 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > The Evangelical Universalist | Forum Quick Jump
|
 | 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/6/2006 7:41 AM (GMT -6) |   | Corey,
Here we go...
God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature.
This, I think solves the problem. It keeps the pithy direction of Piper's maxim. It keeps a requisite focus on God's glory...but it also puts the main point up there: God's nature which is LOVE. God cannot be separated from God's ad intra existence (essence) as being love.
This is close enough to what some Calvinists would already understand...AND...it makes sure to focus on a undeniably biblical truth: that God IS love.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 10/6/2006 7:44:32 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/10/2006 10:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Thanks for your input, Don.
How does this fit you:
God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's all-loving nature.
Yes/No?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature." -- the new mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/12/2006 4:57 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's nature.
Tom: I don't particularly care for the "...in God's nature." I'll stick with just "...in God." Sure, people have different understandings of God. But they'll have different understandings of God's nature too! So what's the addition of "nature" suppose to help with?
"...in God's nature" makes me feel like we're saying God is glorified most in us when our theology is right. But just saying "in God" appears more directly personal and experiential. It's like saying people most make me happy when they're most satisfied in Tom's nature. Besides being a slightly strange way of talking, it sounds like somebody could study my attributes and nature and really love it without ever MEETING me. But it's the MEETING that's suppose to satisfy. And its the meeting that's supposed to inform our understanding of the "nature."
Just say: "when we're most satisfied in God" and leave it at that. The simplicity is powerful.
Am I nit-picking?
Tom
PS I thought the "glorification principle" was originally offered in the context of theodicy; specifically, to explain WHY and HOW it is that God allows evil, makes compatible use of people who do evil, and gets 'complicitly' dirty hands in relationship with a conflicted and fallen world.
Has something changed? If we're wanting a pithy statement, something equivalent to E=mc2, then: "God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in God" works really well. But it's less helpful as a theodicy tool and more helpful as a kinda of general principle stating where and how God gets glory.
Post Edited (TGB) : 10/12/2006 5:09:06 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/16/2006 8:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo.
The Holy Tribunal has conferred (Namaste, Corey, TGB) and we have decided what the glad declaration of all of the children of the Most Holy Triune God will be...
God is most glorified in us when we are most satisfied in God's love.
Also, we have decided that the God of Unsurpassable Beauty is also that God who helps people to raise all human beings from the ashes of their despair to become beautiful Phoenixes to the Glory of God and the pleasure of Creation.
As it is written...
So shall it be.
For the Glory of the Creator and the Healing of Creation,
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/16/2006 8:30:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/16/2006 3:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 10/16/2006 3:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
Namaste said...POW: Calvin uses the word "glory" in two ways.
Anyone know how?I give. Speak on.
1. One is along the lines of credit/praise.
2. The other is along the line of His ENERGIES.
From there I'm musing the grammar of God being "glorified" when his works are allowed to bring fruit -- for then his grace/glory is allowed to be seen.
What do you think of that gramatical-intuition?
(o) Post Edited (PotOnWheel) : 10/16/2006 5:05:41 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/22/2006 11:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | BTW, the more I'm reading the book which started this thread, the more I like it. I'd say it's worth having in your library. Although I think his overall case could benefit from a better understanding and application of open theism, there seems to be much of his thought (which is influence heavily by Talbott, to whom the book is dedicated) that I can agree with.
Chapter 6, which deals biblically with the doctrine of hell, starts with a quote from Clement of Alexandria:
But as children are punished by their teacher or their father, so we are punished by Providence. Now God does not exact vengeance (for vengeance is retribution for evil), but rather he punishes for the good, both public and private, of those who are being punished.
He proceeds to outline three possible approaches reconciling texts about eternal damnation with universalist texts.
- A universalist could argue that the passages really do teach eternal damnation and that they simply contradict the teaching of more universalist texts.
- A universalist could try to find a way to affirm the truth of both the universalist and the hell texts. We should see the vision of damnation as the truth from the perspective of the person facing the decision with which the gospel confronts them. Both sets of texts are true, but only one set will be realized in the actual future. (John A. T. Robinson)
- A universalist could argue that the hell texts do not actually affirm everlasting damnation but warn of a terrible but temporary fate. (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa)
The author proceeds to pursue option 3, but I would like to give option 2 more exploration. Have any of you taken this approach? Can you describe your thought-journey on that path? Post Edited (Corey) : 10/22/2006 1:51:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 10/22/2006 2:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey, I've never even heard of the idea conveyed in 2) before. But I'm not sure what it buys us to suppose there are no post-mortem, negative consequences for the sufferings/privations we cause. It seems to me that if there are any such consequences/ramifications at all, then 3) is the easiest way to explain much of Christ's language--especially cases like the debtor who has to repay his own debts for not having forgiven his debtors.
There is also the question, per 2), as to why the decision-maker apparently believes in a post-mortem punishment of sorts, in the first place. Would scripture be implying, per 2), that we are confused for having such a perspective? As if the decision-maker should not have believed in post-mortem consequences?
Also, I'm interested in the author's explanation, if he gives one, of the public good that is served by post-mortem "punishment." If he's saying what I have been saying, I understand it. Namely, that though punishment occurs post-mortem, it is believed pre-mortem; and that belief (which is called "fear" of God in scripture) serves as a deterrant to some extent, resulting in a greater public good (indeed, government, which provides an analogous deterrent, seems to be for those who are not deterred the first way). Otherwise, I'm not following him.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2006 6:38 PM (GMT -6) | | I'm with 3, mostly. I might take a different way though. A combination of 1 and 3.
I believe that the Holy Spirit wanted to convey a sense of the real HORROR of hell for those that endure it. And that eternal conscious torment was, at the time, the DEEPEST concept of most unwanted human end. Because this idea needed to be conveyed, the Spirit condescended to our understanding of the afterlife. (JUST like God did with the whole Sheol idea) But the reason that we have such compelling universalist texts is because, at the same time, the Holy Spirit was inspiring his people to HOPE in the DEEPEST concept of the divine restoration of the current despairing situation.
So, we have ENOUGH theological and biblical reasons to hope in universalism...but we have ENOUGH biblical reasons to say that ECT is real.
At this point, the whole idea that God is perfect, unconditional love who wants to maximize his glory via expanding the amount of loving sociality in Creation becomes very important. As well as the idea of the gracious God who "has mercy upon whom God will have mercy." As well as the idea of the God who creates "beauty from ashes"
When you really put the puzzle together, using what we understand about God's nature...ALONG with the veritable NONSENSE of ECT in light of God's plans for maximizing God's glory and our satisfaction....
the answer becomes clearer.
God is BEAUTIFUL.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/22/2006 6:54:50 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2006 7:31 PM (GMT -6) | | Look here, y'all...
When it comes to universalism being a viable theological option in authentic Christian belief...
We got Origen.
We got Clement of Alexandria.
We got Gregory of Nyssa.
We got both the Orthodox AND Roman Catholic churches.
We got Barth.
We got Von Balthasaar.
With what we have philosophically from Talbott and Reitan...along with the implications within Greg's reconstructed trinitarian process metaphysic...
Don't we have enough room to just be people that have an OVERWHELMING HOPE for universalism to occur?
Personally, I think I have enough warrant to at least HOPE in this direction...and tell people about that hope. Hell is INDEFINITE, yet POSSIBLY eternal. All things that are not consonant with God's Kingdom will be judged and eliminated. Whatever can be redeemed, will be redeemed.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/22/2006 7:35:39 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 10/22/2006 8:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Of course you know I'm on board with what you've said here, but I'm thinking through how to convincingly address the objections that are being raised to me by other members of a bible study I'm in, namely the parallelism of eternal life to eternal death in Matt 25:46. In their minds, the whole question is DOA, since this verse precludes the possibility that hell is temporary; if we say hell is temporary, then we ought to say the coming life is temporary, which it's not.
My response so far has been to point to the universalist texts and point out the parallelism of Adam to Christ. Whatever we take 'all' to mean in the first case, we should apply to the second. So I'm kind of at a stalemate. I've also argued that in the case of a "tie" we certainly ought to prefer a universalist interpretation, as this is more consistent with the general theme of all all of scripture: redemption and reconciliation.
I'm also intending to talk about "aionios" and suggest that this verse might be better translated "life of the ages" and "judgement of the ages", meaning that this text is simply referring to the coming Kingdom at the end of the age; the emphasis of the context is about Kingdom, not the nature of hell. Frankly, I must say I find most of the "aionios" arguments that I've seen on the web to be rather stretching, and I'm not convinced this is really what the author had in mind. Post Edited (Corey) : 10/22/2006 8:50:57 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/22/2006 8:33 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Of course you know I'm on board with what you've said here, but I'm thinking through how to convincingly address the objections that are being raised to me by other members of a bible study I'm in, namely the parallelism of eternal life to eternal death in Matt 25:46. In their minds, the whole question is DOA, since this verse precludes the possibility that hell is temporary.
My response so far has been to point to the universalist texts and point out the parallelism of Adam to Christ. Whatever we take 'all' to mean in the first case, we should apply to the second. So I'm kind of at a stalemate. I've also argued that in the case of a "tie" we certainly ought to prefer a universalist interpretation, as this is more consistent with the general theme of all all of scripture: redemption and reconciliation. I'm also intending to talk about "aionios" and suggest that this verse might be better translated "life of the ages" and "judgement of the ages", meaning that this is referring to the promised judgement at the end of the age. Frankly, I must say I find most of the "aionios" arguments that I've seen on the web to be rather stretching, and I'm not convinced this is really what the author had in mind.
Some things...
1) Personally, I think that the aionios things stretches a little bit, too. That's why I take the stance I do.
2) I actually think that you are doing the best that can be done in your situation, particularly with people who have a certain view of Scripture and scriptural interpretation. I believe what's ultimately gonna make the difference is how your peeps see your new perspective change your life. It's hard to explain away a heart that has seen God's deep beauty! The healthy liberation and all that. How can they ultimately reject such reverent joy and satisfaction COMPLETELY DIRECTED at Jesus as Sovereign Lord and Savior of the World?? I get the feeling that this will do MORE to convince people than some other techniques. The testimony of your LIFE, along with your biblical and theological perspective, will make the difference.
*************************
Corey:
I'm surprised you're taking Option 3 (with qualifications), Namaste. You seemed pretty convinced that ECT is the scriptural view in the poll you did earlier. Is this a change in your position, or have I misunderstood you? Remember the book of Enoch stuff?
I wasn't clear, man. Sorry. I suppose what I'm trying to say is this. I would say that the ECT texts do teach ECT, and that those teachings CONFIRM that there are eternal losses and painful ramifications for those who endure divine wrath. But I'm also saying that that was God's way of communicating the TRUTH of the horrible state in the best way possible at the time. And people like Gregory of Nyssa realized the ECT scriptures referred more to the PAIN of the torment rather then the ENDURING NATURE of the torment...BECAUSE they placed the ECT scriptures in a larger context of how God has operated in the world.
There's probably a better way of conveying what I'm trying to convey.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2006 6:55 AM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Corey, I think there is a sense in which every approach can be seen as a stretch from some point of view. If Christ actually believed in ECT for humans and/or angels and yet UR is true, then it would seem to follow that a sinless, despair-free life is not necessarily correlated with true eschatological belief. So the folks in your bible study may not change their position because of your exegesis or your life. They may figure if believing in ECT is compatible with a sinless, despair-free life (as in Christ), then belief in ECT is not a problem? Couldn't it be viewed as a stretch to claim otherwise?
Seems to me, one either believes that UR is true because of something like an ontological argument and then tries to reconcile that with scripture the best one can (regardless of how much a stretch results therefrom), or one tries to make the most stretch-free interpretation of scripture and lives with the results of that. Someone who believes that Christ believed in ECT is just not going to be troubled over it until they see 1) ECT as incompatible with an essentially loving nature and 2) the scripture as claiming God has such a nature. At that point, they have a contradiction to resolve.
Some things:
1) It would be helpful to say up front that there just plain DOES seem to be a tension between the ECT texts and universalistic texts. Could this not be evidence that God was in the PROCESS of shifting categories for human beings during that time? Let's please recall that Jewish conception of the afterlife CHANGED over time. What does this mean for our discussion?
2) Sinless and "despair-free" are the same thing. A being is sinles if they are despair-free. But freedom from despair does NOT eliminate the conceptual finitude that exists within the human mind. In other words, even for Jesus, the Father could not work outside of the human categories that the FULLY HUMAN JESUS would have acquired during that time. He grew in wisdom and stature, remember? We would NOT have expected Jesus to know about quasars, rational-emotive therapy, the existence of the germ...or any of those things. He was a FULL HUMAN BEING in a particular context. It could easily be the case that Jesus did have an unbroken relationship with the Father (and gained deep wisdom from his contact with the Father)...but could STILL only comprehend those things that his mind had categories for. Now we already know that ECT was a concept in existence WAY BEFORE Jesus was even born! It was an idea seen IN his time. And ECT was seen in works AFTER his time. Now, if ECT was the MAIN conception at that time used for the worst possible state of affairs for spiritual beings, WHY would we expect Jesus to use anything else?
If we take Jesus' references conveying truth as follows:
1) Divine wrath awaits those who don't respond to God's grace in this life.
2) The losses incurred will be eternal. There will be ETERNAL DEATH of the "old self"!
3) It's the worst possible state that spiritual beings can end up in.
4) Hell is POSSIBLY infinite.
then what's the problem?
Remember, sometimes God spoke through people using concepts that even THEY didn't fully comprehend, even though the concepts were understandable to them. Let's please recall that Jesus didn't know the day or the hour...only the Father did. Shouldn't this let us know that Jesus' kenosis was REAL in the fact that Jesus did not exercise omniscience while he was in human form? And couldn't that mean that a despair-free being can still be subject to "finitude" of understanding?
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) Post Edited (Namaste) : 10/23/2006 7:00:24 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 10/23/2006 7:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Namaste: If we take Jesus' references conveying truth as follows:
1) Divine wrath awaits those who don't respond to God's grace in this life.
2) The losses incurred will be eternal. There will be ETERNAL DEATH of the "old self"!
3) It's the worst possible state that spiritual beings can end up in.
4) Hell is POSSIBLY infinite.
Tom: What about no. 2? Death of the “old self” is a GOOD thing. We WANT that loss. But these consequences should be something we don’t want. So for no. 2 how about:
*2) There will be a permanent loss of capacity to enjoy and reflect divine beauty relative to (a) the appropriate length of time one spends in hell and (b) commensurate with the nature of post-mortem existence.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2006 7:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
What about no. 2? Death of the “old self” is a GOOD thing. We WANT that loss. But these consequences should be something we don’t want. So for no. 2 how about:
*2) There will be a permanent loss of capacity to enjoy and reflect divine beauty relative to (a) the appropriate length of time one spends in hell and (b) commensurate with the nature of post-mortem existence.
Tom...you are SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO the bomb, man! You are always able to say what I want to say better than I can. 
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 10/23/2006 8:20 AM (GMT -6) | | Actually, this is pretty cool.
Remember the 3 categories.
Beautiful/Ugliness
Wellness (No despair)/Sickness (Despair)
Accurate/Inaccurate
With respect to Jesus...
1) Jesus never failed to embody the beauty of God and humanity in his life...but he had agonized, UNDESIRED participation in the ugliness of the Roman society and in Jewish ethnocentricism.
2) Jesus lived completely despair-free, until the Cross...where he endured felt separation from the Father for the first time ever. Following his resurrection, he was despair-free...and is despair-free forever more!
3) Jesus, being fully human, was accurate on some things he believed...but inaccurate on other things because of simple ignorance due to human FINITUDE.
What y'all think? I feel this explains a LOT.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
"God is most glorified in us as we are most satisfied in God's love." -- the newest mantra of the Evangelical Universalist :) | | Back to Top | | |
| 226 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 6:31 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 |
|
|