comes to Calvinism, you might as well be the KKK of Open Theism with the way you hang Calvinists. It's no different than prejudicesness, but you're so blind to it you can't see it. RD is correct, you won't get far. Someone said that Open Theism is dangerous, but only dangerous to Calvinist philosophy. This is an ignorant statement. Open Theism is "dangerous" to far more than the Calvinist. It is dangerous to anyone, Calvinist or not, for the fact that it leads people away from the true God. Victorywood said how he's met equally as many who are arrogant, mean, and believe that Calvinism is the only gospel. Like the way Open Theists are arrogant, mean, and believe that Open Theism is the only gospel? Interesting.
Laika, I have zero respect for you based on the comments I've read of yours in here. You need to take RD's words to heart rather than respond with arrogance and sarcasm.
Yes indeed, it's a wonderful day in the neighborhood girls and boys.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/25/2003 7:02 PM (GMT -6) | | SCott: I wholeheartedly agree with you. Sander's book is excellant.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/25/2003 7:18 PM (GMT -6) | | No Greg, I'm not kidding. A simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice. I got the purpose of the thread but would like to know your personal opinion about universalism.
Edited by - Fleetwood on 07/26/2003 12:25:22 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 7/25/2003 11:29 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
No Greg, I'm not kidding. A simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice. I got the purpose of the thread but would like to know your personal opinion about universalism.
In _Letters From A Skeptic_ and in _Satan & the Problem of Evil_, Dr. Boyd makes it quite clear that he is not a universalist. Of course, asking someone to actually read the published writings of those whom they want to interrogate would be asking too much, wouldn't it?
P.S.: ReasonableDoubt: You are being entirely TOO sensitive, IMO. What do your feelings have to do with the truth? Whether you realize it or not, you pretty well constantly misstate the Open View. Whether this is on purpose or not I of course cannot tell, but nevertheless, you persistently attempt to deny Open Theists the right the define what they do in fact believe in their own words. I hope my calling you to honesty and fairness here doesn't make you want to give up. (Well, hopefully you will give up your men of straw) I also think your condemnation of honorman simply for standing up to you and calling you to honestly deal with the OV and to not misrepresent it is actually quite revealing of you. How sad. Mommy! He said I was wrong! WAAAAH!
"The Discovery of new truth will modify old views and opinions, and there is perhaps no end to this process with finite minds in any world." Charles G. Finney, Systematic Theology.
revivaltheology.net
Edited by - John Earp on 07/26/2003 04:30:32 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 7/26/2003 4:56 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Fleetwood
No Greg, I'm not kidding. A simple "yes" or "no" answer would suffice. I got the purpose of the thread but would like to know your personal opinion about universalism.
Fleetwood, there are two kinds of "universalists." The first are egg heads who reason out what they think "has to be" according to their emotions. The second are those who honestly say (out of devotion and love of God) that: "All will be saved. I alone will perish." And it is those who would gladly give their bodies and souls to hell to save everyone else. That's how "Christ-like" they are.
I think that Greg is neither. But perhaps he has due respect for each, as they should be respected.
BALANCE.
This is something that we can't know. But when the Spirit (not fad) says "God is Love" we should listen.
But it is not our job to draw conclusions. Ours is to work and pray.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Judging both by Greg's books and his response here, I have not gotten the impression that he is universalist; however, any person not knowing Greg Boyd could read this post and assume he is universalist. The question is not outlandish people. RD made a valid point some time back about open theists should, of all people, be the ones not condemning the theory of universalism. A quote from RD,"if God changes, it may be that regardless of his teachings and words about hell in the Bible, he may decide later on that he wants to save everyone after all." I am still hoping that Greg will answer my question, either "yes" or "no." Or even "somewhat."
John Earp, I found it interesting that someone put up a link for an article by Timothy George in which he says almost verbatim the very things RD has said, such as God doesn't know the future in open theism. Pehaps the problem does not lie with RD's word usage but rather with the rhetoric used by open theists. Or is T. George purposefully mischaracterizing open theism, as the rest of the world seems to be doing? Odd.
Edited by - Fleetwood on 07/26/2003 3:27:55 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:31 AM (GMT -6) | | Earp, "Mommy! He said I was wrong! WAAAAH!"
Honorman, "I'm BACK...but I will try my best not to address anything to the two of you." 
Why do I feel like I'm in kindergarden classroom with two little brats who need a time-out?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Fleetwood: its not odd. You misrepresent open theism, as does RD (both freely, I might add). Both of you refuse to listen to what those of who are open theists say about it. Why are you then surprised that George doesn't get it. Though, having read George, I am sure he isn't doing it on purpose.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Fleetwood
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2003
Total Posts : 110
| Posted 7/26/2003 10:35 AM (GMT -6) | | What happened to: "I will try my best not to address anything to the two of you."
| | Back to Top | | |
|
honorman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1137
| Posted 7/26/2003 3:56 PM (GMT -6) | | I have a thing about people who won't deal with an issue that is dear to my heart honestly...call it a character flaw
| | Back to Top | | |
| 74 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:19 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 |
|
|