- Oct 2, 2020
- 28,424
- 15,393
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Single
When comes to the early church, it's more orthodox than Protestantism.
Upvote
0
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 agree it isn't now, but it was in the early church, and I'm inclined to trust that more.
When comes to the early church, it's more orthodox than Protestantism.
Yes. I'd like to go to an Orthodox church to learn more about it but the nearest one to me is in Shrewsbury, England about 25 miles away. I know that sort of distance is peanuts to you Americans but it's considered a long way by us Brits!
My job is 25+ miles away. But I still consider that a long drive.
If Google maps is correct it's in a converted stable. I'll have to check it out.
Remember though that nothing good ever came out of a stable /s
Of course.Yes I will listen. Agreement is another thing.
There are lots of scholarly opinions out there, trying to explain a lot of very poetic passages. I can get into it with you, but I am not going to "debate" some scholar who will not be answering me and most are dead.Just to defend NT Wright here but what he is saying here about the Rapture is not just his personal opinion but the established traditional view. I only mentioned him to give a credible source. The more dramatic view of some people being zapped up to heaven leaving others behind is very much a modern, and almost Hollywood, view.
In the past, many self-identified Christians used the Bible to justify slavery quoting passages such as Ephesians 6:5-8: “Slaves, be obedient to your human masters with fear and trembling, in sincerity of heart, as to Christ”.
I can imagine them saying that's clearly "what the Bible says", and on plain reading it seems to be, but we don't interpret it that way now and we don't feel the need to defend our interpretation with passages that oppose slavery. We just feel that it's right to assume that slavery is wrong.
This suggests that our sense of right and wrong and of what's reasonable are valid ways to think about God. Which means that, when thinking about Chrisitan universalism, it's okay to ask which view just makes more sense. In general, it's okay to ask "Would the God perfectly portrayed by Jesus in the Gospels really send anyone to an eternal hell of torture/torment?. If He's omnipotent, can He not find a way to draw all people to Himself freely?"
So our starting point when thinking about universalism doesn't have to be "How does this fit into the Bible?" It could instead be "How could God possibly allow any one of His children to be be lost/annihilated/tortured forever".
It's infernalists who try to put the burden of scriptual proof on you. But rather than entering into "sophisticated" exegetical arguments it's okay to start with the assumption that if God exists, He's a God who will one day restore all His creation.
Those texts of the whole counsel of God in which Romans 5:18b must be understood, starting with Romans 5:18b itself:Which text would that be?
The text says what you've said?I am not changing it. It says what I have said.
As for slavery, we don't "just feel" that it's wrong; no, that conclusion has gone through a long history of development in connection to a wide web of other beliefs to enable us to arrive at today's mindset. But even then, it's not clear that the idea that "slavery is wrong" is metaphysically grounded any more than Human Rights is grounded.
I can get into it with you, but I am not going to "debate" some scholar who will not be answering me and most are dead
". . .the result of one act of righteousness (the cross) was (led to) justification that brings (leads to) life to all men."
"Bringing, leading to" and "giving" are not the same thing.
You can "bring, lead me" to water to drink but it doesn't "give" me hydration if I don't "receive" (drink) it.
I think do just feel that slavery is wrong. It's a self-evident truth and so doesn't need any philosophical underpinning for us to fully believe that, as with most of our values.
Nor did I lose it, nor was I without it when you brought me out.I'm not sure your example works. If I lead you to water you have to do something to receive it, right, but if you are in a war zone in Ukraine at the moment and I bring you out of it then I have led you to life - you do not have to do anything to receive it.
Alright. I feel free to disagree, then.
I stick with scripture, pray, meditation, the indwelling Holy Spirit's guidance, fasting when needed, making sure my motive for knowing is not just academic, intellectual or to win an argument and discussions with like minded Christians. Revelation is full of symbolic figurative language, not good for any proof text scripture.I'm not interested in debating Wright either. I just thought his explanation of the Rapture makes sense and wondered what you thought.
I stick with scripture, pray, meditation, the indwelling Holy Spirit's guidance, fasting when needed, making sure my motive for knowing is not just academic, intellectual or to win an argument and discussions with like minded Christians. Revelation is full of symbolic figurative language, not good for any proof text scripture.
What a silly non-historical, non-geographically minded and non-contexual question to ask. This is not how current notions about 'freedom' have come to light in the conscience of the Western World, Hmm. It hasn't been merely by standing side by side with William Wilberforce. The point here in my saying this is that if the structure of the argument for Christian Universalism is 'true,' it will be on lines of evaluation other than those on which anti-slavery morality is structured. So, just drop the slavery analogy.Of course! But do you think your views would change if you witnessed a slave auction where families were torn apart because for example a buyer only wanted the mother for a cook or something worse and didn't want husband and children as well who ended up being sold separately to other buyers, as used to happen?
No, it's not "only felt." It's ludicrous for you to say it is on the whole and I know you're smarter than that. So, maybe back off from this sort of positioning of your view.The truth that this is wrong can only be felt. There are no "metaphysical groundings" or "connections to other beliefs" that can make it true. Obviously this begs the question of what is truth. Suffice to say that there are truths other than philosophical ones that are equally valid.
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?