Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, I'm glad YOU can reach your book shelf. But it is inaccessible to the rest of us.

And, no, I don't a bibliography to read. Ignorance is bliss.

Well then, by that kind of thinking, I can just say that UR is inaccessible and that there's little chance that I, as an 'outsider to UR, will be able to engage it or understand it either.

Moreover, would it be too much for me to say that if I couldn't "understand" or "accept" UR, it'll be chalked up by you guys through some insistence that I somehow just don't--by golly--have the Holy Spirit?!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What's more important? Knowing God, or knowing stuff?

Acts 4:13 NIV
When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus.

Knowing at least "some stuff" is implicite for knowing Jesus ... it kind of goes without saying.

So, I try to refrain from overextending my assertions about some topic when I haven't studied something it in full (which is why I see faith as an ongoing, lifetime journey of theological exploration rather than a destination). Besides, we wouldn't want to be like those whom Paul cited in the letter to the Romans as being those who are "zealous but without knowledge."

Proverbs 19:2

Even zeal is no good without knowledge, and he who hurries his footsteps misses the mark.

Romans 10:2

... For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.


And YEAH!!! This little bit has been noticed by me and has been a part of my awareness in my faith ever since I read the entire letter by Paul to the Romans back in 1986. So sure, we can also cite 1 Corinthians 8:1, but then we'll have to realize that Paul didn't only say that alone. Knowledge has it's proper place, and that place is not in the dung heap.

 

[Saint Steven]

Is this an implicit acknowledgement that the OT prophets and NT disciples have unequivocally said that all will be saved?

Will the false claims about UR ever end? This must be the age for that. (soon to end)

 

[Saint Steven]

Well then, by that kind of thinking, I can just say that UR is inaccessible and that there's little chance that I, as an 'outsider to UR, will be able to engage it or understand it either.

Moreover, would it be too much for me to say that if I couldn't "understand" or "accept" UR, it'll be chalked up by you guys through some insistence that I somehow just don't--by golly--have the Holy Spirit?!

Fortunately, your ignorance about UR will not prevent it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Knowing at least "some stuff" is implicite for knowing Jesus ... it kind of goes without saying.

So, I try to refrain from overextending my assertions about some topic when I haven't studied something it in full (which is why I see faith as an ongoing, lifetime journey of theological exploration rather than a destination). Besides, we wouldn't want to be like those whom Paul cited in the letter to the Romans as being those who are "zealous but without knowledge."

Proverbs 19:2

Even zeal is no good without knowledge, and he who hurries his footsteps misses the mark.

Romans 10:2

... For I bear them witness that they have a zeal for God, but not according to knowledge.


And YEAH!!! This little bit has been noticed by me and has been a part of my awareness in my faith ever since I read the entire letter by Paul to the Romans back in 1986. So sure, we can also cite 1 Corinthians 8:1, but then we'll have to realize that Paul didn't only say that alone. Knowledge has it's proper place, and that place is not in the dung heap.

Wow. Is that what you call quality hermeneutics? Oh boy.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Wow. Is that what you call quality hermeneutics? Oh boy.

What would you call "quality hermeneutics," Steven? What is the RIGHT way? What is it you think I should be doing instead of what and how I do what I do in my faith in Christ?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Fortunately, your ignorance about UR will not prevent it.

I never said I was ignorant of UR, Steven. And notice, too, I never said that for me personally it's somehow inaccessible. It isn't.

 

[Saint Steven]

What would you call "quality hermeneutics," Steven? What is the RIGHT way? What is it you think I should be doing instead of what and how I do what I do in my faith in Christ?

Only you posses the secrets to knowledge, Phil.
But it seems that your chosen text doesn't support your claim.
Even obvious to me.

 

[ozso]

It isn't posturing, Steven. And I'm not losing the word 'Hermeneutics.' It's a word that been around since the Greeks and I'll continue to use it. You see, this falls in line also with my philosophy of Education, which is: Most people aren't dumb so things don't really need to be "dumbed down."

How about sticking to the topic instead of this being so much about you? Quite frankly I tend to take the advertised credentials of an anonymous person with a grain of salt.

 

[Saint Steven]

I never said I was ignorant of UR, Steven. And notice, too, I never said that for me personally that it's somehow inaccessible. It isn't.

On what basis do you reject it? (UR) Having all your questions answered is a bit much. Where is faith if we have all that? I don't know anyone who has all this figured out. No matter what brand of the final judgment they subscribe to.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

How about sticking to the topic instead of this being so much about you? Quite frankly I tend to take the advertised credentials of an anonymous person with a grain of salt.

If you've been following the thread, MMXX, the focal point has been NOT upon me but rather upon the supposed quality and integrity of two questions I posed above.

That, and that alone, has been the locus of discussion at the moment.

 

[ozso]

Wow. Is that what you call quality hermeneutics? Oh boy.

Hermeneutics is a fancy word for interpretation which can be rather subjective needless to say.

 

[ozso]

If you've been following the thread, MMXX, the focal point has been NOT upon me but rather upon the supposed quality and integrity of two questions I posed above.

That, and that alone, has been the locus of discussion at the moment.

No, Steve is right, you've been posturing to the point where it finally got on my nerves.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On what basis do you reject it? (UR) Having all your questions answered is a bit much.

I don't expect "all" questions to be answered. Surely, this would be implicit in the fact that I've identified myself as an Existentialist. In fact, I've said it before, and I guess I need to say it again, I assume as an axiom that NO ONE single human being knows, or can know, everything. And it's not expected.

So, all that's happened so far is I've posed two questions, the point of which is to invite us to hermeneutically take into account that there is an area of study involving investigation into sub-topic: The New Testament writers Use of the Old Testament.

This is nothing new, and since you all are the one's who are offering answers for the UR framework, I figure that you can account for how this aspect of the Bible, reflecting it's historical contexts, fits in with all of the rest that you're telling us.

Where is faith if we have all that? I don't know anyone who has all this figured out. No matter what brand of the final judgment they subscribe to.

I don't define 'faith' as believing without learning, let alone that faith is ever blind.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hermeneutics is a fancy word for interpretation which can be rather subjective needless to say.

Just how "subjective" any specific bit of the Bible is depends on a number of factors of historical, literary and spiritual significance, MMXX.

Moreover, not everything in the Bible is only subjective, nor does it descend to being at the mercy of utter Relativism either. So, just because we can't know the exact meaning or purpose of every jot and tittle of the Bible doesn't mean that we can't get at some 'truth' that is embedded within its pages. Otherwise, if it were the case that it was completely subjective to such a level that it was utterly Relative in nature, then even the view of UR could never get any real traction (let alone that it should be expected that it could if it were utterly relative).

 

[2PhiloVoid]

No, Steve is right, you've been posturing to the point where it finally got on my nerves.

I'm not posturing. I'm asking relevant questions and you guys just happen to not like it.

 

[Saint Steven]

Surely, this would be implicit in the fact that I've identified myself as an Existentialist.

Your sidebar says "Christian". The mods can "fix" that for you. They can re-designate your belief status. Unless you fear that your mortal soul would be endangered by such a declaration. What to do, what to do... ?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't expect "all" questions to be answered. Surely, this would be implicit in the fact that I've identified myself as an Existentialist. In fact, I've said it before, and I guess I need to say it again, I assume as an axiom that NO ONE single human being knows, or can know, everything. And it's not expected.

On that basis would you not have to admit that UR might be true?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

On what basis do you reject it? (UR) Having all your questions answered is a bit much. Where is faith if we have all that? I don't know anyone who has all this figured out. No matter what brand of the final judgment they subscribe to.

I don't reject it in full, even if I can say I think it's doubtable. There are some interpretive aspects of it that I agree with over those found in the position of ECT, like the fact that the meaning of the terms aion, aionion, and ainios can be relative to the contexts and the usage to which they've been put to in any case by each N.T. writer.

 

[Saint Steven]

So, all that's happened so far is I've posed two questions, the point of which is to invite us to hermeneutically take into account that there is an area of study involving investigation into sub-topic: The New Testament writers Use of the Old Testament.

Would you be so kind as to post your two questions in understandable terms? Maybe we can resolve this then.