Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
I know and I don't think that it captures what the phrase 'Son of Man' means.That's their translation of "Son of Man," not Jesus. They assume that Son of Man is a reference to Daniel, where there is a sequence of creatures. The final one is human. Son of man is a Hebrew way of saying human. Because a specific supernatural human is meant, they don't translate just as human, but as the Human One. It's a pretty good way of capturing what the phrase meant.
There's also a number of folks who, magnetically charged as they are to their own dogmatic positions, seem to automatically assume that anyone else who differ may differ simply lives and breathes in some kind of epistemic ghetto, devoid of all rational thought or access to anything even remotely leaning toward "thorough knowledge."
And those so charged proceed to let the rest of us know that we "know nothing" and couldn't possibly be in any position to know otherwise.
Yes there's some "gurus" who think they have a unique understanding most everyone else lacks. They're easy enough to spot. Then there's others who write in an uncommon way, perhaps because they think it makes them look smarter than those around them.
I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?Here's a nice offering by Christian Philosopher, Keith DeRose, at Yale.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
I have noticed that too. Most of the folks on the UR side fit right in that category. But I doubt if most of them know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.Yes there's some "gurus" who think they have a unique understanding most everyone else lacks. They're easy enough to spot. Then there's others who write in an uncommon way, perhaps because they think it makes them look smarter than those around them.
This is logically possible. But I see no Biblical basis for a long delay in judgement. Personally I think everyone I know, upon being confronted by a God that really does care about people, and asks for repentance, would in fact repent. But I'm by no means sure that this is universal, and in fact suspect it's not.I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?
From the above link
Option 2: God could pick some time in the distant future — a time far enough off that it is overwhelmingly probable that all will have freely accepted salvation by then, given the (non-freedom-violating) means of persuasion God intends to employ — and resolve to at that time compel acceptance of any hold-outs that are then left. These would then be saved by their acceptance, though their acceptance might not be as valuable, given that it was not free.
Now, this position does give up on fervent exclusivism (though not on strong exclusivism or exclusivism simpliciter), since it holds that one can be saved even if one does not freely accept Christ. Nevertheless, it does go a fair way toward accommodating the motivation behind fervent exclusivism — the importance of human freedom — in that it has God adopting a plan by which He goes to tremendous lengths to attain free acceptance from every person. And those who hold this view can still maintain that it is far better and more valuable for a person to freely accept than for this acceptance to be coerced in a freedom-negating way. But it does deny that one must freely accept in order to be saved, and thus it does deny fervent exclusivism. Still, it’s worth considering, for it gives those who might otherwise insist on fervent exclusivism a compromise position which doesn’t simply write free acceptance off as unimportant. This potential compromise position is especially valuable if I’m right about how one would likely come to be a fervent exclusivist in the first place: That there’s no substantial scriptural support for fervent exclusivism itself, but that fervent exclusivism is the likely result of combining strong exclusivism (for which there is significant support) with a belief one might have that human freedom is important. Since the compromise position respects the importance of human freedom, it is likely to be an attractive compromise.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
I have asked a question in this thread and others but have never received an answer until now from DeRose. When and how does the transformation take place when rebellious God hating etc. people become God loving servants?
From the above link
Option 2: God could pick some time in the distant future — a time far enough off that it is overwhelmingly probable that all will have freely accepted salvation by then, given the (non-freedom-violating) means of persuasion God intends to employ — and resolve to at that time compel acceptance of any hold-outs that are then left. These would then be saved by their acceptance, though their acceptance might not be as valuable, given that it was not free.
Now, this position does give up on fervent exclusivism (though not on strong exclusivism or exclusivism simpliciter), since it holds that one can be saved even if one does not freely accept Christ. Nevertheless, it does go a fair way toward accommodating the motivation behind fervent exclusivism — the importance of human freedom — in that it has God adopting a plan by which He goes to tremendous lengths to attain free acceptance from every person. And those who hold this view can still maintain that it is far better and more valuable for a person to freely accept than for this acceptance to be coerced in a freedom-negating way. But it does deny that one must freely accept in order to be saved, and thus it does deny fervent exclusivism. Still, it’s worth considering, for it gives those who might otherwise insist on fervent exclusivism a compromise position which doesn’t simply write free acceptance off as unimportant. This potential compromise position is especially valuable if I’m right about how one would likely come to be a fervent exclusivist in the first place: That there’s no substantial scriptural support for fervent exclusivism itself, but that fervent exclusivism is the likely result of combining strong exclusivism (for which there is significant support) with a belief one might have that human freedom is important. Since the compromise position respects the importance of human freedom, it is likely to be an attractive compromise.
https://campuspress.yale.edu/keithderose/1129-2/
This is logically possible. But I see no Biblical basis for a long delay in judgement. Personally I think everyone I know, upon being confronted by a God that really does care about people, and asks for repentance, would in fact repent. But I'm by no means sure that this is universal, and in fact suspect it's not.
Your second paragraph is what I have been trying to make the more militant UR-ites realize. If prison stats in the U.S. are any indication. The recidivism rate is 60+% and the prisons are nowhere as bad as hell is portrayed. So it makes me wonder how can fiery punishment make 100% of the people in hell suddenly become God loving servants?What would it mean to force someone to submit? There are two possibilities I can see. One is external submission without any real change. But that's not someone I'd want to be around forever. The other is to forcibly change someone's character. I assume that's possible, but for someone that is as deeply unrepentant as this alternative requires, is that really the same person, or is God destroying him and producing someone new?
The main issue here is that it only works if there is some misunderstanding on the human end regarding who God is, and denies that any are aware of God's nature and reject Him upon it. After all, God's nature is unchanging so the persuasion cannot involve God modifying to be more palatable to the individual. So what's supposed to change in the person who God is fully revealed to in eternity that is not immediately transformed through encounter?I'm not sure why you picked that option from an appendix. At any rate, it is one possible position for UR with the specific qualifications: one must freely choose and God does not have foreknowledge of human free choices. With those qualifications, how can universalism be revealed as true? Well, the stragglers get co-opted against their will.
That's not the only position available. The position I think many would take is that universalism is revealed as true because God knows that eventually all will freely choose. One doesn't need to reject divine foreknowledge, and most don't, as in the quote you offered.
If you're worried about when and how, here's DeRose: "I see no grounds for pessimism that an infinitely resourceful God, who is able to take as much time as He needs, will be able to win over everyone eventually."
When: God has all the time God needs.
How: God has infinite resources.
Is it really a challenge for God?
As I understand the early Jewish discussions Gehenna made people suffer enough that they called out to God for help, and thus repented. I’m not so convinced. Maybe scare them into some kind of conformance. There’s widespread tradition that punishment is useful.Your second paragraph is what I have been trying to make the more militant UR-ites realize. If prison stats in the U.S. are any indication. The recidivism rate is 60+% and the prisons are nowhere as bad as hell is portrayed. So it makes me wonder how can fiery punishment make 100% of the people in hell suddenly become God loving servants?
If God is simply going to change their minds and attitudes with or without their consent what is the purpose of the punishment?
Unfortunately you cannot provide any scripture to support what you thinkI'm not sure why you picked that option from an appendix. At any rate, it is one possible position for UR with the specific qualifications: one must freely choose and God does not have foreknowledge of human free choices. With those qualifications, how can universalism be revealed as true? Well, the stragglers get co-opted against their will.
That's not the only position available. The position I think many would take is that universalism is revealed as true because God knows that eventually all will freely choose. One doesn't need to reject divine foreknowledge, and most don't, as in the quote you offered.
Give me some scripture which states, suggests, implies that anyone in hell will eventually become willing, loving servants of God.If you're worried about when and how, here's DeRose: "I see no grounds for pessimism that an infinitely resourceful God, who is able to take as much time as He needs, will be able to win over everyone eventually."
When: God has all the time God needs.
How: God has infinite resources.
Is it really a challenge for God?
DeRose was quoted as some kind of authority what makes what you "think" is more likely than what the "expert" said
Give me some scripture which states, suggests, implies that anyone in hell will eventually become willing, loving servants of God
DeRose mentioned that he is attracted to what he called zealous incompatibilism and fervent exclusivism. He admitted that zealous incompatibilism was a very uncommon position. This is the belief that freedom of will and foreknowledge of God are incompatible. I certainly do not uphold this position. Do you?DeRose was quoted as some kind of authority what makes what you "think" is more likely than what the "expert" said?
I have seven pages of similar quotes from the ECFAs I understand the early Jewish discussions Gehenna made people suffer enough that they called out to God for help, and thus repented. I’m not so convinced. Maybe scare them into some kind of conformance. There’s widespread tradition that punishment is useful.
But UR doesn’t need to depend upon punishment. Perhaps the people are simply left alone outside God’s presence. Not necessarily even in an unpleasant environment. That might stand more chance.
But I’m guessing that if someone is salvageable, meeting God face to face, and facing an honest review of their life and its impact on others would do it if anything is going to.
Not quite what I believe. God has infinite knowledge. The best thing man can say to God is your will be done. The worst thing God can say to man is your will be done.DeRose mentioned that he is attracted to what he called zealous incompatibilism and fervent exclusivism. He admitted that zealous incompatibilism was a very uncommon position. This is the belief that freedom of will and foreknowledge of God are incompatible. I certainly do not uphold this position. Do you?
So what's supposed to change in the person who God is fully revealed to in eternity that is not immediately transformed through encounter
I have noticed that too. Most of the folks on the UR side fit right in that category. But I doubt if most of them know an aorist from an apple or a hithpael from a hatpin.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?