 |
| 
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 3/26/2005 3:38 PM (GMT -6) |   | | Okay, I thought this article was a clever one, though obviously a little stinging.
Give me your thoughts, guys.
Bryan | | Back to Top | | |
 |
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 3/27/2005 9:40 PM (GMT -6) | | | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 12:29 PM (GMT -6) | | More...
I think that the author hits on something that open view theists, particularly warfare worldview people need to face: the functional FINITUDE of God, with respect to providence. Sure, we say it's self-chosen. Sure, we say it's because of the type of world God wanted to create. Sure, we say that God is the most powerful and influential single force in the mix. Sure, we say that there are real forces that work against God's willing. But none of this derails the bottom line:
In this existence we call life, God struggles in some way just like WE do. With respect to some particular tragedies, sometimes God can struggle to no avail.
We live, eat, and breathe in ambiguity...and it's past time we recognized that.
Plus, I thought this line was very telling...
On the more liberal end of the theological spectrum, God's spokespeople hastened to stuff their fingers in the dike even as the floodwaters of doubt washed over it. Of course, God exists, seems to be the general consensus. And, of course, He is perfectly good. It's just that his jurisdiction doesn't extend to tectonic plates. Or maybe it does and He tosses us an occasional grenade like this just to see how quickly we can mobilize to clean up the damage. Besides, as the Catholic priests like to remind us, "He's a 'mystery' "--though that's never stopped them from pronouncing His views on abortion with absolute certainty.
Free-thinkers are TIRED of our Christianified dogmatism on so many things like morality, religious claims, and creation...yet appeal to "mystery" and "incomprehensibility" whenever things get rough with the problem of evil. Instead of acknowledging a healthy sense of AMBIGUITY and epistemological humility about ALL of these things, we claim to know much more than we CAN "know" and look stupid in the process of trying to stay consistent with our dogmatism! Grr...
At any rate, I truly do believe that some form of the warfare worldview along with functionally inevitable universal reconciliation works things out. Just think about ALL the existential questions that could arise about the problem of evil...and plug them in the the hypothetical situation of my universalistic worldview. I'd say that you have AT LEAST a very high degree of satisfaction. Really. Try it out.
Anyways...just more 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
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/29/2005 7:56 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph said...
Free-thinkers are TIRED of our Christianified dogmatism on so many things like morality, religious claims, and creation...yet appeal to "mystery" and "incomprehensibility" whenever things get rough with the problem of evil. Instead of acknowledging a healthy sense of AMBIGUITY and epistemological humility about ALL of these things, we claim to know much more than we CAN "know" and look stupid in the process of trying to stay consistent with our dogmatism!
Agreed! But with respect to epistemological humility, help me understand the following:
Meph #1: So, simplistic text reading ain't gonna do it. There are good exegetical arguments for eternal conscious punishment, annihiliationism, and universalism. This is why we use these arguments in context with other lines of argument.
Meph #2: I figure that if I can see if there are any philosophical or theological hinderances to Christian universalism, then the exegetical piece will be a no-brainer.
First of all, how do we go from GOOD arguments for eternal conscious punishment and annihilationism to universalism is an exegetical no-brainer - as if anyone who disagrees is some kind of idiot?
Second of all, how is "GOD IS LOVE" a philosophical argument? Do we really know that much about God's amazing love apart from scripture?
Third, how does universalism really solve the problem of evil? Does it in any way undo the sheer agony that Zosia went through? Is universalism God's way of saying He made a mistake and hopefully salvation for all will make up for it to some degree? Obviously, we all hope for universalism, but I'm missing how it solves the problem of evil.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/29/2005 8:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
First of all, how do we go from GOOD arguments for eternal conscious punishment and annihilationism to universalism is an exegetical no-brainer - as if anyone who disagrees is some kind of idiot?
That's not what I meant by that statement. What I meant was that if we could show that universalism were philosophical INCOHERENT or theologically unviable, then there would be NO REASON to try to make exegetical arguments for it. It would be a "no-brainer!" Why waste time trying to biblically argue for something that is incoherent or metaphysically impossible? See where I was going with that?
*************************
Jeff:
Second of all, how is "GOD IS LOVE" a philosophical argument? Do we really know that much about God's amazing love apart from scripture?
One can make philosophical assertions about what the theological claim "God is love" may actually mean. I am a realist who believes that God's essential existence IS love because the interplay of God's necessary aspects (God's omnipotence, God's omniscience, God's internal relationality [triunity], and God's perfectly good and loving disposition) have the effect such that God is, by way of God's NECESSARY attributes, unchangeably loving to the extent that loving isn't something God DOES...but it's something that CONSTITUTES God's being.
**********************************
Jeff:
Third, how does universalism really solve the problem of evil? Does it in any way undo the sheer agony that Zosia went through? Is universalism God's way of saying He made a mistake and hopefully salvation for all will make up for it to some degree? Obviously, we all hope for universalism, but I'm missing how it solves the problem of evil.
First, universalism ALONE doesn't solve the problem of evil. The whole COMPOSITE VIEW does. Some type of warfare worldview in an openness system. The reality ofa "hellish" divine judgment. The "rock-bottom" effect. All that.
But how does universal reconciliation round things out? If partaking of the divine nature via loving relationship with God in Christ is the ABSOLUTE BEST THING that could happen to any sentient being...and God is willing to take steps to ensure that ALL beings will eventually experience this, this DEFINITELY makes the divine project of having a TWT friendly universe "worth the risk" of all the evil, pain, and suffering that exists now. Zosia's agony will be FAR OVERSHADOWED by the ecstasy of being in consummate love relationality with the Triune God. Absolutely NO SUFFERING ON EARTH can compare to that joy.
So, in the post-mortem, post-judgement, functionally inevitable universal reconciliation I envision, ALL of the wrongs are made right, ALL sin and evil are punished, moral autonomy is retained, the metaphysics of love and libertarian freedom are honored, and ALL people find ultimate satisfaction in God.
From where I'm looking, you don't GET a better theodicy than that.
"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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 3/30/2005 7:52 AM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: That's not what I meant by that statement. What I meant was that if we could show that universalism were philosophical INCOHERENT or theologically unviable, then there would be NO REASON to try to make exegetical arguments for it. It would be a "no-brainer!" Why waste time trying to biblically argue for something that is incoherent or metaphysically impossible? See where I was going with that?
Jeff: Aye, but your words were "then the EXEGETICAL piece will be a no-brainer." So you can see my confusion.
Meph: One can make philosophical assertions about what the theological claim "God is love" may actually mean. I am a realist who believes that God's essential existence IS love because the interplay of God's necessary aspects (God's omnipotence, God's omniscience, God's internal relationality [triunity], and God's perfectly good and loving disposition) have the effect such that God is, by way of God's NECESSARY attributes, unchangeably loving to the extent that loving isn't something God DOES...but it's something that CONSTITUTES God's being.
Jeff: Love seeks not it's own. But depending on one's theodicy, there are different takes on HOW God seeks not His own. That's why it seems, to me at least, that we need other scripture to really get a handle on what "God is Love" means.
Meph: But how does universal reconciliation round things out? If partaking of the divine nature via loving relationship with God in Christ is the ABSOLUTE BEST THING that could happen to any sentient being...and God is willing to take steps to ensure that ALL beings will eventually experience this,
Jeff: So how do we go from God seeks not His own, to God takes ALL steps necessary to ensure that all will be saved - including Satan? If "seeking not it's own" equates to doing EVERYTHING for another's well-being, why did God subject us to this hopeless situation in the first place?
Meph: "this DEFINITELY makes the divine project of having a TWT friendly universe "worth the risk" of all the evil, pain, and suffering that exists now. Zosia's agony will be FAR OVERSHADOWED by the ecstasy of being in consummate love relationality with the Triune God. Absolutely NO SUFFERING ON EARTH can compare to that joy.
Jeff: But your view of risk is significantly lower than Doc's, and even more so than mine. You say, "I have a MUCH easier time just DENYING the whole "Adamic couple" thing and saying that the divine battle between God and Satan has been waged since nearly the beginning of Creation...and that human beings (however they emerged) just got caught up in the middle of that struggle." Based on THAT view of risk, God knew all along that He was, for all practical purposes, setting us up for the likes of the Nazis that totured Zosia. It is this diversity of opinion on what the risk IS that leads to different ideas about what it means that God "seeks not His own." For at bottom, the risk was taken because God thought it was WORTH IT!!! But worth it for what? - other than His own interests?
Meph: So, in the post-mortem, post-judgement, functionally inevitable universal reconciliation I envision, ALL of the wrongs are made right, ALL sin and evil are punished, moral autonomy is retained, the metaphysics of love and libertarian freedom are honored, AND ALL people find ultimate satisfaction in God.
Jeff: The key word is the AND. That Satan finds "ultimate satisfaction in God," may not be necessary for: "ALL of the wrongs are made right, ALL sin and evil are punished, moral autonomy is retained, the metaphysics of love and libertarian freedom are honored," as far as I can tell.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/30/2005 2:49 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: One can make philosophical assertions about what the theological claim "God is love" may actually mean. I am a realist who believes that God's essential existence IS love because the interplay of God's necessary aspects (God's omnipotence, God's omniscience, God's internal relationality [triunity], and God's perfectly good and loving disposition) have the effect such that God is, by way of God's NECESSARY attributes, unchangeably loving to the extent that loving isn't something God DOES...but it's something that CONSTITUTES God's being.
Jeff: Love seeks not it's own. But depending on one's theodicy, there are different takes on HOW God seeks not His own. That's why it seems, to me at least, that we need other scripture to really get a handle on what "God is Love" means.
Well, we could look at a number of things do see what the WORKS of love are (nod to SK). 1 Cor 13, which you've already cited. God's love shown through Jesus (as testified to in 1 John). And for more stuff...we can look into Old Testament the idea of God's "covenant love" (chesed) with Israel. The Bible is FILLED with the theme of God's love for people. Don't seem to hard to me on that score.
As far as the "love seeks not it's own" idea, I'd say that this encorporates the self-sacrificial, benevolent dimension of love. Love always seeks the highest good of another person, even at great cost to oneself. I think LOTS of biblical arguments could be made for this idea.
***************************
Meph: But how does universal reconciliation round things out? If partaking of the divine nature via loving relationship with God in Christ is the ABSOLUTE BEST THING that could happen to any sentient being...and God is willing to take steps to ensure that ALL beings will eventually experience this,
Jeff: So how do we go from God seeks not His own, to God takes ALL steps necessary to ensure that all will be saved - including Satan? If "seeking not it's own" equates to doing EVERYTHING for another's well-being, why did God subject us to this hopeless situation in the first place?
Man, you wouldn't BELIEVE how much time Doc and I spent hashing over God being "all-loving" back a coupla years ago. Ask the old heads around here about THAT one. Anyways, a coupla things can be said...
1) Given the scope of God's telos (which included the metaphysics of love, libertarian freedom, epistemic distance, etc.) sin...and all the corresponding problems can be viewed as INEVITABLE...and would be known by the infinitely-intelligent God as such. In short, there was NOTHING God could have done short of NOT CREATING that would eliminate great potentials for the emergence of evil of all forms. (SATPOE is right on point about this!)
2) God, from the beginning, knew that the LATTER state would be better than the FORMER state...and so believed that Creation was "worth it" Because God knew about his plan to incarnate Godself and actually DWELL within us...as well as the universal reconciliation at the Consummation of All Things, the situation would NEVER be hopeless.
********************************
Meph: "this DEFINITELY makes the divine project of having a TWT friendly universe "worth the risk" of all the evil, pain, and suffering that exists now. Zosia's agony will be FAR OVERSHADOWED by the ecstasy of being in consummate love relationality with the Triune God. Absolutely NO SUFFERING ON EARTH can compare to that joy.
Jeff: But your view of risk is significantly lower than Doc's, and even more so than mine. You say, "I have a MUCH easier time just DENYING the whole "Adamic couple" thing and saying that the divine battle between God and Satan has been waged since nearly the beginning of Creation...and that human beings (however they emerged) just got caught up in the middle of that struggle." Based on THAT view of risk, God knew all along that He was, for all practical purposes, setting us up for the likes of the Nazis that totured Zosia. It is this diversity of opinion on what the risk IS that leads to different ideas about what it means that God "seeks not His own." For at bottom, the risk was taken because God thought it was WORTH IT!!! But worth it for what? - other than His own interests?
Here's the thing with God. God seeks NOT his own by seeking his own! I'm not trying to be obtuse. Just stick with me here. If a major aspect of God's increased glorification is for sentient beings to have their dispositional realities' ultimate satisfaction and fulfilment...then God has an interesting situation. In seeking his OWN glory, he actually seeks NOT his own, in a real way. This fits right in with the paradox of our lives: our lives are ENHANCED as we serve and help OTHERS. Self-actualization NECESSITATES self-transcendence. God's interests are our HIGHEST interests.
The risk that God took was the sin and death would run RAMPANT and cause MAD pain, heartache, and whatnot. But the risk was necessary for FREE beings in a TWT friendly universe.
What I love about the idea of Christ-centered, functionally inevitable universal reconciliation is it demonstrates WITHOUT ANY DOUBT that God truly does have the best interests of ALL sentient beings at heart. God TRULY IS most glorified in us when we are most satified in God.
************************
Meph: So, in the post-mortem, post-judgement, functionally inevitable universal reconciliation I envision, ALL of the wrongs are made right, ALL sin and evil are punished, moral autonomy is retained, the metaphysics of love and libertarian freedom are honored, AND ALL people find ultimate satisfaction in God.
Jeff: The key word is the AND. That Satan finds "ultimate satisfaction in God," may not be necessary for: "ALL of the wrongs are made right, ALL sin and evil are punished, moral autonomy is retained, the metaphysics of love and libertarian freedom are honored," as far as I can tell.
You don't have a problem with Satan eventually being saved, do you? At any rate, here's the thought. If ANY SENTIENT BEING ends up in some form of eternal self-destruction, then one can argue that...
-God's glory is NOT maximized
-God's victory is not complete, as sin and death has ETERNALLY claimed a victim
-God, though being well adjusted, would eternally mourn his lost creature
I know that most people don't think that ONE PERSON is a big deal...but check it. If it's true that God loves EACH and EVERY PERSON with such unimaginable intensity as we claim, then ONE PERSON being eternally lost would matter to the perfectly loving and good God.
Now, is it LOGICALLY possible that people can be lost in my view? Yes. Some being (possibly Satan) could fall into utter irrationality and "freely"(?????) make a choice to go into eternal self-destruction. But the probability of the possible world in which that would occur would be INFINITESSIMAL, to the point of being utterly negligible.
So, in my view, God works all this out such that NO ONE'S left behind eternally.
********************************
One more thing, Jeff.
Does a loving being LOVE ONES ENEMIES? Does love BLESS THOSE the spitefully abuse them? Does love seek for reconciliation AS MUCH AS IT IS IN THEIR POWER TO DO SO?
"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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 3/30/2005 6:22 PM (GMT -6) | |
Meph Man: said...
(Instead of acknowledging a healthy sense of AMBIGUITY and epistemological humility about ALL of these things)
There's those words again... 
Brandon
"Theology is doxology"--John G. Stackhouse quoting J.I. Packer in "Evangelical Futures: A Conversation on Theological Method" | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 3/30/2005 8:56 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Meph, what you would need to prove to me is that God, as love, "would eternally mourn his lost creature" (especially if the second death is an unconscious state). Mourning in this context implies compassion. Now what seems confusing to me is how to make sense of Eph. 4:31-5:2. These verses imply that walking in love (agape) is inconsistent with wrath. But God's wrath IS said to abide on the "sons of disobedience." But phileo-love is on those who God rebukes and disciplines (Rev. 3:19). Best I can tell, agape love seems to be more about action whereas phileo love seems to have more to do with the sensibilities. And since "mourning" implies sensibility, I'm confused as to how we get to "God loves" ALL sentient beings identically. And without THAT being true, I don't see how we can conclusively derive "all will be saved" from "God is love."
1) The scripture to which you refer is not dealing with the type of "wrath" God demonstrates in God's righteous judgement. That much is obvious from the text itself. God's wrath doesn't deal with bitterness, malice, or anything like that. God's righteous divine judgement IS compatible with agape love. That's how my view works.
2) Your separation of actions and sensibilities, I believe, is a false distinction. Let's play it this way. Can you imagine an person who perfectly loves another person unconditionally NOT mourning if the beloved person...
--were to die a horrible death
or
--were to be in an ultimately lamentable situation?
I don't think you could. Doesn't this tell us something?
"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 | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/8/2005 6:39 PM (GMT -6) | | | Okay! Good stuff guys.
Selah, I think you've showed some of the real feelings-based (and valid!) reasons behind our view.
Jef, you're ultra challenging and anybody who can spar with Meph is a-ok in my book (how'd you guys like that -- 2 flies with one complinnt.)
And thanks for coming by, Meph. I'd thought you'd like this one.
Thanks Tom. I agree. But as I said, a little stinging.
Here is one such example:
"On the more liberal end of the theological spectrum, God's spokespeople hastened to stuff their fingers in the dike even as the floodwaters of doubt washed over it. Of course, God exists, seems to be the general consensus. And, of course, He is perfectly good. It's just that his jurisdiction doesn't extend to tectonic plates. "
This is our camp, right guys? I mean it's a bit of a caricature, but this is basically what we say, isn't it? "God doesn't always get what God wants," as Doc likes to say. And again, "Bottom line: Nothing operates the way it was supposed to. Its ALL under demonic corruption, down to the very laws of physics that produce death (entropy)." [the latter from, "Was It an Act of God?" 1.01.05] So, what do we think about this? How do we respond to the caricature, disapproval, and rejection of our view, not by Calvinists, but by free-thinking intelligent people (terms with which most of us, I think, if we were honest, would like to describe ourselves -- not that Calvinists are unitelligent, mind you)?
What do you think?
Bryan
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/10/2005 9:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Coming to this late...
Meph: Nope. Expressing wrath and lamenting that wrath must occur IS possible. God is the ONLY BEING who truly unconditionally loves the sinner while absolutely detesting the sin. When divine judgement occurs, there is NO compassion upon sin...nor would there ever be. And insofar as persons are in sin and it's effects, their judgement is SEVERE. But this is distinct from saying that God feels NO compassion towards those persons who God is judging. God loves sentient beings...even AS he is judging them. God is NOT like us...bifurcated and limited.
Jeff: He may NOT be like us in this respect. But can you prove it philosophically and/or biblically? All I know is this: I personally am not aware of a way to prove that His wrath is not on SINNERS.
Well, yes, I think I can make decent arguments for this, philosophically and biblically. All we'd have to do it take some cursory looks at 1) the philosophical idea of God's necessary essential existence as incorporating a disposition that of perfectly loving and good and 2) a cursory look biblically at how God loves people even AS he is judging them for their sins.
And I'm not trying to argue that God's wrath doesn't lie on sinners. For it does. Sinners are persons who sin and are caught up in sin. It is the PEOPLE that are judged. But it is the SIN that God hates and devalues, not the persons who do the sinning.
*******************************
Meph: Are you having some type of problem with the idea of God loving all beings, including Satan? Remember loving a person is NOT the same thing as loving or sanctioning the sin a person is in.
Jeff: I'm having a problem PROVING that God's wrath abides only on SIN as opposed to people. PROVING has to do with the intellect - remember that epistemological humility point? That's about intellect. I've already said we all HOPE that universalism is true, so you can stop condescending to me as though I were your inferior in sensibilities. Or if indeed you ARE my superior, how could I know it? Signs and wonders? That wasn't sufficient to make you accept Christ and Paul as being accurate!
I don't now what in the world you were reacting to here. I wasn't attempting to be condescending to you. If that's what you got from my question, I apologize. My answer was in response to your statement:
The very case I mentioned above is pertinent. That's why, to me, it begs the question of whether they are "beloved." I can love someone who is not my beloved. Christ is the Father's beloved - I have no reason to believe that Satan is the Father's beloved.
The question seemed natural to me. What I was asking was did you have a problem with idea of EVERYONE being God's "beloved" including Satan? There was no other intents in the question. Hmmm...
****************************
Bryan:
This is our camp, right guys? I mean it's a bit of a caricature, but this is basically what we say, isn't it? "God doesn't always get what God wants," as Doc likes to say. And again, "Bottom line: Nothing operates the way it was supposed to. Its ALL under demonic corruption, down to the very laws of physics that produce death (entropy)." [the latter from, "Was It an Act of God?" 1.01.05] So, what do we think about this? How do we respond to the caricature, disapproval, and rejection of our view, not by Calvinists, but by free-thinking intelligent people (terms with which most of us, I think, if we were honest, would like to describe ourselves -- not that Calvinists are unitelligent, mind you)?
I think that we have to remember that "liberals" (if I can use that term) don't believe in a permeating non-corporeal anti-God force that corrupts creation and actively works against God's divine aims. This is what makes ALL the difference. Doc was completely right. Without the idea of this permeating non-corporeal anti-God force, any theistic theodicy would be incomplete and insufficient. This is the crucial element of the warfare worldview. Even though I seriously doubt the whole Adam and Eve thing, I retain the warfare worldview because of it's huge explanatory power both in terms of biblical testimony and our real world experience.
"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 | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 4/10/2005 10:20 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Meph: Well, yes, I think I can make decent arguments for this, philosophically and biblically. All we'd have to do it take some cursory looks at 1) the philosophical idea of God's necessary essential existence as incorporating a disposition that of perfectly loving and good and 2) a cursory look biblically at how God loves people even AS he is judging them for their sins.
Jeff: I don't rule any of that out. But I don't see how we can know that God LOVING the sinner while meting out wrath to him implies God FEELS compassion towards him, simultaneously. To my mind, an act of justice can be appropriate without a feeling of compassion. Indeed, feelings of compassion seem to be consistently associated with acts of mercy, the opposite of justice.
Meph: And I'm not trying to argue that God's wrath doesn't lie on sinners. For it does. Sinners are persons who sin and are caught up in sin. It is the PEOPLE that are judged. But it is the SIN that God hates and devalues, not the persons who do the sinning.
Jeff: This gets back to that discussion on the worth of each individual. Christ said some would not be worthy of Him. This sounds like the verse in 2 Thess that says the Thessalonians' sufferings made them worthy of the kingdom. I think the idea of worthiness in these verses has the idea of fittedness. That is, some modes of life are fitted to certain consequences.
But clearly there IS, also, a sense in which God has compassion on ALL sinners (Satan included, I would think) - hence, the argument in Rom. 5 about ALL MEN (although that argument wouldn't include Satan, necessarily). But I'm not sure that compassion has no limits. Might it be limited with the limit of God's longsuffering? It seems conceivable to me.
And this would not rule out universalism, for universalism would imply a salvation beyond that which is wrapped up with the kingdom purposes for this creation - purposes which have been and are being thwarted by those opposing God. In other words, where sin had abounded (in this creation), grace may yet abound even more once those purposes have been fulfilled. I just don't feel comfortable saying that dogmatically, yet. I don't want to be in the position of telling God how He had better love us without being fully persuaded. But in the meanwhile, like Doc, I hope universalism is true.
Meph: I don't now what in the world you were reacting to here. I wasn't attempting to be condescending to you. If that's what you got from my question, I apologize. My answer was in response to your statement:
The very case I mentioned above is pertinent. That's why, to me, it begs the question of whether they are "beloved." I can love someone who is not my beloved. Christ is the Father's beloved - I have no reason to believe that Satan is the Father's beloved.
The question seemed natural to me. What I was asking was did you have a problem with idea of EVERYONE being God's "beloved" including Satan? There was no other intents in the question. Hmmm...
Jeff: Your question did catch me off guard for two reasons.
1) In the debate on the bible thread (which was occurring simultaneously) Scott had said that his hermeneutical approach (which you claim to share) was one characterized by "Spirit-led reason." Later he said that approach is the one that eliminates those "elements" in the texts inconsistent with the love of Christ. You then gave him a virtual high-five for that comment. Now don't get me wrong, I have no problem with some believing their view is more consistent with the Spirit and love of Christ. We all should be living with just such clarity of conscience. But it seems a bit condescending to make as an argument for your hermeneutic approach that IT is the Spirit-led one that resonates with the love of Christ.
2) I had already said (in the same thread) that I hope universalism is true. So it seemed from that fact and 1), that you were doubting my sincerity and assuming that was the basis for my lack of understanding.
Feeling the sting of the two, I simply added some sarcasm to my own response to you. I apologize for how it sounded. I should have put this face beside it -  But believe me, bro, I have no hard feelings, whatsover. I know it's difficult debating when one holds different presuppositions - it takes lots of focus, which I'm short on in my older age . I promise I'll never take any comments by you and Scott, which imply I'm inferior in approach, as personal. And I ask you to never assume my comments are, either. Cause they ain't. Thanks in advance for your on-going patience
wjsPost Edited (jefscott) : 4/10/2005 8:24:33 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
bryan mccarthy
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2005
Total Posts : 179
| Posted 4/12/2005 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | | Hi, Meph...
Meph: I think that we have to remember that "liberals" (if I can use that term) don't believe in a permeating non-corporeal anti-God force that corrupts creation and actively works against God's divine aims. This is what makes ALL the difference.
if by "liberal", you mean the author of the piece and others like her, then okay.
if you mean liberal in the sense of liberal theologians that the author referred to, it seemed to be referring, however distortedly, to our camp, regarding the whole "not his jurisdiction" thing. she was saying, in other words, either that they are saying he doesn't "work like that" (saving people from natural disasters) -- not our camp -- or that he "can't" stop it (given the kind of world he wanted to create, we would say) -- precisely our camp as i understand it.
Meph again:Even though I seriously doubt the whole Adam and Eve thing, I retain the warfare worldview because of it's huge explanatory power both in terms of biblical testimony and our real world experience.
What, in your view, IS the way "sin entered the world" (or whatever)? how did this mess get like this if it didn't happen literally the way it is depicted in Genesis? Is there any reason why it couldn't be that way? I've heard people debunk the idea that it the story is more meaningful if true and i suppose one could go either way on that, but what starts the doubt of it's literal truth in the first place?
bryan | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 4/13/2005 9:18 AM (GMT -6) | | Meph
Just picking up a few points from what you've said.
With regard to Universalism, is it fair to say that your approach is to try and work out if it's philosophically viable before spending time dealing with the exegetical stuff? As if doesn't make any sense Philosophically, then scripturally trying to validate it isn't worth the bother.
My problem is that I can't see how universalism works scripturally [taking all things into consideration]. My question is why try and prove it philosophically? I understand Christianity to be a revealed religion, where we have to start with what God has revealed to us first, and then work out a philosophical framework from there. If one starts with philosophy, one can get off the rails pretty quick (i.e. Augustine, not that I'm comparing you to him ;-) ).
With regard to God loving Satan, I think it's a bit tricky. God is love and so he acts in a loving way towards everything. But things that are evil, he has to hate otherwise he stops being good. Satan is all bad (particularly in his character) and so there's nothing good to love there. But God's love is still shown towards him in that God respects Satan's choices and decisions, and treats him fairly even though Satan doesn't deserve that.
Now I suspect you may disagree with this, but I think that it is loving to give someone freedom. If someone (angelic or human) persists in choosing death and refuses to choose life, then God is loving to actually give them what they want. I can't see how it's loving to force them to give in to him (through purging in hell etc.). It sounds like the whole idea of freedom and free-will gets a bit negated there.
You also suggested that God would feel sad that some of his creations were lost if they couldn't all be reconciled to him. Yeah, but not for all eternity! Grief's a process, but a healthy and whole person can get over stuff and move on. I think the cross has within itself a whole load of healing for God too over all the hurt and pain and stuff he's borne over the last thousands of years of having humans around [just a thought]. But the present sufferings are not comparable with the joy of being in a universe where God's love fills everything up. [Although I suppose Universalism has that bonus too...d'oh!]
Well, worth a try.
Love
Timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 4/16/2005 6:48 AM (GMT -6) | | Timlings:
With regard to Universalism, is it fair to say that your approach is to try and work out if it's philosophically viable before spending time dealing with the exegetical stuff? As if doesn't make any sense Philosophically, then scripturally trying to validate it isn't worth the bother.
Yep. That's right.
----------------------------
Timlings:
With regard to God loving Satan, I think it's a bit tricky. God is love and so he acts in a loving way towards everything. But things that are evil, he has to hate otherwise he stops being good. Satan is all bad (particularly in his character) and so there's nothing good to love there. But God's love is still shown towards him in that God respects Satan's choices and decisions, and treats him fairly even though Satan doesn't deserve that.
Now I suspect you may disagree with this, but I think that it is loving to give someone freedom. If someone (angelic or human) persists in choosing death and refuses to choose life, then God is loving to actually give them what they want. I can't see how it's loving to force them to give in to him (through purging in hell etc.). It sounds like the whole idea of freedom and free-will gets a bit negated there.
1) Whether a person would want to say that God loves Satan by a) sustaining his existence, b) respecting his freedom, or even c) mourning his demise (what Satan could have been)...all of these can be seen as God loving Satan.
2) As far as the idea of God "giving people what they want", I have tried to argue at length that when it comes to the idea of sentient beings choosing irreparable ultimate self-harm (as seen in the idea of eternal self-destruction), God would do everything within his proper power to minimize that probability of that occuring. God would not WANT to "give people what they want" if it's their own ultimate self-marginization and harm...as I don't think any loving being would. I further believe that it is genuinely within God's ability, all things considered, for God to actualize a possible world where the probability of any sentient "freely" choosing eternal self-destruction approaches 0...leading to functionally inevitable universal reconcilation.
--------------------------
Timlings:
You also suggested that God would feel sad that some of his creations were lost if they couldn't all be reconciled to him. Yeah, but not for all eternity! Grief's a process, but a healthy and whole person can get over stuff and move on.
Hmmmm...what if God is different from us in this way, Tim. That is a possibility, yes?
"I've been converted three times. The first was to traditional Christianity; the second to honesty and the third was to the Love of God and man (humanity) The third was the real conversion. The first two were preliminary."
--Nels Ferre, a theologian speaking of his spiritual journey with the Triune God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 4/16/2005 4:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph
Thanks for your reply.
I'm glad I got your take on universalism right. However, you kinda didn't respond to my point about scripture. If a theological proposition is philosophically viable but isn't scripturally viable then that's as much of a 'no-brainer' as being scripturally viable but philosophically un-viable. I still hold that universalism isn't scripturally viable!
With the thing about 'giving people what they want', I do think that God does everything he can to avoid people destroying themselves... after all he sent Jesus! That's surely the biggest thing he could do. But if God ultimately refuses to take 'no' for an answer, then the whole thing of entering a love-relationship with God seems non-existent. The way I understand it, someone freely choosing (as in can equally easily say 'no' as 'yes') to love God is more important to him than stopping anyone destroying themselves. God desires that everyone be saved, but if he (to all intents and purposes) forces people to get saved, then they've stopped being truly human. He wants to save people, but for that to happen there has to be the option for people not to get saved.
Y'know, God woos us into heaven. I don't think he'll then sit on the rest of them in hell until they give in.
And what if people don't give in? If people can get solidified into rebellion, then they'll never give in! I know our free will is finite, (as in I can choose coffee vs tea but not to fly to the moon) but I don't see how that's to do with if the thumb-screws are put on enough we will eventually give in.
Meph: Hmmmm...what if God is different from us in this way, Tim. That is a possibility, yes?
Tim Different in what way? Am I better adapted to reality that I can get over loss and find resources to get on with life whereas God can't? God's more personal than me, not less.
Nice dialogue though!
love
Timlings | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 4/16/2005 5:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hey Tim,
You said..."I'm glad I got your take on universalism right. However, you kinda didn't respond to my point about scripture. If a theological proposition is philosophically viable but isn't scripturally viable then that's as much of a 'no-brainer' as being scripturally viable but philosophically un-viable. I still hold that universalism isn't scripturally viable!"
What's difficult with the part about your statement, "If a theological proposition . . . isn't scripturally viable" is that one must first define what is "scripturally viable." A liberal and relaxed interpretation of Genesis 1-3 within the context of the Ancient Near East milue presents a completely different reason for interpreting what may be the same theological proposition derived from a more traditional evangelical hermeneutic. The dynamism that each interpretion has used to derive its theology creates the difficulty, if not impossibility, of determining what is scripturally viable in Genesis. The matter is therefore far from being pegged as a no-brainer.
In regard to universalism, many universalists argue that the traditional interpretation of many eternally-banished deterministic passages are, in fact, not deterministic and do not imply what we have read into them. Quite the opposite, from the eyes of the universalist. So, before we conclude what is scripturally viable, we must first exeget the passages.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
| 29 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 11:56 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 |
|
|