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 don't see what the beef is. Those are age old conundrums. At times like that one pretty much has to weigh out what makes the most sense.My pointed question is not based on his conclusions, it is from twisting like:
This is clear editorializing to minimize the flood account, as it assumes the flood is out of character rather than part of the data set in establishing what God's character is.
So as I repeatedly have said, my objection is not to universalism but the repeated abuses I see by self-proclaimed universalists.
It is not our job to edit Scripture and set it against itself. The God that became incarnate in Christ and died for our sins is the God of the flood, and if the narratives about Christ can tell us about His character so too do the narratives of His severity in the OT tell us of His character. If the person's view of God cannot accomodate both, then they are worshiping a god of their own creation. So the issue is a faulty hermeneutic in which an idol built on a partial picture of God is then used to dismiss Scripture that is not in agreement with the picture of the idol.I don't see what the beef is. Those are age old conundrums. At times like that one pretty much has to weigh out what makes the most sense.
Wow, that's a great question, thanks.Steven, I've read quite a few posts of yours now and one thing I've noticed you've mentioned quite a few times is the aspect of the fire of hell. Is this the problem?
Or are you okay with a God who lets some be tormented for an 'age', rather than an eternity?
If a belief in ECT helps keep you in a right relationship with God, then I recommend it for you. I want what is best for you.God does not send to hell and annihilate anyone to help them (He has already done all He can for them), God is annihilating these, to help others to go on and humbly accept His Love as pure undeserved charity. Some people like myself need the threat of hell knowing God will go through with His threat to both understand the significance of my sins and to move quickly in accepting His charitable forgiveness as pure undeserved charity.
You seem to be responding more to my UR position than stating your position on the topic title question.It would not be love to allow those unrepentant in harming others (those in 'unrepentant sin') into heaven, where they would continue to harm others (as they don't even want to change for the better...).
When individuals reject the only possible good way for people to live together in peace and bliss -- with love/forgiveness/mercy/kindness -- then having rejected God (since "God is Love"), the only possible good eternal outcome for that refusal to live in love with others is they be mercifully allowed to cease existing, when they 'perish' in the 'second death' which 'destroys body and soul'.
Well in the quote you used I didn't see any of that happening. What specifically is being said that bothers you. You've gone though a series of textbook accusations, but I don't get what exactly is bothering you.It is not our job to edit Scripture and set it against itself. The God that became incarnate in Christ and died for our sins is the God of the flood, and if the narratives about Christ can tell us about His character so too do the narratives of His severity in the OT tell us of His character. If the person's view of God cannot accomodate both, then they are worshiping a god of their own creation. So the issue is a faulty hermeneutic in which an idol built on a partial picture of God is then used to dismiss Scripture that is not in agreement with the picture of the idol.
If you don't see how declaring it "more narrative than informative" and then proceeding to simply muddy the issue with supposed theological problems that are clearly designed to attack the credibility of the text is problematic to pursuing the most text-accurate position then I'm not sure I can make what I'm objecting to clearer.Well in the quote you used I didn't see any of that happening. What specifically is being said that bothers you. You've gone though a series of textbook accusations, but I don't get what exactly is bothering you.
I do not believe in ECTIf a belief in ECT helps keep you in a right relationship with God, then I recommend it for you. I want what is best for you.
I've been hearing most of my life and have experienced for myself that the first six chapters of Genesis is pretty much a synopsis that leaves one with many questions and creates a lot of conjecture. Whole books have been written on what is and isn't said. Not to mention a myriad of lengthy debates. I don't see how it's not problematic. Why not address the questions brought up? Seeing that God is omniscient, how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out? How could he regret creating mankind as if he didn't know how it was going to turn out? It's common for us to start a project and then scrap it and start over because we didn't see how it was going to turn out. But God actually has 20/20 hindsight, so how could that have happened? I don't see how these aren't legitimate questions. And as usual, the problem is probably in how we interpret the text, or are unable to satisfactorily interpret the text, rather than in the text itself. The only way I can see to avoid all of that is to establish a dogmatic narrative and then insist that everyone stick to it and absolutely not question it.If you don't see how declaring it "more narrative than informative" and then proceeding to simply muddy the issue with supposed theological problems that are clearly designed to attack the credibility of the text is problematic to pursuing the most text-accurate position then I'm not sure I can make what I'm objecting to clearer.
The issue isn't that the theological issues aren't worth wrestling with, but the manner in which they were brought up as if they were a counter argument to the post that was being responded to. The only reason I can see for bringing up those challenges in that context are to cast aspersions on the text. Ultimately, whatever problems are created by the text for our theology we must keep in mind that this is how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. So while it may be important to try to resolve those questions through a broader investigation into the text, the function of bringing up the questions in that capacity appears to be an attack on the text.I've been hearing most of my life and have experienced for myself that the first six chapters of Genesis is pretty much a synopsis that leaves one with many questions and creates a lot of conjecture. Whole books have been written on what is and isn't said. Not to mention a myriad of lengthy debates. I don't see how it's not problematic. Why not address the questions brought up? Seeing that God is omniscient, how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out? How could he regret creating mankind as if he didn't know how it was going to turn out? It's common for us to start a project and then scrap it and start over because we didn't see how it was going to turn out. But God actually has 20/20 hindsight, so how could that have happened? I don't see how these aren't legitimate questions. And as usual, the problem is probably in how we interpret the text, or are unable to satisfactorily interpret the text, rather than in the text itself. The only way I can see to avoid all of that is to establish a dogmatic narrative and then insist that everyone stick to it and absolutely not question it.
So far you've yet to really address the problem directly. You just move the goalpost and then basically repeat the same accusation without there being anything really tangible to lock onto. At least that's been my experience so far. I know if I ask Steve or other universalists if they're attacking the text, they're going to say that they're attacking what's being done with the text.The issue isn't that the theological issues aren't worth wrestling with, but the manner in which they were brought up as if they were a counter argument to the post that was being responded to. The only reason I can see for bringing up those challenges in that context are to cast aspersions on the text. Ultimately, whatever problems are created by the text for our theology we must keep in mind that this is how God chose to reveal Himself to humanity. So while it may be important to try to resolve those questions through a broader investigation into the text, the function of bringing up the questions in that capacity appears to be an attack on the text.
Are you saying scripture is flawed? Are you saying God didn't create a flood to drown everyone?Based on what we know about God's character attributes from the rest of the Bible, the statements made about him in the Flood account are more narrative than informative.
For instance, we know that God is omniscient, so how could he be surprised and saddened by how things turned out before the Flood? As if he had no prior knowledge that it would happen? Or that his planning was flawed to the point of scrapping the whole idea? And then in order to "correct' the problem, engaged in global genocide as the solution? Wow. Like I said, wrought with theological problems.
I am a Christian, yes I know those scriptures and what they mean.Glad you brought that up, the Fall.
Are you familiar with the scripture below?
The salvation of humankind hangs on the acts of two men. Adam 1 and Adam 2.
Romans 5:18-19 NIV
Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people,
so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people.
19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners,
so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
Explain the reason why the children received no inheritance.
Was it not withheld (revenge) due to not agreeing with the father's opinions?
Saint Steven said:
Is that love?
To take revenge on your own flesh and blood for not agreeing with your personal beliefs?
Nullifying their inheritance to punish them for having their own mind?
Do you suppose this would bring them closer to God?
What sort of tyrant would behave this way? Please don't say, "God."
Great question, thanks.Are you saying scripture is flawed? Are you saying God didn't create a flood to drown everyone?
How does it violate what we know about God now? With the possible exception of Enoch and Elijah, no one has been spared from dying. Not Noah or his family. Their deaths were just postponed. Really it seems to me God either expedites death or he postpones death. But death happens no matter what.Great question, thanks.
No. I'm "attacking what's being done with the text", not the text itself. (thanks for the teleprompt) - LOL
As you mentioned, there are raging debates about the early Genesis text. Many legitimate questions arise.
Questions that are typically not allowed among "Christians". (tragic)
So, I am certainly living with some cognitive dissonance on the matter. I can see both sides of the argument.
I see evidence of a global flood, but the narrative provides me many unanswered questions.
But for the record, I still stubbornly cling to the "fact" that the global flood happened.
However, as you and I both spotlighted, the reasons given for WHY God did this is highly suspect.
Since it violates everything we Know about God now.
What to do, what to do... ???
I concur with what you wrote earlier, which may have been in agreement with what I wrote early, which may have... well you get the idea. - LOLHow does it violate what we know about God now?
Hard to argue with that. I agree. The only wild card here is defining what death is. I know you meant physical death.With the possible exception of Enoch and Elijah, no one has been spared from dying. Not Noah or his family. Their deaths were just postponed. Really it seems to me God either expedites death or he postpones death. But death happens no matter what.
Of course he would deny the accusation, but what does supposed problems to God's omniscience in the text(which are easily resolved when you understand the meaning of the Hebrew word used for regret) have to do with the post he was quoting? What does bringing up unrelated issues accomplish, except to question the extent to which we can trust what is written in the text as reflective of God's disposition?So far you've yet to really address the problem directly. You just move the goalpost and then basically repeat the same accusation without there being anything really tangible to lock onto. At least that's been my experience so far. I know if I ask Steve or other universalists if they're attacking the text, they're going to say that they're attacking what's being done with the text.
Hi Steven, I don't know what a 'UR' is, but if you can say what you think are my assumptions about ECT, I'll address those, tell you whether I assume them or not, or what I use instead, etc. I had written actually to the topic title question, but wrote the explanation for my answer instead of just the direct answer, which is 'no'. Some commonplace guesses/ideas some have such as ECT are among things I address to explain why those guesses/ideas are incorrect, and thus the answer is 'no'.You seem to be responding more to my UR position than stating your position on the topic title question.
Could you weigh in on that? Thanks.
You post makes some assumptions about UR and ECT that need more thought. Not everyone has had the same opportunity you claim. And it is not the position of UR proponents that unrepentant sinners go directly to heaven.
IDK. You'll have to hash it out with Steve and whoever else. I'm not going to keep probing to try and figure out what's under your skin.Of course he would deny the accusation, but what does supposed problems to God's omniscience in the text(which are easily resolved when you understand the meaning of the Hebrew word used for regret) have to do with the post he was quoting? What does bringing up unrelated issues accomplish, except to question the extent to which we can trust what is written in the text as reflective of God's disposition?
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?