 |
| 
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 4/24/2003 5:54 AM (GMT -6) |   | PotOnWheel:
quote:
I'm led by those smarter and wiser to eschew such nonsense as first trapping God IN time, and then trying to guess what His experience might be, from that point in time, looking ahead.
Is God also not trapped by logic? Not trapped by time, not trapped by logic?
Right now, to God, am I married AND not married? Is that His knowledge of me? Laika is married AND Laika is not married.
I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.
Edited by - Laika on 04/24/2003 11:08:42 AM | | Back to Top | | |
 |
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/24/2003 11:33 AM (GMT -6) | | Laika posted:
quote:
PotOnWheel: I'm led by those smarter and wiser to eschew such nonsense as first trapping God IN time, and then trying to guess what His experience might be, from that point in time, looking ahead.
Laika: Is God also not trapped by logic? Not trapped by time, not trapped by logic?
Laika: Right now, to God, am I married AND not married? Is that His knowledge of me? Laika is married AND Laika is not married.
Laika: I'm not a complete idiot, some parts are missing.
I think you may have missed the main point. Go back -- way BACK, Laika, to where the quotation from Evdokimov's book first appears. (Posted on Page Four (about half way down) - 04/11/2003 : between 12:24:19 PM and 12:28:09 PM) Spend some time with it. And after you understand what he is saying, THEN re-read my post. I borrowed his phrase right along with his observation. (Get your context THERE.)
If it is important to you, spend the time.
Your choice.
(I was just responding to rossfadeinout.)
PoW
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 04/24/2003 9:43:46 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2003 4:57 AM (GMT -6) | | "Everyone who believes in God at all believes that He knows what you and I are going to do tomorrow."
-C.S. Lewis
I don't know where you people are in this debate, but it would be a privalge to join in and share my personal beliefs that we might be able to edify one another in Christ.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
might-be-don
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 830
| Posted 4/30/2003 5:30 AM (GMT -6) | | borg,
Welcome...
Just jump in and let us know what you think.
peace and love, don
---
"No Rules, just Right" Outback Steakhouse | | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 4/30/2003 5:46 AM (GMT -6) | | Borg,
I used to believe that the C S Lewis quote was the truth, and that the only viable position was that God knew the future as settled. But as I have tried to reconcile this belief with my firmly held belief that God gives mankind freedom, I had trouble coming to an understanding of how this was possible. About the same time I was beginning to think through these issues I came across the Open View of God (or rather the open view of the future). I have found that you can be a biblically based Christian and not believe that God knows the future as settled.
So Borg, what is your understanding of God's knowledge of the future? What questions do you have about the Open View? Jump on in to the discussion!
Let brotherly love continue,
Ross
Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite. -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2003 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey guys. thanks for letting me in.
first off i guess you could lable me as a Calvinist. i've had quite the experience with dealing with the whole open movement, but after quite some reading and talking with people, the only logical answer i can take is that God knows the future and elects people to heaven and hell. i completly agree with TULIP in that i believe it recieves a sound Biblical backing, more so than the other popular views. as i said i come from an interesting experience in that three of my immediate family memebers are Open Theists and one is into Arminainism. i've also consider to have done quite a bit of research on the topic, and i guess for me, Open Theists don't present enough of a coherent Biblical backing.
i guess i'd like to get right in and ask what you're guys opinions on the idea of limited atonement are. i'm reading through the Death of Death in the Death of Christ by John Owen and J.I. Packer does the introduction and he seems set on three main purposes of the cross that Owen presents in his work. 1. Either Christ died for all people for all sins, 2. Either Christ died for some people some sins, 3. Or Christ died for some people for all sins. obviously 3 is where i would fall, and this seems to be backed reasonable and logically to me. if Christ died for all sins for all people, than you are talking universalism. because even if one would choose to reject Christ, which would be a sin, they should be forgiven for such an act of their freewill. unless you don't believe that rejecting Christ isn't a sin, though i don't know if any sensible Chrsitian would say that. Christ commands us to follow Him, and any diverting off of that command in essence would be a sin.
but more on the topic of God seeing into the future. if Christ and God couldn't see into the future, and as an Open Theist would probably claim, God doesn't know who is going to create from eternity past, than while Jesus was dying on the cross, He couldn't have thought about me, because in His mind i was at the most a vague thought in His head. to me this takes away the personalness of the cross in the fact that Christ just died, not knowing exactly what sins He was dying for, and in essence not knowing what He was getting Himself into to. that's a scary thought to me, and I don't believe that God gives us a Spirit of fear, but of hope and power.
this is getting fairly long and i don't know if i've missed my mark in trying to explain what i believe. this is my first post of hopefully a very edifying beginning and future of trying to see where you guys are coming from.
grace and peace to you,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/30/2003 10:51 AM (GMT -6) | | Welcome, borg
Could you help me understand what you mean when you say:
quote:
if Christ died for all sins for all people, than you are talking universalism. . . .
It seems to me that "unlimited atonement" would only entail universalism if combined with "irresistible grace". Would you agree that "unlimited atonement" would not entail universalism for freewill theists who don't hold to "irresistible grace"?
quote:
. . . because even if one would choose to reject Christ, which would be a sin, they should be forgiven for such an act of their freewill.
I'm not sure why you would say "they should be forgiven for such an act of their freewill". But in any event, assuming they are forgiven, this would not necessarily entail universalism. God could forgive them without forcing them to choose Christ. This would be consistent, for example, with C. S. Lewis's idea of hell as the choice of those who reject Christ rather than a punishment for some unforgiven sin.
Bottom line is, I just don't see that "unlimited atonement" leads to universalism unless one assumes "irresistible grace" to begin with.
Am I misunderstanding you?
Again, welcome to the forum.
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2003 11:25 AM (GMT -6) | | JET thank you very much for asking me to clarify myself, i guess i did a poor job at explaining how i would come to the conclusion of universalism. let me try and explain it a bit more.
let me first try to clarify my point in that rejecting Christ, even under freewill, is still a sin. Matthew 10:32 Jesus tells us that if we acknolwdege Him before men, He will acknowledge us before the Father. But if we do not, He will not, and in truth, this would be a sin. Romans 6:23 says the "wages of SIN is death" so i do not know how C.S. Lewis concluded that perhaps hell is not so much punishment for sin as for rejecting Christ, especially since it's seem that you cannot reject Christ without sinning! Again in Hosea 6, the prophet is calling the people back to God. whenever Israel turned away from God, rejecting Him, they sinned. God called us them to come to Him and to accept Him. If one goes against God's command, one sins. it's throughout the Bible that rejecting the "capstone" leads to nowhere but death.
so we've now seen that rejection, even based on freewill is a sin, and for that we deserve hell. Now we take this under the light of a "general ransom" in which Christ did die for the whole world, for all people, and for all sins. by sins, i mean anything that we do that deserves death: lying, stealing, slander, lust, murder, even rejecting Christ. but if Christ came to die for all sinners, for all sins, than all those sins are washed away, regardless of the fact that some rejected Christ. that shouldn't matter. Irrestible grace doesn't really work into this picture. even if a free agent so willing chooses to destroy their lives by not accepting Christ, and rejecting Him, based on freewill, it should still be covered by the Blood of Christ. if it's not covered over until you accept Christ, than when Christ died, His blood didn't wash over every sin, and His forgivness in conditional. does this make sense? i hope so. in a quick summation, the Blood of Christ, if poured out for all sinners, would wipe away the rejection of the cross as well. this would be how the "general ransom" leads to universalism. no one can be damned for rejecting Christ, because it, along with all sins, should have been forgiven.
where i would say that irrestible grace has come in, is in the fact that Christ didn't die to redeem the whole world with saving grace, but rather died for the elect to grant them saving grace, and it's because of that, that we are saved, and He's forgiven us of all our sins, including unbelief, therefore we believe. if that doesn't make sense i can explain it a bit more, though i don't know how relevant it is to our topic at hand.
another point i wanted to make is that if Christ died for everyone for all sins, and yet somehow this does not lead to universalism, i cannot refuse my mind when it rationally concludes that someone Christ and God have failed in their plan to redeem the world. now popular opentheists like Sanders and Pinnock may claim that God can make mistakes, whether they specifically take that stand i don't know, but i don't think one can logically or Biblically conclude that God makes mistakes, and yet, His plan to redeem the world has failed, and wouldn't that mean that even He failed?
hope this clears up the idea of universalism. thanks for hearing me out. i will gladly accept any further insight that anyone has to say.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/30/2003 12:16 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for clarifying, borg. I think I understand where you’re coming from. If the atonement “washes away” all sin, this would include the sin of rejecting God. So if the atonement is universal, no one will be punished for rejecting God; hence, universalism. Right?
But assume, hypothetically, that hell is NOT a punishment for sin. We could still agree that the wages of sin is death, that all sinners “deserve” hell, etc. But saying that all sinners deserve hell does not mean all sinners get what they deserve. If we assume that the atonement is universal, we could say that all sin is “washed away” and, therefore, sinners will not be “punished” for their sin. But this only leads to universalism if hell is punishment for sins. If hell is not punishment for sins, then isn't it at least POSSIBLE that someone could have their sins washed away and yet choose hell?
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 4/30/2003 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | | JET i see what you are saying. however, i cannot agree with the fact that hell isn't a punishment for sin. first of all i would have to say that your vision or idea of hell, figurativley speaking, stands against the vast majority of theologians. first off i do not believe that the divines carried such a place and i believe it is in the BGC doctrine that says hell is a place for sinners. but just because it isn't a popular notion, goes against tradition, and the like, doesn't mean that it has to be wrong, like Open Theism. so i hope to shed some Light on the subject, speaking Biblically of course. but in the hypothetical way, yes that could be, but i dont' believe that it carries any reasonable stance within the doctrines of the church and what the Bible teaches. here is why.
first i want to start off with Revelations 20. "7: He who overcomes will inherit all this, and i will be his God and he will be my son. 8: But the cowardly, the UNBELIEVING, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all the liars- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." From these versese are we to really conclude that these people are being thrown into hell for their choice to go to hell, of for living in the sin that they are in?
Romans 8:10 says, "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of rightesouness." from this i would say that we are dead because of our sin, and if we die in that state, that sin is still with us, and our spirits aren't alive. not because of a choice, but because we are dead in our transgressions.
I can use more verses if you like, but i would like to know if the choice of hell has any Biblical backing. i will also admit that this idea is quite new to me in that i've never heard of it. but i don't see any Biblically backing that says we choose to go to hell, instead i see it as a curse, a damnation that we cannot avoid unless Christ has died for us. i guess i see in Scripture that the sinners will get what they deserve and i find this backed by Scripture. see especially Psalms 73, 2Cor. 11:15,*Rom 3:5-8.
for this reasoni cannot go along with what is being thought of in a hypothetical sense. it is possible that such a thing could happen, but as far as God has revealed Himself to us as of now, i would only think that that would make Him out to be a liar. though it would be great if no one went to hell dying in their transgressions. for me, this adds further guidance to the idea that perhaps Christ did not die for everyone for all sins.
hope this helps.
grace and peace,
borg
*may not be clear as the others, if not, that's fine. i won't go into explaining my view on this verse unless you would like me to.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
John Earp
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 1715
| Posted 4/30/2003 4:16 PM (GMT -6) | | The Bible teaches plainly that repentance, faith, and perseverance in holiness are forever conditions of salvation.
The Bible also teaches plainly that Christ died for the sins of the whole world. Therefore, if the atonement in and of itself effects the salvation of anyone (the Calvinist position), it must effect the salvation of all.
It should be noted that the Bible nowhere speaks of Christ's death as a "sin debt payment," but rather, as "the price of redemption" or "a ransom." Anyone can see the difference between payment of a debt and payment of a ransom.
If, on the other hand, the conditions of salvation (repentance, faith, and perseverance in holiness) are factored in, the apparent difficulty of a limited atonement is resolved. It is limited only in that the number who enter the strait gate and narrow way of salvation is few; that is, the atonement is limited not in efficacy but in application. God forces no one to receive his salvation. If He did, then 2 Pet. 3:9 makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
As to the issue of election, in Romans 9 Paul is speaking of God's right to have mercy on whom He will (Jews AND Gentiles, not just Jews as under the Old Covenant).
Romans 11:32: Therefore he has concluded them all (Jews and Gentiles)in unbelief, that he might have mercy upon them all.
"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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/30/2003 5:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Thanks, borg. I’ll try to interact with the Biblical texts you mentioned and then I'll throw in some C. S. Lewis quotes so you'll know I'm not just making this stuff up.
borg:first i want to start off with Revelations 20. "7: He who overcomes will inherit all this, and i will be his God and he will be my son. 8: But the cowardly, the UNBELIEVING, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all the liars- their place will be in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death." From these verses are we to really conclude that these people are being thrown into hell for their choice to go to hell, of for living in the sin that they are in?
JET:I would agree that in Revelations hell is seen as God’s judgment. However, in other texts, we see that this “judgment” is ultimately chosen by the judged. God’s judgment is to give people what they want.
For example, in Satan and the Problem of Evil, Greg Boyd cites the following:
John 3:17-19: For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because he has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but men loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil.
Rom. 1:18-32: God’s judgment (“wrath”) is essentially letting the ungodly Romans do what they want; “God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts” (v. 24). As Greg Boyd says in Satan and the Problem of Evil (p. 344):
quote:
Paul understands “the wrath of God” to be “revealed from heaven against all ungodliness” (Rom. 1:18) when God decides to let the ungodly Romans to what they want. God “gave them up to a debased mind” and allowed them to fully indulge their desires (Rom. 1:28).
Also from Satan and the Problem of Evil:
quote:
Along the same lines, Revelation portrays the wicked as being outside the city walls continuing to do the same things that prevented them from dwelling in God’s city in the first place (Rev 22:15). Indeed, the door to the city is open, but they choose to remain outside (Rev 21:25-27).
borg: Romans 8:10 says, "But if Christ is in you, your body is dead because of sin, yet your spirit is alive because of righteousness." from this i would say that we are dead because of our sin, and if we die in that state, that sin is still with us, and our spirits aren't alive. not because of a choice, but because we are dead in our transgressions.
JET: I guess I would say we remain dead in our transgressions so long as we refuse to choose life.
Finally, here are some C. S. Lewis quotes, for what they’re worth:
From The Great Divorce:
quote:
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'
and
quote:
The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it.
From The Problem of Pain:
quote:
I have begun with the conception of Hell as a positive retributive punishment inflicted by God because that is the form in which the doctrine is most repellent, and I wished to tackle the strongest objection. But, of course, though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His "word," judges men. We are therefore at liberty—since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing—to think of this bad man's perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is "their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves." Our imaginary egoist has tried to turn everything he meets into a province or appendage of the self. The taste for the other, that is, the very capacity for enjoying good, is quenched in him except in so far as his body still draws him into some rudimentary contact with an outer world. Death removes this last contact. He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.
and
quote:
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 4/30/2003 5:48 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm enjoying the chance to watch your conversation. Keep going. Here is a thought.
A remark was made that:
quote:
Borg
...first of all i would have to say that your vision or idea of hell, figurativley speaking, stands against the vast majority of theologians. first off i do not believe that the divines carried such a place and i believe it is in the BGC doctrine that says hell is a place for sinners. but just because it isn't a popular notion, goes against tradition, and the like, doesn't mean that it has to be wrong, like Open Theism.
(Let me comment that I myself do not embrace anything from Opentheism!)
Borg wrote: "...against the vast majority of theologians." But let me offer this LINK to share what some famous and influential and important theolgians DID say!
Check out the FOOTNOTES, particularly from St. Basil -- who wrote "On the Holy Spirit. You probably know him. But you should "meet him if you don't. Another "meetable" guy is St. Athanasias, whom C.S. Lewis loved, and wrote an introduction to his book "On the Incarnation."
Lewis is reflecting much, I think, of the Greek Fathers in the quotes below.
quote:
JET
Finally, here are some C. S. Lewis quotes, for what they’re worth:
From The Great Divorce:
quote:
------------------------------------------------------
There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, "Thy will be done," and those to whom God says, in the end, "Thy will be done." All that are in Hell, choose it. Without that self-choice there could be no Hell. No soul that seriously and constantly desires joy will ever miss it. Those who seek find. To those who knock it is opened.'
-------------------------------------------------------
and
quote:
---------------------------------------------------
The choice of ways is before you. Neither is closed. Any man may choose eternal death. Those who choose it will have it.
-------------------------------------------------------
From The Problem of Pain:
quote:
------------------------------------------------
I have begun with the conception of Hell as a positive retributive punishment inflicted by God because that is the form in which the doctrine is most repellent, and I wished to tackle the strongest objection. But, of course, though Our Lord often speaks of Hell as a sentence inflicted by a tribunal, He also says elsewhere that the judgement consists in the very fact that men prefer darkness to light, and that not He, but His "word," judges men. We are therefore at liberty—since the two conceptions, in the long run, mean the same thing—to think of this bad man's perdition not as a sentence imposed on him but as the mere fact of being what he is. The characteristic of lost souls is "their rejection of everything that is not simply themselves." Our imaginary egoist has tried to turn everything he meets into a province or appendage of the self. The taste for the other, that is, the very capacity for enjoying good, is quenched in him except in so far as his body still draws him into some rudimentary contact with an outer world. Death removes this last contact. He has his wish—to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.
-----------------------------------------------------
and
quote:
-------------------------------------------------
In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell is itself a Question: "What are you asking God to do?" To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them! They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.
-------------------------------------------------
| | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 4/30/2003 7:33 PM (GMT -6) | | quote:
http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/1/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | JET, you make an interesting case. thanks for the scriptures, it is making me think.
though i can't agree with you on several points. the first being, and i quote:
"we see that this “judgment” is ultimately chosen by the judged. God’s judgment is to give people what they want."
I guess my question or response to this would simply be, who in the world chooses hell? i don't think people choose to go to hell. instead they may choose to remain ignorant of the God factor, or they may choose to live in their sinful flesh, but very seldom (and i do say seldom for there are people out there who know about God, Jesus, and salvation, and yet they dont' want to give up their sinful lives), do i think people say "yeah hell would be a better place."
Boyd makes a good argument for John 3:17,18, but i guess where i would stand with that is they love their "dark ways" because, God has not been revealed to them. C.S. Lewis has an interesting analogy that relates to this, i believe in Mere Christianity. He talks about the boy playing in the mud thinking it's the greatest thing in the world, not knowing that his parents want to take him on a crusie that he knows nothing about. though the mud is fun now, when he goes on the cruise, assuming he doesn't get sea sick, he will realize that the fuss he put up for not wanting to leave the mud was ridiculous because this cruise was so much better than anything else.
i guess i kind of relate that to the idea hell. people remain ignorant to the blessedness of heaven and choose to stay in their state of "fun" even if the consequences, unknown to them, in the long run won't be worth it. in my opinion no one chooses hell. i think that once we all stand before God and Jesus we will realize how foolish we have been and no one than will want to choose hell, though it will be to late to make any more desicions.
you bring up one more interesting point i would like to comment on. you said that we remain DEAD in our transgressions until we choose life. but by the definition of dead it is thought that we are helpless in producing anything of and from ourselves. this goes back to the whole Augustine and Peligius dispute, but i would have to say that it's only Christ who brings us back to life, we cannot make a decision because we are so dead in our transgression (irrestible grace).
well sorry this was somewhat longwinded. hope you get the drift. thanks for the previous post, it did make me think.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/1/2003 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | thanks pot on a wheel. sorry if my information was a bit off mark. but i would still say that the vast majority of people, at least the ones i've come into contact with and read, do view hell as a punishment for sin. of course that doesn't prove jack squat :)
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/1/2003 11:43 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
borg
thanks pot on a wheel. sorry if my information was a bit off mark. but i would still say that the vast majority of people, at least the ones i've come into contact with and read, do view hell as a punishment for sin. of course that doesn't prove jack squat :)
g n p
As someone who is a member at a Reformed (Calvinist) Church, I'm an odd duck! One preacher friend at church was leading Sunday School, and turned to the topic of "judgement." Interesting thing I noticed in the verses he had us read is that judgment was shown a form of mercy, potentially turning those punished towards redemption. I have some personal "cheques" that give me pause on several places where the Reformed Heidelberg Confession www.crcna.org/cr/crbe/crbe_conf_hc.htm speaks of "wrath." But the Scriptures do talk that way.
My present way of understanding God's wrath follows the line in that River of Fire article. And to make it a bit more concrete I want to put this on the table too. OK, borg?
quote:
In Orthodox theology generally it can be said that the language of "payment" and "ransom" is rather understood as a metaphorical and symbolical way of saying that Christ has done all things necessary to save and redeem mankind enslaved to the devil, sin and death, and under the wrath of God. He "paid the price," not in some legalistic or juridical or economic meaning. He "paid the price" not to the devil whose rights over man were won by deceit and tyranny. He "paid the price" not to God the Father in the sense that God delights in His sufferings and received "satisfaction" from His creatures in Him. He "paid the price" rather, we might say, to Reality Itself. He "paid the price" to create the conditions in and through which man might receive the forgiveness of sins and eternal life by dying and rising again in Him to newness of life (See Rom 5-8; Gal 2-4).
By dying on the cross and rising from the dead, Jesus Christ cleansed the world from evil and sin. He defeated the devil "in his own territory" and on "his own terms." The "wages of sin is death" (Rom 6:23). So the Son of God became man and took upon Himself the sins of the world and died a voluntary death. By His sinless and innocent death accomplished entirely by His free will -- and not by physical, moral, or juridical necessity -- He made death to die and to become itself the source and the way into life eternal. This is what the Church sings on the feast of the Resurrection, the New Passover in Christ, the new Paschal Lamb, who is risen from the dead:
Christ is risen from the dead!
Trampling down death by death!
And upon those in the tombs bestowing life!
(Easter Troparion)
THAT is from an Eastern Orthodox site--one onf "Redemption." www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Redemption.html
But the OLD message is not a giddy, bubbly message. Its aweful, and terrifying at the same time it is joyous and releasing! Personally I find the message in the River of Fire presentation MORE trerifying than a simplisitic presentation from my Sunday School days.
Pair the "Redemption" webpage with one on "Judgment." You will see. www.oca.org/pages/orth_chri/Orthodox-Faith/Doctrine/Judgment.html
quote:
The doctrine of eternal hell, therefore, does not mean that God actively tortures people by some unloving and perverse means. It does not mean that God takes delight in the punishment and pain of His people whom He loves. Neither does it mean that God "separates Himself" from His people, thus causing them anguish in this separation (for indeed if people hate God, separation would be welcome, and not abhorred!). It means rather that God continues to allow all people, saints and sinners alike, to exist forever. All are raised from the dead into everlasting life: "those who have done good, to the resurrection of judgment" (John 5:29). In the end, God will be "all and in all" (1 Cor 15:28). For those who love God, resurrection from the dead and the presence of God will be paradise. For those who hate God, resurrection from the dead and the presence of God will be hell. This is the teaching of the fathers of the Church.
There is sprung up a light for the righteous, and its partner is joyful gladness. And the light of the righteous is everlasting ...
One light alone let us shun -- that which is the offspring of the sorrowful fire ...
For I know a cleansing fire which Christ came to send upon the earth, and He Himself is called a Fire. This Fire takes away whatsoever is material and of evil quality; and this He desires to kindle with all speed ...
I know also a fire which is not cleansing, but avenging ... which He pours down on all sinners ... that which is prepared for the devil and his angels ... that which proceeds from the Face of the Lord and shall burn up His enemies round about ... the unquenchable fire which ... is eternal for the wicked. For all these belong to the destroying power, though some may prefer even in this place to take a more merciful view of this fire, worthily of Him who chastises (St. Gregory the Theologian).
... those who find themselves in Gehenna will be chastised with the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love undergo greater sufferings than those produced of the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart which has sinned against love is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God. ... But love acts in two different ways, as suffering in the reproved, and as joy in the blessed (St. Isaac of Syria).
Thus, man's final judgment and eternal destiny depends solely on whether or not man loves God and his brethren. It depends on whether or not man loves the light more than the darkness -- or the darkness more than the light. It depends, we might say, on whether or not man loves Love and Light Itself; whether or not man loves Life -- which is God Himself; the God revealed in creation, in all things, in the "least of the brethren."
The conditions of the final judgment are already known. Christ has given them Himself with absolute clarity.
When the Son of Man shall come in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on His glorious throne. Before Him will be gathered all the nations and He will separate them one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, and He will place the sheep at His right hand, but the goats at the left. Then the King will say to those at His right hand, "Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me."
Then the righteous will answer Him, "Lord, when did we see Thee hungry and feed Thee, or thirsty and give Thee drink? And when did we see Thee a stranger and welcome Thee, or naked and clothe Thee? And when did we see Thee sick or in prison and visit Thee?"
And the King will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me."
Then He will say to those at His left hand, "Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me no drink, I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me."
Then they also will answer, "Lord, when did we see Thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to Thee?"
Then He will answer them, "Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, you did it not to me." And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (Mt 25:31-46, Gospel reading for Meatfare Sunday).
It is Christ who will judge, not God the Father. Christ has received the power of judgment "because He is the Son of Man" (Jn 5:27). Thus, man and the world are not judged by God "sitting on a cloud," as it were, but by One who is truly a man, the One who has suffered every temptation of this world and has emerged victorious. The world is judged by Him who was Himself hungry, thirsty, a stranger, naked, in prison, wounded, and yet the salvation of all. As the Crucified One, Christ has justly achieved the authority to make judgment for He alone has been the perfectly obedient servant of the Father who knows the depths of human tragedy by His own experience.
For He will render to every man according to his works: to those who by patience in well-doing seek for glory and honor and immortality, He will give eternal life; but for those who are factious and do not obey the truth, but obey wickedness, there will be wrath and fury. There will be tribulation and distress for every human being who does evil ... but glory and honor and peace for every one who does good ... for God shows no partiality. All who have sinned without the law, and all who have sinned under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous before God, but the doers of the law who will be justified (Rom 2:6ff).
So, going on what I read from Eastern Orthodox sources, I have to take MUCH of the Reformed traditions warnings very seriously. But a longer view of Church history helps me put things in better focus.
Or, that's at least what I think I'm doing.
Any comments?
PoW | | Back to Top | | |
|
JET
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2002
Total Posts : 397
| Posted 5/1/2003 1:23 PM (GMT -6) | | borg: i would still say that the vast majority of people, at least the ones i've come into contact with and read, do view hell as a punishment for sin.
JET: I think you’re probably right.
borg: who in the world chooses hell? i don't think people choose to go to hell. instead they may choose to remain ignorant of the God factor, or they may choose to live in their sinful flesh, but very seldom (and i do say seldom for there are people out there who know about God, Jesus, and salvation, and yet they dont' want to give up their sinful lives), do i think people say "yeah hell would be a better place."
JET: I would agree that people don’t (or seldom) choose to go to hell in the sense of "yeah hell would be a better place". I’m not talking about someone having a choice between spending eternity in a literal lake of fire or in heaven and saying “I’ll take the lake of fire”. Rather, I’m talking about someone who chooses Self over God. At some point God grants his wish, as Lewis says, “to live wholly in the self and to make the best of what he finds there. And what he finds there is Hell.”
Someone might ask, if hell is not intended as punishment, why does God allow this person to suffer in hell? Lewis responds by saying that God has already done all that God can do. He died on the cross in order to wash away their sins, offering complete, unmerited forgiveness. (“unlimited atonement”) But this person will not accept forgiveness. (“resistible grace”) So God leaves them alone. I don’t know exactly what this existence is like. But I think Lewis and others make a good argument that this existence--totally apart from God, totally absorbed in Self-- is hell.
Granted, this view of hell assumes a view of creaturely freedom which you do not concede. As you said, “we cannot make a decision because we are so dead in our transgression”. In fact, given your view of creaturely freedom, it seems to me that you MUST view hell as punishment. Would you agree? Here’s what I mean. If hell is not chosen BY the damned, then hell must be chosen FOR the damned by God. If so, the damned must deserve hell (i.e., God must be justified in punishing the damned in hell). Now, I would say that we ALL would get hell if we got what we deserved. But since I believe in a universal atonement and freewill, I can affirm that God does not punish anyone in hell–we don’t get what we deserve. Hell is chosen by some people DESPITE the fact that God has paid the ransom for all. On the other hand, one who denies creaturely freedom is stuck with the fact that it is God, in the final analysis, who sends people to hell as punishment for sins (despite their lack of freedom to not sin). To be consistent, I think, the Calvinist must acknowledge this much. The only thing left for the Calvinist to say is that, freedom or no freedom, the wages of sin is death and, thus, the damned get what they deserve. Would you agree?
Thanks for the interaction. I don’t have this all figured out, but this is my best assessment of the nature of the case at this point. Let me know what you think.
POW -- Sorry for using the "C" word. It's a lazy way of saying . . . well, you know what I mean. BTW, I loved the River of Fire article.
Thanks,
JET
| | Back to Top | | |
|
rossfadeinout
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2002
Total Posts : 428
| Posted 5/2/2003 3:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey borg,
Good to see the discussion going so well so far! I thought I'd point out something that I saw. One quick point...First you said quote:
C.S. Lewis has an interesting analogy that relates to this, i believe in Mere Christianity. He talks about the boy playing in the mud thinking it's the greatest thing in the world, not knowing that his parents want to take him on a crusie that he knows nothing about. though the mud is fun now, when he goes on the cruise, assuming he doesn't get sea sick, he will realize that the fuss he put up for not wanting to leave the mud was ridiculous because this cruise was so much better than anything else.
i guess i kind of relate that to the idea hell. people remain ignorant to the blessedness of heaven and choose to stay in their state of "fun" even if the consequences, unknown to them, in the long run won't be worth it. in my opinion no one chooses hell. i think that once we all stand before God and Jesus we will realize how foolish we have been and no one than will want to choose hell, though it will be to late to make any more desicions.
This seems to me to be a statement of a free will view of salvation. You say that people "choose to stay in their state of fun," implying that there is a choice to be made.
But then you said quote:
by the definition of dead it is thought that we are helpless in producing anything of and from ourselves. this goes back to the whole Augustine and Peligius dispute, but i would have to say that it's only Christ who brings us back to life, we cannot make a decision because we are so dead in our transgression (irrestible grace).
There seems to be some inconsistency here.
I've got one basic question for you that may help the discussion. I think that this will maybe help clarify some things.
In your study of scripture and use of your God given intellect, WHAT IS A GOOD DEFINITION OF SIN?
I look forward to a great continuing discussion!
Let us remember how common the folly is of going from one faulty extreme into the opposite. -Thomas Reid | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/2/2003 6:13 AM (GMT -6) | | You have a great conversation going; so tell me if you want me to not do this. But...I thought I'd lay two things on the table for all to look at.
quote:
rossfadeinout
First you said ... This seems to me to be a statement of a free will view of salvation. You say that people "choose to stay in their state of fun," implying that there is a choice to be made.
But then you said ...
There seems to be some inconsistency here.
I've got one basic question for you that may help the discussion. I think that this will maybe help clarify some things.
In your study of scripture and use of your God given intellect, WHAT IS A GOOD DEFINITION OF SIN?
I look forward to a great continuing discussion!
For an article that offers understanding on how BOTH God and mankind participate in salvation, see:
For an article that offers a Greek Orthodox view of Sin in its reality and effects, and cure, see:
"ORIGINAL SIN ACCORDING TO ST. PAUL," St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly, Vol. IV, Nos. 1 and 2, 1955-6. by John S. Romanides, (University of Thessoloniki, Greece)www.romanity.org/htm/rom.10.en.original_sin_according_to_st._paul.01.htm
quote:
A correct approach to the Pauline doctrine of original sin must take into consideration St. Paul's understanding of (1) the fallen state of creation, including the powers of Satan, death and corruption, (2) the justice of God and law, and (3) anthropology and the destiny of man and creation. These divisions are not meant to suggest that each topic is to be dealt with here in detail; rather, they shall be discussed only in the light of the main problem of original sin and its transmission according to St. Paul.
If you wish.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/02/2003 11:17:07 AM | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/2/2003 10:27 AM (GMT -6) | | PoW quite the response. i haven't had time to get around to absorb it all. i must say this forum has a lot of challenges and information that it gets quite difficult while balancing school to respond and read carefully, but what the heck, it's fun!
JET good response, though i think it comes full circle back to the argument of "limited atonement". i guess this is perhaps the easiest way to sum up my polemic is this. The Godhead knows beyond all certainty that it is better for one to go to heaven than to hell. i believe Jesus, i apologize i forgot the reference if it's a matter of unbelief i will find it, says that it is better to be bron than to never be sent to hell. i believe that He is speaking of Judas when He uses this verse, i could be wrong. but regardless of the verse, it is still logically known that the Godhead knows that heaven is better than hell anyday. with the idea of universal redemption and the general ransom, all sins should be covered over, including, and i quote from your own words: "not accept[ing] forgiveness." with this said, someone should be forgiven, and i can't see as though God/Jesus would give up on someone and throw in the towel. if you agree with what you say, it seems as though Christ died on the cross for everyone, don't you think that this would make Him yearn for everyone to be saved, that He wouldn't give up. i'm assuming your stance on 2Pe 3:9 and so i don't see how you could believe in a God that throws in the towel. to me this depicts a God who is at the mercy of mankind, elevating man's will far above His own. God is all sovereign, He answers to no one and in essence, He is not dependent upon us lowly humanbeings to find happiness. this is not who God is. Though the picture you paint in my mind, comes across like that.
so you may now say, well, how could God be loving in that He forces people into heaven against there will. especially since they have decided that heaven is obviously not the place for them. i would respond to this in that if God were to reveal Himself to anyone, even in the manifestation of heaven, we wouldn't want anything else! we wouldn't want to leave His side, for we realize He is perfect and the answer to everything. and this is my picture of hell. in that the people, who were not saved here on earth come to find God, realize how "omnimax" He is, and don't want to leave His side, and yet they are cast out of His presence. It's like C.S. Lewis' analogy of the kid playing in the mud. what if the parents took him on the cruise and he realized what a great place this ship was and how much fun all the other kids were having, and than his parents decide to leave him behind. he has the picture of the boat, and the place that he goes back to is nothing compared to the "greatness" of the boat, and he is completly isolated from the boat. do you think he will have fun playing in the mud after that? probably not. so it is with hell.
in your next argument you are right, i believe that the people who go to hell are there for punishment, they get what they deserve while we who are saved go to heaven. the great thing about this is that we who are children of mercy (Rom 9) don't get what we deserve. this is why we give all glory and honor to God, Rev 4:11, 2 Cor. 10:17. Because God has taken us from our sins, laid upon Christ the guilt of our transgressions and Christ has saved us from WHAT WE DESERVE. and this for what reason? Because God loved us, he chose to have mercy and compassion on us, He has chosen to raise us up, (Rom 9:18ff). this is why we boast in the Lord, this is why we give Him all glory, because He alone saved us from the Hell that we deserved, and Christ took our spots.
I would agree that the damned get what they deserve, i would agree that it is ultimatly up to God. "(despite their lack of freedom to not sin)." because after the fall all our wills could do was choose evil ways, and we were corrupt, always, every inclination of our heart was evil Gen 6:5.
so were this leaves us i don't know. feel free to respond and let me know any problems or concerns, i gladly listen to them.
rossfadeinout, thank you very much for bringing that to my attention, it was a slip of my thoughts. i was raised as an Open Theist and in a very "choice oriented" church. thanks for pointing that out. i do not think that was such a crucial word as to disrupt the message of what i was trying to get across, but thanks for pointing it out anyways.
your question about my definition of sin is a good one. my gut instinct, in that i've been typing for awhile now and want to get out and play ultimate frisbee on this beautiful day, that the definition of sin would simply be living in darkness. when we aren't children of the light, and yet still children of the dark, everything we do is sin. there is no good in us, we are completly against God in EVERY aspect of our lives. whether or not this is a good answer, i don't know. i will think about it more, and if anything new grips me, i'll let you know. how would you define sin as?
well let me know what you people think. i look forward to responses.
grace and peace in Him,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/2/2003 10:44 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
borg
PoW quite the response. i haven't had time to get around to absorb it all. i must say this forum has a lot of challenges and information that it gets quite difficult while balancing school to respond and read carefully, but what the heck, it's fun!
If you feel that another LINK I've left was time/effort-worthy, then save a copy of the article(s) and read when you have time. Each of them took me a long time to digest. (I digest a lot of things slow.) | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/3/2003 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | | i don't know if i have successfully killed a thread or not with my longwinded monotounous discussing, or if it's just the weekend, but i had a point to run across anyone that would like to hear it. within the NT, at least, i do not believe there are any verses that say specifically that Christ came to die for the whole world and that God loved the whole world, save the famous Jn3:16. the idea of God loving everyone didn't come around until the epistles were written, and the letters were written to believers not non-believers. it's an argument i've heard before and i wanted some feedback as to how accurate it may be.
thanks,
g n p
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 5/3/2003 10:59 AM (GMT -6) | | quote:
i don't know if i have successfully killed a thread or not with my longwinded monotounous discussing, or if it's just the weekend, but i had a point to run across anyone that would like to hear it. within the NT, at least, i do not believe there are any verses that say specifically that Christ came to die for the whole world and that God loved the whole world, save the famous Jn3:16. the idea of God loving everyone didn't come around until the epistles were written, and the letters were written to believers not non-believers. it's an argument i've heard before and i wanted some feedback as to how accurate it may be.
thanks,
g n p
borg
No, bro. It will be ME who's accused of that...every time.
I'd like to introduce you to my newest favorite Western Father: Irenaeus of Lyon.
quote:
John Behr (www.svots.edu) writes:
quote:
------------------------------------------------
As St Irenaeus put it, at the end of the second century:
If anyone reads the Scriptures [that is, the "Old Testament"] in this way, he will find in them the Word concerning Christ, and a foreshadowing of the new calling. For Christ is the 'treasure which was hidden in the field' (Mt 13:44), that is, in this world -- for 'the field is the world' (Mt 13:38) -- [a treasure] hidden in the Scriptures, for He was indicated by means of types and parables, which could not be understood by men prior to the consummation of those things which had been predicted, that is, the advent of Christ. ... And for this reason, when at the present time the Law is read to the Jews, it is like a fable; for they do not possess the explanation (tên exêgêsin) of all things which pertain to the human advent of the Son of God, but when it is read by Christians, it is a treasure, hid in a field, but brought to light by the Cross of Christ (Against the Heresies, 4.26.1).
http://www.svots.edu/Faculty/John-Behr/Articles/Orthodoxy.html
(Orthodoxy: A Talk given at the University of North Carolina / March 23, 1998)
------------------------------------------------
The 'treasure which was hidden in the field' has been there all along, and uncovered bit-by-bit. WAY back in Genesis, with the talk of crushing the serpant's head -- THERE IT IS. (And Hannah reminds us in her song, which was later given more focus by Mary.) And also, the preaching of how the whole world suffers the curse is enough foreshaddow of the extent of salvation. The need itself prophecies the cure.
As to what you mention re: the idea of God loving everyone didn't come around until the epistles were written, and the letters were written to believers not non-believers.... The blessing to Abram, that he would be the patriarch of many nations is fulfilled in Simeon's blessing of Christ in the Temple: "a light for revelation to the Gentiles and for glory to your people Israel. Luke 2:32" And several well known passages in the Prophets speak to the scope of the Gospel too; criticizing any arogance to the contrary.
My Reformed friends, with their attention to Covenant Theology, they are used to expecting and seeing the continuity of it all. (I just wish they would lay aside part of Augustine's version of Predestinaion; wherein they seem to be making some progress.)
But, let us remember, that we shall all be judged on that aweful day.
Edited by - PotOnWheel on 05/03/2003 4:04:29 PM | | Back to Top | | |
|
borg
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2003
Total Posts : 324
| Posted 5/9/2003 2:11 PM (GMT -6) | | i guess i fail to see how you are relating abram's and simeon's encounter with the babe as being an answer to the fact that God never promised to come and die for everybody. He promised to come and die for His sheep Jn 10:15, and throughout this chapter, it's made pretty clear that it is Christ and the Father who call the sheep. We are also told that Christ died for the church, Eph. 5:25. we see that Christ died for the one's that the Father has given Him, Jn 6, before He died, He prayed for the one's whom the Father gave Him. But nowhere in the Bible do i see that Christ came to die for everyone's sins, save Jn 3:16, and in light of Scripture, can this even be logically concluded? that is my question. where does it say that Christ has come to give the free gift of salvation to everyone? maybe it is there, and i'm ignorant, in that case, please let me know.
and i didn't fully understand what you meant by this augustinian stuff.
grace and peace,
borg
| | Back to Top | | |
| 309 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:28 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 |
|
|