Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Saint Steven]

... Let's just focus on the point of the OP: How do we "know" who all will ultimately bow before the Lord and be thankful when doing so?

I think that's a who AND where question.
1) Every knee. If it has knees, it will bow.
2) In heaven and on earth and under the earth (in the realm of the dead)

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

 

[Saint Steven]

Like I said, "hermeneutics" is just a fancy word for "interpretation". The times you addressed the word "aionios", you applied hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics = interpretation.
Exegesis = objective interpretation.
Eisegesis = subjective interpretation.

And I'm guessing there's no reason to put any of those on a pedestal. They're all fallible, right?
And it seems that an accusation of eisegesis is a rebuke to the interpreter.

 

[Lazarus Short]

Right! And I have a gut-wrenching, visceral reaction when I hear people say "they know" this.

What you describe might be a bit like my feeling when I am informed that "Hell is REAL!"

 

[Ceallaigh]

And I'm guessing there's no reason to put any of those on a pedestal. They're all fallible, right?
And it seems that an accusation of eisegesis is a rebuke to the interpreter.

I think sometimes people use words like that to sound more authoritative, credible, scholarly etc. But it just comes down to someone's take on something. Accusing someone of eisegesis is the equivalent to saying "you're making **** up".

 

[Hmm]

I think sometimes people use words like that to sound more authoritative, credible, scholarly etc. But it just comes down to someone's take on something. Accusing someone of eisegesis is the equivalent to saying "you're making **** up".

The words "sixth former" comes to mind for some unaccountable reason (a 17/18 year old school kid if you don't have the term in the US)

 

[Shrewd Manager]

The recent exchanges proves to me that Christian universalism is not only about the restoration of all humanity, it's also about the restoration of common sense

It's the perfect simplicity of deductive logic: God can save all, He wants all saved, ERGO...

Perhaps UR is for ppl who are poor in faith. Because it takes a bucket load more faith to persist with the illogical and arbitrary angry volcano god of limited atonement and ECT.

For those with such abundant faith, UR must seem like 'surely more is required'. Well I'm weak, so I figure our walk is challenging enough without heaping on extra dogmatic burden!

 

[Ceallaigh]

I watched a movie about the Salem witch trials the other day. Fear of hell was portrayed as a key component in Puritanism. Of course the church had the power to excommunicate which meant that's where one was headed if that happened.

 

[Hmm]

I watched a movie about the Salem witch trials the other day. Fear of hell was portrayed as a key component in Puritanism. Of course the church had the power to excommunicate which meant that's where one was headed if that happened.

Was that Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" by any chance?

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I watched a movie about the Salem witch trials the other day. Fear of hell was portrayed as a key component in Puritanism. Of course the church had the power to excommunicate which meant that's where one was headed if that happened.

It's the same old spiritual terrorism that's marred human history. The endless stream of hobgoblins used by the political class to secure the compliance of the masses. The devil and his kingdom of fear, that rotten fruit.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Was that Arthur Miller's "The Crucible" by any chance?

It was just called Salem Witch Trials. Probably made for TV.

 

[Hmm]

https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0284450/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_0

Thanks for the ref. Fear and control are the two sides of the ECT coin.

 

[Lazarus Short]

It's the same old spiritual terrorism that's marred human history. The endless stream of hobgoblins used by the political class to secure the compliance of the masses. The devil and his kingdom of fear, that rotten fruit.

What I'd like to know is...what is the difference between a "hobgoblin" and a mere goblin?

In similar fashion, we have "hell," aka hel, helle, hella, hille, hella, hellja, heljar and halja. The 1611 KJV has "hel" and "hell." "Beowulf has "hell," "hel" and "hella." Since "Beowulf" is set in Denmark, it is logical to look to the mythology of the pagan Norse and Danes for the origins of "hell." This easily found in the personage of "Hel," a goddess or ogress who was said to rule over her afterlife realm of "Helheim" (House of Hel). It was said to be where you went for eternity if you failed to die in battle and thus did not rate going to Valhalla. The threat of damnation goes all the way back, and it is not a pretty picture.

Again, about UR, what's not to like?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I'd like to know is...what is the difference between a "hobgoblin" and a mere goblin?

In similar fashion, we have "hell," aka hel, helle, hella, hille, hella, hellja, heljar and halja. The 1611 KJV has "hel" and "hell." "Beowulf has "hell," "hel" and "hella." Since "Beowulf" is set in Denmark, it is logical to look to the mythology of the pagan Norse and Danes for the origins of "hell." This easily found in the personage of "Hel," a goddess or ogress who was said to rule over her afterlife realm of "Helheim" (House of Hel). It was said to be where you went for eternity if you failed to die in battle and thus did not rate going to Valhalla. The threat of damnation goes all the way back, and it is not a pretty picture.

Again, about UR, what's not to like?

Frankly, I've never really given a damn about the ideal of Hell. It's presence as an idea wasn't what moved me to be a Christian anyway... So for me, this whole rigmarole about whether U.R. or ECT is "correct," is and always has been a merely tertiary point of theological consideration.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's the perfect simplicity of deductive logic: God can save all, He wants all saved, ERGO...

Perhaps UR is for ppl who are poor in faith. Because it takes a bucket load more faith to persist with the illogical and arbitrary angry volcano god of limited atonement and ECT.

For those with such abundant faith, UR must seem like 'surely more is required'. Well I'm weak, so I figure our walk is challenging enough without heaping on extra dogmatic burden!

Well, thanks for being existentially honest.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

And I'm guessing there's no reason to put any of those on a pedestal. They're all fallible, right?
And it seems that an accusation of eisegesis is a rebuke to the interpreter.

What would you do with Hermeneutics and Exegesis since they're part and parcel of everything we Christians do when reading the Bible? You make it sound as if they're somehow magically dispensable, which is rather surprising since they're descriptively part and parcel of your neurological functions within your brain and an outcrop of the structures of human communication.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What I'd like to know is...what is the difference between a "hobgoblin" and a mere goblin?

In similar fashion, we have "hell," aka hel, helle, hella, hille, hella, hellja, heljar and halja. The 1611 KJV has "hel" and "hell." "Beowulf has "hell," "hel" and "hella." Since "Beowulf" is set in Denmark, it is logical to look to the mythology of the pagan Norse and Danes for the origins of "hell." This easily found in the personage of "Hel," a goddess or ogress who was said to rule over her afterlife realm of "Helheim" (House of Hel). It was said to be where you went for eternity if you failed to die in battle and thus did not rate going to Valhalla. The threat of damnation goes all the way back, and it is not a pretty picture.

Again, about UR, what's not to like?

What do I not like about UR? ...one thing is that it doesn't seem like it puts a important value upon the idea of repentance. It almost sounds like the ultimate 'get out of hell' free card for single people (men mainly) who can't get over their addictions. That, or it's the last pit stop for those already on their way out of the Christian Faith because they're just barely hanging on anyway.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's much more than that - have a read through Matt 23 in particular. Jesus is condemning them for their self-righteousness, which includes the notion that they're more worthy than the average folk. It's the 'Grace for me, but not for thee' attitude that snakes into the church in the first Judaising heresy, for which Paul rebukes Peter. All part of the same thing, the 'gospel of the accursed', which is now a firm fixture thanks to ECT and limited atonement.

If God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, and has promised by oath/ covenant no less than 3 times that every tongue will freely confess (Isa 45:23, Rom 14:11, Phil 2:10), and that He will be 'all in all' (this is the true gospel according to Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-28) - who are we to start watering it down, diminishing the work of the cross?

Yeah, I already know it's much more than that. But, I'm not seeing your progressive exegetical steps in interpreting here. To me, it seems like you're just kind of sporadically reaching for and fitting together pieces of Scriptures to build your own little personal lego set castle. What are your steps in exegesis and hermeneutics by which you've reached your conclusions in regard to Pharisaical hypocrisy directly applying to those who hold to ECT (or any other view)?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The recent exchanges proves to me that Christian universalism is not only about the restoration of all humanity, it's also about the restoration of common sense

That might be the case IF there was such a thing as 'common sense.' But thousands of years of philosophy, human stupidity and downright idiocy have pretty much ripped a gashing hole in that idea.

So, you might have to 'base' your restoration on something else.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think sometimes people use words like that to sound more authoritative, credible, scholarly etc. But it just comes down to someone's take on something. Accusing someone of eisegesis is the equivalent to saying "you're making **** up".

And we know that a lot of religious people make things up, don't we?

So, how should we deal with that? Throw away the benefits of education?

If not, you might need to say so because it almost sounds like that's the direction you're leaning toward.

 

[Hmm]

That might be the case IF there was such a thing as 'common sense.' But thousands of years of philosophy, human stupidity and downright idiocy have pretty much ripped a gashing hole in that idea.

So, you might have to 'base' your restoration on something else.

Exactly, common sense is not so common anymore.