 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > So I'm Trying On Universalism... | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/10/2005 2:58 PM (GMT -6) |   | |
Meph,
Thanks for your clarifications. Obviously, I would fall into the nominalist camp on this issue as well as the voluntarist camp. My understanding of God's essence is that it refers to God's physical attributes (Spirit), and that all moral action, whether in God, man, or angels, is by definition voluntary. Be ye holy, perfect as God is holy, perfect, etc., is incomprehensible unless God's moral action is voluntarily chosen. If God is holy by nature (involuntarily), and I am sinful by nature (involuntarily), then it is absolutely impossible for me to EVER be holy just as God is.
I should hasten to add that I believe God's character is fixed and immutable in the sense that He would never sin, just not that He could never. God cannot be tempted with evil, for his perfect understanding of all evil means He sees right through any and all temptations.
John
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.net | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/10/2005 3:01 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
Thanks for your clarifications. Obviously, I would fall into the nominalist camp on this issue as well as the voluntarist camp. My understanding of God's essence is that it refers to God's physical attributes (Spirit), and that all moral action, whether in God, man, or angels, is by definition voluntary. Be ye holy, perfect as God is holy, perfect, etc., is incomprehensible unless God's moral action is voluntarily chosen.
I should hasten to add that I believe God's character is fixed and immutable in the sense that He would never sin, just not that He could never. God cannot be tempted with evil, for his perfect understanding of all evil means He sees right through any and all temptations.
Cool stuff, John. This is why ultimately we are going to disagree in some SIGNIFICANT areas. I've kept this in mind for a while now. But I don't think I've ever said it straight out. It's probably good for us to note this in the future.
FYI: On the issue of God's love, Calvin was a nominalist. This actually explains a lot when you think about it.
"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 3/10/2005 3:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, Tom. I feel like such a dumb-a$$. For real. MY OWN WORDS from page 1 of this thread...
Basically what I've been saying here, Tom, is that I believe that the creaturely ability to COMPLETELY self-solidify against God (and in so doing, utterly destroy oneself) is taken OUT of the realm of libertarian freedom. As is the ability NOT to eventually self-solidify towards God! What lies within the realm of libertarian freedom is the creaturely ability to completely self-soldify towards God and the ability to VERY NEARLY, but NOT COMPLETELY self-solidify against God. So, I'm not saying that the probability that everyone will end up enjoying God is between 0 and 1. I'm saying that is IS 1. So, forget the whole "libertarian universalism" thing. I'm not saying that. I'm saying that God set things up such that we could only go SO FAR with our decisions and their effects...but NOT in a way that eliminates or marginalizes our moral autonomy!
What a damn doofus I am. I got WAY over-excited thinking about the existential absurdity aspect...and said this. Stupid. Dumb. Arrgh. But on the very same page, I say...
3) The drive for God's making "door removal" impossible for sentient creatures is TELEOLOGICAL and VOLITIONAL (God's willing), not metaphysical (either by violating the laws of logic or God's essential existence). Conceptually speaking, the door IS removable, in that it is logically possible for a sentient being to be able self-solidify unto self-destruction. There's no logical contradiction in positing a contingent being's eternal self-destruction. It's just that God, given God's own telos, desire to have it fulfilled, and genuine ability to fulfill that desire, has rendered things such that it's not HISTORICALLY possible that the door will be removed, either by God or by his creatures...even though it's LOGICALLY possible.
Uh...can we say "mixed messages". Man, Tom, I'm REEEEALY sorry, dude. Even though I've been saying generally the same thing, I think some of my more zealous moments have brought the current situation upon us. I'm really very sorry. I can completely see now how you would come up with the ideas you came up with. Sometimes are so clear in my mind that I don't speak as precisely and carefully as I need to.
Everyone, please forgive my wrongs here. Especially you, Tom.
"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 3/10/2005 7:54 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Sorry, I think I linked nominalism and voluntarism too closely together, without making more helpful distinctions. I was thinking of William of Occam who held to a form of nominalism. Duns Scotus and William of Occam (Scotus' pupil) both held to voluntarism, but along different lines. Whereas Occam basically said that "good" is what God said it was and God's will was supreme, Duns Scotus was more like you and supposed a form of the whole "could, but would not" with respect the the relationship between God's love and God's good essence...putting primacy on the will. Again, sorry.
"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 | | |
|
Lee Merrill
booted
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 723
| Posted 3/10/2005 10:11 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Selah,
various folks said...
Lee: Yes, then if the world believes, then doesn't that imply salvation?
1 John 5:1 Everyone who believes that Jesus is the Christ is born of God…
And will Jesus' prayer not be answered, if he is praying for saving faith?
Selah: Jesus' prayer will "avail" Yes I think so. … However … do all Jesus' prayers get answered affirmatively? Mt 26:39 - And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, "My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will."
Yes, the cup did pass from him, though by him drinking it:
Matthew 26:42 Again, for the second time, he went away and prayed, "My Father, if this cannot pass unless I drink it, your will be done."
Not "if this cannot pass and I must drink it"…
Selah said...
What do you make of these?
2Pet.3:9The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.
Yes, if all do eventually repent, then God's desire is not frustrated.
Luke 13:27 But he will say, "I do not know where you come from; go away from me, all you evildoers!' 28 There will be weeping and gnashing of teeth when you see Abraham and Isaac and Jacob and all the prophets in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrown out.
Yes, and can they come in later on?
Revelation 22:17 The Spirit and the Bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who desires take the water of life without price.
This is spoken by the glorified church, on her wedding day! Then who might she be inviting? Well, let's look back two verses:
Revelation 22:15 Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood.
And for sure they are thirsty, so I think they fit this invitation.
various folks said...
Lee: So it's at least possible that all can be saved? Some would deny this, but that is what I am thinking scripture teaches here, and elsewhere.
Selah: Lee, I guess I would clarify by saying "yes, it's possible that EACH could be saved"
Well, that makes it possible for all to be saved, does it not? I'm not asking if all will be saved, just if this is at all possible.
various folks said...
Lee: Yes, and isn't joy for all people too, here, along with good news [in Luke 2:10-11]? So joy for all people seems to imply again, salvation, and not just a possibility.
Selah: I think the NEWS and the JOY that follows is INTENDED for all people. Again, there are those that REJECT the good news...how does joy follow? It doesn't make sense.
But the statement is not about an intent! It will be: "good news, and joy," we hear. The joy would come if those who reject the good news eventually all accept it, is what I would mention.
various folks said...
Lee: [John 1:17] doesn't make it certain, but shall we say God had this purpose, and will fail at it?
Selah: … we should say that God has this purpose, AND WE FAIL at it!!!
Certainly, but if God has this purpose, must we not say that he fails, as well?
various folks said...
John 6:44 No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up at the last day.
Lee: That seems pretty clear, those God draws in this life are all raised, it's singular, even, "I will raise 'him' up." Then if God draws all men, eventually, in this life, or the next, we may hope the result will be as sure…
Selah: WHY say "no one can come...blah blah" IF ALL CAN COME?
This would point out that their coming depends on God, which is actually what I believe.
Selah said...
Really, what's the point? That would be like me saying "You can not come over tomorrow unless everyone (including you) is coming over and by the way ALL ARE coming over no matter what."
No, that would be like saying "You can't come over unless I bring you" (let's say your house is on Jupiter), and you will choose to bring them all, and your choice is the ultimate one, you will bring them. The first part I believe is stated in John 6:44, the second part, in another verse in John:
John 12:32 But I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to myself.
To mention a well-known dilemma, how can this be true for those who never heard the gospel? Surely there is hope for them, based on this verse, after death, and therefore, may we say, hope for others, too?
Blessings,
Lee
==================================================
"Even now we seem to have dim glimpses into regions
from which we receive no word to bring away" (George MacDonald)Post Edited (Lee Merrill) : 3/10/2005 9:14:16 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 3/11/2005 7:57 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Hmmmm...how about this, Tom. Perhaps I just overspoke. I should have been MUCH more precise with my language. How about ... God views our ultimate harm via eternal self-destruction as so UNACCEPTABLE to God's divine purposes, that he has made a way such that the mere possibility of any sentient being experiencing eternal self-destruction does exist...but is rendered EXTREMELY REMOTE, to the point of being negligible for all intents and purposes. God could not TOTALLY REMOVE the logical possibility without denying God's telos.Ah...I think we have something here, Tom. I think that we could BOTH agree to this! yesssssssssssssssssssss!  
Meph,
Now this resonates much with me. You are in part of the heart of Open Theism; that part where a future can be known to God without it being exhaustively determined—the chances of something going against what God knows is so slim that it is, in fact, negligible.
I could, with little additional thinking of this, agree here with your concept of universalism.
Not bad Mephaphysics, Meph! Not bad
Starkman | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/12/2005 6:39 AM (GMT -6) | | Starkman:
Now this resonates much with me. You are in part of the heart of Open Theism; that part where a future can be known to God without it being exhaustively determined—the chances of something going against what God knows is so slim that it is, in fact, negligible.
I could, with little additional thinking of this, agree here with your concept of universalism.
Not bad Mephaphysics, Meph! Not bad
'Preciate the vote of confidence, homeboy. I'm hoping this works for Tom, too. I'm thinking it will. But, how many times have I thought THAT before?
Heh.
Holla,
"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 | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 4/9/2005 12:37 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi everybody
Is the option between Universalism and Eternal Conscious Torment, or is Conditional Immortality another valid choice? Universalism only started to appear in church history (along with ECT), when people took on the Greek idea that the soul is inherently immortal. If it is, then God's got to find somewhere to put the ones that aren't saved. He can either torment them forever (ECT) or purge them in hell (Universalism). But if it isn't, then there is no problem with the unrepentant being destroyed/burnt up in hell. After all, why can't God just accept people's choice that they don't want God? Love is about respecting people's freedom more that purging them in hell until they give in to God.
Just a thought
Tim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 4/9/2005 5:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Hmmmm...how about this, Tom. Perhaps I just overspoke. I should have been MUCH more precise with my language. How about...
God views our ultimate harm via eternal self-destruction as so UNACCEPTABLE to God's divine purposes, that he has made a way such that the mere possibility of any sentient being experiencing eternal self-destruction does exist...but is rendered EXTREMELY REMOTE, to the point of being negligible for all intents and purposes. God could not TOTALLY REMOVE the logical possibility without denying God's telos.
Ah...I think we have something here, Tom. I think that we could BOTH agree to this!
Tom: I can agree to this, sure. But a comment. Eternal conscious torment is not merely a logical possibility in the sense we mean “logically possible” in possible world semantics. For example, we often say God could have created worlds different than the one God did in fact create. These possible worlds are “logically possible” worlds. All that means is they don’t describe self-contradictory states of affairs. They’re logically consistent worlds even if they’re being actualized is quite impossible given the actual world. I want to say that eternal conscious torment is a possible world in the sense that it’s really actualizable given the world we in fact live in and not merely “logically” possible. So I’d say it’s “historically possible.” It’s an actualizable state of affairs facing our world.
So you’re basically saying:
a) Given God’s telos/purposes for creating us…
b) God DID everything he could (in designing us and the world) and WILL DO everything he can (post-mortem encounters, blah blah blah) to convince people to freely choose God.
I can affirm these. But they leave a lot of room for us to disagree about just how “remote” somebody’s choosing to irrevocably reject God really is in THIS world. So as it stands, it sounds OK. Sounds kinda like what I’ve been saying all along: God will do everything he can, given his purposes and the metaphysics of love and freedom, to win every single person to himself.
OK, one last thing. One possibility we’ve just passed over is this (and it’s the traditional view as I understood it growing up): Hell isn’t just eternal, conscious torment, but it’s NOT freely chosen with eyes wide open after death. It’s just the result of rejecting whatever final presentation of grace God gives a person (before and/or after death). But when people hit the flames it DOES come as a surprise and they spend eternity really regretting not having chosen Christ.
Can we discuss this view too?
Tom | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/10/2005 9:15 AM (GMT -6) | | Very briefly.
Tom:
I can agree to this, sure. But a comment. Eternal conscious torment is not merely a logical possibility in the sense we mean “logically possible” in possible world semantics. For example, we often say God could have created worlds different than the one God did in fact create. These possible worlds are “logically possible” worlds. All that means is they don’t describe self-contradictory states of affairs. They’re logically consistent worlds even if they’re being actualized is quite impossible given the actual world. I want to say that eternal conscious torment is a possible world in the sense that it’s really actualizable given the world we in fact live in and not merely “logically” possible. So I’d say it’s “historically possible.” It’s an actualizable state of affairs facing our world.
So you’re basically saying:
a) Given God’s telos/purposes for creating us…
b) God DID everything he could (in designing us and the world) and WILL DO everything he can (post-mortem encounters, blah blah blah) to convince people to freely choose God.
I can affirm these. But they leave a lot of room for us to disagree about just how “remote” somebody’s choosing to irrevocably reject God really is in THIS world. So as it stands, it sounds OK. Sounds kinda like what I’ve been saying all along: God will do everything he can, given his purposes and the metaphysics of love and freedom, to win every single person to himself.
OK, one last thing. One possibility we’ve just passed over is this (and it’s the traditional view as I understood it growing up): Hell isn’t just eternal, conscious torment, but it’s NOT freely chosen with eyes wide open after death. It’s just the result of rejecting whatever final presentation of grace God gives a person (before and/or after death). But when people hit the flames it DOES come as a surprise and they spend eternity really regretting not having chosen Christ. Can we discuss this view too?
1) In my view, if the probability of someone falling into eternal self-destruction is between 0 and 1 then it IS "historically possible" (meaning that it CAN happen), even though there is an extremely low probability of it's occurance. From my perspective, this is sufficient.
2) I'd agree with both of your statements, of course, but I would add "c)":
c) There are very good philosophical and theological reasons to believe that a possible world exists that renders an extremely high level of probability that all people will be convinced to freely choose God.
I do this because I believe c). If other's don't, that's sure fine with me. They can do them.
I do believe you'd say this, though, Tom...
Any being who is unfortunate enough to fully solidify against God (against all odds and reason) will be annihilated by God.
I think we'd both agree on THIS statement, too.
3) about the "surprise" view. Sure, we can talk about it. No problem. What do you think about the view?
-------------------------------------------------------
timlings:
Is the option between Universalism and Eternal Conscious Torment, or is Conditional Immortality another valid choice? Universalism only started to appear in church history (along with ECT), when people took on the Greek idea that the soul is inherently immortal. If it is, then God's got to find somewhere to put the ones that aren't saved. He can either torment them forever (ECT) or purge them in hell (Universalism). But if it isn't, then there is no problem with the unrepentant being destroyed/burnt up in hell. After all, why can't God just accept people's choice that they don't want God? Love is about respecting people's freedom more that purging them in hell until they give in to God.
I agree with the essential premises of Conditional Immortality metaphysically. Actually, I would say that conditional immortality would occur if, by some crazy turn of events, someone somehow defied the ENORMOUSLY low probability of falling into eternal self-destruction. I'm just saying that there are VERY good reasons to believe that there was a possible world that God has actualized where inevitable universal reconciliation has an extremely high probability of occuring.
"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 | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 4/10/2005 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | I feel I might be joining this discussion a bit late in the game, but hey.
Meph: I agree with the essential premises of Conditional Immortality metaphysically. Actually, I would say that conditional immortality would occur if, by some crazy turn of events, someone somehow defied the ENORMOUSLY low probability of falling into eternal self-destruction. I'm just saying that there are VERY good reasons to believe that there was a possible world that God has actualized where inevitable universal reconciliation has an extremely high probability of occuring.
Timlings: How about the whole idea of the solidification of character? If you spend your whole life choosing against God, you eventually get stuck in that choice and can't repent of it. When this sort of person eventually sees God in all his glory, he hates him. That's why in Revelation 14, people are tortured in the presence of the lamb! They hate God and so spending any time with him is really horrible.
But I think you know all this.
My opinion is that more information/experience of God doesn't necessarily mean a better response to God. If you like the little bit of God that you've experienced, you'll like a lot of God. But if you hate God in this life (and people do!), then when you see God in all his goodness and greatness, you'll hate him even more. I know that your argument is about reaching a rock-bottom and then giving into God... but will this always happen? if people can keep resisting God all this life (people do!) then what's to say that they won't keep doing that for a very long time yet? After all, they'll have become quite good at it, and will be hardened in that choice. Hmm...
Anyway, I'm sure that's already been thought through.
from
Timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 4/10/2005 5:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh and another thing...
Why can't our LFW keep on being free throughout all eternity?
Timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/4/2005 8:30 AM (GMT -6) | | Greetings in Christ.
Have any of you read any books by David W. Bercot? He promotes the idea that when seeking to understand the scripture all Christians should take into serious consideration the writings of the early Christian writers between the time of the New Testament and the Council of Nicea (the Ante-Nicene Christian writers) - especially those of the 2nd century.
I've recently read a couple of his books:
"Will The Real Heretics Please Stand Up: A New Look At Today's Evangelical Church in the Light of Early Christianity".
"Common Sense: A New Approach to Understanding scripture."
But his crowning achievement is a topical index of the early Christian writings titled "Dictionary of Early Christian Beliefs." This only costs $20 and I believe it to be an invaluable addition to every Christian's collection.
Bercot's argument is that, since the early Christian writers were so close to the apostles (not only in time, but in culture and language [plus, a few actually personally knew one or more apostles]), that their writings should take priority over all later Christian writings as a source of commentary on the scripture. He doesn't say that the early Christian writers were inspired, nor that their writings are authoritative, but simply that they can help us understand how the earliest Christians understood the scripture and apostolic teaching, and that this is far preferable as a source of teaching than classic Christian writings after Nicea (such as Luther, Calvin, Augustine).
I've taken his challenge seriously, and I'm prayerfully re-examining my life and my beliefs in light of the early Christian writers. I already knew that they strongly taught Freewill-Theism and Premillennialism, both of which I strongly believe scripture teaches; but what's genuinely challenging is when they are expressing a belief that I would normally have disregarded offhandedly if it had come from any contemporary Christian. But I feel I'm learning a lot which will help me grow as a Christian and know God and His word better.
Bercot's books are mostly published by this company: http://www.scrollpublishing.com/
If any of you have read anything by him (or, if you haven't yet, after you've read something), please share your thoughts.
The grace of Christ be with you | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 5/5/2005 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Starkman,
Sorry about that. Actually, I only posted it under a few topics, those which I felt were relevant to the question, and in which I felt I might encounter someone interested in the topic. But I'll keep your words in mind. | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 2:36 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 |
|
|