Is it okay to simply assume that God saves all?

[ozso]

I agree it isn't now, but it was in the early church, and I'm inclined to trust that more.

When comes to the early church, it's more orthodox than Protestantism.

 

[Hmm]

When comes to the early church, it's more orthodox than Protestantism.

Yes. I'd like to go to an Orthodox church to learn more about it but the nearest one to me is in Shrewsbury, England about 25 miles away. I know that sort of distance is peanuts to you Americans but it's considered a long way by us Brits!

 

[ozso]

Yes. I'd like to go to an Orthodox church to learn more about it but the nearest one to me is in Shrewsbury, England about 25 miles away. I know that sort of distance is peanuts to you Americans but it's considered a long way by us Brits!

My job is 25+ miles away. But I still consider that a long drive. Looks like there's one fairly close to me on the rural areas. If Google maps is correct it's in a converted stable. I'll have to check it out. I was planning on taking a countryside drive soon anyways.

 

[Hmm]

My job is 25+ miles away. But I still consider that a long drive.

Ah okay. Most of the rest of the world thinks that American cars are longer than that!

If Google maps is correct it's in a converted stable. I'll have to check it out.

Remember though that nothing good ever came out of a stable /s

 

[ozso]

Remember though that nothing good ever came out of a stable /s

I'll take my chances. Just like the three wise men.

 

[Saint Steven]

Yes I will listen. Agreement is another thing.

Of course.
I only ask that you hear us out.

 

[bling]

Just to defend NT Wright here but what he is saying here about the Rapture is not just his personal opinion but the established traditional view. I only mentioned him to give a credible source. The more dramatic view of some people being zapped up to heaven leaving others behind is very much a modern, and almost Hollywood, view.

There are lots of scholarly opinions out there, trying to explain a lot of very poetic passages. I can get into it with you, but I am not going to "debate" some scholar who will not be answering me and most are dead.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.

I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.

This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"

So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".

It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.

It could be that Christian Universalism is correct, but if it is it wouldn't be simply because a person just feels that it's right to assume that it is. And as for analogizing assumptive feelings with today's notions about various moral issues, to make this comparison only provides a very weak argument.

As for slavery, we don't "just feel" that it's wrong; no, that conclusion has gone through a long history of development in connection to a wide web of other beliefs to enable us to arrive at today's mindset. But even then, it's not clear that the idea that "slavery is wrong" is metaphysically grounded any more than Human Rights is grounded.

So, feel free to carry on with your belief about Christian Universalism, for you might be correct. But let's not fool ourselves that any biblical position of just about any sort is somehow grounded on mere intuitions.

 

[Clare73]

Well now if someone read what I suggested they would understand the differences.

Non-responsive. . .you avoided answering my question.

 

[Clare73]

Which text would that be?

Those texts of the whole counsel of God in which Romans 5:18b must be understood, starting with Romans 5:18b itself:
". . .the result of one act of righteousness (the cross) was (led to) justification that brings (leads to) life to all men."
"Bringing, leading to" and "giving" are not the same thing.

You can "bring, lead me" to water to drink but it doesn't "give" me hydration if I don't "receive" (drink) it.

And then there are texts such as: John 3:18, John 3:36, etc., etc.

 

[Clare73]

I am not changing it. It says what I have said.

The text says what you've said?

God is not responsible for man's disobedience of his laws regarding slavery.

 

[Hmm]

As for slavery, we don't "just feel" that it's wrong; no, that conclusion has gone through a long history of development in connection to a wide web of other beliefs to enable us to arrive at today's mindset. But even then, it's not clear that the idea that "slavery is wrong" is metaphysically grounded any more than Human Rights is grounded.

I think do just feel that slavery is wrong. It's a self-evident truth and so doesn't need any philosophical underpinning for us to fully believe that, as with most of our values.

 

[Hmm]

I can get into it with you, but I am not going to "debate" some scholar who will not be answering me and most are dead

I'm not interested in debating Wright either. I just thought his explanation of the Rapture makes sense and wondered what you thought.

 

[Hmm]

". . .the result of one act of righteousness (the cross) was (led to) justification that brings (leads to) life to all men."
"Bringing, leading to" and "giving" are not the same thing.

You can "bring, lead me" to water to drink but it doesn't "give" me hydration if I don't "receive" (drink) it.

I'm not sure your example works. If I lead you to water you have to do something to receive it, right, but if you are in a war zone in Ukraine at the moment and I bring you out of it then I have led you to life - you do not have to do anything to receive it.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I think do just feel that slavery is wrong. It's a self-evident truth and so doesn't need any philosophical underpinning for us to fully believe that, as with most of our values.

Alright. I feel free to disagree, then.

 

[Clare73]

I'm not sure your example works. If I lead you to water you have to do something to receive it, right, but if you are in a war zone in Ukraine at the moment and I bring you out of it then I have led you to life - you do not have to do anything to receive it.

Nor did I lose it, nor was I without it when you brought me out.

I already had life, you led me to what I already had. . .in order to preserve what I already had, not to give me what I didn't have, as in Romans 5:18b.

That one isn't working, because the analogy is incorrect.

 

[Hmm]

Alright. I feel free to disagree, then.

Of course! But do you think your views would change if you witnessed a slave auction where families were torn apart because for example a buyer only wanted the mother for a cook or something worse and didn't want husband and children as well who ended up being sold separately to other buyers, as used to happen?

The truth that this is wrong can only be felt. There are no "metaphysical groundings" or "connections to other beliefs" that can make it true. Obviously this begs the question of what is truth. Suffice to say that there are truths other than philosophical ones that are equally valid.

 

[bling]

I'm not interested in debating Wright either. I just thought his explanation of the Rapture makes sense and wondered what you thought.

I stick with scripture, pray, meditation, the indwelling Holy Spirit's guidance, fasting when needed, making sure my motive for knowing is not just academic, intellectual or to win an argument and discussions with like minded Christians. Revelation is full of symbolic figurative language, not good for any proof text scripture.

 

[Hmm]

I stick with scripture, pray, meditation, the indwelling Holy Spirit's guidance, fasting when needed, making sure my motive for knowing is not just academic, intellectual or to win an argument and discussions with like minded Christians. Revelation is full of symbolic figurative language, not good for any proof text scripture.

I'm not interested in intellectual argument either. - see my previous post about feeling and slavery.To me, the conclusion that slavery and poverty etc is not intrinsically wrong and is even supported by God, can only come about through intellectual reasoning that has lost its way somewhere.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Of course! But do you think your views would change if you witnessed a slave auction where families were torn apart because for example a buyer only wanted the mother for a cook or something worse and didn't want husband and children as well who ended up being sold separately to other buyers, as used to happen?

What a silly non-historical, non-geographically minded and non-contexual question to ask. This is not how current notions about 'freedom' have come to light in the conscience of the Western World, Hmm. It hasn't been merely by standing side by side with William Wilberforce. The point here in my saying this is that if the structure of the argument for Christian Universalism is 'true,' it will be on lines of evaluation other than those on which anti-slavery morality is structured. So, just drop the slavery analogy.

The truth that this is wrong can only be felt. There are no "metaphysical groundings" or "connections to other beliefs" that can make it true. Obviously this begs the question of what is truth. Suffice to say that there are truths other than philosophical ones that are equally valid.

No, it's not "only felt." It's ludicrous for you to say it is on the whole and I know you're smarter than that. So, maybe back off from this sort of positioning of your view.

Furthermore, for you to insist on asserting what grounding "IS" belies your understanding of what "philosophy" is. It's essentially a contradictory act for you to make, and where claims of knowledge are prudent, I hope you realize that your inference as to what constitutes truths of "philosophy" in contradistinction to some sort of "other truths" stands on the precipice of solipsism. It's not a good place to be, and I'm just trying to point this out to you before you make Christian Universalism sound like a mere wish well of dreams rather than a rational interpretive option for any Christian to have.