Christian Universalism. What's not to like?

[2PhiloVoid]

The exegetical steps are as follows.
1. God promises Abraham that all the nations of the earth will be blessed (now that's a big one).
2. God promises Cyrus that every knee will bow and every tongue confess (another biggie, but played down by trad western theology - despite being reiterated twice by St Paul).
3. God sends in the Last Adam to reveal that He was never against us, and as representative of mankind whatever falls in Adam is raised up in Christ (that's the lifetime guarantee, sealed in holy blood - better than the folding stuff to Jews).
4. God actually does deliver in Kingdom come by resurrecting the dead in the final judgment, where the last enemy (death) will be defeated (leaving life remaining) and all things made new.
5. Rejoicing in plowshares and the riches of His Grace.

There's your Omega Plan lifecycle rollout: manufacture, supply, test, warranty, recall and repair. Good as gold, all in all. More than conquerors. All glory to the one true living God.

Now there's your reason to look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

So, what are the specific exegetical principles by which you've selected and hobbled together they bits and pieces from the Bible, SM? Is this "Omega Plan" you've given me in quick fashion representative of a 'Do-It-Yourself' method, or is it one that you learned from another source?

 

[Saint Steven]

Sorry. Where do you get that. If one is for one age, so is the other. Changing meaning within the same sentence making one mean "one" period of time and the other a "different" number of periods of time is not in the text.

Enos or monocleno would be used as a clarifier of one or "single" if there were a difference.

IDK. Ages can be of differing lengths. But each has a beginning and end. For example, the ice age and the bronze age are both ages. Does my sentence claim that both are of the same length? (nope)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's is because you haven't got the hermeneutics right. Too much eisegesis. This strawman was addressed back in #1510 when we were young and optimistic:

Strawman: Universalists think that all roads lead to God
This is to confuse universalism (the view that God will one day save all people through Christ) with pluralism (the view that there are many paths to God and that Jesus is simply one of them). But Christian universalists deny pluralism. They insist that salvation is found only through the atoning work of Christ. Without Jesus nobody would be redeemed.

Now there is a disagreement between Christians, not only Universalists, about whether you need to have explicit faith in Jesus to be saved. Some Christians, called exclusivists, say Yes and others, called inclusivists, say No. So, for inclusivists you can be saved even if, for instance, you have never heard the gospel. Inclusivists would say that if someone responds in love and faith to the truncated divine revelation that they have received then God can unite them to Christ.

But we need to be careful not to confuse the discussion between exclusivists and inclusivists with the issue of universalism. Many people make that mistake. The former debate concerns how people can experience the salvation won by Christ while the latter concerns how many people will be saved. Two different questions.

Actually, that wasn't the locus of what I was even implying earlier. You've missed it by a mile. But, that's ok. I know that when you try to hit a target with a blind-fold on, speaking outside of your own field, you probably are going to miss the mark.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

By contrast that sounds like the only reason for repentance is to receive a get into heaven card - which seems to be the case with a lot of Christians. One thing I note about that is all the repentance that took place in the Old Testament, even though there's not a single mention of punishment of the soul in the afterlife in the OT that I know of

What other reasons might there be for keeping 'repentance' in mind other than these?

I have to ask because 'my' reason by be something altogether different and because you assume you can read my mind, you therefore also jump to thinking that you know my reasons. The fact is, your response here has little or nothing (nothing really) to do with my points.

For my part, I simply value the idea of 'repentance' because 1) it seems to lead to more moral functioning in this life and, 2) since it's in the Bible, I then existentially encounter it and realize it's 'there' as a concept whether I like it or not (and I don't really like it), and that if I want to act coherently with the Christian faith, then I have to value and attempt to implement this spiritual measure in some way since it seems to be connected to 'pleasing the Lord.'

One thing I also not about this is that there were a lot of folks in the Old Testament who didn't repent. And from what I can tell in the O.T. narratives, they didn't fair so well in life.

 

[Saint Steven]

It's neither. It's just a descriptive statement that applies to all of us.

But then again, Skeptic that I am, you can feel free to question it and show me how wrong I am.

The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.

 

[Hmm]

But, that's ok. I know that when you try to hit a target with a blind-fold on, speaking outside of your own field, you probably are going to miss the mark

Hermeneutics, as @Lazarus Short has already explained to you, simply means "interpretaion". That's something that's outside no-one's field. It's something we all do day in and day out in every area of our lives and it's nothing special. Unless you're claiming expertise in a specific field? If so, in what area? Please be specific...

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.

Again, I'm not posturing. You guys might want to give that idea up before it backfires on you.

And no, my previous statement wasn't an insult. It was a matter of fact, with the implication being that since we ALL interpret what we read or hear in the interactions of human communication, then it can be said that we all either do our interpreting well or we don't do it well.

It's just what it is. Interpretation is to human communication what cold is to ice or heat is to a flame. It's just a part of reality whether we like it or not.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Hermeneutics, as @Lazarus Short has already explained to you, simply means "interpretaion". That's something that's outside no-one's field. It's something we all do day in and day out in every area of our lives and it's nothing special. Unless you're claiming expertise in a specific field? If so, in what area? Please be specific...

Actually, formal Hermeneutics and Exegesis are outside a lot of people's "field." And being that we either do these things well or we don't, then like any other field, we either remain in a state where we're open to being educated in an ongoing matter (like in Math, for instance)....or we close ourselves off and remain in solipsistic boxes.

As for being an expert on Hermeneutics and Exegesis, I ain't. But that's not to also say that I'm not educated in related fields or that I don't rely upon those.... who are experts in Hermeneutics and Exegesis.

 

[Saint Steven]

And no, my previous statement wasn't an insult. It was a matter of fact, with the implication being that since we ALL interpret what we read or hear in the interactions of human communication, then it can be said that we all either do our interpreting well or we don't do it well.

There, now was that so hard to speak in plain English? (layman's terms)

But aren't you holding interpretation to some "learned" academic standard (Herman Nudists) from which you alone draw the "right" answer to the questions you drill us with?

You can cast a long shadow, but it's still only a shadow. We all know the source is smaller.

Or, a hot air balloon is big. But it only gets that way by being full of hot air. (as the name indicates)

 

[ozso]

The posturing made your statement incomprehensible to me. But I didn't want to assume it was an insult. It might not have been.

I'm just as confused as you are.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There, now was that so hard to speak in plain English? (layman's terms)

But aren't you holding interpretation to some "learned" academic standard (Herman Nudists) from which you alone draw the "right" answer to the questions you drill us with?

You can cast a long shadow, but it's still only a shadow. We all know the source is smaller.

You may have to reiterate what you've said here and put it in laymen's terms for me, Steven. Because, I'm not quite getting the gist of what you're saying.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and say that even though it seems like you're imputing some kind of 'Gnostic crap' to my position, I'm wholly misinterpreting what you're say to me.

So, if you would be so kind, just clarify for me what you're intending to say.

 

[Saint Steven]

I'm just as confused as you are.

There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm just as confused as you are.

Whatever could alleviate your confusion, I wonder?

 

[Saint Steven]

You may have to reiterate what you've said here and put it in laymen's terms for me, Steven. Because, I'm not quite getting the gist of what you're saying.

I'd rather err on the side of caution and say that even though it seems like you're imputing some kind of 'Gnostic crap' to my position, I'm wholly misinterpreting what you're say to me.

So, if you would be so kind, just clarify for me what you're intending to say.

Like two ships that pass in the night.
All my posts are in layman's terms. If I dumb it down any more, we'll be playing with the BIG Legos. - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

... it seems like you're imputing some kind of 'Gnostic crap' to my position...

Doesn't "Gnostic" mean knowledge? And isn't that what you are championing here? I didn't say "Gnostic" to you, but... if the shoe fits... you're Cinderella. - lol

 

[2PhiloVoid]

There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)

What do you consider to be an act of "placing the cookies on the lower shelf"?

I have a feeling that we both have different ideas and definitions as to what this would constitute. But, y'know, as fate has it, one of my favorite Christian philosophers has written an essay that seems to lean in your favor (not that I'm glad he does).

 

[Saint Steven]

What do you consider to be an act of "placing the cookies on the lower shelf"? ...

See my post #1749 above.

 

[Hmm]

As for being an expert on Hermeneutics and Exegesis, I ain't

Clearly not. If you were you would know that meaningful discussions can take place without an explicit reference to hermeneutics and exegesis.

For the umpteenth time, this thread is not about hermeneutics etc. It's about universal restoration and why people find the idea offensive. Please, please, please, and I say this with the tears gushing from my eyes like a clown's, try to stay on topic.

 

[Saint Steven]

But, y'know, as fate has it, one of my favorite Christian philosophers has written an essay that seems to lean in your favor (not that I'm glad he does).

Well... maybe should cut me some slack then. Sounds like I'm in good company. - lol

 

[ozso]

There's a refusal to put the cookies on the lower shelf. And then we are criticized for "hiding" behind the term "layman's terms". (sigh)

What shelf the cookies are on isn't the problem. It's the ingredients of the cookies.