Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

Exactly. As with your thread, this is simply a derailing effort.

I'm not derailing anything. I'm attempting to bring up that there are other issues that impinge upon your own focus on Universalism. Honestly, what is your goal for these threads? To simply 'explore' the concepts of Universalism without question? If so, you need to be more explicit in stating that this is the case.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

A Christian can still be "honest" and disagree with your interpretation. Your main point, as far as I can make it out, is that the modern sense of morality is something completely different from that of earlier times and something that is somehow fraudulent or inauthentic. This is simply not the case. Morality has been the subject of intense debate throughout church history and even in the Bible itself - read Job or Paul for a very sophisticated analysis of moral issues.

Again, I get the feeling that you are unable to stick to the topic of the thread. The topic is universalism, not your pet views on what constitutes truth or valid analysis.

Maybe this should be moved to the Whosoever Will May Come forum if the object is to find people that actually agree with the doctrine of Universalism.

 

[Fervent]

It's not my definition of Christian universalism. It's what Christian universalism is.



Of course, because they weren't universalist positions. This is becoming very silly.

You're using modern categories, and if such is what you mean by universalism then the historic writers are excluded from universalism for upholding eternal judgment of the wicked as they posited that the wicked would be stripped of their humanity, not saved.

 

[Hmm]

Maybe this should be moved to the Whosoever Will May Come forum if the object is to find people that actually agree with the doctrine of Universalism.

The object is to discuss why so many people find the idea of universal salvation objectionable. Do you have a view on that?

 

[Hmm]

You're using modern categories, and if such is what you mean by universalism then the historic writers are excluded from universalism for upholding eternal judgment of the wicked as they posited that the wicked would be stripped of their humanity, not saved.

Cite one early universalist then who upheld the idea of eternal hell.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The object is to discuss why so many people find the idea of universal salvation objectionable. Do you have a view on that?

We tell you this, and in different ways, and when we (or I) do, you claim there's a "derailment of the thread".

I don't know what to make of that.

 

[spiritfilledjm]

The object is to discuss why so many people find the idea of universal salvation objectionable. Do you have a view on that?

Already gave it many pages ago

 

[Hmm]

I'm not derailing anything. I'm attempting to bring up that there are other issues that impinge upon your own focus on Universalism. Honestly, what is your goal for these threads? To simply 'explore' the concepts of Universalism without question? If so, you need to be more explicit in stating that this is the case.

See the OP for the goal of the thread. If you wish to bring up different issues then you are free to create your own thread.

 

[Hmm]

Already gave it many pages ago

Thank you.

 

[Hmm]

We tell you this, and in different ways, and when we (or I) do, you claim there's a "derailment of the thread".

I don't know what to make of that.

I give up!

 

[Fervent]

Cite one early universalist then who upheld the idea of eternal hell.

According to your definition there are no early universalists.

though of the ones whose works are cherry picked to paint as if they support the modern notion of universalism, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and any other one you pick save possibly Origen. All of them uphold the idea of an eternal hell at one point in their writings, and understanding the historic philosophies rather than viewing their works in a modern lens brings it out perfectly.

 

[Hmm]

According to your definition there are no early universalists.

though of the ones whose works are cherry picked to paint as if they support the modern notion of universalism, Gregory of Nyssa, Clement of Alexandria, and any other one you pick save possibly Origen. All of them uphold the idea of an eternal hell at one point in their writings, and understanding the historic philosophies rather than viewing their works in a modern lens brings it out perfectly.

People often show a progression in their ideas and convictions. Gregory of Nyssa may well have been anti-universalist in his early days, I don't know, but can you cite anything from his later life that suggests he is anything other than the universalist he identified himself to be and is accepted by the church establishment - the EO church for example - as being?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I give up!

My gut feeling is that you're getting frustrated by the fact that I've never really approached life via "visceral reactions" to ideas. ... well, I take that back. There is one, but to bring it up would be to get off onto another topic.

So, there you have it: I don't really have a disdain for Universalism. I simply don't think it's coherent.

Is that a better answer, more appropriate to what you're expecting to find in a response for this thread?

 

[Fervent]

People often show a progression in their ideas and convictions. Gregory of Nyssa may well have been anti-universalist in his early days, I don't know, but can you cite anything from his later life that suggests he is anything other than the universalist he identified himself to be and is accepted by the church establishment - the EO church for example - as being?

Now you're just engaging in a saving hypothesis, as a means of confirmation bias. Removing any possibility of criticism by creating hypotheticals in which counter evidence does not count against your claim. Gregory of Nyssa was fairly consistent throughout his writings, and in line with historical views of apocatastasis that held humanity as an abstract, universal property not as something individuals possess. His works become misunderstood because modern categories that don't truly fit what he is saying are applied, especially as neither hell nor universal reconciliation in his conception fits with a Western scholastic theological viewpoint.

 

[Hmm]

My gut feeling is that you're getting frustrated by the fact that I've never really approached life via "visceral reactions" to ideas. ... well, I take that back. There is one, but to bring it up would be to get off onto another topic.

You have a point. I often find myself lying awake at night thinking "Why oh why doesn't 2PhiloVoid approach life more viscerally than he does? Have I let him down in some way? Am I to blame?" Still, I have arranged counselling that should start soon so no doubt I'll recover

 

[Hmm]

Now you're just engaging in a saving hypothesis, as a means of confirmation bias. Removing any possibility of criticism by creating hypotheticals in which counter evidence does not count against your claim. Gregory of Nyssa was fairly consistent throughout his writings, and in line with historical views of apocatastasis that held humanity as an abstract, universal property not as something individuals possess. His works become misunderstood because modern categories that don't truly fit what he is saying are applied, especially as neither hell nor universal reconciliation in his conception fits with a Western scholastic theological viewpoint.

Give me a quote then. Just one will do, even if it's a little one, only an inch long.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

You have a point. I often find myself lying awake at night thinking "Why oh why doesn't 2PhiloVoid approach life more viscerally than he does? Have I let him down in some way? Am I to blame?" Still, I have arranged counselling that should start soon so no doubt I'll recover

I pray you'll have a speedy recovery then, bro! C'mere. Give me a hug!

 

[Fervent]

Give me a quote then. Just one will do, even if it's a little one, only an inch long.

I'm not going to do your homework for you. But if you want to actually read Gregory of Nyssa's work, in On Baptism he affirms hell not once but twice first by speaking of it as unquenchable fire and second by referring to the worm that will not die when expressing the need for baptism. We've been over this once before when you refused to read Metropolitan Hierotheos synopsis of Gregory of Nyssa's views on hell that speaks of the patristic consensus.

 

[Hmm]

I pray you'll have a speedy recovery then, bro! C'mere. Give me a hug!

Thanks. How about a firm trans-Atlantic handshake instead?

 

[Hmm]

I'm not going to do your homework for you.

Ah, a homework excuse! I've seen them all before comrade - the dog ate it, it was put in the washing machine by mistake, the Patristic fathers didn't agree on the fundamental dichotomy of the underlying metaphors etc. etc. Heard it all before and not impressed.

But give me an actual quote and I will be.