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.
Oh, it's always very complex with these philosophers isn't it? A far cry from the simple Faith we are called to:Indeed. But as it happens Taylor’s view is that this decline must be understood in a very complex series of conditions.
On the older view, wrath had to be part of the package. The sense of salvation was inseparable from that of our having fallen, being degraded. This in turn was inseparable from that of deserving punishment; deserved punishment has to be meted out. God owes this to his honour, [...]. So some people fry in Hell; and the others are only saved because Christ offered “satisfaction” for them. This was the heart of the juridical-penal understanding of the atonement.
But in the anthropocentric climate, this no longer makes sense, and indeed, appears monstrous.
Indeed. But as it happens Taylor’s view is that this decline must be understood in a very complex series of conditions. Unless we understand the conditions we’ll continue to merely bombard each side instead of make real progress.
I'm not Professor Charles Taylor.Do you mind if I ask you, are you the author of this?
I'd also like to ask, as a Catholic, do you feel that the concept of "God owes it to His honor" to judge men? Does Scripture present God as being Just to the extent that He will not allow sin to go unpunished?
Do you take the view, "...some fry in Hell (interesting phrase, by the way); and others are only saved because Christ offered "Satisfaction" for them?"
Does God judging men in the everlasting terms He used when He taught about the judgment of those that know not God and obey not the Gospel (as He has commanded)—seem monstrous to you?
God bless.
I have several questions. I may start new threads I don't want to hijack this one.
The only real progress that is made in discussions like these on forums like this is when those who discuss and debate these issues are able to be honest about the discussion and debate. Because there is no real accountability imposed for the presentations and members are allowed, without rebuke, to represent that which is in direct conflict with the Word of God—those members are allowed to remain in their error.
This is not according to the guidelines we have been given as the Body of Christ. There is to be discipline and order, and what we see on all forums is chaos and lack of discipline.
If the Body of Christ were to be obedient to that which we are commanded to do there would be far less discord in the Body.
Those presenting philosophies easily shown to be in error do not demonstrate a willingness to seek truth, but to proof-text their own brand of "Christian" doctrine. Because they are encouraged to do so, and are not rebuked by those they might credit authority to, and are not held accountable for their teachings—false doctrine thrives.
And while it might seem to be a waste of time to debate and discuss these issues, for some that will read these discussions there will be a reasoned response to the discussions and debates, and they will be armed to do battle with those who toss out Church Discipline and engage in rogue doctrines that have been rejected for Millennia.
God bless.
I'm not Professor Charles Taylor.
At the moment I tend to the view that God indeed punishes, but like Karl Barth, I am a hopeful universalist. That is, I can't put myself in a position to reach a definite conclusion, but I can allow myself to hope, like Barth, that at the end of days Hell may exist, but it is empty.
It seems to me that this is a middle position between hard universalism and those who are dead set against the decline of hell.
God's punishment, in other words, may not be sempiternal in the sense of lasting for an infinite period of time, but it may still last a very, very, very, very long time, until God's justice is quite satisfied.
God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.Do you think there will be "a moment" in the future that you might decide Scripture does not teach that God will judge all men?
Do your (or my) "hopes" impact Bible Doctrine?
Let me just ask this ...
God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.
No, He speaks of everlasting punishment no less than three times in Matthew 25.
There are no "two clean animals" spoken of, there is no unclean animal spoken of, and the five foolish virgins are cast out of the Kingdom where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.
FineLinen said:
News flash. There ain't no literal sheep or goats.The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out. They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins. They, however, are pure virgins!
Regarding the two clean animals, I suggest you concentrate your attention on the Old Covenant listing of clean & unclean animals. Both sheep & goats are clean animals!
These (clean animals & virgins) shall go into aionios kolasis.
The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out.
They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins.
They, however, are pure virgins!
Regarding the two clean animals,
I suggest you concentrate your attention on the Old Covenant listing of clean & unclean animals.
Both sheep & goats are clean animals!
These (clean animals & virgins) shall go into aionios kolasis.
A link if you are interested.God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.
News flash. There ain't no literal sheep or goats.
Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:There are only "all nations" whom the king on His throne separates the way a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. No literal sheep or goats.
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats:
And the virgins are not among "them on the King's right hand," to whom the king says "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"
The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out. They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins. They, however, are pure virgins! .
As I just told another poster. I believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. The virgins had already been dealt with before Jesus mentioned the analogy of the sheep and goats. Jesus did not include the virgins among those divided to the left and right, why should we? If you need a proof text this ain't the one.True but the text says "AS a shepherd divides" sheep from goats. It does not say people are literally sheep.
In John 10 Jesus "is the door" - but not literally a wooden door.
You are mixing illustrations and claiming that those illustrated by the wise virgins in one story cannot be the same as those "blessed of my father" in another. That sounds like a preference to me.
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?