Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[Ceallaigh]

C'mon, Phil.
You know that I know nothing about Herman Nudists. - lol

Like I said, "hermeneutics" is just a fancy word for "interpretation". The times you addressed the word "aionios", you applied hermeneutics.

Hermeneutics = interpretation.
Exegesis = objective interpretation.
Eisegesis = subjective interpretation.

 

[Ceallaigh]

No, my point here in this thread is that the burden of proof is upon the person who supports the assertive viewpoint, and in the context of this thread, the assertive viewpoint is U.R. rather than my viewpoint. So, this means that I'm interested in seeing which questions of coherency (as in the Coherence Theory of Truth) can be answered by proponents of U.R.

This is my angle and I'm being transparent in saying so. There's no posturing in it.

That would depend on who you're talking to. If you were able to start a correspondence on the subject with well known PhD theologian philosopher UR proponent David Bentley Hart, then you'd probably get everything out of that experience you're looking for. And perhaps more than you could keep up with. When talking to the average anonymous armchair Bible scholar, probably not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Sounds like hairsplitting to me.

So, how would you define posturing then?

In this case, it likely 'means' whatever the person (or persons) who posed it to me intended for it to mean. But on my part, I just go with the Webster's dictionary on this one ...

But since this thread isn't about me, let's not split-hairs over the finer points.

Let's just focus on the point of the OP: How do we "know" who all will ultimately bow before the Lord and be thankful when doing so?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Let's just focus on the point of the OP: How do we "know" who all will ultimately bow before the Lord and be thankful when doing so?

The OP is about hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism".

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The OP is about hearing what your gut, visceral reaction is, whether for or against, when you hear the words "Christian Universalism".

Right! And I have a gut-wrenching, visceral reaction when I hear people say "they know" this.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Well, by all means, let's not be hypocrites then!

Exactly, tralalalala.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Great point. Would God suddenly change from being loving, gracious and forgiving towards us to reaching for His nearest torture instruments, spitting in His hands and settling down for a session of everlasting torment just because we have passed the moment of our death and haven't yet learnt to recognise Him as Lord?

Jesus hands us off to the devil for that job! And as we see, it's not everlasting, but for the purposes of destruction of the flesh to as to save the spirit. Then Jesus returns to unlock the door, bind the strong man and abscond with the goods (aka the souls of men).

It's as though the infernalists see Jesus' loving face as just a facade, but come judgment day all that 'soft mushy stuff' gets put aside, 'nuff mercy, accounts demanded, weighed in the balance and if found wanting, with the flick of a pen consigned to the pit of horrors.

The Jesus of ECT is the Nazi bean counter of Hannah Arendt - the 'banality of evil' Eichmann character who kills millions from his office accounting software. Newsflash for the hellists - Jesus ich not bin ein Berliner - at least not that kind.

I really do sympathise with unbelievers who reject God on the basis of the ECT strawman. On the other hand, profoundly disappointed by why any so-called believer would make ECT their hill to die on.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Exactly, tralalalala.

Yes, exactly, brother!

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Jesus hands us off to the devil for that job! And as we see, it's not everlasting, but for the purposes of destruction of the flesh to as to save the spirit. Then Jesus returns to unlock the door, bind the strong man and abscond with the goods (aka the souls of men).

It's as though the infernalists see Jesus' loving face as just a facade, but come judgment day all that 'soft mushy stuff' gets put aside, 'nuff mercy, accounts demanded, weighed in the balance and if found wanting, with the flick of a pen consigned to the pit of horrors.

The Jesus of ECT is the Nazi bean counter of Hannah Arendt - the 'banality of evil' Eichmann character who kills millions from his office accounting software. Newsflash for the hellists - Jesus ich not bin ein Berliner - at least not that kind.

I really do sympathise with unbelievers who reject God on the basis of the ECT strawman. On the other hand, profoundly disappointed by why any so-called believer would make ECT their hill to die on.

You really need to stop with this demonizing language about your brothers and sisters in Christ who just happen to disagree with you on this point, SM. I, too, disagree with them, but I'm not going to knock them over the head with verbal abuse just because they interpret Hell as an eternal bonfire.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

You really need to stop with this demonizing language about your brothers and sisters in Christ who just happen to disagree with you on this point, SM.

What demonising language?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

What demonising language?

Through your choice of analogies and attributions, you make it sound like they're corrupt... or something.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Through your choice of analogies and attributions, you make it sound like they're corrupt... or something.

It's more that ECT demonises God and Christ, that bothers me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's more that ECT demonises God and Christ, that bothers me.

If you think this is the case, then my observation stands since it sounds like you're making a pretty steep spiritual allegation and judgment upon them---and you're doing this to those who are your own brothers and sisters in Christ!

 

[Shrewd Manager]

If you think this is the case, then my observation stands since it sounds like you're making a pretty steep spiritual allegation and judgment upon them---and you're doing this to those who are your own brothers and sisters in Christ!

Truth hurts. Jesus expended great effort on trying to disabuse the Pharisees of the insufferable self-assurance that they were heaven-bound and the great unwashed masses were too sinful and bound for eternal hell. That's the leaven of the Pharisees. 'Behold, for publicans and harlots are entering heaven ahead of you!' Now what do you make of that scripture?

I don't consider pagans to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether their paganism is apparent or veiled by a Christian facade.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Truth hurts. Jesus expended great effort on trying to disabuse the Pharisees of the insufferable self-assurance that they were heaven-bound and the great unwashed masses were too sinful and bound for eternal hell. That's the leaven of the Pharisees. 'Behold, for publicans and harlots are entering heaven ahead of you!' Now what do you make of that scripture?

... I make of those Scripture portions that speak of leaven in association with the Pharisees and also with Herod that we shouldn't claim to be more righteous and zealous for God than we actually are, and that we shouldn't play political cards that betray God's Will in Christ and cause us to fail to lift more than even a finger in love to help our neighbors, and sisters and brothers in Christ.

Do you read any of this differently in some way?

I don't consider pagans to be my brothers and sisters in Christ, whether their paganism is apparent or veiled by a Christian facade.

Fine. Neither do I. But they are my neighbors.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

... I make of those Scripture portions that speak of leaven in association with the Pharisees and also Herod that we shouldn't claim to be more righteous and zealous for God than we actually are, and that we shouldn't play political cards that betray God's Will in Christ and cause us to fail to lift more than even a finger in love to help our neighbors, and sisters and brothers in Christ. Do you read all of this differently in some way?

It's much more than that - have a read through Matt 23 in particular. Jesus is condemning them for their self-righteousness, which includes the notion that they're more worthy than the average folk. It's the 'Grace for me, but not for thee' attitude that snakes into the church in the first Judaising heresy, for which Paul rebukes Peter. All part of the same thing, the 'gospel of the accursed', which is now a firm fixture thanks to ECT and limited atonement.

If God wants all to be saved and come to a knowledge of the truth, and has promised by oath/ covenant no less than 3 times that every tongue will freely confess (Isa 45:23, Rom 14:11, Phil 2:10), and that He will be 'all in all' (this is the true gospel according to Paul in 1 Cor 15:1-28) - who are we to start watering it down, diminishing the work of the cross?

 

[Ceallaigh]

Right! And I have a gut-wrenching, visceral reaction when I hear people say "they know" this.

How about "knowing in your gut" or "gut instinct"? As you know, that's where one is certain of something, regardless of being able to provide empirical evidence. Or meet some philosophical criteria. It seems to me that one can apply simple faith when it comes to believing in UR and "knowing it to be true" as one does in believing Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

 

[Hmm]

How about "knowing in your gut" or "gut instinct"? As you know, that's where one is certain of something, regardless of being able to provide empirical evidence. Or meet some philosophical criteria. It seems to me that one can apply simple faith when it comes to believing in UR and "knowing it to be true" as one does in believing Jesus is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind.

Exactly. There are different forms of knowing, each one appropriate to the thing known. When it's God, we are finite creatures and He is infinite so we can only know Him through what He chooses to reveal to us. And we are lucky in that part of that revelation is that He wishes to enter into a relationship with us and so we can know Him that way too. But knowing in this sense is not the same as understanding Him empirically (which makes no sense anyway because God is not a physical entity) or philosophically, just like you can know a friend or partner very well - like the back of your hand in fact - but still not understand them very well.

 

[Hmm]

On the other hand, profoundly disappointed by why any so-called believer would make ECT their hill to die on.

It is very disappointing and it does immense damage in terms of the mental health of some of it's believers and by turning many people away from Christianity who quite rightly refuse to entertain such an immoral concept.

Good question, why choose to die on this hill? It's not a doctrinal belief. The Nicene creed says "We look for the resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come." Not a word about ECT! It must be the Pharassitical (if that's a word) aspect of it as you have already alluded to and the fact that the very notion of ECT is very hard to shake off because it engenders the fear that if you stop believing in eternal hell then you will end up there! It's insidious.

 

[Hmm]

The recent exchanges proves to me that Christian universalism is not only about the restoration of all humanity, it's also about the restoration of common sense