Confused-by-christianity
Well-Known Member
- May 6, 2020
- 1,305
- 398
- 49
- Country
- United Kingdom
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Private
someone somewhere has divided up the term "reason" and defined it.
I'll internet search it.
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.
someone somewhere has divided up the term "reason" and defined it.I'd say one can have certainty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Also there's a the process of elimination, where what seems to be the most reasonable or most likely result, scenario, or whatever is what one goes with.
Yeah - testing your conclusions is a good thing I'd say.
If you turn out to be wrong - you can at least say you're "blameless" and blame the standard haha
- Figure out what "reasonable" means and then see if what you think is: "beyond reasonable doubt".
You did your best with the intellectual resources available to you.
Ought we conclude that we are certain though? When concluding what the bible means?
Perhaps say we have a ...
Position that we consider reasonable.
We have judged other ideas as less reasonable and so eliminated them - but remain aware that we are not perfect judges and so could be wrong.
It's seems a little far for me to use the word certain when speaking of the bible.
Probably there are some bits in the bible where I would say "I am certain, it means x and not anything else other than x"???
No I'm more wondering...
How certain are people that their beliefs are true?
Others seem to read the bible and come away certain they have understood it correctly, they haven't made an error. How are they certain? How have they tested their knowledge?
I've heard others say they know it in their know-er.Where does their certainty come from?
Well... it's going to be GREAT!!!!!!!!!!haha will do.
What do you think heaven will be like?
What do you think you'll do in heaven?
Will there be a purpose of this life? Will you just get given all the answers and be 100% whole - so no more growing to do, or will you still need to grow?
Do you just think there's no way to know so might as well skip those questions?
Preferring universalism is really the preference for life and creation over death and destruction.
I was listening to a talk on YouTube by Robin Parry and he said something like: "All you need to be universalist is a really robust theology of God's grace and salvation. You can make sin as bad as you like, you can make it super-duper, ultra-bad and all you need is Christ being stronger and it doesn't matter, Christ wins. So you can't go "Sin is so bad it stops God achieving God's purposes unless you think sin is bigger than God and you can go there if you like but then you would be a heretic (with an ironic smile here)."
I think he was saying here that sin sets us on a course away from God (life) and towards death and so thinking that God's solution to sin in Christ doesn't really work properly and sin exists eternally in hell is making the preference you describe.
Robin Parry. Yet another name to add to my list of UR heretics.
Indeed! In the talk he explains why Christian Universalism came to be regarded as heretical. The quote's quite long - luckily I managed to find a transcript - but interesting and sheds a lot of light on the matter. The council in question is the Fifth Ecumenical Council of 553.
"Now onto the third area of debate and this is one that does interest me. In the sixth century, there was a big ecumenical council where leaders from across the Church around the world got together and decided on various issues. If you are of the stream of Christianity that thinks that ecumenical councils are important—and I am, I think they really matter—one of the issues with this particular council is that there is an appendix. The document councils—which were all about who was Jesus—tacked onto the end an appendix with a list of curses against… Well, it didn’t say who it’s against but they are often called the curses against Origen, even though they didn’t name him. It anathematizes or curses those who believe in this hideous doctrine of Apocatastasis. The reason this is important—and it’s particularly important if you’re a Catholic or Orthodox Christian—is if an ecumenical council declared universalism to be a heresy, then it is a heresy and that’s that, that kind of kills it there. So it does matter and there is debate among patristic scholars about this.
The majority view—and we can’t know for sure as we weren’t there—is that the appendix was not part of the actual council itself. It was the Emperor Justinian—who really hated universalism—who called the council. There was lots of controversy about the council. For example, the Pope wouldn’t go but he had to be there for it to count so they went and got soldiers and dragged him along but he refused to open up the council, which is what the Pope was meant to do. Anyway, Justinian was really determined to get through his anti-universalist thing. Before the council started, lots of bishops are getting there early (they arrived like months early because they’re coming from all over the world and the planes were rubbish in those days!) so Justinian calls them together and they kind of ratify these anathemas, these curses. Because Justinian wants to give it the aura of a sort of consensus view of the ecumenical Church, he sort-of tacks it on to the end of the council’s document. Now, if that is the case, then it has a really peculiar status. It doesn’t have the status of an ecumenical council because it wasn’t part of the proceedings of the council—so strictly speaking it’s not heresy—and yet it does kind of carry some of the momentum of that council.
There’s another debate related to this and this is more within Orthodox Christianity. Even if it’s true that this isn’t part of the proceedings of the council and that universalism wasn’t declared heresy, then the debate is, “But mate, lots of people came to think that it was and so doesn’t that make it so?” There is actually a genuine debate among some scholars as to whether that would make it so. I don’t think it would, I don’t think that would be right at all but anyway that’s me.
The other question is this, “What exactly was condemned in the council?” Was it universalism per se that was condemned or was it a particular species of universalism? I argue and lots of folk are starting to argue now (not because of me by the way, it’s a coincidence, it’s not that all these patristic scholars have read me and went, “Flip, why didn’t we think of that!”) So they think—and I’m agreeing with them because they’re clever—that actually it’s not universalism as an abstract idea, it’s universalism as connected to a whole bunch of other ideas as part of a network or system of beliefs that was very problematic. Maybe you think I’m going on about this too much but it does really matter for a lot of Christians as to whether universalism is technically a heresy, which is why I’m saying a little bit more about it.
The background to this is that Origen’s ideas had been developed in the centuries after him. He was around in the third century and the council was in the sixth century. By that time—particularly in certain monasteries in Palestine—Origen’s ideas have been developed, sometimes in quite quirky ways, ways that were tied in with pre-existence of souls and reincarnation and a whole bunch of other stuff. What was condemned in those anathemas or those curses is that whole system, that network. The monstrous doctrine of Apocatastasis and the restoration of demons and all that, that is condemned is the doctrine as connected into that whole network. If you read them, you’ll see some of those connections. Which means that, in fact, universalism as such is not condemned, just that particular species of universalism. Which is why, for instance, Gregory of Nyssa is never condemned, in fact, he is called the “father of the fathers.” He is one of the architects of Christian orthodoxy and is highly esteemed by those who are within Catholicism and Orthodoxy. He’s a Saint, even though he was an overt universalist because he didn’t believe in the pre-existence of souls and all this kind of stuff that was condemned.
All of this is to say, there is an ongoing debate about that and it matters because it ties into the whole question of whether universalism is heresy. I’m of the view that it’s not, or I would be in trouble—maybe not with God, who knows, maybe with God, I wouldn’t want to be in trouble with God."
I was pretty sure the decree came late. 5th counsel in the 6th century is pretty late.
It's only 600 years. I regularly spend longer than that at traffic lights.
I don't presume a judgment either way on what God does.
1 Timothy 2:4 tell us what God wills.
1First of all, then, I urge that petitions, prayers, intercessions, and thanksgiving be offered for everyone— 2for kings and all those in authority—so that we may lead tranquil and quiet lives in all godliness and dignity. 3This is good and pleasing in the sight of God our Savior, 4who wants everyone to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.
Sorry to disobey you, but my answer is "yes and no." I would prefer that all the unbelievers that I have known would be saved, thus showing God's grace.
So for everyone who isn’t a believer in the universal reconciliation of all things, would you prefer that universalism were true?
A simple yes or no answer to start your response would be great, then the rationale behind why you have picked either yes or no.
Would you consider having a preference the same thing as to “presume a judgment?”
I mean, if my favourite football team clearly concedes a penalty, although I might make a judgment call on whether or not the penalty was valid, I’d still prefer that they didn’t give the penalty away.
My preference for something and my judgment about something can be totally different.
So this topic is about what you’d prefer was the case going forward.
1 Timothy 2:4 reads "God wills all men"; not "all things" come to salvation. We pray that God's will be done ("thy will be done") in the Lord's prayer. It would be cognitively dissonant to pray for something we simultaneously think is impossible. So, yes. What we pray for is the same as what we hope for.So Gods preference is for universalism? Meaning to be the most Christlike our preferred hope should be the universal reconciliation of all things, is that fair?
The restoration of all things1 Timothy 2:4 reads "God wills all men"; not "all things" come to salvation.
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?