Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[public hermit]

That's some convolution, "it wasn't () bcause it was what she really wanted."

Nice try. You've now proven your inability to have an intelligent conversation.

 

[Fervent]

Nice try. You've now proven your inability to have an intelligent conversation.

By reducing your argument to the grotesque justification that it is?

 

[public hermit]

By reducing your argument to the grotesque justification that it is?

Hardly, by showing your lack of comprehension.

 

[Fervent]

Hardly, by showing your lack of comprehension.

I underrstand your argument just fine, but it justifies God in acting evilly by denying the removal of our choice whether to love Him or not is evil. It's essentially saying that because it's in the soul's best interest, it's ok for God to remove our ability to resist Him.

 

[public hermit]

I underrstand your argument just fine, but it justifies God in acting evilly by denying the removal of our choice whether to love Him or not is evil. It's essentially saying that because it's in the soul's best interest, it's ok for God to remove our ability to resist Him.

The choice to not love God is irrational and evil since God is our proper end. For God not to free the soul of that irrationality would be evil. You seem to think that the ability to not love God is some great good that God has given us, as if freedom is found in that ability. True freedom, rational freedom is the ability to love God. If you understood Nyssa, which you seem to think no one these days can since we're modern, you would understand I'm right. If you read On the Making of Man, you'll see what I'm saying. He definitely does not understand freedom as the ability to choose whether or not to love God. And, I agree with him.

 

[public hermit]

I underrstand your argument just fine, but it justifies God in acting evilly by denying the removal of our choice whether to love Him or not is evil. It's essentially saying that because it's in the soul's best interest, it's ok for God to remove our ability to resist Him.

Not to be mean, but the irony is that you are doing what you were trying to warn me about. You are projecting a modern, and I would say un-scriptural, understanding of freedom onto this ancient understanding and, thereby, misrepresenting it.

 

[Fervent]

The choice to not love God is irrational and evil since God is our proper end. For God not to free the soul of that irrationality would be evil. You seem to think that the ability to not love God is some great good that God has given us, as if freedom is found in that ability. True freedom, rational freedom is the ability to love God. If you understood Nyssa, which you seem to think no one these days can since we're modern, you would understand I'm right. If you read On the Making of Man, you'll see what I'm saying. He definitely does not understand freedom as the ability to choose whether or not to love God. And, I agree with him.

Now you're not only claiming that it's permissible for God to treat us as automatons and impose His will upon us, you're saying its a moral imperative. Which calls into question the point of the whole thing, since overriding our wills in such a way renders every single instance of God testing to see if men would choose righteousness moot. It especially undermines God's words to Cain, and Moses' imploring Israel in Deuteronomy, and Joshua's words to the Israelites. Perhaps you're right about Nyssa, though I have reason to suspect there's more to the story than you would have, but if you are then what is being endorsed is anything but freedom and is more in line with Calvinist views of "irresistable grace" than Biblical statements regarding freedom.

 

[Fervent]

Not to be mean, but the irony is that you are doing what you were trying to warn me about. You are projecting a modern, and I would say un-scriptural, understanding of freedom onto this ancient understanding and, thereby, misrepresenting it.

Hardly, though it seems that what you claim Nyssa's position to be(which may very well be what Nyssa was saying) presents a problem, because if freedom necessarily chooses God then the rebellion of man makes no sense and God did a great evil in giving man the ability to resist Him in the first place.

 

[Saint Steven]

... if freedom necessarily chooses God then the rebellion of man makes no sense and God did a great evil in giving man the ability to resist Him in the first place.

We humans are incapable of making completely informed choices > because we are never completely informed > because we are not omniscient > because we are not God.

When we meet God face-to-face we will no longer be uninformed > then, and only then > will we be able to make > the free-will decision to choose God > having then been FULLY informed.

So > fully informed free-will > would indeed > necessarily choose God.

Do you > follow > the progression here?

 

[Fervent]

We humans are incapable of making completely informed choices > because we are never completely informed > because we are not omniscient > because we are not God.

When we meet God face-to-face we will no longer be uninformed > then, and only then > will we be able to make > the free-will decision to choose God > having then been FULLY informed.

So > fully informed free-will > would indeed > necessarily choose God.

Do you > follow > the progression here?

Are you sayinng that we will be made omniscient, because that seems to go beyond what is generally claimed(and I see no basis for such a claim.) If it si simply that a soul free from evil will naturally choose God, then Adam's choice becomes problematic because it implies that he was created with evil in his soul since he didn't choose God. So either it simply isn't true that a soul free from external evil will automatically choose God, or God is the author of evil in His creation of Adam as an evil being.

 

[public hermit]

If it si simply that a soul free from evil will naturally choose God, then Adam's choice becomes problematic because it implies that he was created with evil in his soul since he didn't choose God. So either it simply isn't true that a soul free from external evil will automatically choose God, or God is the author of evil in His creation of Adam as an evil being

Or...pace Irenaeus, A & E were created spiritually immature and they reached for the fruit too soon. We are not created perfect and yet we are created for the purpose of participating in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4); therefore, it's a process.

 

[Fervent]

Or...pace Irenaeus, A & E were created spiritually immature and they reached for the fruit too soon. We are not created perfect and yet we are created for the purpose of participating in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4); therefore, it's a process.

Where does this speculation come from? Adam and Eve were presented the same choice as all, between God and death. If by nature the soul free from evil will inevitably choose God over death, then whatever "immaturity" Adam and Eve were created with must be a form of evil. So again, either the speculation that all will choose God if only the evil that is external to the will is removed is simply untrue, or God created Adam and Eve with evil in their nature before they ever at from the tree.

 

[Fervent]

Or...pace Irenaeus, A & E were created spiritually immature and they reached for the fruit too soon. We are not created perfect and yet we are created for the purpose of participating in the divine nature (2 Pet. 1:4); therefore, it's a process.

I would also add that reading Romans 1 " having clearly perceived His eternal power and divine nature" kind of works against the idea that the issue is primarily one of ignorance.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I would also add that reading Romans 1 " having clearly perceived His eternal power and divine nature" kind of works against the idea that the issue is primarily one of ignorance.

Yeah, I've always had a problem with that verse. I also think some other individuals I've read have had a problem with it too, so I have to say "Paul, I love you, but I don't actually think your referent is clear. Have you been reading Lucretius lately?" [....this question is meant to be a very lame joke, quit lame in fact, but it reflects how I perceive the epistemological essence of Paul's statement. His statement in Romans remains, for me, locked within a mystery of obscure context (not the pagan kind) and since I can't hop into a time machine and go back in time to meet Paul and do the necessary vetting of his statement that I know I need to do, I can't know for sure what it was supposed to mean for those who live in a different time and within another paradigm.

So, I'll have to disagree with your unfortunately "typical" resort to, and use of, this verse. I think it's all too easily taken as a point of certain discernible indication about our epistemic culpability before God, and it is used by Christians (Reformed ?) by which to 'whack' over the head all those who attempt the most convoluted of excuses for refusing to accept Christ. But it essentially says nothing to us today. I have some guesses as to what it was probably intended to indicate, but I for can honestly say "I don't know" and I one won't allow anyone to try to throw the book at me for saying that it is, and remains, obscure. If they do, I know who to hide behind.....

 

[Fervent]

Yeah, I've always had a problem with that verse. I also think some other individuals I've read have had a problem with it too, so I have to say "Paul, I love you, but I don't actually think your referent is clear. Have you been reading Lucretius lately?" [....this question is meant to be a very lame joke, quit lame in fact, but it reflects how I perceive the epistemological essence of Paul's statement. His statement in Romans remains, for me, locked within a mystery of obscure context (not the pagan kind) and since I can't hop into a time machine and go back in time to meet Paul and do the necessary vetting of his statement that I know I need to do, I can't know for sure what it was supposed to mean for those who live in a different time and within another paradigm.

I'm not sure I follow your objection, what is unclear in that pericope to you?

So, I'll have to disagree with your unfortunately "typical" resort to, and use of, this verse. I think it's all too easily taken as a point of certain discernible indication about our epistemic culpability before God, and it is used by Christians (Reformed ?) by which to 'whack' over the head all those who attempt the most convoluted of excuses for refusing to accept Christ. But it essentially says nothing to us today. I have some guesses as to what it was probably intended to indicate, but I for can honestly say "I don't know" and I one won't allow anyone to try to throw the book at me for saying that it is, and remains, obscure. If they do, I know who to hide behind.....

Given the rest of Paul's words in Romans 1-3, it seems not only reasonable to me, and pretty clearly so, that this section is setting up his discussion of the awareness of what God requires of us. That unbelief is not simply a matter of ignorance but a willful act of suppression. Objections regardinng the scope of this condemnation seem to me to be from modern views that see the question "does God exist?" as not only a coherent one, but pertinent to the issue. Perhaps you can clear up why you find the pericope unclear, because I see no room for ambiguity within it.

 

[public hermit]

Where does this speculation come from

Irenaeus.

 

[Fervent]

Irenaeus.

That doesn't answer the question, though perhaps I should state it more clearly. What does Irenaeus base this speculation on?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm not sure I follow your objection, what is unclear in that pericope to you?

Given the rest of Paul's words in Romans 1-3, it seems not only reasonable to me, and pretty clearly so, that this section is setting up his discussion of the awareness of what God requires of us. That unbelief is not simply a matter of ignorance but a willful act of suppression. Objections regardinng the scope of this condemnation seem to me to be from modern views that see the question "does God exist?" as not only a coherent one, but pertinent to the issue. Perhaps you can clear up why you find the pericope unclear, because I see no room for ambiguity within it.

First of all, I'm not here to have a battle of wits, Fervent. I don't have time for that at the moment. But

I agree with you that Paul's epistemic statement "sets up" the spiritual and moral critique that he then lists out in reflection of a fallen, rebellious world of people. However, the short of it is that for us today, we can read his epistemic statement which the Romans would have likely understood and come away from it having little to no real idea as to its exact referents. All we can then make out today is the effects of that apparent epistemic denial to which Paul refers.

Therefore, what I'm getting at is that today, nearly 2,000 years later, we are now displaced in time and paradigm away from the necessary cultural and epistemic indicia that are needed to fully understand what Paul is (was) talking about. For us to even begin to try to justify some interpretation about his singular epistemic statement, we have to virtually go outside of the Scriptures in order to guess what "THOSE EPISTEMIC INDICIA" are which he says that all just somehow know by fiat from God. If we think we don't have to, then where in the Bible does it clearly say by "what" and "how" we are to know that God exist and what His moral evaluations are? Do we need to somehow study some later coagulation of thought that parses General Revelation from Specific Revelation, all of which takes a later systematic treatise to somehow tease out?

And if some folks today then try say that Paul was simply referring to the logical outlook that anyone at any time could discern in the makeup of the universe and in the makeup of our world and of humanity, but then actually mean by this that they think Paul was drawing in some bit of the Psalms or of Aristotelian logic (Prime Mover type assertion) to serve as his referents, then I think this is too circumstantial.

We don't know exactly what Paul thought and how and by what where epistemology is concerned. All we can strongly surmise about him and his thinking is that we was from Tarsus, a Pharisee, and a person with some connection to Gamaliel, and we can guess as to what his educational influences may have been which came to constitute his epistemic outlook.

In sum: we're guessing as to what Paul "means" in that specific verse, EVEN IF we don't really have to guess as to the meaning (mostly) in his later explication in the same chapter regarding the ravages of sin in ever increasing increments, all the way up to his stating that the worst thing for us to do is to not only sin without restraint, but to also approve of that very lack of self restraint, WE STILL THOUGH don't know on our own what specific referent is being alluded to that we're supposed to "somehow know" previous to all of this.

More can be said, but I'll stop there for now, with unsaid comments from the hermeneutical peanut gallery left to the side.

 

[public hermit]

That doesn't answer the question, though perhaps I should state it more clearly. What does Irenaeus base this speculation on?

Scripture.

 

[Fervent]

First of all, I'm not here to have a battle of wits, Fervent. I don't have time for that at the moment. But

I agree with you that Paul's epistemic statement "sets up" the spiritual and moral critique that he then lists out in reflection of a fallen, rebellious world of people. However, the short of it is that for us today, we can read his epistemic statement which the Romans would have likely understood and come away from it having little to no real idea as to its exact referents. All we can then make out today is the effects of that apparent epistemic denial to which Paul refers.

Therefore, what I'm getting at is that today, nearly 2,000 years later, we are now displaced in time and paradigm away from the necessary cultural and epistemic indicia that are needed to fully understand what Paul is (was) talking about. For us to even begin to try to justify some interpretation about his singular epistemic statement, we have to virtually go outside of the Scriptures in order to guess what "THOSE EPISTEMIC INDICIA" are which he says that all just somehow know by fiat from God. If we think we don't have to, then where in the Bible does it clearly say by "what" and "how" we are to know that God exist and what His moral evaluations are? Do we need to somehow study some later coagulation of thought that parses General Revelation from Specific Revelation, all of which takes a later systematic treatise to somehow tease out?

And if some folks today then try say that Paul was simply referring to the logical outlook that anyone at any time could discern in the makeup of the universe and in the makeup of our world and of humanity, but then actually mean by this that they think Paul was drawing in some bit of the Psalms or of Aristotelian logic (Prime Mover type assertion) to serve as his referents, then I think this is too circumstantial.

We don't know exactly what Paul thought and how and by what where epistemology is concerned. All we can strongly surmise about him and his thinking is that we was from Tarsus, a Pharisee, and a person with some connection to Gamaliel, and we can guess as to what his educational influences may have been which came to constitute his epistemic outlook.

In sum: we're guessing as to what Paul "means" in that specific verse, EVEN IF we don't really have to guess as to the meaning (mostly) in his later explication in the same chapter regarding the ravages of sin in ever increasing increments, all the way up to his stating that the worst thing for us to do is to not only sin without restraint, but to also approve of that very lack of self restraint, WE STILL THOUGH don't know on our own what specific referent is being alluded to that we're supposed to "somehow know" previous to all of this.

More can be said, but I'll stop there for now, with unsaid comments from the hermeneutical peanut gallery left to the side.

I'm not sure any of that matters to the present issue, because the question is not by what means we are to know God but whether the rejection of God is primarily one of ignorance or if there is moral culpability in an active suppression. How he understands(or expects his audience to understand) this suppression is, in essence, immaterrial to the question. It is a prelude to his argument that when men do good apart from the law, they are in essesnce condemning themselves through testimony of their knowledge of the law. So while the means of access Paul intended would be interestinng to know, they are not necessary to recognize that the pertinent question in rebellion against God is not one of a lack of knowledge but a morally culpable rejection of God's standards because of wicked desires.