 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > More Practial Question on Universalism | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
spenlake
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2004
Total Posts : 1050
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:56 PM (GMT -6) |   | Brett,
When you ask me,"I'm interested. If Carlton Pearson is "attacking the gospel" and "leading people away from . . . God," are you prepared to say that he is going to hell?"
I respond that if he believes what he is teaching, I think that then that is where he is headed. I am not the judge, however, and I can only listen to his teachings. Gratefully, God is the judge and knows all, including the hearts of men. He alone knows what Carlton really believes. Who knows, perhaps with his last breath he believes and confesses the gospel? I do not know where Carlton is going, but I do know he will be judged by a just and loving God. If he doesn't receive Jesus' righteousness offered to him as a free gift that He purchased by His death on the cross, then he will be damned and share an eternity suffering in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Spen Lake
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 12:57 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
How is the following statement not true of the form of universalism Talbott endorses:
"All roads eventually, necessarily will lead a person to God (for Christ's loving redemptive work on their behalf is ultimately unable to be frustrated)."
What does this statement MEAN? Doesn't this statement mean that all human existence will eventually end up with God because of the CENTRALITY of Christ's redemptive work and its consummation? Religious pluralism says that ALL religious tradition are EQUALLY VIABLE as a MEANS OF SALVATION. There is a HUGE difference. Religious pluralism would say that Jesus is NOT central to redemption. See the difference? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Spenlake:
quote:
I do not know where Carlton is going, but I do know he will be judged by a just and loving God. If he doesn't receive Jesus' righteousness offered to him as a free gift that He purchased by His death on the cross, then he will be damned and share an eternity suffering in the lake of fire prepared for the devil and his angels.
Can you explain to me how the universalism I've been describing on this board contradicts any of the essential dogmas of the Church? And lay those dogmas out for me too. Thanks.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:14 PM (GMT -6) | | Just wanted to note. I'm appreciating ALL the feedback. It's wonderful!
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Just wanted to note. I'm appreciating ALL the feedback. It's wonderful!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
JEE:
quote:
How is the following statement not true of the form of universalism Talbott endorses:
"All roads eventually, necessarily will lead a person to God (for Christ's loving redemptive work on their behalf is ultimately unable to be frustrated)."
What does this statement MEAN? Doesn't this statement mean that all human existence will eventually end up with God because of the CENTRALITY of Christ's redemptive work and its consummation? Religious pluralism says that ALL religious tradition are EQUALLY VIABLE as a MEANS OF SALVATION. There is a HUGE difference. Religious pluralism would say that Jesus is NOT central to redemption. See the difference?
Yes, but do you not see how religious pluralism is implied to be "all part of the plan," if the scenario you're advocating is true? Honestly, I've never found any universalistic view that didn't say precisely what Talbott is saying--that because of Christ's work for all mankind, all mankind will be saved eventually, no matter what. The Bostonian universalists based their conclusions about this on the penal substitution/divine satisfaction theory of the atonement that Calvinism had so (mistakenly) championed; from what I can tell, Talbott's approach is a bit different in the means to the universalistic end, but absolutely no different in the end result--all will be saved, do what they will.
How does Talbott's theory not provide the most perfect EXCUSE imaginable for sin? I mean hey, why not act on one's unrighteous impulses, if "all's well that ends well." Manson will end up in the same place as everyone else, so why should he worry over his past sins and truly repent of them, even in the age to come?
John
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
How does Talbott's theory not provide the most perfect EXCUSE imaginable for sin? I mean hey, why not act on one's unrighteous impulses, if "all's well that ends well." Manson will end up in the same place as everyone else, so why should he worry over his past sins and truly repent of them, even in the age to come?
The ONLY way someone could get the "cheap grace" notion out of Talbott's version of universalism is if they didn't fully understand his view. Like I've described here on the board, universalism doesn't NEGATE divine justice or the notion of suffering for one's earthly actions. Oh, you WILL pay. Not only that, but your actions on earth TRULY have eternal reprecussions on you AND Creation. (Read my "autonomy" stuff on the other thread). Think about it, John. You could be a universalist and preach VERY seriously about divine justice and the need to make every moment of your life count by living for God NOW. Very easily.
No cheap grace here, bud.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/20/2004 1:31 PM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
To my mind, it would be unnecessary to do, say, what Tom does in trying to translate the Bible into Arabic for the purpose of reaching Arabic-speaking people, because they're going to heaven anyway. I'm having difficulty seriously believing you don't realize this.
Hmmm...if God calls people for such an enterprise (which I believe he does), what in the world would universalism have to do with this? The Bible is still God's Word to the WORLD. And universalism would not change the benefits of that Word being distributed and taught throughout the world. Moreover, God's CALLING and MISSION should have nothing to do with whether or not universalism is true. THAT would just be laziness on our part, don't you think? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/20/2004 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | I would like feedback from all of you about the following:
To me, the issue of universalism and God minimizing evil are related. Both seem to assume that the DEGREE to which God loves must be equal for all people. I don't see that in the bible:
God is the savior of all men, especially believers.
The Lord chastens those He loves.
...do good unto all men, especially the household of faith.
In other words, just because it says God is love, it doesn't follow that God loves all people identically or to the same degree. Nor are we to do so. All right; let the blows begin!!  
Question is, then: If God's love differs in any way or degree with respect to various volitional beings, then what right do we have to deduce soteriological theories from the mere statement, "God is Love?"
Editing my post, because I just thought of another question related to the above. Do ALL biblical universalist theories anticipate the ultimate reconciliation of Satan? I know some do, but do all? If not, why not?
wjs | | Back to Top | | |
|
Matthew Timothy Short
Huh?
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 635
| Posted 12/20/2004 3:32 PM (GMT -6) | | The Early Christian View of the Savior
By Gary Amirault
http://www.tentmaker.org/books/EarlyChristianView.html
From the above link:
Immediately the whole Book seemed to be illuminated. On every page the truth concerning the 'times of restitution of all things,' of which the Apostle Peter says 'God hath spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began,' shone forth, and no room was left for questioning. I turned greedily from page to page of my Bible, fairly laughing aloud for joy at the blaze of light that illuminated it all. It became a new book. Another skin seemed to have been peeled off every text, and my Bible fairly shone with a new meaning. I do not say with a different meaning, for in no sense did the new meaning contradict the old, but a deeper meaning, the true meaning, hidden behind the outward form of words. The words did not need to be changed, they only needed to be understood; and now at last I began to understand them."
Ready for Pudding 
Imagination projects unreal images out of the mind and seeks to attach reality to them. Faith creates nothing; it simply reckons upon that which is already there. | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/20/2004 6:29 PM (GMT -6) | | http://www.monachos.net/patristics/origen_apokatastasis.shtml
Origen and the Final Restoration
A Question of Heresy | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/20/2004 7:21 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by jefscott
I would like feedback from all of you about the following:
To me, the issue of universalism and God minimizing evil are related. Both seem to assume that the DEGREE to which God loves must be equal for all people. I don't see that in the bible:
God is the savior of all men, especially believers.
The Lord chastens those He loves.
...do good unto all men, especially the household of faith.
In other words, just because it says God is love, it doesn't follow that God loves all people identically or to the same degree. Nor are we to do so. All right; let the blows begin!!
Ok, here are the thoughts I had about this...(I hope the stuff I've posted has made sense so far... if it ever doesn't let me know and I'll try again!  ) You are basically stating that God loves people to different degrees, which certainly makes sense. But the other quote you listed (God chastens those he loves) doesn't say God chastens more those he loves more (or less:less) .... but that could be implied I suppose.
Does universalism suggest that God's love for all people is equal? Hmm... I think I'm understanding a bit more about what this type of universalism is talking about, and it seems that this type may not affect the degree of God's love (either as being equal or unequal among all created). I take it that this universalism simply states that all will be saved in the end through God's grace, eventually coming to repentence, but the degree of favor toward each individual could be different though all would be saved.
So I guess what I'm saying (thinking while writing) is that according to what has been discussed here, I don't see how it would force the implication that God's love must be equal for all people if universalism were true.
[Just to make this clear, I don't subscribe to the idea of universalism, just thinking about it though... gee... y'all know how to get one thinkin'! Wait until my next post and you'll see the effects y'all have had on my Christmas shopping!] quote:
Question is, then: If God's love differs in any way or degree with respect to various volitional beings, then what right do we have to deduce soteriological theories from the mere statement, "God is Love?"
What I'm understanding in this thread is that we're figuring out the question, what does it mean 'to love'? What would result from God's being Love? Are we attributing anthropopathic qualities to God's love? (ie. that, how we understand love qua human is the same type of love God has?)quote:
Editing my post, because I just thought of another question related to the above. Do ALL biblical universalist theories anticipate the ultimate reconciliation of Satan? I know some do, but do all? If not, why not?
That's one thing I was thinking about... see the next post.
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 12/20/2004 7:59 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
This is definitely not the universalism that Talbott espouses in his book...
quote:
One thing that we've brought out a couple of times here: there ARE different versions of universalism. Even the most staunch of opponents of the doctrine will note this. And that there are some versions that are completely in line with the non-negotiables of the Christian faith.
Capiche, matie! Yeah, that's the reason I wrote out what I understood, so you'd know where I was coming from inasfar as my post was concerned.... so... I've read the other current thread as well trying to get an understanding of this type of universalism y'all have been talking about here... to sum up my understanding thus far, you're saying that all people will eventually come to repentence given that they have infinite time to do so, so the big word is eventually.. and all will eventually accept the gift of salvation through Jesus' work on the cross and resurrection.... (right?... or wrong?)
----
Ok... so here is how you all have affected my Christmas shopping... yes... I was sitting in my car in a Walmart parking lot (?!?!) earlier today and had a notepad, so this is what came up...
If all people are to eventually make it into heaven, then let's consider the implications on free will, namely postEarthmortem free will.
Scenario 1: LFW (means libertarian free will?) does not stop in Hell, LFW does stop in Heaven (kinda like "the buck stops here" phrase)
What results? (And I'm just going to write what I have in my notebook)
-Then are we ultimately free to choose to follow or reject God? Then does it matter about choosing Him in this life?
-What about the goats (they thought they were following Christ in the first place, right?) that get cast out into darkness where there is a weeping and gnashing of teeth? Will they eventually be let into Heaven?
-If there are those who purposefully decided to reject Christ on Earth, would they turn to God and worship Him and love Him as He deserves? If they turn and repent when subjugated to the torment of Hell, could they truly love God? Wouldn't they resent God from being forced to repent? (God not ultimately doing the forcing, but the pain and suffering of Hell which God created for judgment)
Scenario #2: there is LFW in the afterlife, in both Heaven and Hell.
-Then could we bounce back and forth between Heaven and Hell (wanna sin & have my way/ wanna be in a better place/ wanna sin & have my way/ wanna be in a better place/ etc.)? Could Satan be saved, and this whole thing being some ultimate cycle where another angel or spirit falls again from choosing to sin, and all needing redemption again? What about Hebrews 6:4?
I don't know... these are just my thoughts in the middle of a busy Walmart parking lot.
Perhaps this is what I need --->
"Reality is harsh to the feet of shadows." - C.S.Lewis, The Great Divorce | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 4:58 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks a BUNCH for this writing, POW. Hey, everyone read this BEFORE you read what I'm fixin' ta write:
http://www.monachos.net/patristics/origen_apokatastasis.shtml
Origen and the Final Restoration
A Question of Heresy
Now...
Let me say that I really enjoyed this. The tone was great...and the perspectives were helpful.
like this...
There is some doubt as to the historical validity of the condemnation and anathematization of Origen’s thought at this council, as the official ‘minutes’ of the proceedings do not report it. See Crouzel, pp.178-9, 269.
I'd like to check on that some more...but anyways...
I think that the author really did a good job of presenting Origen in a fair manner. Not demonizing at all. I really liked the way that the author looked a bit al the context of what Origen may have been trying to accomplish. I've never jived with Origen's "pre-existence of souls" idea...but all the rest of the general ideas within the scope of apokatastasis, I kinda dig.
Now...a quote...
Crouzel, Trigg, and Daniélou offer energetic and often passionate arguments in the defence of Origen, which I hope to have given fair, if brief, treatment and consideration in the above pages. Yet I cannot close this paper in agreement with them. However much is to be admired in Origen’s attempt to defend the Christian faith in the face of severe opposition, and however intriguing his ‘solution’ to the problem of evil and injustice may have been, the fact remains that much of his system of belief stands at odds with the fundamental teachings of the Church. While it is nearly impossible to believe that Origen saw himself as defending anything but Christian orthodoxy, it is yet more difficult still to admit that what he ended up portraying was orthodox in its message. In the end, the doctrine of Universal Salvation cannot be faithfully paired with the more patristic notions of free will or final judgement, even though Origen energetically defends both; for he described ‘judgement’ solely as a tool for teaching, and thus removed from it any real sense of justice. He exaggerated the love of God to a degree that downplayed His righteousness: two features which the Church has been insistent to bring together in its teachings, rather than to separate. Here we must admit a severe flaw in Origen’s thought. Ultimately, his view of universal restoration took the concept of free will full-circle, and ended with its absence; for if all are indeed to be restored to God, then the ‘choices’ one makes in life are really not choices at all—for the ultimate fruit of the decision is already determined by God.
I'd like to deal with some ideas here...
1) "for he described ‘judgement’ solely as a tool for teaching, and thus removed from it any real sense of justice."
2) "He exaggerated the love of God to a degree that downplayed His righteousness'
3) "Ultimately, his view of universal restoration took the concept of free will full-circle, and ended with its absence"
Let's start:
1)"for he described ‘judgement’ solely as a tool for teaching, and thus removed from it any real sense of justice."
Ok. What I'm understanding here is that for judgement to be completely just, it MUST be SOLELY punitive and in NO way rehabilitative. By Origen saying that all punishments are remedial, he effectively said (it has been perceived) that there CANNOT be any punitive element to them. I don't know if this is what Origen said or not...but I would disagree with the premise that stands against Origen's idea. That justice is SOLELY punitive. I see absolutely no reason why justice cannot be punitive AND rehabilitative. One aspect need not cancel the other. I can see a universalist saying that divine justice is an perfect AMALGAM of punitive and rehabilitative action. IF this is done, this would dodge this objection. It would be up to the opposition to argue that justice must SOLELY be composed of PUNITIVE action, with NO rehabilitative intentions at all!
2) "He exaggerated the love of God to a degree that downplayed His righteousness'
I'm thinking that this deals with the notion above. But this ASSUMES that divine justice can ONLY be punitive. This must be shown to be correct to be valid!
3) "Ultimately, his view of universal restoration took the concept of free will full-circle, and ended with its absence"
Sigh. Here we go with THIS again. But I see the issue. Most people take a very ESSENTIALIST, BOTTOM LINE angle to this question. Such that the only measure of whether moral autonomy is ultimately significant is where one ends up: either heaven or hell. With this schema, if one ultimately, inevitably will end up in one place or the other, then character development, effects on Creation, or none of that stuff is taken into account. But it'd be nice if some people took some positive insights from process philosophy here. All moral autonomy necessitates is that moral decisions made in earthly existence MUST effect the decision maker in eternal final states. And as I've hopefully shown in my thin on this thread, that is possible and plausible...even within universalism. Our day-to-day decisions DO have eternal significance for us and Creation!
----------
I'd LOVE to talk to some people about these ideas to see what they think. Because Origen's core intuitions NEED NOT 1)destroy God's righteousness, 2) frustrate divine justice or 3) negate moral autonomy and free will.
POW, if you have anything else like this, send it! Thanks!
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/21/2004 5:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm agree'n that the notion that free will is squashed shouldn't be swallowed. Its a matter of anthoropology -- like the short thread I started: http://www.christusvictorministries.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=3936 Reardon's paragraph I posted goes to that. What's our nature--both up-to-factory-specs and beyond, and in pathology? (Image remains, but not with the likeness.) Reardon seems to say that rehabilitation fits within nature (Duh? Don't 'strip the threads,' Etc.)
For me, between "River of Fire" and Reardon's radio talk I'm glad there are two views.
Thanks for the exchange, D!
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 5:32 AM (GMT -6) | | Violin:
quote:
so... I've read the other current thread as well trying to get an understanding of this type of universalism y'all have been talking about here... to sum up my understanding thus far, you're saying that all people will eventually come to repentence given that they have infinite time to do so, so the big word is eventually.. and all will eventually accept the gift of salvation through Jesus' work on the cross and resurrection.... (right?... or wrong?)
Broadstrokes, yep. Some nuts are harder to crack then others. But eventually, everyone will come around to the truth.
---------------------------
Violin:
quote:
Scenario 1: LFW (means libertarian free will?) does not stop in Hell, LFW does stop in Heaven (kinda like "the buck stops here" phrase)
What results? (And I'm just going to write what I have in my notebook)
-Then are we ultimately free to choose to follow or reject God? Then does it matter about choosing Him in this life?
-What about the goats (they thought they were following Christ in the first place, right?) that get cast out into darkness where there is a weeping and gnashing of teeth? Will they eventually be let into Heaven?
-If there are those who purposefully decided to reject Christ on Earth, would they turn to God and worship Him and love Him as He deserves? If they turn and repent when subjugated to the torment of Hell, could they truly love God? Wouldn't they resent God from being forced to repent? (God not ultimately doing the forcing, but the pain and suffering of Hell which God created for judgment)
Let's stick with this scenario.
Then are we ultimately free to choose to follow or reject God? Then does it matter about choosing Him in this life?
When you say "ultimately free to choose to follow or reject God", it's depending on what you mean. For many people, it means where one ultimately ends up: heaven or hell. If you are talking about that, we are talking about inevitability towards God. However, if you are talking about MAKING AND LIVING OUT the moment-by-moment existential choices to follow or reject God as a free agent that have significance in eternity, then YES, you are free. I'm trying to so hard to make the separation for people here. For TWT 1 to be true does not need to entail the freedom to ULTIMATELY go to heaven or hell as a finality.
And does it matter about choosing him in this life? Hell, yeah, it does. EVERY CHOICE that you make for or against God in this life affects not only YOU and YOUR development...but Creation's as well...for ETERNITY. We're all interconnected, bro. The sooner and more consistently that one decides to live in love, the better for EVERYONE, including God.
------------------
What about the goats (they thought they were following Christ in the first place, right?) that get cast out into darkness where there is a weeping and gnashing of teeth? Will they eventually be let into Heaven?
Uh, yep. Some may have a LOOOOOT of weeping to go through, but eventually all will.
-------------------------
i]If there are those who purposefully decided to reject Christ on Earth, would they turn to God and worship Him and love Him as He deserves? If they turn and repent when subjugated to the torment of Hell, could they truly love God? Wouldn't they resent God from being forced to repent? (God not ultimately doing the forcing, but the pain and suffering of Hell which God created for judgment)
Let me say this. We don't KNOW exactly how the torment of hell is going to work. But, there are forms of pain that DO lead to genuine repentance rather than hardening. I'm starting to realize that how we conceice of this suffering is definitely determining people's conceptions of the possibility of genuine contrition. Long story short, YES, I believe that genuine contrition is possible in hell.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 12/21/2004 5:35 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
Originally posted by MephEternal
Thanks a BUNCH for this writing, POW. Hey, everyone read this BEFORE you read what I'm fixin' ta write:
...
Let me say that I really enjoyed this. The tone was great...and the perspectives were helpful.
...
POW, if you have anything else like this, send it! Thanks!
- Archpriest Georges Florovsky (1893-1979)
The Last Things and the Last Events *
From Chapter VII, “Eschatology,” of the
Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Vol. III:
Creation and Redemption (Nordland Publishing Company:
Belmont, Mass., 1976), pp. 243-265.
http://jbburnett.com/resources/florovsky/3/florovsky_3-7-lastthings.pdf
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 6:34 AM (GMT -6) | | Oh, I LOVE IT!!!!
PLEASE read this if y'all get a chance.
The last things and the last events
Archpriest George Florovsky (1893-1979)
http://www.fatheralexander.org/booklets/english/last_events_florovsky_e.htm
-------------------
Some things I'd comment on immediately:
There are two things that the author deals with:
1) Retaining the moral autonomy of human beings
2) The potential for complete self-solidification against God as being a part of human freedom.
With respect to #2, let's deal with this. And I think it deals with something that Tom has hinted at...and that William Lane Craig banks on: The ability of creaturely freedom to IRREVOCABLY self-deceive and pervert itself In other words, the ability for an agent to so convince itself that light is darkness (and darkness, light) that there is NO POSSIBLE THING, including the agent's power of choice, that would pierce the deception. Completed self-solidification AGAINST God.
The author shows this when he says:
The difficulty of universal salvation is not on the divine side - indeed, God wants every man "to be saved," not so much, probably, in order that His will should be accomplished and His Holiness secured, as in order that man's existence may be complete and blessed. Yet, insuperable difficulties may be erected on the creaturely side. After all, is "ultimate resistance" a greater paradox, and a greater offense, than any resistance or revolt, which actually did pervert the whole order of Creation, did handicap the deed of redemption? Only when we commit ourselves to a Docetic view of history and deny the possibility of ultimate decisions in history, in this life, under the pretext that it is temporal, can we evade the paradox of ultimate resistance.
St. Gregory of Nyssa anticipated a kind of universal conversion of souls in the afterlife, when the Truth of God will be revealed and manifested with compelling evidence. Just at that point the limitation of the Hellenic mind is obvious. Evidence seemed to it to be the decisive motive for the will, as if "sin" were merely ignorance. The Hellenic mind had to pass through a long and hard experience of asceticism, of ascetic self-examination and self-control, in order to overcome this intellectualistic naïveté and illusion and discover a dark abyss in the fallen soul. Only in St. Maximus the Confessor, after some centuries of ascetic preparation, do we find a new and deepened interpretation of the Apokatastasis. Indeed, the order of creation will be fully restored in the last days. But the dead souls will still be insensitive to the very revelation of Light. The Light Divine will shine to all, but those who once have chosen darkness will be still unwilling and unable to enjoy the eternal bliss. They will still cling to the nocturnal darkness of selfishness. They will be unable precisely to enjoy. They will stay "outside" - because union with God, which is the essence of salvation, presupposes and requires the determination of will. Human will is irrational and its motives cannot be rationalized. Even "evidence" may fail to impress and move it.
Eschatology is a realm of antinomies. These antinomies are rooted and grounded in the basic mystery of Creation. How can anything else exist alongside of God, if God is the plenitude of Being? One has attempted to solve the paradox, or rather to escape it, by alleging the motives of Creation, sometimes to such an extent and in such a manner as to compromise the absoluteness and sovereignty of God. Yet, God creates in perfect freedom, ex mera liberalitate, that is, without any "sufficient reasons." Creation is a free gift of unfathomable love. Moreover, man in Creation is granted this mysterious and enigmatic authority of free decision, in which the most enigmatic is not the possibility of failure or resistance, but the very possibility of assent. Is not the will of God of such a dimension that it should be simply obeyed without any real, that is, free and responsible, assent? The mystery is in the reality of creaturely freedom. Why should it be wanted in the world created and ruled by God, by His infinite wisdom and love? In order to be real, human response must be more than a mere resonance. It must be a personal act, an inward commitment. In any case, the shape of human life - and now we may probably add, the shape and destiny of the cosmos - depends upon the synergism or conflict of the two wills, divine and creaturely. Many things are happening which God abhors - in the world which is His work and His subject. Strangely enough, God respects human freedom, as St. Irenaeus once said, although, in fact, the most conspicuous manifestation of this freedom was revolt and disorder. Are we entitled to expect that finally human disobedience will be disregarded and "dis-respected" by God, and His Holy Will shall be enforced, regardless of any assent? Or it would make a dreadful "masquerade" of human history? What is the meaning of this dreadful story of sin, perversion, and rebellion, if finally everything will be smoothed down and reconciled by the exercise of divine Omnipotence?
Indeed, the existence of Hell, that is, of radical opposition, implies, as it were, some partial "unsuccess" of the creative design. Yet, it was more than just a design, a plan, a pattern. It was the calling to existence, or even "to being," of living persons. One speaks sometimes of the "divine risk," says Jean Guitton. It is probably a better word than kenosis. Indeed, it is a mystery, which cannot be rationalized - it is the primordial mystery of creaturely existence.
Radical opposition. A state of being COMPLETELY SOLIDIFIED against God.
Here's the deal, people. What I'm saying is that there is NO REAL REASON to think that God by metaphysical or scriptural necessity would have to allow this possibility to obtain! As I've tried to show, in the minds of many theologians, the eternality of hellish existence was INEXTRICABLY TIED to the idea of MORAL AUTONOMY within creaturely freedom. "There MUST be,"
say the theologians, "some way in which earthly decisions are ULTIMATELY significant in eternity. Otherwise, freedom is a sham and so is human history." It keeps being thought that preservation of moral autonomy within creaturely freedom NEEDS the ability to be completely solidified against God.
Y'all...this just ain't so. Remember,
TWT #4 + TWT #5 <> Necessity of everlasting hell
I contend that it is possible that sentient creatures are constituted such that the ability to solidify oneself towards or against God living life moment-by-moment (while making eternally significant moral choices!!!!)is retained...but the ability to COMPLETELY solidify oneself against God is rendered impossible when coupled with a particular level of God's revealed reality. This is because of the core of sentient creatures that has the ontological root of the "God-shaped vaccuum" within our disposition that we always talk about. What this means is that it becomes INEVITABLE, though not necessary, that creaturely finitude WILL NOT resist the infinite God's love forever. The eventual solidification towards God is a series of INWARD decisions made by the agent freely, according to the information and self-reflection they have received.
I'm serious, y'all. The essential questions keep being the same...
"What about moral autonomy? Don't our decisions make any difference ultimately?
and...
"Doesn't saying that everyone ends up with God mean the destruction of creaturely freedom, and therefore love?"
There is a version of universal reconcilation that deals with these concerns.
THANKS SO MUCH, POW! This is tight.
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 6:46 AM (GMT -6) | | REPOST for Spenlake, JEE, or anyone else who may believe that universalism necessarily contradicts the Gospel...
Can you explain to me how the universalism I've been describing on this board contradicts any of the essential dogmas of the Church? And lay those dogmas out for me too. Thanks.
Please feel free to use any of those creeds that I mentioned earlier...
Apostle's Creed
Nicene Creed
Chalcedonean Creed
Athanasian Creed | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/21/2004 6:49 AM (GMT -6) | | JEE:
quote:
If God reveals himself to those in hell to such a degree that the evidence is finally compelling, it seems to me that this version of universalism does not avoid the same problem as the traditional concept of hell--God causes suffering unnecessarily, for He obviously could (and SHOULD) have revealed himself more compellingly before these people died.
No way. If it is true that 1)love requires freedom and 2) there is a "soul-making" aspect to our creation (and there are really good reasons to believe both are true)...then this objection is blown away. | | Back to Top | | |
| 77 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:28 AM (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 |
|
|