|
Post by rodgertutt on Mar 30, 2009 23:50:03 GMT -8
First off, are you talking about physical resurrection here? Do you believe it is the final destiny of everyone to receive back their bodies? Or are you saying that those in the lake of fire, having received back their physicality at the judgment, will at a later point be "vivified"? It is my understanding that the "the lake of fire which is the second death" following the judgment is actually age-during death, not life in some other form, although it will include what the Bible calls kolasis aionios which means age-during corrective chastisement. Then, before God's plan for the ages of time had been consummated, they all will be vivified with perfect spiritual bodies and God will be All in all and there will be no more death. For me, the important issue is that everyone will eventually be saved from anything from which they need to be saved, including their stubborn wills. www.savior-of-all.com/aionian.html
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 31, 2009 17:32:18 GMT -8
rodgertutt wrote: emphasis mine
Let me get this straight before I go on- are you saying that you deny the historical belief of the church that the resurrection is a physical one- that we are to receive back our physicality? Or am I just misunderstanding your use of the word spiritual?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Jul 21, 2009 17:53:20 GMT -8
Ok, since this has pretty much become the place where I bring up scriptures relevant to the topic, what are your thoughts on this one?
How can it be said that it was better for Judas to "not have been born" if indeed he too, in the end, will be redeemed according to the universalist view?
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Jul 21, 2009 19:42:01 GMT -8
I allow for the possibility of hyperbole in a culture where it was so prevalent (surprise, surprise). ;D
Ever hear the phrase "when I get through with you, you'll wish you'd never been born"? How many times is that actually meant, and how many times does it actually happen?
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 16, 2011 20:19:24 GMT -8
I kind of wanted to bump this and hear any new perspectives. Honestly, the idea of UR is new to me, always having experienced ET from my upbringing. So I have enjoyed the last few minutes skimming through this thread. I happened to hear some friends discussing Rob Bell's new book "Love Wins" and further how it is causing an uproar among theologians. It appears to me a a "theology-lite" defense of UR. Here is the Amazon page for the book: www.amazon.com/Love-Wins-About-Heaven-Person/dp/006204964X/ref=zg_bs_books_4And here is the rather harsh (IMO) rebuttal I read this afternoon: www.sbcbaptistpress.org/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=34847Although, I did hope this quote from Mohler (which I thought was a pretty succinct response, given its context) would get a response here:
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2011 17:37:40 GMT -8
To be honest, I kinda like it when theologians get their grundies in a wad over these things. ;D
Some people feel so threatened when you mess with their favorite stick.
Whatever Bell wrote in his book, it won't be new, it will just get more press, which is a good thing. These topics have been debated for Millennia, but have largely been subdued out of fear of bucking orthodoxy (which got you the stake, the stocks, and all kinds of other pleasantries a few centuries ago).
Let the debate rage on.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 17, 2011 18:10:52 GMT -8
Since you brought it to my attention, Kirby, I've done a little research and I'm thoroughly unimpressed with the criticisms I've heard of Bell on this issue.
I think it's high time UR gets it's equal representation.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 17, 2011 22:11:29 GMT -8
Wow, looking back over it, it's hard to believe we started this thread 3 years ago! (Has it really been that long?)
Kirby, the rebuttal you posted from the Southern Baptist guy is pretty typical fundy language full of rhetorical weasel words like "liberalism" and "clear teaching of scripture". It's obvious that these kinds of "rebuttals" are not really interested in dealing with the meat of the argument (and therefore not really rebuttals at all), but have the agenda of cavalierly discrediting anything that opposes orthodoxy to assure their readers (likely people already firmly in their camp) that they're in the right camp.
I usually pay little attention to these "critiques" because they tend to lack a real treatment of the subject matter and resort strictly to rhetoric (kind of like what I'm doing now ;D).
The statement that he gave about the Gospel is typical of someone who has:
1) a limited human centered gospel that merely looks at what man gets out of the cross rather than what God actually achieved.
2) a Calvinist view of salvation that says what man is really saved from is God Himself (still fuming about that lie you told your mom as a child) rather than a cancerous problem called sin and fallen-ness that the cross effectively reverses.
Anyway, I don't know if that was the type of response you were looking for, but I for one am glad that the debate is finally gaining traction on a wider scale and I hope it makes a few more agnostics (like myself) with regards to the question of hell.
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 18, 2011 8:04:43 GMT -8
That's exactly the type of response I wanted to see!
Good point, but couldn't I say the same about UR, as in "Whew! I don't have to worry about hell!" I guess what I am trying to say is that from my perspective, most only see the human centeredness of the gospel...the fact that "I" may be saved, that it makes "me" feel good, it is about the benefits "I" receive. Maybe that is a result of the influence of the American fast-food egocentric consumer culture. (Which leads to my main criticism of evangelism methods, and makes me want to believe in UR so much more...it seems to be a more logical part of a plan).
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 18, 2011 14:10:46 GMT -8
Perhaps, but I don't think you can limit this tendency to western culture. I think its simply human nature. In fact religious leaders have been appealing to peoples self interest throughout history. The eternal torment view of hell is the brain child of the Roman Catholic church going back centuries.
It's also interesting to note that recent movements toward recognizing UR as a viable biblical understanding of hell has come from American Christians who are willing to stand against orthodoxy. I don't see a willingness among Christians in other parts of the world to challenge their religious leaders on the subject, of course I could be off base. But if I am correct, I would attribute such willingness to the fact the Americans by nature are very independent, and don't like being told what to think.
I share your feelings, but it is hard not to see where God has been able to move even through the methods that I find to be distasteful. In my opinion, hell should never be part of evangelism.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 18, 2011 15:31:17 GMT -8
Kirby,
Why have so many people throughout history been so willing, and even count it an honor, to die for their country or king? Or take a bullet for their spouse or child? Or run into a burning building to rescue a complete stranger?
you wrote:
That would be coming from a limited view of God in my opinion.
If you're wife told you that she would always love you and never divorce you no matter what, would you also say "Whew, I can bed as many women as I want now"?
Not likely. My guess is that it would kill you to do anything that would hurt your wife like that.
Similarly, there resides within us a sense of "oughtness" (as CS Lewis would put it) that compels us to do the right thing because it's right. People ought to serve and obey Jesus not only because it's in their best interest (which I do believe it is) but because He is Lord and King and it's the right thing to do.
I think an introspective soul search will usually reveal a deep desire to be just and good (for most people) and not simply happy and comfortable in this life.
If UR is true, it doesn't absolve anyone's responsibility to submit to Jesus. In fact, I would say it makes it the right thing to do all the more.
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2011 6:56:07 GMT -8
robin wrote:
Interesting. But don't you think there are probably some passages of Scripture which do just that? I don't have the time to look into that just now, but in any case, isn't there a place in evangelism from the UR perspective to say to the agnostic, "don't hedge your bets because hell will be a horrible experience- today is the day for salvation!"
Kirby- help me understand something about your perspective. Are you saying you lean toward universal salvation (salvation for all apart from Christ) or Christian universal salvation (eventual salvation for all, even those in hell, through Jesus Christ)?
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 19, 2011 22:07:11 GMT -8
|
|
|
Post by Kirby on Mar 20, 2011 18:53:50 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Lame response, I suppose, but: I don't know.
I bumped this thread because I have never really pondered Christian Universal salvation, and wanted to play with it a little.
At this point in my journey, I care little about the future (afterlife) and much more about the ever-present NOW. I realize there is much more to "salvation" than the afterlife, but this discussion seems to center around hell, or the lack thereof.
Chris wrote:
I'm not sure I agree with Lewis here. I think that presupposes the idea that people in general care about the idea of "oughtness". In proper British form, especially in fantastic realities that are in Lewis's mind, people do "what is right" naturally, but I think that is a bit romantic, don't you? This is coming from a man who (along with other thinkers and artists) went to War because of the romantic idea of it, God save the King and all that. I see what Lewis is trying to say here, but it just doesn't fit the impression I have of humanity.
|
|
|
Post by robin on Mar 21, 2011 7:04:05 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Personally, I wouldn't take that approach unless the issue of hell was a sticking point to the person I was evangelizing. However, it does seem like to subject comes up quite a bit with non-believers. While on vacation I had a long discussion with my older sister (her name is Robin also). She considers herself an atheist, and thinks that religion is simply something used to control people through fear. For her to hear that people enjoy a relationship with Christ without the ear of hell was a new concept. In the end I try to convey the message that my faith is base on love and not fear.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 21, 2011 8:18:18 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Can you list a few? I'm hard pressed to recall any and I know Steve Gregg contends there are none, at least in the book of Acts where we see most (if not all) of the evangelizing taking place in the NT.
|
|
|
Post by christopher on Mar 21, 2011 8:22:05 GMT -8
Josh wrote:
Good for him. You should post this over at the theos forum too, there's an active thread on this and there's a more than few Boyd fans over there.
|
|