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.
Fallacious irrelevant argument deleted, already addressed and refuted more than once. I remember Jim Jones and Vernon Howell, AKA David Koresh, both accumulated a bunch of followers, all of whom perished and neither had any scholastic qualifications. So I think it is very prudent to inquire about the qualifications of people who present themselves as scripturally knowledgeable.* * * Deleted * * *
Fallacious irrelevant argument deleted, already addressed and refuted more than once. I remember Jim Jones and Vernon Howell, AKA David Koresh, both accumulated a bunch of followers, all of whom perished and neither had any scholastic qualifications. So I think it is very prudent to inquire about the qualifications of people who present themselves as scripturally knowledgeable.
Irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.From an earlier point made by ClementA:
"Now as they observed the confidence of Peter and John and understood that they were uneducated and untrained men, they were amazed, and began to recognize them as having been with Jesus."~Acts 4:13
Speaking of the religious leaders:
"Leave them! They are blind guides of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both will fall into a pit."~Matthew 15:14
Irrelevant, specious argument unless you can show me someone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.The highly scholastically qualified Pharisees were leading men astray:...
Irrelevant. I don't know of anyone who was personally called, instructed and commissioned by Jesus Himself.
That's why it's called "faith" and not "certainty". Many people say that about God as well (and many aren't doing a very convincing job of displaying this religion as the one focused on "loving one another as I've loved you").show me
My question is, if Gods love and patience is unending, is that to say that He would reach out to people, even after death? Or is it then too late to be loved?
You can't be serious! Didn't you see my example of Jim Jones and David Koresh? I'm supposed to have blind faith in every Tom, Dick and Mary who comes along claiming that only they have the true truth saying "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh! and the church has been wrong for 2000 years." And I might add no credible evidence of any kind. Sorry ma'am I ain't drinking that koolaid.That's why it's called "faith" and not "certainty". Many people say that about God as well (and many aren't doing a very convincing job of displaying this religion as the one focused on "loving one another as I've loved you").
Go look in a mirror!Scripture & the teaching of the Holy Spirit become "irrelevant" when traditions of men like the Pharisees are considered more important....
Nope. I said nothing about "blind faith".I'm supposed to have blind faith in every Tom, Dick and Mary who comes along claiming that only they have the true truth saying "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh huh! and the church has been wrong for 2000 years." And I might add no credible evidence of any kind. Sorry ma'am I ain't drinking that koolaid.
This line of John Donne is often misunderstood. It comes from Meditation XVII of his Devotions upon emergent occassions.
It is a call for man to trust to God. The whole work is regarding recovery from an illness and is predicated on the two greatest commandments, to love God and to Love thy neighbour. The idea being that they are associated ideals, hence everything that happens to anyone touches me also. The Meditation ends where Donne says that perhaps someone else's misfortune will do you good.
Here is the next part of the Meditation that is so often ommited:
"Neither can we call this a begging of misery, or a borrowing of misery, as though we were not miserable enough of ourselves, but must fetch in more from the next house, in taking upon us the misery of our neighbours. Truly it were an excusable covetousness if we did, for affliction is a treasure, and scarce any man hath enough of it. No man hath affliction enough that is not matured and ripened by it, and made fit for God by that affliction. If a man carry treasure in bullion, or in a wedge of gold, and have none coined into current money, his treasure will not defray him as he travels. Tribulation is treasure in the nature of it, but it is not current money in the use of it, except we get nearer and nearer our home, heaven, by it. Another man may be sick too, and sick to death, and this affliction may lie in his bowels, as gold in a mine, and be of no use to him; but this bell, that tells me of his affliction, digs out and applies that gold to me: if by this consideration of another's danger I take mine own into contemplation, and so secure myself, by making my recourse to my God, who is our only security."
I myself don't see universalism here applied or intimated.
I am not a universalist. To me, universalism fails in that it renders all our moral struggles moot and the whole idea of Sin and Justice irrelevant.
Back to Silmarien's post:
It is an interesting quandary you posit. It reminds me of Buddhist thinking, how the Self consists of Khandas, 'heaps' of ideas and feelings constantly changing and absorbing or losing elements from what is around us and other people we meet.
I have no problem seeing man as a composite being, consisting of Soul, Spirit, Body, Mind (conscious and subconscious) etc. with elements absorbed from everyone we meet into our conceptions. There is however a central element, somehow connected to this superficial existential flux, that seems to be the active participant. This is impacted, forged or changed by our actions and the events of our lives and I think in this manner it would carry forth elements of others. I do not see why it need carry the entirety of them along though, for all are compositions of various elements and perhaps we merely have taken parts thereof.
The world is a crucible forging sons of God and I fail to see why taking specks of gold from others necessitates appropriating the dross as well.
...personally, I can't foresee how the ultimate demise in the long term of Nero, Hitler, Mao, Stalin, or Pol Pot (or anyone like them) will diminish me in the presence of Christ for eternity. I'm not saying this as a criticism, but as a point of philosophical and theological contemplation.
Peace,
2PhiloVoid
I guess I'm approaching this as a thought experiment, Silmarien. And I'm thinking ...universalism seems to imply to me that God's Being would somehow be insufficient to uphold our happiness in eternity, as if our pains and sorrows--any pains and sorrows we might take with us into the afterlife--would somehow be impregnable or undisplaceable by the Glory of Christ.Yes, I understand. I don't think that the point of the argument is that it would diminish you personally, but that it would diminish those who were close to them (presumably before they turned into the people they ended up being), whose diminishment would then in turn affect those closest to them, so a web of interconnected relationships is still involved in the end.
Yes, it is attractive, and philosophically speaking, universalism offers what seems to be a pleasing finish to an otherwise painful set of future possibilities. But, with that said, I'm still wrestling with its coherence as an entity within the entire corpus of the Bible.I should point out that I don't think these particular situations are really a problem for the form of universalism that simply suggests that the gates of hell are locked from the inside and that nobody is technically incapable of repentence. The strong universalistic stance that everyone will ultimately be saved is obviously a much bigger claim. (Though... I do find it theologically attractive in an intimidatingly maximalistic kind of way.)
If you mean, is the one who created time, limited by time???? I'm voting with Martin Luther.My question is, if Gods love and patience is unending, is that to say that He would reach out to people, even after death? Or is it then too late to be loved?
I guess I'm approaching this as a thought experiment, Silmarien. And I'm thinking ...universalism seems to imply to me that God's Being would somehow be insufficient to uphold our happiness in eternity, as if our pains and sorrows--any pains and sorrows we might take with us into the afterlife--would somehow be impregnable or undisplaceable by the Glory of Christ.
Yes, it is attractive, and philosophically speaking, universalism offers what seems to be a pleasing finish to an otherwise painful set of future possibilities. But, with that said, I'm still wrestling with its coherence as an entity within the entire corpus of the Bible.
yeah. That's what I tend to feel about this. Otherwise, I guess it's time to inform my wife that "hey honey, you know all those sins I used to do...well, I just learned from some universalists on CF that they really don't matter in the long run, so I won't be trying any longer to abstain. And since it's okay with God, shouldn't it be ok with you?"Well, I would say that there's a difference between a glory that restores and a glory that displaces and erases. If it's the latter, then I get to make the argument that is so often used against universalism: if what happens here ultimately doesn't matter, what's the point?
It's not really about future possibilities for me. It's very much about the present and the way Christianity answers the Problem of Evil. I think less in terms of universalism and more in terms of the Christus Victor theory of atonement and the claim that all the forces of entropy in the universe have been knocked out of play and are just in their death throes. Which... you know, enormously huge claim from my perspective.
It does make sense to me that people would have the choice to live in the new world or stay with the old one, but to shove the focus back on God's sovereignty and say that "one day, all shall bow" is crazy powerful theology. It's kind of like Calvinism in terms of its absolutism--what God wants, God will get, but apocatastasis says he wants everything. (This is way beyond what I'm willing to defend, but it does have its appeal.)
That's a distinct problem with Universalism, it tends to not be incompatible with anything as it always then grasps at the idea of 'restoration' of what it does not like and reinterprets everything else in light of itself. When I read Donne, I can't help see his emphasis on personal salvation in a community of the Church. This devotion does not just say 'all men are brothers' as it is so often portrayed, but clearly says that 'all men help each other to God to some extent'. It does not say all will thus be saved, so my point was not that it is incompatible with Universalism, but that a Universalist reading is not the point of these lines in Donne.I see nothing there that's incompatible with a universalist position either. I don't know enough about John Donne to know what his exact stance on the issue was, but this is the type of thinking that can certainly blossom into a fullblown universalism.
I think the problem with Universalist thinking is that it sets itself up in opposition to bogeymen. It says as you have now also said, that previous systems equate to escaping punishment. I do not think any form of Atonement is so clear cut, nor that they are not all able to be concurrently operable, be it Christus Victor, Scapegoat, Poenal Substitution or what have you. In Universalism however, it seems as if virtues like faith, temperance, charity, hope, fortitude etc. are minimised into irrelevancy by the simple fact that they no longer bear all. They are not the operative element anymore, how God's grace helps man to become what he should have been. The world is a crucible working on our inner soul, forging in my opinion a son of God or of Perdition. The problem of evil only makes sense to me in this light and a universalist who redeems those who had never been forged anew, in essence seems to negate the purpose of our moral existence, to some extent.Not at all! The only thing universalism does is discard retributive justice in favor of restorative justice; any theologically sound version isn't going to downplay sin at all. If anything, I would say that moral struggle is ultimately legitimized, since in a universalist framework it will necessarily have value in and of itself and can't be reduced to a simple means of escaping punishment.
To what degree it's biblical is another question entirely, and one I'm not qualified to weigh in on one way or the other. (Though as far as I'm concerned, that goes for anyone who doesn't speak Koine Greek!)
I think you misunderstand me a little. Nothing is 'torn out' from its roots as our 'selves' are superficial constructs. The inner being is seldom met in other men. We meet their humour or character, their façade, their Superego, their ideas. With this we clothe our own inner being, but true congress with the actual Self of another would be rare indeed, if not found only in closest friends, spouses and family. If such a 'inner being' is truly depraved, then why would we assume any element from it? Such an element may only be an encumbrance, something that needs to be purified away. Sin begets Sin. Even things like temperance can become a vice if taken too far into dullness or thrift into niggardliness. I think that worthwhile well-balanced elements of Self are unlikely to arise from non-pure sources, so either they are 'absorbed' by nature of God's will or are remade such by Him, and thus shorn from their unholy origins.I think that the sort of argument David Bentley Hart is making would probably be stronger from a Trinitarian perspective than something mired in Eastern philosophy. (I suspect that he's done so elsewhere, but I haven't gotten around to reading his heavier theological work yet.) If the argument were framed less in terms of philosophy of mind and more in terms of theology and the importance of relationships, it would work better. If someone who is ultimately unsaved had a positive effect on you, is that suddenly the dross that you're not going to be appropriating? I really don't think there's enough black and white in the realm of interpersonal relationships to make sorting them out a simple task, so I still see it as difficult to keep from losing significant portions of your identity.
I should say that I definitely believe in a more concrete, platonic "self" as well. My concern is simply continuity between what we are and what we are to become--restoring what is actually broken is one thing, but if you start tearing out anything that has roots in anyone who was ultimately tossed aside, I do wonder if there's enough continuity left to refer to what emerges from that process as "salvation" from the human perspective.
I agree. I don't see the former as Universalism though. The "Gates locked from the inside" sounds like a line lifted from Lewis, who is often mistakenly called a Universalist when he clearly was not. Humanity condemns itself in my opinion, not God. We bar the gates ourselves. I just happen to think at some point that self-condemnation becomes irreversible - not absolutely so, but certainly not without divine intervention and the further you move from God, the harder this becomes. We would be approaching areas where ability to return to God tends to infinitesimal degrees and thus the person has functionally condemned himself completely.I should point out that I don't think these particular situations are really a problem for the form of universalism that simply suggests that the gates of hell are locked from the inside and that nobody is technically incapable of repentence. The strong universalistic stance that everyone will ultimately be saved is obviously a much bigger claim. (Though... I do find it theologically attractive in an intimidatingly maximalistic kind of way.)
I don't think the point of this Meditation is Universalism. This is clearly not what Donne meant. I did not say it was incompatible with it. It can be so construed, but so can frankly anything, as Universalism reinterprets even lines such as "thrown into the lake of fire" and "second death" into temporary states as well.I do. The part about "everything that happens to anyone touches me also" (community....God's love binding us all back together).....and affliction maturing us......even purifying us (that's how I read "made fit for God by that affliction")....all appears to me to be describing universal reconciliation.....an eventual restoration of all.
That's what I used to think, too. That's not the sort of universal reconciliation I believe in, though. This is what I'm inclined to believe (what Gregory of Nyssa described):
>>>In the Great Catechism, Gregory suggests that while every human will be resurrected, salvation will only be accorded to the baptised, although he also states that others driven by their passions can be saved after being purified by fire.[56] While he believes that there will be no more evil in the hereafter, it is arguable that this does not preclude a belief that God might justly damn sinners for eternity.[57] Thus, the main difference between Gregory's conception of ἀποκατάστασις and that of Origen would be that Gregory believes that mankind will be collectively returned to sinlessness, whereas Origen believes that personal salvation will be universal.[57] This interpretation of Gregory has been criticized recently, however.[58]Indeed, this interpretation is explicitly contradicted in the "Great Catechism" itself, for at the end of chapter XXXV Gregory declares that those who have not been purified by water through baptism will be purified by fire in the end, so that "their nature may be restored pure again to God".[59] Furthermore, in the next chapter (ch. XXXVI), Gregory says that those who are purified from evil will be admitted into the "heavenly company".[60]
Attempting to reconcile these disparate positions, Eastern Orthodox theologian Dr. Mario Baghos notes that "when taken at face value the saint seems to be contradicting himself in these passages; on the one hand he asserted the salvation of all and the complete eradication of evil, and, on the other, that the fire needed to purge evil is ‘sleepless’, i.e. everlasting. The only solution to this inconsistency is to view any allusion to universal salvation in St Gregory as an expression of God’s intention for humanity, which is in fact attested to when his holy sister states that God has “one goal […] some straightway even in this life purified from evil, others healed hereafter through fire for the appropriate length of time.” That we can choose either to accept or ignore this purification is confirmed by the saint’s many exhortations that we freely undertake the virtuous path."[61] Dr. Ilaria Ramelli has made the observation that for Gregory free will was compatible with universal salvation, since every person would eventually accept the good having gone through purification.[58] Gregory of Nyssa - Wikipedia
Universal reconciliation has not been considered heretical or else many of the saints wouldn't be considered saints any longer.....would they?
As far as I know....Origen's version (with the idea of pre-existent souls) is the only form of universalism that's been deemed heretical in the Orthodox church.
yeah. That's what I tend to feel about this. Otherwise, I guess it's time to inform my wife that "hey honey, you know all those sins I used to do...well, I just learned from some universalists on CF that they really don't matter in the long run, so I won't be trying any longer to abstain. And since it's okay with God, shouldn't it be ok with you?"I assume she'll be ok with that, too....................in the long run.
I think the problem with Universalist thinking is that it sets itself up in opposition to bogeymen. It says as you have now also said, that previous systems equate to escaping punishment.
I don't think there is much continuity between our sinful depraved selves and what God wishes for us. CS Lewis has a wonderful simile of us being a nice cottage which Jesus then converts into a grand palace against our wills. We must abandon ourselves to find ourselves, and often we only really become a Self once we let go of the petty idea of 'self' that we cling to.
I agree. I don't see the former as Universalism though. The "Gates locked from the inside" sounds like a line lifted from Lewis, who is often mistakenly called a Universalist when he clearly was not. Humanity condemns itself in my opinion, not God. We bar the gates ourselves. I just happen to think at some point that self-condemnation becomes irreversible - not absolutely so, but certainly not without divine intervention and the further you move from God, the harder this becomes. We would be approaching areas where ability to return to God tends to infinitesimal degrees and thus the person has functionally condemned himself completely.
I agree with 2PhiloVoid, you have a wonderfully pleasant manner of debating these issues that I highly enjoy.
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?