|
Post by Josh on May 18, 2008 8:16:43 GMT -8
Sorry guys... don' t mean to leave this one hanging. I really want to respond, but... as you guys can relate...
no time right now....
Surely, I will post quickly (however, I mean that in a futurist sense, not a preterist)
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 19, 2008 20:36:45 GMT -8
Chris, Certainly not. That's the point of my beef with this one encyclopedia which isn't citing any references I can make heads or tails of. I'm pretty convinced that the tradition of the early church is actually a weakness more than a strength for UR. We've touched on this before, but we seem to disagree on the weight that should be given to interpretive tradition via the early church fathers. Simply put, I think it's very valid to let the ECFs have a fair amount of weight because there is a link or chain from the apostles straight to them. There is no magical gulf between the writing of the last book of the New Testament and the penning of later Christian writings, or the dying off of the last apostle and the next generation of Christians. On difficult texts in the New Testament, our best bet is to look to the ECFs because they were the inheritors of oral traditions that in some cases help us fill in the gaps in our understanding of the written texts of Scriptures. I think that's a tremendous amount of faith in the encylcopedia when it would have been easy for them to put forward some substance to their argument if they had it. These kind of shenanigans happen quite frequently in Christian commentaries and other reference materials, in my experience. A quote from Eusebius or any historian before 400 AD would suffice as valid evidence in my book. The kinds of quotes that would impress me could be of three sorts: a) clear statements of personal belief in UR (more like Origen's quotes and less like Clement's, which are vague) b) clear statements by historians (such as Eusebius) that there were many who held this view c) clear statements by opponents of UR who were attempting to refute it- if it was serious enough for many to refute, then it could be argued to have been a wide-spread view* * for instance, this is how we learn a lot about early Gnosticism, Arianism, and Pelagianism- from those who set out to refute them. I know you know this, but for the sake of readers who might be tagging along... Folks like McDonald have merit philosophically as good theodicy, but I consider them weak on other fronts. Here are the major "fronts" to consider on interpretation, IMO, in no particular order of importance: a) tradition b) historical criticism (reconstruction) c) textual criticism d) philosophical/ theological I'd give McDonald and other modern UR writers high marks on d and even c, but a and b are what I'm a bit skeptical of here (but not completely-- I mean, there's definitely Origen and later Gregory and I'm sure there were others) Good question. I'd do some checking and get back to you guys on this. Robin, Again, I don't see evidence that this view is widely held, except in this one dubious source. The source, btw, is from 1800's and reprinted in 1953. If there isn't a more modern source claiming this, then it's pretty much seriously sketchy to me. Link to info on the book: www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc12.html
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 20, 2008 18:52:33 GMT -8
Hi Josh, You wrote: "Again, I don't see evidence that this view is widely held, except in this one dubious source. The source, btw, is from 1800's and reprinted in 1953. If there isn't a more modern source claiming this, then it's pretty much seriously sketchy to me."I would like you to read part of an article found through tentmaker.com, that quotes from historians who give credibility to the view that universalism was the prevailing view of the early church. Here are some additional quotes from early christians not named Origin or Clement: I hope this helps in convincing you, but you know what they say, "a man convinced against his will is un-convinced still" God bless, Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 20, 2008 20:02:26 GMT -8
Thanks, Robin. That's exactly the kind of thing I was looking for. Direct quotes. That quote doesn't resonate at all for me. Some of the most convinced folks were convinced against their will. That's pretty much how Lewis described his own conversion. What's the point of arguing about something if no one's ever going to change their mind or learn anything new? So, these quotes you've supplied present a stronger case to me for the degree to which the universalist view was extant in the early church, and definitely look promising as a support for the argument. The implication that Latin played a key role is all of this seems to be a good argument and explanation for the division. I'd love to look more into that. Lastly, though, I don't particularly appreciate all the invective against the western fathers in that selection. Some of the deepest spiritual insights I have had have been at the feet of Justin, Irenaeus, and certainly Augustine (if you've never read Confessions, I strongly recommend it) And what Jerome did was amazing, even if it can be shown that there were translation errors, and even if he was a bipolar crank. Does the author of the previous article really need to speak of "corrupted texts"? He sounds like a Mormon or Muslim describing the New Testament. One can disagree with the Western Fathers without villifying them, and the argument would look a lot more scholarly if it was portrayed in that light. In particular, I find this "analysis" of Augustine shallow, simplistic, and unfair: But that's another story. I still need to get a response from you guys on my defense of Ignatius before I go defending all these ECFs. One at a time, one at a time!
|
|
|
Post by robin on May 20, 2008 20:28:25 GMT -8
I meant it only in a light hearted manner, please forgive me if I offended you. I just know that my own strong will plays a big part in my ability to be convinced, or not. I am not easly moved in one direction or the other. It is likely that the saying applies better to me.
Perhaps I would approach the topic with a higher level of reverence in regards to the western fathers than did the author. However, if one is able to get past the negativity, the article makes some strong points that must be considered. Also I would like to add that as Christians we should always seek out the truth, and that means nothing is off the table for discussion, including the accuracy of our texts. Do I buy the arguments of Mormons and JWs in regards to our bible, of course not. The truth is not on their side and that is easily proven. I for one, take comfort in the fact that as Christan's we can feel confident that our faith in Jesus is not shaken by such ventures. These pursuits in truth can only bring us closer to Christ.
I agree!
God bless
|
|
|
Post by Josh on May 21, 2008 20:42:53 GMT -8
Not offended, robin. I just really value being willing to let facts change your mind and letting truth take one where it will.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on May 22, 2008 19:42:19 GMT -8
I guess that means me. I don't have much left to say on that topic, but I'll post what little I do have on the other thread.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 12, 2008 12:55:47 GMT -8
OK, I was reading from George MacDonald's sermons and I came across something he said that I think is very striking and I wanted to know what others thought of it.
From George MacDonald's Sermon "The Cry, Eloi, Eloi"
God does not, by the instant gift of his Spirit, make us always feel right, desire good, love purity, aspire after him and his will. Therefore either he will not, or he cannot. If he will not, it must be because it would not be well to do so. If he cannot, then he would not if he could; else a better condition than God's is conceivable to the mind of God-a condition in which he could save the creatures whom he has made, better than he can save them. The truth is this: He wants to make us in his own image, choosing the good, refusing the evil. How should he effect this if he were always moving us from within, as he does at divine intervals, towards the beauty of holiness? God gives us room to be; does not oppress us with his will; "stands away from us," that we may act from ourselves, that we may exercise the pure will for good.
Specifically, I would like to consider the bolded section. It is an interesting philosophical point that I find hard to dispute. If we accept that God does will and desire that all be saved, and be reconciled to himself, which I think none of us doubt. Would it not be the case that if there are some of whom God desired to save or have reconciled, but that he couldn't, it would leave God desiring an outcome that he could not bring about by his own power? Could it not be that God is left with the thought that he is not all powerful, and that there is something in His will that He could not accomplish?
What do you think (Anyone)?
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 18, 2008 21:14:11 GMT -8
But, putting the question of Universal Reconciliation aside for a moment, aren't there plenty of other things that God has willed (in the sense of desiring or wishing) that have not come about? For instance, did God will that Adam and Eve sin? Did God will that the nation of Israel reject him over and over again? I realize you're talking about "outcomes" here, but if God can tolerate something that is against his will for a while, why can't he tolerate it forever? And I don't think it means he's not all powerful in such a case, I think it just means that he has two conflicting wills and one supercedes the other-- as in:
a) he wills (or desires) that none perish
but
b) even more than that, he wills that all have free will to perish or not perish
On another note:
Chris, I think this whole thread needs to start out with a basic definition of Universal Reconciliation for anyone who happens to be visiting.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 18, 2008 22:11:04 GMT -8
Hi Josh,
Well, I'm glad you responded, and you ask some very good questions. I would certainly agree that things do take place that God does not will only in a sense. Perhaps it is important to make a distinction between what God desires and what he wills. You seemed to make the assumption that they are one in the same. Of course, it was God's will to allow man to have free will of choosing good over evil or vice-versa. Therefore, I would say that it was only by Gods will that Adam and Eve were able to sin, but it was not Gods desire for them to choose sin.
On a side note, I believe that God, in His infinite wisdom, could see how man's choice of evil could lead to even a greater love and relationship to exist between He and man. I know you have read C.S. Lewis' book "The Problem of Pain", and understand the logic behind that last statement. I prefer not to dive into that issue at this time.
You drew the following conclusions.
I partially agree with both statements. I would say it like this:
a) He wills that none perish.
b) He wills that all men should freely choose not to perish.
But let say your right. What if man could freely perish, and at the same time God will that man not perish. Now we have two apposing wills. Which is greater? If even one soul could thwart the will of God eternally, then it must be said that God created a being who's will was greater than his own.
And heres another thought. Can man even perish freely? I think not. It is only by the loving hand of God that any of us are held in "life". Therefore, in order for a man to perish, in the sense that annihilationists think of perishing, it must only be by Gods doing (withdrawing His hand from us), not mans. I see no way in which man can make that choice without God's approval, and if God wills that none perish, then it seems that God's will wins out.
I know you asked Chris for a definition of UR, but I will share what I think sums it up well. This is from Tentmaker.org.
"What is Christian Universalism? Christian universalism is a belief in the simple Bible truth that Jesus Christ is the "Lamb who takes away the sin of the world." He is the promised Messiah of whom the prophets of the Old Covenant foresaw; He is the Savior of the world, He is the "Second Adam," through Whom all mankind will be restored to God's original image, He is the only way to the Father, the only begotton Son of God, and that there is no other way to everlasting, “aionian” life but through Him. We believe He is king and judge of the universe, and owner of all Creation, and that His purpose for the ages (aions) is to bring all things under His government and reconciled with Himself.
We believe that in His substitutionary death and resurrection He became the "Lamb who takes away the sin of the world." As Christ Himself said, "If I be lifted up (crucified) I will draw all men to me" (as also prophesied in Psalm 22). His Name is the One before which every man, woman and child, from all of human history will bow before and declare that He is Lord. At that day, the prophesied "restoration of all things" shall come to pass, and of the increase of His government and peace there shall be no end."
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 23, 2008 21:38:48 GMT -8
Robin, The only reason I hesitate to use the words "desire" and "will" to differentiate between what God wants and what God will determine because Scripture often doesn't make that distinction in English at least*. In fact, most of the time English translations use the phrase "God's will" I think they're more more closely meaning something like "desire" than "a specific outcome God will determine". Actually, I think it is helpful to separate out the two senses of the word like you're doing. It's just good to point out that the word "will" in Scripture can mean two very different things. I've written elsewhere on this, btw: Two Kinds of WillBut, anyway, I agree with your conclusion above. Agreed. OK, now here it seems to me that you're mixing up the sense of the word "will". In the case above you have a man who desires to perish (presumably they'd rather perish than spend eternity with God). And you have God who desires that they not perish. But you're forgetting that (as far as the argument from the other side runs), God's has a greater will than his desire that none perish- it is that He wills (even desires) that all men freely choose. So, in that case, His higher will is not thwarted when he is rejected. Now, from here on this is going to get rather conjectural- largely because when we start talking about the relativity of time things get a little loosey goosey, so forgive me in advance. Anyway, I'm not sure that eternity changes the equation at all. It seems that according to your logic that a rejection of God "thwarts" His will, then if God allows Himself to be thwarted at all (even temporarily), then there is something more powerful than Him in the universe. Since I see God as timeless, adding eternity into the mix doesn't change the equation. From my perspective on time, if anything happens even once, it rings or resounds for all eternity. When I put on the hat of the "eternal torment" view, I see God as viewing those stuck in hell as he views any single isolated event of rebellion. Since I think time as we know it- especially it's linear nature- as meaningless (or just as a pale hint of what the reality will be like) in the world to come, phrases like "God's will is thwarted for eternity" don't mean so much, because I don't see those in hell as continually deciding to thwart God for ages on end- it's more like one single rejection of God that characterizes a timeless eternity. * I assume that there are different words for "will" and "desire" in Greek that guide why the English translations render it one way or another.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 23, 2008 21:44:47 GMT -8
Whether the soul (or the man's entire nature) was created by God to be inherently everlasting is, of course, another good debate- one that I am somewhat divided on, btw. Someone want to start a thread on that? But, again, though God wills (desires) that none perish, He also wills (has decided) that men are able to perish. In other words, I'll put this in a paradoxical set of statements: 1. God wills that His own desires do not always win out 2. God's desires do win out because He desires that it be that way
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jun 24, 2008 11:27:08 GMT -8
OK, it seems that from this point we may be on the path of talking past each other. It is well established that we (you and I) view God's relationship to time differently. I don't want to side track the discussion but I simply want to make a quick observation.
You said:
and,
If you are correct, how do you understand the meaning of the following passage from Hebrews?
Hebrews 8:6-13 6 But now He has obtained a more excellent ministry, inasmuch as He is also Mediator of a better covenant, which was established on better promises. 7 For if that first covenant had been faultless, then no place would have been sought for a second. 8 Because finding fault with them, He says: "Behold, the days are coming, says the Lord, when I will make a new covenant with the house of Israel and with the house of Judah-- 9 not according to the covenant that I made with their fathers in the day when I took them by the hand to lead them out of the land of Egypt; because they did not continue in My covenant, and I disregarded them, says the Lord. 10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, says the Lord: I will put My laws in their mind and write them on their hearts; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people. 11 None of them shall teach his neighbor, and none his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' for all shall know Me, from the least of them to the greatest of them. 12 For I will be merciful to their unrighteousness, and their sins and their lawless deeds I will remember no more." 13 In that He says, "A new covenant," He has made the first obsolete. Now what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.
How can anything vanish or be remembered no more by a God who is eternally present in all moments?
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jun 24, 2008 14:29:09 GMT -8
Yes, a lot of this gets hung up on our views of God's relationship to time. Perhaps we should pick back up on our discussion of God, Time, and Open Theism . Would you mind copying this Hebrews passage question on that thread so I can answer it there. It may very well be that we just end up seeing the issue of time differently, but I'm very curious to explore many more nooks and crannies of the implications of the issue along the way (such as your challenge above). I'm going to have to re-read the whole God, Time, ... thread to freshen up on where we're at.
|
|
|
Post by rodgertutt on Jul 8, 2008 9:43:11 GMT -8
If you cannot love an eternal torment god For the first 500 years after Christ, universalism was the prevailing doctrine believed and taught by the Christian church. www.tentmaker.org/books/Prevailing.shtml Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine Of The Christian Church During Its First Five Hundred Years The author, J.W. Hanson wrote “The purpose of this book is to present some of the evidence of the prevalence in the early centuries of the Christian church, of the doctrine of the final holiness of all mankind. The author believes that the following pages show that Universal Restitution was the faith of the early Christians for at least the First Five Hundred Years of the Christian era. He has aimed to present irrefragable proofs that the doctrine of Universal Salvation was the prevalent sentiment of the primitive Christian church. The salient statements and facts in all which will be found in these pages show that the most and ablest of the early fathers found the deliverance of all mankind from sin and sorrow specifically revealed in the Christian Scriptures.” And they were using the Bible in its original language. This online book also explains why and how this changed. Up until now, after reading this post, many believers in eternal torment have said something like, “I truly sympathize with your sufferings, but it’s what the Bible says that matters, not whether or not it makes you suffer.” That’s why I want to say right at the outset that many of the links posted here show that a correctly (literally, not interpretively) translated Bible actually teach universal salvation, not eternal torment, or even annihilation. I’m 69 years old. The idea that God lets anyone suffer forever has caused me more suffering (including a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78) than all the other sufferings of my life combined. This suffering was caused by the fear produced by not being able to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever and wondering what this god would do to me for not being able to love him. Even though I was and am trusting for my salvation in what Jesus accomplished by His death and resurrection, through the power in the blood of His cross, I was, and still am unable to love a god who would let anyone suffer forever. Here are testimonies similar to mine. www.tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.htmlgreater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/consequences.html If you are like me and cannot love a god who would let anyone suffer forever, you can copy and paste (if necessary) the following urls into the address bar and find out that a literally (not interpretively) translated Bible actually teaches universal salvation, not even annihilation. THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD If necessary, copy and paste the following urls into the address bar. www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm At the top and bottom of that same THE SAVIOUR OF THE WORLD page, there is the following link to fourteen other writings in the same series that are related to this same subject. www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm Don’t kid yourself. If anyone suffers forever JESUS IS DOING IT TO THEM www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htmTHE GOD THAT CALVINIST AND ARMINIAN ETERNAL TORMENTORS PROFESS TO LOVE The eternal torment theology of the Arminian Christian relies on so-called “free will” and luck. The god that Arminian eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures “Unless you are lucky enough to find out about my son during this lifetime, and even if you are that lucky, if you don’t have the good sense to cooperate with my son properly before you die, then I am going to raise you from the dead and I will sustain you alive in an inescapable state of eternal torment forever.” The eternal torment theology of the Calvinist Christian relies on God alone, not “free will” at all. It is summed up by the word TULIP: Total depravity, Unconditional election, Limited atonement, Irresistible grace, and the Perseverance of the elect. The god that Calvinistic eternal tormentors profess to love says to his fallen creatures "I created most of you for the purpose of torturing you forever. However, I am going to choose a few of you undeserving ones to go to heaven where you will be happy forever." John Calvin said there will be infants a span long in hell because they were not among the elect. (A span is the distance between the tip of the thumb to the tip of the little finger.) And then both the Arminian and Calvinistic eternal tormentors say that the feelings that they have for this god of theirs is “love.” To read a description of eternal torment combination Calv-Arminianism see ABSOLUTE ASSURANCE IN JESUS CHRIST – Charles Slagle www.tentmaker.org/books/Absolute-Assurance-in-Jesus-Christ.htmlThis next url sums up the end result of all three www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/circularity.htm Without God’s sustaining power everyone would cease to exist. So if anyone were to suffer forever, our all-powerful God (Who is Love in essence, not just loving) would be fully 100% responsible for it. We would have to conclude that any definition of the manifestation of “love-in-essence” includes eternally sustaining people alive in an inescapable state of suffering. What a travesty; what a revolting definition of love it is that God, Who is love personified, would grant any creature a will so strong that they can choose themselves into an irreversible state of never ending suffering! Thank God the Bible does not teach such an insane idea! Here is what the God that universal transformationists love and worship with complete abandon will do. He will complete the process of salvation for the first fruits of election, (the remnant chosen by grace), after the first resurrection. Then He will complete the process of salvation for the non-elect after the great white throne judgment. For some, it will include an experience in the lake of fire. Jesus died on the cross and rose from the dead to guarantee that any necessary "kolasis aionian" (age-during corrective chastisement) will be 100% effective in changing wrong attitudes. All acts of sin have been forgiven for everyone. Attitudes cannot be forgiven. Attitudes must change. This is what the lake of fire which is the second death will do. It will last no longer than God sees is good for everyone involved. www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/TheLakeOfFire-Eby.html You can Google up good articles on this subject by typing in kolasis aionian Also see www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htm For anyone who cannot love an endless-hell god --- BIBLICAL CHRISTIAN UNIVERSALIST RESOURCES Copy and paste the following urls into the address bar www.christian-universalism.com/links.html www.christianuniversalist.org Also see Information, and frequently asked questions in support of a correctly (literally, not interpretively) translated Bible teaching universal salvation, www.tentmaker.org/bloglinks.htm www.tentmaker.org/sitemap.html www.tentmaker.org/ScholarsCorner.html www.tentmaker.org/articles/savior-of-the-world/index.htmwww.tentmaker.org/books/BibleThreateningsExplained.html (If necessary, copy and paste them into your address bar) and they will learn that the Bible actually teaches universal salvation instead, not even annihilation. Or, they will go to the search engine at the top of www.tentmaker.org and will type in a key word or phrase from any argument or scripture passage. Ten articles will come up refuting the claim that the Bible teaches eternal torment or annihilation. Then they may click to the next page and ten more articles will come up, and so on and so on for many pages. The many entries in my guestbook that is accessed towards the bottom of my front page at greater-emmanuel.org/Hope4You/ and the many entries at www.tentmaker.org/visitorcomments.htm show just how much this information is helping people. Also see www.tentmaker.org/articles/hells_fruit.htmlThis was the information that enabled me to recover from a twelve year nervous breakdown 1966-78, and it gives me great joy to keep learning that it is helping more and more other people too!! I’m 69 I am also going to guide you to the testimony of a man whose experience was almost identical to mine. Even the thought processes that took him into, through, and out of his breakdown are the same as mine. His name is Charles Slagle. He answers the question, "Which view of salvation is true?" www.tentmaker.org/books/Absolute-Assurance-in-Jesus-Christ.html
|
|
|
Post by robin on Jul 8, 2008 10:13:55 GMT -8
hello rodgertutt , have you read Thomas Talbot's book, "The inescapable love of God"? Talbot's book gives, in my mind, the most convincing arguments for Universal Reconciliation.
By the way, Tentmaker.org is a wonderful recourse for anyone who seeks to find out more about Christian Universalism.
Robin
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 8, 2008 12:19:55 GMT -8
Does anyone (esp. Chris) have a problem with my re-wording of the title of this thread. I just thought it needed to be a little more understandable to someone new to the topic.
If the change skews the original intent, it can be changed to something else.
|
|