 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Questions about Christianity > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 8/2/2006 8:18 AM (GMT -6) |   | | Last night I started reading The Evangelical Universalist. Here's my impressions so far.
MacDonald (a pseudonym) makes a critique of the doctrine of eternal conscience torment that I had not considered before. ECT rests on the premise that this is the satisfaction of perfect justice. However, it seems that justice is never satisfied if in fact there always remains a debt unpaid; the cosmic scales of justice are NEVER balanced. No matter how much one has suffered, his debt is never paid. God is eternally dissatisfied. A good point, I thought.
He spends a couple pages considering if open theism answers the problem of ECT. He asserts that OT, like any variant premised upon libertarian freewill, cannot guarantee that all will freely choose God and be saved. In the case of OT, he maintains that an all-wise, all-loving God would simply not take the risk that some or most (or all?) of his creation wll spend the rest of eternity in conscious torment. The downside of this gamble is just too great; no upside is worth this risk.
MacDonald's position seems to be (not that I've read enough to really know) that eventually God will simply override free will, and this becomes the most loving thing to do. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2006 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Universalism rules.
Or maybe I should say the HOPE for universalism.
Nuff said.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 8/5/2006 10:08 AM (GMT -6) | | | Corey: MacDonald's position seems to be (not that I've read enough to really know) that eventually God will simply override free will, and this becomes the most loving thing to do.
Jeff: I'm not sure I understand MacDonald's point, here. To override free will, there has to be freewill. And the existence of true LFW is all that is logically required to argue for open theism. That's why I see no difference in believing in an effectual call and believing what MacDonald is arguing for. And as I see it, universalism is the logical equivalent of an eventual effectual call.
In both cases (effectual call and universalism) you have to explain why God is not saving all, now.That's the difficult part to reconcile with "perfect" love as I see it. Cause we're trying to see how God is completely loving while receiving satisfaction at the expense of created volitional persons. Every view, it would seem, must posit that.
The only way I can explain this is if God created for the Son (i.e., the glory the Son receives from creation is God's selfless gift to him). The Son, IOW, is the queen for which the rook (i.e., the creature) can be sacrificed in the short run. But those sacrifices do not violate justice, for God doesn't owe His creatures anything. But He, being benevolent, only sacrifices their good when the good/glory of the Son necessitates it.
So even then, perfect love can only be judged with respect to the perfection of God's love for it's primary object--His Son. It can never seem perfect, to my mind at least, with respect to all conceivable objects of God's love, since rooks are sacrificed in God's attainment of His primary end. And I suspect that that sense of unfairness is what makes some people have great trouble with theodicy. But such a criticism assumes that the good of creatures is the primary end of God, and it may not be.
BTW, Corey, Meph had said there was a thread on God's love vs. His glory. Do you remember some phrase or title I might use on the new search engine that my help me find that thread?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 8/27/2006 11:23 PM (GMT -6) | |
I'm starting to think you might be right about the HOPE for universalism, Mephi. (  Amazing, huh?) Some of Hans Urs von Balthasar's stuff is very interesting (you should check him out! here's a start: http://communio-icr.com/articles/PDF/PCasarella.pdf !!!!!). If anyone's going to convince me, I bet it will be him.
Blessings to all...
selah
MephEternal said...Universalism rules. Or maybe I should say the HOPE for universalism. Nuff said.
At that same hour Jesus rejoiced in the Holy Spirit and said, "I thank you, Father, Lord of heaven and earth, because you have hidden these things from the wise and the intelligent and have revealed them to infants; yes, Father, for such was your gracious will. Luke 10:21 Post Edited (selah) : 8/28/2006 7:43:39 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/28/2006 9:13 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Selah: Some of Hans Urs von Balthasar's stuff is very interesting...If anyone's going to convince me, I bet it will be him.
Tom: You just like foreign men!  Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 8/28/2006 11:45 AM (GMT -6) | |
maybe that's it.  come to me all you foreign men who are weary and heavy laden... I will give you rest.
T
TGB said...
Selah: Some of Hans Urs von Balthasar's stuff is very interesting...If anyone's going to convince me, I bet it will be him.
Tom: You just like foreign men! Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 8/28/2006 11:57 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Hi Corey,
First I should say "Sorry, I didn't mean to derail your thread!!"
Did you have a chance to read the paper I posted above?
I have to run to my son's parent/teacher conference now, but I'll lay out this stuff when I have a chance. Until then, if you have time, read the paper. There's some good stuff on B's conception of "hell" in the first place and on a "remnant" idea (similar to meph's...but more biblical ;) ) ...as well as some interesting thoughts on 1Pet 3:19. But the clincher for me, i think, is that B was heavily influenced by his friend...a spiritually gifted woman (meaning he actually listened to her and accepted things he couldn't completely defend by reason).
Lots more to say, but I have to run!
Blessings,
T
Corey said...What specifically do you find in von Balthasar that makes this idea more acceptable for you? What objections have been addressed? Just wondering.
Post Edited (selah) : 8/29/2006 5:53:13 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 9:05 AM (GMT -6) | | I wonder if me and Doc could convince MacDonald that trinitarian, Christ-centered universalism is compossible with open view theism. Think we should give it a shot, Tom?
Damn, we could rock this, yo...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/11/2006 5:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Yo. I'm reading some of von Balthasar's stuff.
Pretty tight.
Seriously, y'all. It's only a matter of time before the tide of universalism is gonna roll in...
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
Live in Christ's love, the Spirit's empowerment, and the Father's grace.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 9/13/2006 10:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
Mephi said...
"Seriously, y'all. It's only a matter of time before the tide of universalism is gonna roll in..."
selah: Looks like you saw that coming years ago Meph!
It's hard to believe I just read this on the other thread.
Quoting Meph:
"I am not a conspiracy theorist, but I truly believe something. I believe that we are moving towards a one world religion. Think about Vatican II. Think about the rampant movement towards universalism and annihilationalism. Think about the more liberal fringes of Islam that are occuring now. I believe that we are moving towards the idea of a God who is basically:
1) a repository of unconditional positive regard or love.
2) a source for hope (either here or for the life after)
3) a source for principle of life-affirming paradigms (justice, love, etc)
4) a source of dignity for human beings
5) a God who, IF personal, has relinquished all rights of lordship to his Creation.
6) an unbiased universalist, IF there is an afterlife (Possibly annihilational AT WORST)
The God of the Future I see will be little more than this. A great big cheerleader/shoulder to cry on/being to hope in. Theology will be nothing more than purely human attempts at imaginative, yet utterly pragmatic coping mechanisms for life in the form of worldviews...using the paradigm above. Lord? Master? King? Sovereign Ruler of the Heavens? These terms will be useless. In looking at some of the theological shifts in the major religions like Judaism, Islam and Christianity, I definitely see this as a trend. The exclusivity of Christ is being sacrificed (or expanded to meaninglessness) more and more. Of course, postmodernism and its buddies (pluralism, multicultural sensitivity, etc) have some things to do with it. I honestly fear that the day may come when the statement "Jesus is Lord" may become superfluous as we continue to look to the Great Big Heart in the Sky and thank Him/Her/It/They/Us for everything."
hmmmmmmmmmmmmm. interesting indeed!
selah
| | Back to Top | | |
|
selah
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1210
| Posted 9/14/2006 3:26 AM (GMT -6) | | Hey Meph,
Sorry, my purpose in posting that wasn't to point out how much your views have changed. I was actually trying to highlight the truthin your original statements. Think about it. Does "Jesus is Lord" have meaning to us today? (Lord over what? over who? why do we need a LORD?) Aren't we seeing the religion you describe more clearly now then when you first wrote?
See, I was just showing everyone how prophetic you are. :)
selah
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/14/2006 6:29 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah:
Hey Meph,
Sorry, my purpose in posting that wasn't to point out how much your views have changed. I was actually trying to highlight the truthin your original statements. Think about it. Does "Jesus is Lord" have meaning to us today? (Lord over what? over who? why do we need a LORD?) Aren't we seeing the religion you describe more clearly now then when you first wrote?
See, I was just showing everyone how prophetic you are.
I see. I mistakenly interpreted this through the same lens with which I interpreted Laika. My mistake.
As far as what you are saying, I felt like the handwriting was on the wall. A major concern I had was what I then perceived trends towards major relativization of the idea of being "before God" in any meaningful way (theocentricity as opposed to anthropocentricity) and utter privitization (and over-individualization) of spirituality. Basically, where God more suits our needs and wants...then BREAKS into our lives.
Looking back, I do believe that concern was legitimate...and still is. However, I now believe that I was kind of throwing the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. I was wrong to link universalism as a concept so directly with the anthropocentric elements of the times. I was so used to seeing universalists use the old "God's-too-loving-to-punish-anyone" line at that time along with an outright pluralistic view of salvation...and I just reacted against what I saw.
It's interesting to see.
Once I found a way that eventual universal reconciliation could be fundamentally grounded upon God's centrality (and Christ's) where Jesus really DOES remain Lord in a meaningful sense...that was a huge step forward for me. When Christ is central to spirituality...Christ becomes the unifying element that necessitates that spirituality not be a completely INDIVIDUAL affair. Very important, in my mind.
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 9/19/2006 11:22 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2006 6:12 AM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2006 6:20 AM (GMT -6) | | I really liked this from that wiki...
This anecdote by Rev. Elizabeth Strong, a Unitarian Universalist, sums up the issue:
Ballou was riding the circuit in the New Hampshire hills with a Baptist minister one day, arguing theology as they traveled. At one point, the Baptist looked over and said, "Brother Ballou, if I were a Universalist and feared not the fires of hell, I could hit you over the head, steal your horse and saddle, and ride away, and I'd still go to heaven."
Hosea Ballou looked over at him and said, "If you were a Universalist, the idea would never occur to you."
"All is full of love." -- Bjork
"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." -- 1 John 4:16b
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 9/27/2006 6:43 AM (GMT -6) | | Let me say this.
I am a person with overwhelming HOPE in eventual universal reconciliation.
(Digression: It's been suggested to me that it's less helpful to be a hardline universalist publicly...even though the probability of it, all things considered, approaches 1. It's more helpful for the people who are radical indeterminists...and for "socio-linguistic" reasons of being in an more conservative evangelical context...for me to say that, as far as any being enduring hell, "Hell is indefinite, yet potentially infinite." In other words, this leaves open the question of whether or not universalism WILL happen. If I keep the language of "Whatever is redeemable, God will redeem" and "Hell is indefinite, yet potentially infinite"...then I should be okay from the heresy hunters. Three guesses who schooled me on all this!  )
But I would talk about hell in a minute! Seriously. I would talk about the beauty of God AND the ugliness of existence without God. I'd pull NO punches with it. Hell is real, yo. The bottom line is that post-mortem hell is something we would want EVERYONE to avoid. It wouldn't matter how long they are in the hellish state. Just THAT they ever get there. (Heck, we don't want to see people live without God right now! ) It would be just like me trying to talk to a person taking crack...so they wouldn't end up in a locked detox facility! I don't want people to go at all, if they don't have to.
People with universal hope have NO FEAR teaching about hell...because (for once) hell is not some incomprehensible absurdity in the face of an ALL-LOVING, ALL-POWERFUL God. Hell can actually be shown to be a very painful, but redemptive act of love on God's part.
So, in this way, I'd be willing to preach MORE about divine judgement than I ever have before.
Isn't that interesting?
"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) : 9/27/2006 6:59:19 AM (GMT-5) | | 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 4:43 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 |
|
|