 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/3/2005 1:36 PM (GMT -6) |   | I found it quite telling that Meph wanted to base his argument for uniism solely on philosophical grounds, as it is quite obvious that scripture directly contradicts uniism on virtually every page. When challenged on this all-too-obvious fact, all Meph does is say all these texts have been explained by universalist writers. When simply asked to represent these writers' purported explanations of these problem passages, for whatever reason, Meph chose not to. When shown from scripture that self-seeking motives for "repentance" are not valid scripturally (e.g., Romans 2), Meph also chose not to respond. Who would NOT chose to repent and believe in Hell? In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Rich Man wanted to get out, but couldn't. Whether a parable or not, that point stands.
Finally, as the a kind of ultimate trump card, Meph just says those who bring up problems with his views are simply misrepresenting his views and don't really understand them. (Where's the rolleyes icon when you need it?)
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 3/3/2005 2:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Extremely interesting.
John:
I found it quite telling that Meph wanted to base his argument for uniism solely on philosophical grounds, as it is quite obvious that scripture directly contradicts uniism on virtually every page. When challenged on this all-too-obvious fact, all Meph does is say all these texts have been explained by universalist writers. When simply asked to represent these writers' purported explanations of these problem passages, for whatever reason, Meph chose not to. When shown from scripture that self-seeking motives for "repentance" are not valid scripturally (e.g., Romans 2), Meph also chose not to respond. Who would NOT chose to repent and believe in Hell? In the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus, the Rich Man wanted to get out, but couldn't. Whether a parable or not, that point stands.
Finally, as the a kind of ultimate trump card, Meph just says those who bring up problems with his views are simply misrepresenting his views and don't really understand them. (Where's the rolleyes icon when you need it?)
John, just because I haven't responded to your posts as you would like doesn't mean that there aren't responses available. First of all, I thought that I had mentioned some time ago why I was focussing primarily on philosophical and theological argumentation. It made no sense to me to argue for something exegetically that was either completely theological unviable or logically untenable. I believed that it was crucial to see if universalism could any any sense be a MEANINGFUL OPTION in the highest sense. After that (or actually a bit during that) we could do the exegetical stuff. I know that I clearly said this before.
But as I think about it anyway, it has become more than evident to me that you and I read scripture in different ways...and those ways will largely cause us to collide. I'm not saying that the way in which you read scripture is better or worse that mine. But it is SERIOUSLY different. Example? Your reading of Romans 2:8 in contrast to what I discuss about self-oriented motivation. You seem to take this scripture as directly applying to the situation I'm positing with dispositional realities and moving towards God for self-centered reasons. In my opinion, this is not warranted, given even the immediate context.
Romans 2:1-11 (NIV)
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are selfseeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
In Romans 2, Paul obviously contrasts the "self-seeking" in this scripture with those who DO GOOD. The point is very simple. God will render judgement according to the way that we've lived in this life. Those people who have been completely self-centered in life, not doing good to others (which is essential to Paul's concept of good deeds) are gonna have wrath and anger heaped upon them. Those who have DONE GOOD, they will get eternal life. This passage has NOTHING to do with what reasons people have behind coming to God and how that works out. Nothing! Paul was talking about divine justice being commensurate with actions done in this life. Tom's response to me was much more in line with what I was getting at...
In fairness to Mephi, I don’t think it needs to be the case that we love “perfectly” when we first choose God and so are “saved.” I’m sure there some tainted, less than agape-like motivation in even our first choice to turn to God.
YES. Some people come to God initially just because they don't want to go to Hell. Some people initially come to God because they want a mansion in heaven. Basically, there are often MIXED MOTIVES that lean towards self-orientation when some people come to God...but God works with that. This is ALL I was meaning to say...that God could do this in hell post-judgement. Accept mixed motives...even VERY self-oriented motives...in leading those beings back towards God. This had absolutely NOTHING to do with God's judgement upon people who build their lives upon complete narcissism and self-centeredness. Lives like this WILL be divinely dealt with severely. I would completely agree with that!
It is things like this that demonstrate to me our vast differences in interpreting scripture. And insofar as those interpretations are so significant, we probably won't come to any real agreements where they may count with respect to the issue of universalism. I have suggested some books, if you'd like to check them out. I'd actually check out some of the annihilationist arguments as well, given that THAT is where I'd biblically argue as far as the eternality of divine judgement's CONSEQUENCE, not ENDURANCE.
I am totally happy for us to agree to disagree, John. Respectfully.
Later,
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/3/2005 1:39:59 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/3/2005 2:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
If I were to take a stab at your questions, I would imagine that universalists would argue along the lines of making a distinction between temporality and eternality. In temporality, Judas was lost. But does this imply that he is ultimately lost? Not necessarily. Same goes for the rest of the "world" that does not come to faith in Christ in this lifetime.
Bravo, Mr. Corey, sir. Bravo. Exactly right.
Are we really saying that for universalism to be true, it would have to be explicitly represented in EVERY PRAYER that Jesus, Paul, or Peter ever made? Hmmm...I wonder how we'd come up with the Trinity if that were the type of hermeneutical methodology we were using. At any rate, I think it would behoove everything to think about something here. My version of universalism posits loss and pain within SEVERE divine judgement upon persons who are not solidified towards God in Christ. This MEANS something, yo.
"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 3/3/2005 5:22 PM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
I know about the temporal/eternal argument (almost as well as I know the "there is no eternal - only eons and eons" argument).
The problem I have is that Jesus reads pretty clear most of the time... we are the ones who hypothesize as to what he REALLY means about this or that.
10 virgins - 5 IN and 5 OUT. How hard is that?
Matthew 25:1-13
“At that time the kingdom of heaven will be like ten virgins who took their lamps and went out to meet the bridegroom. Five of them were foolish and five were wise. The foolish ones took their lamps but did not take any oil with them. The wise, however, took oil in jars along with their lamps. The bridegroom was a long time in coming, and they all became drowsy and fell asleep.
“At midnight the cry rang out: ‘Here's the bridegroom! Come out to meet him!’
“Then all the virgins woke up and trimmed their lamps. The foolish ones said to the wise, ‘Give us some of your oil; our lamps are going out.’
“ ‘No,’ they replied, ‘there may not be enough for both us and you. Instead, go to those who sell oil and buy some for yourselves.’
“But while they were on their way to buy the oil, the bridegroom arrived. The virgins who were ready went in with him to the wedding banquet. And the door was shut.
“Later the others also came. ‘Sir! Sir!’ they said. ‘Open the door for us!’
“But he replied, ‘I tell you the truth, I don't know you.’
“Therefore keep watch, because you do not know the day or the hour.
Ok. Two things. This is a continuation of the thought from chapter 24...wherein the author has Jesus talking about signs of the end as well as the UNKNOWABILITY of the day or hour in which the end will come. Very apocalypic sounding. There's two more parables after this one in chapter 25. The Talents...and the Sheep and Goats.
Now, here's the thing, Selah. Could you please show me how the 10 Virgins parable implicitly or explicitly argues against my version of universalism? I'm really trying to see it but I don't. What I do see is that there will be a time of reckoning where people are going to get MAD caught off guard at Jesus's return. And those people who are not vigilant for Christ's return would pay the price. For the life of me, Selah, I don't see how this essentially contradicts the idea of universal reconcilation.
Again, my view of universalism allows for EVERYTHING these parables are referring to. Moveover, unless we are going to argue that universalism must be made EXPLICIT by the words of Jesus to be true, I'm not seeing the issue.
Help me out.
"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 | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/3/2005 5:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
I know about the temporal/eternal argument (almost as well as I know the "there is no eternal - only eons and eons" argument).
The problem I have is that Jesus reads pretty clear most of the time... we are the ones who hypothesize as to what he REALLY means about this or that.
10 virgins - 5 IN and 5 OUT. How hard is that? I think you and I are probably in similar places... I'm trying this on too to see how it fits (can you tell I'm a kinesthetic?  )
The way I'm thinking about this is that "hell" whatever it is exactly, is going to suck and we REALLY don't want to experience any of it! The only way out that's been made crystal to us is "by grace through faith" in Jesus Christ. Most people don't choose this route, thus they're "out" and have a really rough road in front of them. In the parable of the 10 virgins, it's clear (and I accept) that 5 were IN and 5 were OUT. But wouldn't a universalist say then, "Yes, 5 out. But for how long?" My cheesy sarcastic voice imagines something like the commercial from years ago for the Ronco Mr. Microphone, "I'll be back to pick you chicks up later..."
Accept Christ! That's the immediacy we must deal with; the exact nature of hell or whether or not God has some other plan B to eventually reconcile the lost to himself is less clear to me. But let's agree that plan A is WAY BETTER than plan B, if it exists at all. I don't think I lose my sense of urgency as I try on the universalist clothing. | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2005 5:53 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Corey,
I hear ya. Immediacy and urgency. amen. Now, how can you keep those and wear the universalist clothing? Check this out:
I think Greg said it best in his book Letters from a Skeptic . (dig it out and dust it off  )
Page 158 (caps mine)
"Finally, there is one issue which is CLEAR: that is that people who have not heard and believed in the Gospel are in GRAVE DANGER. While there may be enough in the Bible to give us a SMALL DEGREE of hope for the unevangelized, there is NOTHING TO GIVE US ANY ASSURANCE about them. Indeed, EVERYTHING WE ARE TOLD IMPRESSES ON US AN URGENCY about evangelizing them. ALL PEOPLE NEED TO HEAR!"
And page 159
"I can say with certainty that all without Christ are damned, but not that all without explicit faith in Christ are damned. I can say with certainty that all outside the faith are in danger and that ONLY THOSE who have an explicit faith are ASSURED of salvation. But neither do I have a certainty that they are lost...Resolve to know God ONLY through Jesus Christ, Dad, and relax! If God is as He is revealed in His Son, He's going to judge the world in the BEST POSSIBLE WAY. We'll see that someday. Your only concern should be that you are not among those who reject Christ of their own free will. Choose to believe! Receive Him as your Lord and Savior! Let hell be God's problem, not your problem."
The distinction I see is between having assurance and and not having assurance. That's a pretty important distinction!!
As one who puts herself in a teaching/counseling position, I want to be careful to clearly represent scripture. In fact, I want to be AS careful as I would be with my own loved ones.
Somebody help me!! Mephi, I'm trying. For real.
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 3/3/2005 4:56:53 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/3/2005 7:44 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...Selah: ... Again, my view of universalism allows for EVERYTHING these parables are referring to. Moveover, unless we are going to argue that universalism must be made EXPLICIT by the words of Jesus to be true, I'm not seeing the issue. Help me out.
Two things. 1) I like your view of universalism Meph...it's tight really. I'm convinced philosophically and theologically that it's possible - I'm here aren't I? Biblically and experientially... I guess I can't seem to get it. Help me out. 2) Also, Jesus tends to have NO PROBLEM being EXPLICIT about HELL and UNITY IN HIM. Why not expect something equally EXPLICIT about HIS/YOUR view of universalism?
Throw me a scriptural bone. I'll take anything I can get at this point.
...you need to understand that I WOULD LOVE TO BE ABLE TO DO THIS.
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/3/2005 8:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Selah said...
I hear ya. Immediacy and urgency. amen. Now, how can you keep those and wear the universalist clothing?
The distinction I see is between having assurance and and not having assurance. That's a pretty important distinction!!
As one who puts herself in a teaching/counseling position, I want to be careful to clearly represent scripture. In fact, I want to be AS careful as I would be with my own loved ones.
I'm right on board with Greg's description. I agree completely we can only have assurance when we come into right relationship with God through Christ, confirmed to us by the Holy Spirit. Is that inconsistent with a (tentatively) universalist position? I don't think it is, but maybe I'm missing something.
I'm probably a little thick-headed here, but I'm not getting a sense for what the tension would be between universalism on one hand and immediacy in faith and urgency for evangelism on the other. Does it change ANYTHING about our need to relate rightly to God NOW? Delay is truly an excercise in futility, and only hurts us and those we love. Jesus is the true vine; apart from him we can do nothing.
As a teacher/counsellor, how do these clothes feel? What would counselling look like if you were a universalist? What would be different? I would think that it would be pretty much the same as it is now.... but I'm not in that field. | | Back to Top | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/3/2005 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | Corey:Delay is truly an excercise in futility, and only hurts us and those we love. Jesus is the true vine; apart from him we can do nothing.
ATW: I concur, and it would seem that this is true in either view -- so what PURPOSE does it fulfill to embrace this (Meph's) idea of universalism???? Did I miss that somewhere??? Because to me, understanding real urgency and immediacy fulfills a definite purpose. I have to admit, I don't know anyone that I would want to suffer eternal pain, but everyone will be relieved to know that's not my call ......it's tough-- Immediacy and urgency to stave off a period of time in severe judgement, or immediacy to stave off an eternity without God (whatever that ends up looking like)? Which one seems bigger for practical purposes???? Or is that just very callous of me?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2005 12:16 AM (GMT -6) | | ATW:
I concur, and it would seem that this is true in either view -- so what PURPOSE does it fulfill to embrace this (Meph's) idea of universalism???? Did I miss that somewhere??? Because to me, understanding real urgency and immediacy fulfills a definite purpose. I have to admit, I don't know anyone that I would want to suffer eternal pain, but everyone will be relieved to know that's not my call ......it's tough-- Immediacy and urgency to stave off a period of time in severe judgement, or immediacy to stave off an eternity without God (whatever that ends up looking like)? Which one seems bigger for practical purposes???? Or is that just very callous of me?
Hmmm...
First, let's do this. From Across the Spectrum, page 188. Doc is herein refuting a possible objection to post-mortem evangelism (a position that Doc holds and espouses in Satan and the Problem of Evil) Emphases mine.
2. This view undermines missions. Some people allege that if people are given a chance to accept or reject Christ after death, the urgency of evangelizing them in this life is undermined. In response, if this objection carries any weight, it does so against all evangelical views about the destiny of the unevangelized except the restrictivist view. All other views hold out hope for some people who die without Christ. Indeed, it has been argued that even the Calvinist form of restrictivism undermines the urgency of evangelism, for Calvinists believe that the elect are predestined to be saved.
There is no reason, however, to give this objection much weight. Motivation for evangelizing the world is rooted in a desire to obey the Lord who commands it, to share the joyful Good News of redemption with people who lack it, and to glorify God by having as many people as possible acknowledge him in this lifetime as the rightful Lord of all creation. Believers do not need to be convinced that the eternal destiny of people hinges on their evangelism efforts to feel compelled to share the Gospel with them.
Hopefully, we are NOT in the evangelism business simply based on the lengt of duration of a hellish existence! Hopefully, we are in the evangelism business as faithful stewards of Christ's Kingdom...and because we long for nothing less but the glorification of God and the spread of God's love through speaking about the redemptive work of the Triune God.
Heh.
"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 3/4/2005 12:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
The way I'm thinking about this is that "hell" whatever it is exactly, is going to suck and we REALLY don't want to experience any of it! The only way out that's been made crystal to us is "by grace through faith" in Jesus Christ. Most people don't choose this route, thus they're "out" and have a really rough road in front of them. In the parable of the 10 virgins, it's clear (and I accept) that 5 were IN and 5 were OUT. But wouldn't a universalist say then, "Yes, 5 out. But for how long?" My cheesy sarcastic voice imagines something like the commercial from years ago for the Ronco Mr. Microphone, "I'll be back to pick you chicks up later..."
Accept Christ! That's the immediacy we must deal with; the exact nature of hell or whether or not God has some other plan B to eventually reconcile the lost to himself is less clear to me. But let's agree that plan A is WAY BETTER than plan B, if it exists at all. I don't think I lose my sense of urgency as I try on the universalist clothing.
COMPLETELY on point, man! We have a command from Jesus to make disciples, the lordship of Christ to declare, the reality of a hellish existence to warn about, people in bondage to help God free, and, most of all, the love of God shed abroad in our hearts to share with everyone we can.
Are we REALLY saying that this is not enough to ground the missiology of the Church??
Utterly astounded.
Again, good stuff, Corey.
"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 | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/4/2005 7:01 AM (GMT -6) | | |
MephEternal said...
Hopefully, we are NOT in the evangelism business simply based on the lengt of duration of a hellish existence! Hopefully, we are in the evangelism business as faithful stewards of Christ's Kingdom...and because we long for nothing less but the glorification of God and the spread of God's love through speaking about the redemptive work of the Triune God.
I'm reading through a book right now by Randy Klassen, What Does the Bible Really Say about Hell? : Wrestling with the Traditional View. He points out something I had not noticed before about apostolic teaching: fear of burning eternally in a conscious hell was NOT preached as part of their gospel message.
"It must be taken seriously that the content of the first-century proclamation according to the book of Acts lacks any reference to hell; judgment is addressed, yes, but hell, no. The significance of this omission has been missed by "hell-fire and damnation" preachers throughout the centuries. Yet surely the preaching of those first messengers of the gospel, those nearest to the ministry of Jesus, ought to be a reliable model for us. Despite the godless character of their surrounding culture, they never felt the Spirit leading them to use threats of hell in their proclamations." (p36) Post Edited (Corey) : 3/4/2005 6:06:18 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/4/2005 8:15 AM (GMT -6) | | 1a) I'm looking for themes, but I wouldn't mind hearing some specific passages (other than the two above) coming straight out of your mouth/fingers onto the page. See, it's one thing for me to know how this or that theologian plays around with scripture/ideas/the hottest new doubt etc. It's quite another to talk to YOU as someone I know who holds a unique view based on your individual (and very complex) experience in dealing with the text AND applying it to real life. Does that make sense?
1b) Experientially. YES! I am having a very hard time doing universalism in my head! Can I elaborate? Well, I suppose I can but it will be hard because I'll hear your objections in my head! In other words, I can attempt to lay out how I do it internally, but you could easily reply with a clarified theoretical point. That doesn't help me internally Meph. I understand your qualifications and how you work it out theoretically, but when I try to enter in something happens. Let me try by giving you an example, say I'm a pastor who normally gives passionate altar calls - I mean I'm cryin.' I REALLY want everyone to see/feel/hear Jesus and be deeply touched by his love in this world now. I can taste it. All the angels in heaven rejoicing...that kind of thing. Now, enter ANY form of universalism including yours. If I were to completely believe 100% that all would have a remnant (and likely MORE than a remnant!) in Heaven, I'd lose at least some of my passion...it would just happen. Not like I'd decide or something. I may even skip altar call after a while. Deep down I would settle into the fact that this world as nothing more than an empty experiment. If God determines to save all, even HE was wanting none to perish for no reason... see, even scripture is a joke. I haven't even touched on the ethical implications...
Bigger rewards for those who chose him now? ok. I can go that far. Maybe I didn't even answer your question, I don't know.
I definitely see it as a form of determinism. How do you do it in your head?
If you can help me, I'll love you for eons and eons!!!
2) We can't argue from silence huh? Yep. I know "they" say that, but who are they? The same people who made up the idea of arguing from philosophy and theology rather than scripture? I don't know if I trust them if that's the case. Yep. I see the issue. Theologians prancing around showing off "their" concept/doubt/interpretation de jour... that's the issue. Bet on it. If they end up writing on it/speaking on it/prancing long enough they may even defend it to the grave.
whoa I'm getting crabby :(
Bottom line. The part that doesn't seem to compute is that every time I try on universalism (or any FINAL decision on the afterlife) I feel like I'm doing God's job not mine. I feel like I do about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Maybe I was never meant to KNOW for certain. Just like I don't KNOW about the fate of someone who practices homosexuality or greed (or whatever) and to what degree that's bad. God knows. I don't. What I DO know is what I can focus on! I know Christ and his love and my worth to him because of the Cross. That's my assurance...not my hypothesis.
If we work from what we know to what we don't know, I think we'd all have to say "I KNOW that he DID explicitly talk about hell. I also KNOW that he DIDN'T explicitly talk about universal salvation." See the issue?
ok, peace, joy, and love,
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 3/4/2005 9:07:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 3/4/2005 8:40 AM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
Hopefully, we are NOT in the evangelism business simply based on the lengt of duration of a hellish existence! Hopefully, we are in the evangelism business as faithful stewards of Christ's Kingdom...and because we long for nothing less but the glorification of God and the spread of God's love through speaking about the redemptive work of the Triune God.
I'm in the evangelism business because I want others to experience Christ's love, provision, care, continual presence, wisdom, power, faithfulness, forgiveness and beauty. Hopefully through that He will be glorified.
Corey said...
I'm reading through a book right now by Randy Klassen, What Does the Bible Really Say about Hell? : Wrestling with the Traditional View. He points out something I had not noticed before about apostolic teaching: fear of burning eternally in a conscious hell was NOT preached as part of their gospel message.
"It must be taken seriously that the content of the first-century proclamation according to the book of Acts lacks any reference to hell; judgment is addressed, yes, but hell, no. The significance of this omission has been missed by "hell-fire and damnation" preachers throughout the centuries. Yet surely the preaching of those first messengers of the gospel, those nearest to the ministry of Jesus, ought to be a reliable model for us. Despite the godless character of their surrounding culture, they never felt the Spirit leading them to use threats of hell in their proclamations." (p36)
My problem with this Corey is that whether or not someone spoke about Hell when preaching in the first century, Jesus spoke about hell. That's pretty significant. Perhaps the real lesson here is that GOD CAN DO THAT we can't/we shouldn't?
I like Randy Klassen. Read some of his other stuff.
Blessings, love and spring showers,
selah
For your steadfast love is higher than the heavens, and your faithfulness reaches to the clouds.
psalm 108:4Post Edited (Selah) : 3/4/2005 7:43:23 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2005 10:13 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
1a) I'm looking for themes, but I wouldn't mind hearing some specific passages (other than the two above) coming straight out of your mouth/fingers onto the page. See, it's one thing for me to know how this or that theologian plays around with scripture/ideas/the hottest new doubt etc. It's quite another to talk to YOU as someone I know who holds a unique view based on your individual (and very complex) experience in dealing with the text AND applying it to real life. Does that make sense?
Hmmm...I guess we might have to get to the scriptural stuff sooner than I would have liked. Again, my own personal take on all this is will employ the "standard" universalist interpretations (mainly of Pauline assertions) IN TANDEM WITH the annihiliationist interpretations dealing with destruction of the wicked. BOTH OF THESE will be read with the metaphysical insights of a more process (rather than substantialist) view of subjectivity and the self.
It's best to go ahead and acknowledge all this up front. Why? Because 1) some people don't value the annihilationist readings of texts and 2) some people don't value process philosophical understandings of the world at all...or 3) even IF they understand process philsophy to some degree, they don't think it should affect our view of the "soul" or how things like "destruction" play out. For anyone who fits in those categories, I can definitely say my argumentation will not be as persuasive as it could be.
Again, it's best to say all of this now.
***********************
Selah:
1b) Experientially. YES! I am having a very hard time doing universalism in my head! Can I elaborate? Well, I suppose I can but it will be hard because I'll hear your objections in my head! In other words, I can attempt to lay out how I do it internally, but you could easily reply with a clarified theoretical point. That doesn't help me internally Meph. I understand your qualifications and how you work it out theoretically, but when I try to enter in something happens. Let me try by giving you an example, say I'm a pastor who normally gives passionate altar calls - I mean I'm cryin.' I REALLY want everyone to see/feel/hear Jesus and be deeply touched by his love in this world now. I can taste it. All the angels in heaven rejoicing...that kind of thing. Now, enter ANY form of universalism including yours. If I were to completely believe 100% that all would have a remnant (and likely MORE than a remnant!) in Heaven, I'd lose at least some of my passion...it would just happen. Not like I'd decide or something. I may even skip altar call after a while. Deep down I would settle into the fact that this world as nothing more than an empty experiment. If God determines to save all, even HE was wanting none to perish for no reason... see, even scripture is a joke. I haven't even touched on the ethical implications...
Bigger rewards for those who chose him now? ok. I can go that far. Maybe this didn't even answer your question, I don't know.
How do you do this form of determinism in your head?
If you can help me do it too, I'll love you for eons and eons!!!
What I'm hearing you say:
1) Any form of universalism diminishes your passion about bringing people to God.
2) Any form of universalism renders all human history of no real consequence.
3) Any form of universalism makes scripture "a joke"
Hey, I can't judge anyone else's thoughts and how they do things. That's them. I will say that I am having the hardest time trying to put this on and do this in my head like you are.
But you've asked me how I do it. How about this...
First, I look around me. I look at what's going on in the world. I see demonic matrices EVERYONE, plaguing and destroying life. This is NOT to say that I don't see the glory of God's good creation in life. I do. But I also see all of the pain, hatred, heartache, and powerlessness. I see people who have been given HELLIFIED hard life situations that make it EXTREMELY HARD for them to trust any human being...let alone a God. I see people whose very cultural heritages makes things hard for them to see the truth of Jesus Christ. I think about people who have hardened themselves into pathetic shells of the people that God has created them to be. I think about ALL of the psychological and emotional maladies that assault the human psyche that make even healthy HUMAN relationships almost impossible (YOU should know about this one, Selah) I think about how extremely VIOLENT and anti-Kingdom human history as been nearly ever since the beginning of recorded history. For example, I think about a young woman with AIDS in Cambodia whose been a lifelong product of the child sex trade existence. She's now 20, scarred beyond belief, and not knowing Jesus. Forced to give sexual favors by her grandmother to help pay for the other 5 kids in the house. Utter marginalization.
I look around at this and I see a form of hell already...that MANY people exist in every day.
Then I think about some those same people dying in their trapped up lives...only to fall into a hellish existence that has no other purpose than to have them there...for eternity. And I don't view hell as some self-created "country club" away from God where they are actually happy of a sorts (like C.S. Lewis' view) I have them being subjectively and objectively miserable...basically leaping from the frying pan of this life into the ever-enduring fire of a horrendous afterlife.
Moreover I look at the CHURCH. And think about Matthew 7:21-23
“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’"
To me, this was clear enough. There would be many people who were SELF-DECEIVED into thinking that they were cool with God...only to find out later that they were very, very wrong. Sure, you could try to "evaluate your fruit"...but how could you EVER REALLY know the depths of your heart. Jeremiah said that the heart was deceitful about all things...but I don't think he had any idea. If he knew even HALF about what we know about our unconscious and subconscious motivations, abnormal psychology, and socialization, he'd have a friggin cow about HOW deceived we can be!! I knew enough about this to know that any facile assurance of salvation was only a form of self-assurance and nothing more. How could ANYONE truly know in their depths what they thought about God? How could anyone TRULY know what God really thought about their inner being? Isn't self-deception a mother???
What all this spelled out to me was that there were MANY, MANY people destined for hell. It didn't take rocket science to figure it out.
Using your model, I imagine myself giving an altar call. I imagine some those people who DO answer actually
--giving assent to something they don't really understand
--just trying to get fire insurance
--responding to some deep emotional need that's not related to God at all
--doing something because there's nothing else left for them to try.
And THAT's just for the people who come. For the VAST MULTITUDE who don't come who don't have a loving relationship with God, there are innumerable reasons why they may not come. Maybe there's a prostitute in the house who can't get away from her own self-hatred enough to hear what I'm saying. Maybe there's a self-righteous "believer" who truly thinks she's ok...but doesn't understand that they've NEVER truly believed. Maybe there's the alcholic so trapped in their compulsion, they are lost in themselves. Who knows! And I'm believing the the Holy Spirit has been working with (and is working with) all of these people attempting to bring them to Jesus. I think about them going right back to their self-deceived, hellish lives another day. And I think about how, for some, this may have been their last day to see this earth, unbeknownst to them. Only for them to fall into a greater, everlasting hell.
When I think about all of this...when I REALLY enter this emotionally and not just intellectually...my despair is almost more than I can contain. It's utterly overwhelming. Going from the frying pan to the fire. But hey, life's a b*tch anyways, right? Besides that, who am I? God is God. God is the supreme authority. And God has the right to do whatever God wants to do (I still believe this! This aspect of my theistic bootlicking hasn't changed!) But that's just it. When I think about God being love...God actually loving these people much, much, MUCH more than I could ever imagine doing, I have the hardest time imagining God NOT being one of the most mournful beings in existence. Surely, if a wretched human being as myself can only wail and weep when I think about this state of affairs, SURELY a God of perfect love who would give up his very SELF for us would feel the pain much more deeply and enduringly. And I imagine God feeling that mournful pain FOREVER AND EVER!
I then feel like Jesus in Gethsemene. "God, is there NO OTHER WAY here? Is there NO OTHER WAY to get your goals accomplished than to have people languish in an everlasting hell after a temporal one. Is there NO OTHER WAY than to have death and hell have the last word?? Is there NO OTHER WAY??? Hey, but if there's no other way, let your will be done."
But...there IS another way. There IS another way!!
I see another way that God could fully consummate divine justice, validates moral autonomy, and provide for God's divine purposes...WHILE AT THE SAME TIME...guaranteeing Godself that no one would be ETERNALLY lost. I see God, in mysterious, majestic fashion, insuring Himself that he would enjoy a fully renewed Creation. I also see God insuring Godself that even the most hardened, self-dispising being will EVENTUALLY experience the love of God...something they may have never subjectively experienced before.
I see a God so committed to his own eternal happiness and OUR eternal benefit that he views our eternal self-destruction as an UNACCEPTABLE RISK that he takes steps to avoid. (Such a MARVELOUS GOD. Hallelujah!! I'm teary right now!)
Then I look back out into that crowd of people to whom I'm giving the altar call. And I see all the people who haven't come to receive the wonderful offer of God. And even though my heart breaks for them...there is a tendril of joy. I say in my mind...
"One day, my brothers and sisters, one DAY you will experience unimaginable love. ONE DAY, you will see God in all his loving glory. You may go through utter HELL to do so, but one day, you will see the Holy Loving God in all his majesty. You are inwardly weeping and mourning right now, but oh GLORY, joy will come in the morning for you. For God has declared it so. One day."
When I do this in my mind...when I REALLY do this in my head...I literally CANNOT HELP but immediately go into praise! I literally cannot HELP talking about the wonderous love of God in the midst of our hellish human history. I literally cannot STOP myself from wanting to go day after day telling people about the love of God in Christ. I cannot HELP wanting to introduce people to God's love, joy, mercy, peace, and power RIGHT NOW!! I find a source of energy INEXHAUSTIBLE. I feel the love and passion of God's heart. I feel his JOY at the thought of the culmination of all of eternity. He is WORTHY! Let His glory be magnified! (God, I wanna preach right now!)
I don't see my view of universalism diminishing my passion. I see it INCREASING my passion to near manic levels.
I don't see my view of universalism rendering all human history of no consequence. I see it eternally HONORING our choices (good and bad) while bringing humankind to it's TRUE PURPOSE in giving and receiving the love of God forever and ever.
I don't see my view of universalism making scripture a "joke". I see it making the Salvation History within the most BITTERSWEET story ever told...a story of love, loss, pain, and redemption...with the HAPPIEST ENDING imaginable.
Selah, in short, we see things totally differently!
Whew...didn't mean to go off there...but when I seriously live in this...I get so full...ooooweeee!
******************************
Selah:
2) We can't argue from silence huh? Yep. I know "they" say that, but who are they? The same people who made up the idea of arguing from philosophy and theology rather than scripture? I don't know if I trust them if that's the case. Yep. I see the issue. Theologians prancing around showing off "their" concept/doubt/interpretation de jour... that's the issue. Bet on it. If they end up writing on it/speaking on it/prancing long enough they may even defend it to the grave.
Ummm...sorry. I didn't really get this one.
*************************************
Selah:
The part that doesn't seem to compute is that every time I try on universalism (or any FINAL decision on the afterlife) I feel like I'm doing God's job not mine. I feel like I do about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Maybe I was never meant to KNOW for certain. Just like I don't KNOW about the fate of someone who practices homosexuality or greed (or whatever) and to what degree that's bad. God knows. I don't. What I DO know is what I can focus on! I know Christ and his love and my worth to him because of the Cross. That's my assurance...not my hypothesis.
If we work from what we know to what we don't know, I think we'd all have to say "I KNOW that he DID explicitly talk about hell. I also KNOW that he DIDN'T explicitly talk about universal salvation." See the issue?
To be sure, there is MUCH we cannot know about God. God is mystery, after all. All we can struggle to know about God is according to God's varying revelation. However, I believe that we can have varying degrees of certainty, given certain ideas. For example, I think that you, Selah, would be fairly ASSURED to you that God is not lying to all of us, deceiving the whole world. I think you would be CERTAIN that God is love. Why are you CERTAIN of those things? Think about that.
For me, insofar as I believe these things, universalism follows for me:
1. God IS love. Not God is "loving" God IS love.
2. God is completely omnipotent. God can accomplish whatever God wants to accomplish that doesn't a) violate the laws of logic and b) does not go against God's necessary essential existence.
3. God REALLY wants display His glorious nature to something OTHER THAN God and have it represented back to God by that something. In words, God requires relative ontological distinction.
4. God REALLY wants those "others" to participate significantly in their OWN moral existence. In other word, the relative ontological distinction facilitates moral autonomy and responsibility.
5. God REALLY wants all sentient beings in Creation to embody and reflect God's glorious nature to God and each other forever...extending the "dance of the Trinity"
6. God REALLY DOESN'T WANT any sentient being to experience eternal destruction. Not only because it's bad for the sentient beings...but because that would TAKE AWAY from God's own aesthetic experience of contingent reality.
7. If there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that God can actualize God's own divine disposition and intentions, God will do so.
These ideas follow from what I see the Triune God do with the Christ Work in scripture.
My thing is this: If I'm wrong, I won't fault God for not actualizing universalism. He's God after all. And universalism not being true wouldn't change the truth of God's work for us in Jesus. Moreover, if I'm wrong, I don't believe God will fault me terribly for believing in God's power and wisdom to save all. I just believe, for reasons I've share numerous times, that He WANTS to do it and He CAN do 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 | | |
|
AtTheWell
Registered Member
Date Joined Nov 2004
Total Posts : 133
| Posted 3/4/2005 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph:
Hopefully, we are NOT in the evangelism business simply based on the lengt of duration of a hellish existence! Hopefully, we are in the evangelism business as faithful stewards of Christ's Kingdom...and because we long for nothing less but the glorification of God and the spread of God's love through speaking about the redemptive work of the Triune God.
ATW:
Point well taken... thanks for reminding me. 
It was NOT my intention to suggest that was the sole reason for evangelism-- I just couldn't deny that the thought of some eternal separation as a motivation for my initial conversion is in my head. I mean, I see how that is selfishly for all the wrong reasons, I would LOVE to be able to say that I came to Christ solely because I understood our perfectly loving the Father and wanted to glorify Christ, period... but to be honest I have to admit there was some relief about not having to endure the whole hell thing. Anybody with me on this?? Is that just a result of growing up in a fear based society?
As I grow, and seek the selfless existence, Christ increasing, glorifying HIM, this is certainly NOT an acceptable reason to continue..... anyway, just my thoughts rolling out.
Peace, ATW Post Edited (AtTheWell) : 3/4/2005 10:04:09 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 3/4/2005 10:55 AM (GMT -6) | |
Bottom line. The part that doesn't seem to compute is that every time I try on universalism (or any FINAL decision on the afterlife) I feel like I'm doing God's job not mine. I feel like I do about the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Maybe I was never meant to KNOW for certain. Just like I don't KNOW about the fate of someone who practices homosexuality or greed (or whatever) and to what degree that's bad. God knows. I don't. What I DO know is what I can focus on! I know Christ and his love and my worth to him because of the Cross. That's my assurance...not my hypothesis.
I think you're right; we just don't KNOW if universalism is true. The best I think we can do is speculate about it. As I'm trying this garment on, it's definitely outer-wear, one of the layers I'm willing to shed if it gets too hot. I'm not banking my soul on it, nor advising anyone I know to count on it. All we do KNOW is that Christ is calling to us NOW, and for good reason.
I've been thinking about the parable of the workers in the vineyard. I know that had a different audience and a different intention, but nonetheless the pattern in it may apply. If God somehow brings it about that those that didn't "work all day" can still get paid, who am I to complain? I've still received everything I was promised.
Note that the workers who start work at the beginning of the day knew nothing about the master's intention to pay to same wage to those that started at the end. It probably just would have been distracting.
Post Edited (Corey) : 3/4/2005 10:37:50 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2005 11:11 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
"SK is like a life raft in a sea of abstract systems, hermenuetics, theories, irresolvable questions, irrelevancies, rediculous debates about time, etc."
I couldn't have said it better. I might not know how to describe much of anything these days, but I sure do resonate with this quote. It captures how I feel about discussing universalism...AND how I feel about SK.
Two things:
1) Wow. I didn't know it'd be this stressful for you or ANYONE to ponder universal salvation. Seriously. How about you just take it easy...and believe what are able to believe, whatever that may be. There's no harm in that.
2) Personally, from the amount I've read of SK, I feel like SK is a deconstructionist par excellence. (Not in the Derridian sense) It goes quite well with theistic existentialism. At any rate, one of the main insights I get from him is very simple: Live what you believe passionately, deliberately, and wholeheartedly. THIS is the life of faith, which includes wrestling of various types...whereas merely living in the intellectual realm of this things does not.
************************
Corey:
I think you're right; we just don't KNOW if universalism is true. The best I think we can do is speculate about it. As I'm trying this garment on, it's definitely outer-wear, one of the layers I'm willing to shed if it gets too hot. I'm not banking my soul on it, nor advising anyone I know to count on it. All we do KNOW is that Christ is calling to us NOW, and for good reason.
Good stuff, man. As I've stated before, it's not like a person HAS to take universalism to be true in order to be a Christian. Christian universalism is a FAITH CLAIM that I make. Just like all theology or metaphysics, we cannot know the things discussed to be OBJECTIVELY TRUE with complete certainty. Faith (in the philosophical sense) is always involved.
To be sure, EVERYONE'S theologies are inaccurate to some degree. We just have to live what we believe.
"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 3/4/2005 11:27 AM (GMT -6) | | I'm actually trying to put on the hat of seeing eventual universal reconciliation as bad. As something NOT to be desired.
Dude...I am having the HARDEST time. This is all for me PERSONALLY, ok? The idea of everyone...ABSOLUTELY EVERYONE...growing in the enjoyment and reciprocation of God's love after being enduring the refiner's fire. I just can't seem to find anything bad about this, existentially speaking.
Here's the main thing I can't get, though.
I can't make coherent the belief that the omnipotent, infinitely-intelligent, perfectly loving God, all things considered, would PREFER allowing the eternal self-destruction of possibly multiple sentient creatures as an acceptable risk...while at the same time believing that God's MAIN OVERRIDING PURPOSE for the entire Creative work was love and it's expansion such that it was God's TRUE DESIRE that everyone come to receive and give God's love and "dance with the Trinity" eternally.
If I were to believe in some OTHER telos (like freedom, a certain view of "glory", or something like that), then it would be absolutely no problem whatsoever. Seriously.
Doc tried to get around this very tension with the idea of a METAPHYSICAL limitation that God just couldn't get around. God just COULDN'T do universal reconciliation AND have his desire for a universe of love met. However, this is MUCH less than persuasive to me at this point. I KNOW that Doc would at least admit there is a VERY VERY good reason to hope for universalism...at least.
Just more of my thoughts.
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/4/2005 11:19:18 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
JEE
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2004
Total Posts : 1466
| Posted 3/4/2005 12:33 PM (GMT -6) | | MephEternal said...
John, just because I haven't responded to your posts as you would like doesn't mean that there aren't responses available.
Hi Meph,
I never meant to imply that you should respond to my posts as I would like. What a silly attitude that would be! It just seemed to me like you were avoiding the really crucial aspect of this issue; i.e, "What do the Holy scriptures say?"
First of all, I thought that I had mentioned some time ago why I was focussing primarily on philosophical and theological argumentation. It made no sense to me to argue for something exegetically that was either completely theological unviable or logically untenable. I believed that it was crucial to see if universalism could any any sense be a MEANINGFUL OPTION in the highest sense. After that (or actually a bit during that) we could do the exegetical stuff. I know that I clearly said this before.
The problem with this approach seems to me to be that philosophically it's a no brainer; of course God could save everybody if He chose to. So the problem really just comes down to exegetical concerns as far as I can tell.
But as I think about it anyway, it has become more than evident to me that you and I read scripture in different ways...and those ways will largely cause us to collide. I'm not saying that the way in which you read scripture is better or worse that mine. But it is SERIOUSLY different. Example? Your reading of Romans 2:8 in contrast to what I discuss about self-oriented motivation. You seem to take this scripture as directly applying to the situation I'm positing with dispositional realities and moving towards God for self-centered reasons. In my opinion, this is not warranted, given even the immediate context.
Romans 2:1-11 (NIV)
You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge the other, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things. Now we know that God's judgment against those who do such things is based on truth. So when you, a mere man, pass judgment on them and yet do the same things, do you think you will escape God's judgment? Or do you show contempt for the riches of his kindness, tolerance and patience, not realizing that God's kindness leads you toward repentance?
But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed. God “will give to each person according to what he has done.” To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honor and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are selfseeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger. There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; but glory, honor and peace for everyone who does good: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. For God does not show favoritism.
In Romans 2, Paul obviously contrasts the "self-seeking" in this scripture with those who DO GOOD. The point is very simple. God will render judgement according to the way that we've lived in this life. Those people who have been completely self-centered in life, not doing good to others (which is essential to Paul's concept of good deeds) are gonna have wrath and anger heaped upon them. Those who have DONE GOOD, they will get eternal life. This passage has NOTHING to do with what reasons people have behind coming to God and how that works out. Nothing! Paul was talking about divine justice being commensurate with actions done in this life. Tom's response to me was much more in line with what I was getting at...
The point I was trying to make was that this passage reveals that self-seeking motives are not accepted by God as true REPENTANCE (which as I'm sure you know biblically is a radical, 180-degree change/reversal of the direction/disposition of one's heart and mind from that of loving self supremely to that of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself).
It seems to me that your argument for the possibility of post-mortem repentance in Hell ignores this fact by positing the idea that self-seeking motives would be acceptable by God as true repentance, while in the flames of Hell no less, when He clearly says that such "repentance" is only feigned and NOT real. For your idea to be true, Romans 2 needs to be rewritten to say, "but for those who are self-seeking (except those who have suffered in Hell sufficiently to lead them to true repentance and faith in God), tribulation, anguish, wrath, etc." Jesus should've said, "the IMpure in heart shall see God," and "thou shalt love the LORD thy God will some of your heart, soul, mind, and strength.
YES. Some people come to God initially just because they don't want to go to Hell. Some people initially come to God because they want a mansion in heaven. Basically, there are often MIXED MOTIVES that lean towards self-orientation when some people come to God...but God works with that. This is ALL I was meaning to say...that God could do this in hell post-judgement. Accept mixed motives...even VERY self-oriented motives...in leading those beings back towards God. This had absolutely NOTHING to do with God's judgement upon people who build their lives upon complete narcissism and self-centeredness. Lives like this WILL be divinely dealt with severely. I would completely agree with that!
Yes, I believe I get your concept of hell as penal but ultimately purgative and rehabilitative of the sinner. And I understand the possibility of mixed motives; but the text remains undiluted. According to Paul, people who are self-seeking do not and CHOOSE not come to God, for they are completely disinclined to do so. Unless and until sincere repentance and faith in Christ, everyone goes about their self-seeking way. This is a very fundamental theme in the first three chapters of Romans. It is not clear why this principle would cease to hold true in Hell.
I'm fine with agreeing to disagree, too. Meph. I really wasn't posting for your benefit anyway. I saw clearly, a long while ago, that you and I have some very different presuppositions, especially when it comes to script ure.
May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ be with your spirit.
JohnE
http://revivaltheology.netPost Edited (JEE) : 3/4/2005 11:36:51 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/4/2005 1:07 PM (GMT -6) | | John:
The point I was trying to make was that this passage reveals that self-seeking motives are not accepted by God as true REPENTANCE (which as I'm sure you know biblically is a radical, 180-degree change/reversal of the direction/disposition of one's heart and mind from that of loving self supremely to that of loving God supremely and one's neighbor as oneself).
Let's go with something here. Let's say for the sake of argument that is indeed what the passage reveals. And that repentance is as INSTANT as I'm interpreting it from you. It would seem that most likely VERY, VERY few of any of us truly "repent" when we think we are doing so. If "repent" by definition is an momentous unchangable TOTAL REORIENTATION from any vestige of self-centeredness to God-centeredness seeing God as Source...then I HIGHLY DOUBT that many of us have truly experienced this in this life. The very idea of "mixed motives" wouldn't fit into this idea of repentance. Think about it. Is a person who acknowledges his sin problem, fears the reality of hell and doesn't want to go there and turns to God on that basis primarily "repenting"? It wouldn't seem so. If a person decided they wanted to experience the perfect bliss of love for eternity and turned to God on THAT basis, would this be "repenting"? Nope. Not necessarily. In either of these cases, are we saying that God doesn't accept this movement towards God at all??
The question is this: Will God accept MOVEMENT TOWARDS God...even if there is a significant amount of self-orientation involved in that movement? Would God accept the neophyte believer who HASN'T had this 180 degree turn where there is TOTAL REORIENTATION and wholehearted God-centered existence? I believe he would. I believe that God does just like Paul did in Athens. He will start from where people are while there's hope for them...and He will work to move them towards himself. This is no different than what we do in relational evangelism or contextualized theology within missiology. CENTERED thinking rather than BOUNDED thinking. Movement rather than static placement. At any rate, I don't believe that the scripture in question (Roman 2:1-11) even addresses this particular issue.
In short, I think that repentance, biblically speaking, is turning from one's CURRENT path of destruction. MOVEMENT towards God...which leads to increasing movement away from the "flesh" view of self. Blessings,
"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
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 3/4/2005 12:11:34 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 72 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:55 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 |
|
|