Eternal Damnation, Conditional Immortality, or Universal Reconciliation: A CF poll

[Fervent]

Scripture.

How enlightening. What scripture, exactly?

 

[public hermit]

How enlightening. What scripture, exactly?

Genesis. He was interpreting Genesis.

 

[Fervent]

Genesis. He was interpreting Genesis.

And how did he get from the text to his speculation?

 

[public hermit]

And how did he get from the text to his speculation?

Scripture has to be interpreted, as you know. What you call speculation, like some modern skeptic, is his interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. His works are available, which I would suggest anyone serious about theology should read. And, keep in mind that Irenaeus heard the gospel proclaimed by Polycarp. And Polycarp, heard the gospel proclaimed by John, the apostle. Those are pretty good credentials.

Irenaeus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[Fervent]

Scripture has to be interpreted, as you know. What you call speculation, like some modern skeptic, is his interpretation of the early chapters of Genesis. His works are available, which I would suggest anyone serious about theology should read. And, keep in mind that Irenaeus heard the gospel proclaimed by Polycarp. And Polycarp, heard the gospel proclaimed by John, the apostle. Those are pretty good credentials.

I'm well aware that interpretation is part of the process, but interpretation is generally based on trackable analysis. If all you have is "irenaeus said it" without subsequent textual analysis then his interpretation is worth about as much as any other Bible interpreter's, which is to say very little in and of itself.

 

[public hermit]

I'm well aware that interpretation is part of the process, but interpretation is generally based on trackable analysis. If all you have is "irenaeus said it" without subsequent textual analysis then his interpretation is worth about as much as any other Bible interpreter's, which is to say very little in and of itself.

I have read his works, and I know what I'm talking about. If you read the wiki entry, you will see it confirms what I said. Under usual circumstances, I would post his interpretation so that you could see, but you have taught me that will be of no help to you. I'm sure you will do your own diligent research.

I wish you well in your endeavors and service to the church.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I'm well aware that interpretation is part of the process, but interpretation is generally based on trackable analysis. If all you have is "irenaeus said it" without subsequent textual analysis then his interpretation is worth about as much as any other Bible interpreter's, which is to say very little in and of itself.

Are we talking Synchronic, Diachronic or Existential choices in interpretation?

Of course, regardless, I'm not sure how to get around the fact that I think Adam and Eve are fictions. But each to his own. And where Genesis is concerned, I tend to lean toward Conrad Hyers and Kenton L. Sparks. I'm not sure we can say all of that, and after all is said and done hermeneutcially, one interpretation is equally worth any other or that one's choice as to which theologian or church father or bibical interpreter who is subscribed to for further elucidation is anything but a generally arbitrary choice. (For example, although I've done what you guys have done by reading through various accounts of 2,000 years of church history and doctrine, I make the arbitrary choice to just cut off the "authority" of voices for anyone that comes after the first-----say----100 years after Jesus set the Church on Fire.

And if all of the theological hobby wobby is arbitrary .... well then folks, it is what it is.

 

[Hmm]

I'm well aware that interpretation is part of the process, but interpretation is generally based on trackable analysis.

Do you think our feelings and moral sense play a part in how we interpret scripture?

If you don't, do you think they contribute to how we interpret other things in our lives, including the most important things such as our relationships with others? And if so, why should out interpretation of scripture or our relationship with God, our faith, be any different?

Or does "trackable analysis" have the last word?

It would be interesting to see your answer to this question, assuming you address it and not a completely different question.... I'm not optimistic that you will though, for some strange unaccountable reason.

 

[Hmm]

I'm well aware that interpretation is part of the process, but interpretation is generally based on trackable analysis.

Do you think our feelings and moral sense play a part in how we interpret scripture?

If you don't, do you think they contribute to how we interpret other things in our lives, including the most important things such as our relationships with others? And if so, why should out interpretation of scripture or our relationship with God, our faith, be any different?

It would be interesting to see your answer to this question, assuming you address it and not a completely different question....

 

[ViaCrucis]

I can say that I don't believe in "Conditional Immortality". But I did put myself in the "Agnostic" camp, I believe in the reality of hell and I pray that none be found there. I consider this to be the consistent position of the Christian Church since antiquity.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Fervent]

Do you think our feelings and moral sense play a part in how we interpret scripture?

If something inside of us is in any way determining the meaning of the passage we are engaged in eisegetical reading, creating meaning rather than interpreting.

If you don't, do you think they contribute to how we interpret other things in our lives, including the most important things such as our relationships with others? And if so, why should out interpretation of scripture or our relationship with God, our faith, be any different?

Interpreting a text is never dependent on our moral sense or personal feelings. Doesn't matter what text we're reading, if we want to know what is meant by it our feelings and morals are irrelevant. For the Bible, it's supposed to operate as corrective to our feelings and morals not be corrected by them.

Or does "trackable analysis" have the last word?

If we care what the text says, yeah.

It would be interesting to see your answer to this question, assuming you address it and not a completely different question.... I'm not optimistic that you will though, for some strange unaccountable reason.

What were you saying the other day about "ad homs?"

 

[Fervent]

Are we talking Synchronic, Diachronic or Existential choices in interpretation?

I have no idea what that means.

Of course, regardless, I'm not sure how to get around the fact that I think Adam and Eve are fictions. But each to his own. And where Genesis is concerned, I tend to lean toward Conrad Hyers and Kenton L. Sparks. I'm not sure we can say all of that, and after all is said and done hermeneutcially, one interpretation is equally worth any other or that one's choice as to which theologian or church father or bibical interpreter who is subscribed to for further elucidation is anything but a generally arbitrary choice. (For example, although I've done what you guys have done by reading through various accounts of 2,000 years of church history and doctrine, I make the arbitrary choice to just cut off the "authority" of voices for anyone that comes after the first-----say----100 years after Jesus set the Church on Fire.

I wouldn't say there is much arbitrary in textual analysis, though some of the ancilliary issues may become arbitrary. The text means what it means, and there is a real meaning to it.

And if all of the theological hobby wobby is arbitrary .... well then folks, it is what it is.

Simply because there are multiple interpretations does not render all valid, and at the end of the day theology would only be arbitrary if there is no God to which we are seeking to know. Because there is one God, who has revealed Himself through Scripture, theology has meaning and it is a disservice both as an act of intellect and as an act of faith to pretend there is not a single meaning to which we are working towards. If any meaning is entertainable, then ultimately we are speaking of a meaningless task and may as well deny the reality of God in total.

 

[keras]

I voted 'Conditional Immortality'.
The verse that I base my belief on is: Romans 9:22-23 ...some people are made for destruction.....

WE Christians ARE the Lord's people and WE will be called the children of the Living God, Romans 9:24-26, as we live in all of the holy land, soon after the Lord had cleared and cleansed it. Deuteronomy 32:34-43

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I have no idea what that means.

It's time to learn then, isn't it, Fervent? (Which isn't to say that I've learned it well ... but it is to say that I'm aware of a number of issues it seems so many, many, many others consistently fail to address in any kind of adequate manner.)

I wouldn't say there is much arbitrary in textual analysis, though some of the ancilliary issues may become arbitrary. The text means what it means, and there is a real meaning to it.

I wouldn't say it's all arbitrary either. But, even so, being that it's obvious to any Tom, Rick or Sally that the Bible ISN'T a comprehensive book and that it wasn't really put together in order to serve as such, we'd be wiser to realize that our lack of comprehensive understanding leads to an epistemic place where none of us, then, can ever really have the final word on just what God's Word 'is' or in how to best interpret it.

Simply because there are multiple interpretations does not render all valid, and at the end of the day theology would only be arbitrary if there is no God to which we are seeking to know. Because there is one God, who has revealed Himself through Scripture, theology has meaning and it is a disservice both as an act of intellect and as an act of faith to pretend there is not a single meaning to which we are working towards. If any meaning is entertainable, then ultimately we are speaking of a meaningless task and may as well deny the reality of God in total.

It's also a disservice to pretend that the Bible does more than it does; it also isn't cogent to the fact of reality or history to think that the Bible displaces the Church as some 'other' superior entity. And we have to also realize that your last statement is grasping for meaning in and of itself; even when the bible isn't clear to us and can't be, it isn't an act of futility to in order to understand it. It just means we have to take what we can where we can when reading it.

So, no. Despite your degree from seminary, I can only agree with the one point where the New Testament writers usually intended a particular meaning for their readers to understand. But as Pascal pointed out, "God is a Hidden God," and so may the Lord help us in understanding that original meaning since it has been partially disconnected and obscure by place and time and cultural "Différance."

 

[public hermit]

I voted 'Conditional Immortality'.
The verse that I base my belief on is: Romans 9:22-23 ...some people are made for destruction.....

WE Christians ARE the Lord's people and WE will be called the children of the Living God, Romans 9:24-26, as we live in all of the holy land, soon after the Lord had cleared and cleansed it. Deuteronomy 32:34-43

Thank you for voting and sharing your thoughts.

 

[Fervent]

It's time to learn then, isn't it, Fervent? (Which isn't to say that I've learned it well ... but it is to say that I'm aware of a number of issues it seems so many, many, many others consistently fail to address in any kind of adequate manner.)

Looking up the words, those issues certainly require consideration but I'm not sure that level of analysis is cogent to present discussions.

I wouldn't say it's all arbitrary either. But, even so, being that it's obvious to any Tom, Rick or Sally that the Bible ISN'T a comprehensive book and that it wasn't really put together in order to serve as such, we'd be wiser to realize that our lack of comprehensive understanding leads to an epistemic place where none of us, then, can ever really have the final word on just what God's Word 'is' or in how to best interpret it.

I'd say we can be reasonably certain, even if not totally. There may be issues at the fringes, but analytical work aimed at undermining our confidence in Scripture is simply not profitable.

It's also a disservice to pretend that the Bible does more than it does; it also isn't cogent to the fact of reality or history to think that the Bible displaces the Church as some 'other' superior entity. And we have to also realize that your last statement is grasping for meaning in and of itself; even when the bible isn't clear to us and can't be, it isn't an act of futility to in order to understand it. It just means we have to take what we can where we can when reading it.

Certainly not, but the Bible gives us the closest thing to an objective standard to judge by, and the Church derives its authority from Scripture not the other way around. I'm not sure I would agree there are places where the meaning of the text is entirely beyond us, nor that seeking to understand it is an act of futility.

So, no. Despite your degree from seminary, I can only agree with the one point where the New Testament writers usually intended a particular meaning for their readers to understand. But as Pascal pointed out, "God is a Hidden God," and so may the Lord help us in understanding that original meaning since it has been partially disconnected and obscure by place and time and cultural "Différance."

Place, time, and cultural differences definitely make it so that we can't simply pick up the text in English and understand it, but I for one believe in a God capable of transmitting His intended meaning across those things. Not simply the New Testament authors, but all text has an intended meaning even if part of the meaning is the method of conveyance. So to me if we are serious about pursuing God for His own revelation rather than seeking to create an image of God we must stick to what we can develop from the text of Scripture.

 

[Hmm]

If something inside of us is in any way determining the meaning of the passage we are engaged in eisegetical reading, creating meaning rather than interpreting.

Interpreting a text is never dependent on our moral sense or personal feelings. Doesn't matter what text we're reading, if we want to know what is meant by it our feelings and morals are irrelevant. For the Bible, it's supposed to operate as corrective to our feelings and morals not be corrected by them.

If we care what the text says, yeah.

What were you saying the other day about "ad homs?"

My point was that our understanding of God does not solely depend on textual analysis but that feelings and moral values are at least as important. The reason is that our understanding of God develops within the context of a relationship.

These counter-points are that we can't allow our textual analysis be dependent on our feelings and morals. Do you see where you might be entirely missing the point I was trying to make?

I asked you a while back whether you think our feelings and moral sense have any role to play in how we apprehend God or is it only about textual analysis and you haven't answered. This is a simple question looking for a straight answer...

 

[All Becomes New]

Hi,

Just writing to say sorry for my post that was too long that was keeping people from viewing the thread.

But just to say what my point was, I believe you can rule out Universal Reconciliation by one word, "Chasm" found in Luke 16:26.

This passage cannot be thought of as a parable for three reasons:

1) It uses a name and Jesus' parables never use names.

2) Jesus could very well be talking about the same Lazarus from the Gospel of John.

3) Even if it is not the same Lazarus, Jesus could be trying to give a special honor to this man Lazarus by using his real name.

Also, if it is a parable, then the word Chasm is of special importance because it says no one can cross from one place to the other. It would mean the parable is talking of a greater reality and not a lesser one.

The verse in question is here:

Luke 16:25–26 CSB17
““‘Son,’ Abraham said, ‘remember that during your life you received your good things, just as Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here, while you are in agony. Besides all this, a great chasm has been fixed between us and you, so that those who want to pass over from here to you cannot; neither can those from there cross over to us.’”

 

[public hermit]

Just writing to say sorry for my post that was too long that was keeping people from viewing the thread

No worries, but thank you for the clarification.

 

[Saint Steven]

My point was that our understanding of God does not solely depend on textual analysis but that feelings and moral values are at least as important. The reason is that our understanding of God develops within the context of a relationship.

This is such an important point. And VERY well stated here. Thanks.
Our most important relationship is not with a book, but with a living God.

Textual analysis fails on so many levels to communicate the complexity of God.
Even the biblical writers misquoted scriptures to make a spiritual point.
A complete failure of textual analysis, I would say. Analyze that. - LOL

These counter-points are that we can't allow our textual analysis be dependent on our feelings and morals. Do you see where you might be entirely missing the point I was trying to make?

Additionally there is a spiritual component to understanding anything. (1 Corinthians 2:13) pasted below.
What is God saying, be it through a text, or an impression. (feeling)

I asked you a while back whether you think our feelings and moral sense have any role to play in how we apprehend God or is it only about textual analysis and you haven't answered. This is a simple question looking for a straight answer...

And from our perspective, to know when a "popular" teaching simply can't be right.
God is not confined within the pages of a book. Bigger than that. (John 21:25) pasted below.

1 Corinthians 2:13 NIV
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in
words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

John 21:25 NIV
Jesus did many other things as well. If every one of them were written down,
I suppose that even the whole world would not have room for the books that would be written.