For now, let me say this: I know it's "logical" to say that "universal" salvation would have to include demons...and even satan.

But I can't go that far! Someone help me out.

 

Blessings,

selah

 

 

Personally, I feel like we've discussed this enough to agree that there is no logical or metaphysical impossibility involved here, but there may be.  Let's see.

The newest mantra:

 

Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.

 

 

If this is the case for some people, I bet a good question would be the following:

 

 

What if an "accuser" basically said that YOU don't deserve salvation because of the sin you've done in your life?

 

Wouldn't their argument be JUST AS VALID as the one that some people want to use against Satan and demons?

 

Hmmm...

 

 

The newest mantra:

 

Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.

 

The newest mantra:

 

Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.

 

"Could we with ink the oceans fill,
And were the skies of parchment made,
Were every stalk on earth a quill,
And every man a scribe by trade,
To write the love of God above
Would drain the oceans dry;
Nor could the scroll contain the whole,
Tho stretched from sky to sky."

What’s left to say? I’m speechless. I have the chorus ringing in my head:

"Oh love of God! How rich and pure. How measureless and strong.
It shall forevermore endure; the saints and angels’ song."

Oh heck, let me give you another verse:

"The love of God is greater far,
than tongue or pen can ever tell.
It goes beyond the highest star;
it reaches to the lowest hell.
The guilty pair bowed down with care.
God gave his son to win.
His erring child he reconciled,
and pardoned from his sin."

Gotta go. I can’t type with all these goose-bumps all over me.

 

Can ya feel it Mephi? Are ya smiling?

Tom

---

 

Post Edited (TGB) : 9/12/2006 11:24:35 AM (GMT-5)

The newest mantra:

 

Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.

 

 

Imago dei means to me that humans are uniquely capable of a love relationship with God. Satan simply is not capable of this sort of relationship, and thus is not pursued as we are. I love my dog, in a sense, but like Adam discovered, none of the beasts were fit for him. We are unique in creation as the Bride of Christ. See what I'm saying?

Post Edited (Corey) : 9/12/2006 12:56:36 PM (GMT-5)

The newest mantra:

 

Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.

 

 

 

 

Referring to final states, God was trying to convey a true sense of the following things through inspired people:

1) There is coming a time of divine reckoning.

2) This "reckoning" will be extremely painful for people who aren't on
God's "side", as it were.

3) It's going to involve eternal ramifications for temporal activity. Thus the eternality of consequence.

4) All sin and its effects will be subdued. God will have victory over sin.

Given the cultural contexts and plausibility structures held by the authors, the idea of eternal literal burning of resurrected bodies (ie. the bodies of the evil human beings) in a lake of fire is the best thing that they could come up with to describe such a reality.

Yes, God was speaking and, YES, God was speaking truth. But this truth came from the hearts, minds, and understandings of enculturated human beings with incomplete, possibly inaccurate beliefs. God did the best with what he had at the time.

So, the Revelation and Matthew passages are TRUE in what they represent: a hellish, painful consequence for sin involving felt separation from God's presence that has eternal ramifications upon one's life. But they are inaccurate insofar as they articulated this truth in the best way they knew how...ECT.

If one takes this stance, then that one can say that as long as eventual universal reconciliation doesn't inherently DENY that divine judgement will entail a hellish, painful consequence for sin involving felt separation from God's presence that has eternal ramifications upon one's life for some persons...then things are ok.

 

When one combines this perspective with the reasoning that provides metaphysical means and teleological motive for God to do eventual universal reconciliation, things can get pretty convincing.

 

I'm curious what these plausibility structures are.

 

You seem to be saying that the authors of scripture, who had direct revelation from God, couldn't understand <something> so God used *something* else and they wrote that down.

 

Now, in interpreting what they wrote down, we can translate that *something* they wrote down into the <something> that God really meant. 

 

But where do we get the ability to do that translation?  From theology, which originated in revelation, Christianity being a revealed religion?

 

Seems kind of circular to me.

 

Where the ancients that ignorant?  The preacher said something about that on Sunday, what was it?

 

never say you're bitter, jack

bitter makes the worst things

come back

 

 

 

Let's take "lake of fire" for example.  Is that something culturally familiar to them that God used in order for them to understand "schoolroom with a door"?

 

Do you think their culture included plenty of examples of lakes of fire?

 

Aren't "lake of fire" and "schoolroom with a door" not only miles apart conceptually but actually rather opposite?

 

I'm not big on ECT but let's pretend that's what God had intended.  How would He have described it differently?  Isn't "burn in the lake of fire whose smoke shall rise forever and ever" closer than "schoolroom with a door"?

I think cultural contexts can give shades of difference, but not totally opposite meanings.

 

---

never say you're bitter, jack

bitter makes the worst things

come back