Quote of the Day
"In conclusion, let me ask you to hold in your mind traditional Christian visions of the future, in which many, perhaps the majority of humanity, are excluded from salvation forever. Alongside that hold the universalist vision, in which God achieves his loving purpose of redeeming the whole creation. Which vision has the strongest view of divine love? Which story has the most powerful narrative of God's victory over evil? Which picture lifts the atoning efficacy of the cross of Christ to the greatest heights? Which perspective best emphasizes the triumph of grace over sin? Which view most inspires worship and love of God bringing him honor and glory? Which has the most satisfactory understanding of divine wrath? Which narrative inspires hope in the human spirit? To my mind the answer to all these questions is clear, and that is why I am a Christian universalist."
----- The final paragraph of Gregory MacDonald's The Evangelical Universalist, pp. 176-77
Labels: Universalism
posted by Chris Tilling @ 9:57 PM
39 comments
39 Comments:
Chris,
I so like your perspective, and yes that is a beautiful quote. Though, I do find that CU has serious exegetical difficulties. But since this is quote is theological in nature perhaps I'd respond as follows.
Isn't CU a bit too much like Calvinism (or perhaps I oversimplify). Doesn't it come down to some form of irresistible grace? Either God forces someone to be resurrected to life against their will - since they have declared by their life and actions that they want no part with Him. The other option is that God simply just overwhelms their will so that they see that He is really the best choice. It seems like coercion either way.
Everything about the Biblical story as well as life experience seems to testify loudly to the fact that God gives dignity to our choices. Why would he be coercive at the very end.
My hesitancy with this would be that I'm not convinced of MacDonald's characterisation of the two polarised opposites. My own inclinationi is to go with a view that I first encountered in a sermon by Charles Spurgeon (a convinced Calvinist), years ago: That there will be way more people in the Kingdom than we presently imagine: Spurgeon insisted that "in all things Christ will have the supremacy" and this really struck me. Since then I have thought a lot about the parables of the Kingdom, in which the future harvest is unimaginably bigger than you would guess from the initial success of the sowing. So I wonder if there are more who come to saving faith than appears obvious to us, from our perspective here. I wouldn't want to limit the 'traditional' view to being that "the majority of humanity are excluded"
As ed said previously, its a bit too much like Calvinism. Not just in the free will aspect, but much of the argumentation in the end is based upon an emotional appeal and certain assumptions as to the nature of certain attributes of love. To Calvinists, the notion is that sovereignty means that God can not allow for free choice or it abrogates that sovereignty. And then by golly, if you don't believe as they do, you aren't giving God all the glory.
Similarily, the assumption that God's love is a) of every single individual and b) will overcome all things in force. And then, by golly, if God sends to hell, by golly, God can not be loving.
I know MacDonald isn't per se trying to prove Universalism in that paragraph. But still, its feels to me like one is trying to justify their belief, but it woefully speaks too much about the nature of God where we have had little revelation of such, and I find that problematic (forgive me for sounding Barthian there!).
I certainly agree with Matthew, that we "there will be way more people in the Kingdom than we presently imagine." I just find CU immoral. God takes by force what He wants for His own purposes. The entire Biblical witness and especially the suffering of the Son screams against this.
I admit that as an annihilationist, my position is much easer to accept. Since God is ultimate reality there is no life without Him. Ergo If I don't choose God I don't choose life. (But I don't consciously suffer forever either).
The question one must answer is "does man truly have "free will". Scripture seems to say that God directs man's path. A few scriptures in no particular order...(Rom. 3:11 Jn. 6:44 1 Tim. 4:10 Col. 1:20 Eph. 1:11 Romans 11:32 Eph.1:4 Proverbs 16:9, 19:21 1 Kings 22:22 Daniel 4:35 Jeremiah 10:23 Proverbs 21:1 Proverbs 20:24
Isaiah 10:15 Philippians 1:29
Romans 12:3)
He certainly is the Potter and He certainly can do what He wills with us little lumps of clay.
For whatever reason...God chooses some to be good vessels and some bad in this lifetime and let's us know that His will - will be done on earth as it is in heaven...which seems to be a restored creation of all things.
And riffing off the quote:
"Which one does the most justice to every mention of judgment portrayed in Scripture?"
If it were a matter of creating the most friendly religion to suit ourselves, universalism would win. But that's not what I come to Christ for nor how I choose my beliefs ...
Take care & God bless
WF
Anon,
As Chris' quote was theological, I've chosen not to get into exegeses. I would have very different readings of many of the texts that you list than the traditional Calvinistic ones.
But, since I am in a provocative mode let me add the following:
I do agree that absolute free will is a myth. But to deny that God somehow limits his sovereignty to allow us some dignity of choice is hugely problematic. How else do you explain how God could be loving and yet all powerful.
I suppose the Calvinists would answer that we are all robots doing what God for ordained so that he would be glorified.
It is untenable to think that God sends people arbitrarily to be tormented forever - people who could not help but sin, and who He chooses not to save. This kind of god is not worthy to be worshiped he is to be cursed. I want no part of the Calvinist's evil, capricious, glory hungry monster they call god. If they are right then it doesn't matter anyway. And happily much Calvinistic nonsense like double predestination doesn't stand up to exegeses.
But this does not mean that salvation is universal viz. that everyone will be resurrected to life. In this other extreme (CU) God is still immoral and coercive.
The entire scope of scripture is testimony to God giving His image bearers *some* dignity of choice - a dignity which he honors by limiting his sovereignty.
My thoughts were much like Weekend Fisher's. The quote is rhetorically powerful, and certainly the answer to all the questions MacDonald does ask is "Christian Universalism." That answer, though, will certainly not do for the question he (rather conspicuously, it seems to me) doesn't ask: "Which is most consistent with the witness of Scripture?" And that is why I am not a Christian universalist.
The quote, seemed to suggest if one maintained the traditional position over and against CU then one maintains a weak view of love a weak view of God and a weak view of salvation - but I think that is presenting a possible non-sequitur.
There are plenty in this world who would look at the question "Which view inspired worship and love of God...?" and say "worship God? No thanks." To transform these people into one who love and worship God without themselves allowing God to do this seems to me a bit robotic and loses the idea of personhood and personality. I am thinking of C.S. Lewis' variation in The Great Divorce where it seems many were given the opportunity to go to heaven but many too got back on the bus.
ed...it would be interesting how you would interpret many of those scriptures for your stance, but sadly, I would probably not take the time to be molded to the thought that I can actually overturn the "will of God" which seems to be clear.
ed wrote: "It is untenable to think that God sends people arbitrarily to be tormented forever - people who could not help but sin, and who He chooses not to save. This kind of god is not worthy to be worshiped he is to be cursed."
I'm pretty sure a CU doesn't believe in God tormenting someone forever...
I'm not ed, but lets just say I feel your interpretation of such verses really reads something that is not even being addressed by the context. My opinion though, so take it for what it is worth. In addition, I think it relies upon certain assumptions that are not necessarily founded in any revelation we have, but attempts at logic.
Owen...do to your youth, I'll give you a revelation that possibly you may accept since you are young and hopefully not to immersed in mind games of those who are revered as wise.
Revelation: Your professors and all those great theologians you study, don't quite have the answers either. There is an agenda...and it's called traditions of men with pens in their hands.
Another revelation: Wesley got most of it. Should you desire to stay within tradition...go back to Wesley and help reclaim your church.
P.S. Too bad Asbury lost the great General Paul Rader (interim President). I don't know what happened, but I would assume he challenged the wise professors to be fools for Christ and was asked to leave.
Hello
Hello again,
Sorry - the last comment was just me checking that my GM name came up and not my actual name (which would be unfortunate as then everyone would know that I am actually ... Homer Simpson).
I am pleased that the quote has generated such a fun discussion. I hope that some of those who commented might be prompted to read the book (from the comments it is clear that some people have not). Let me simply make two points.
1. Several people assumed that universalism requires God to force people against their will to be saved. That is not the case (see chapter 1 of my book)
2. Shaylin. You might be right about universalism being unbiblical and, if it is then it is wrong. But perhaps you ought to read the book before deciding that it's unbiblical. I do spend most of the time attempting to begin formulating a biblical defense. There are still some matters to resolve (Chris in his previous post raises one issue I need to consider - when I have some time) but I think that the outline looks plausible to me.
Pax
Gregory
Ed (and others): as one of the local orthodox universalists on the site, please allow me to agree that any theory of mere coersion of the will should be rejected. Not all universalists accept irresistible grace, in that sense. (“Gregory” doesn’t; his namesake, the real George MacD, certainly didn’t. On the other hand, the Anon in this thread does seem to have taken this position.)
Whether or not a universalist accepts irresistible grace per se, we do all basically accept the tenet which can be found underlying i-g, namely the persistence of God in acting to save from sin those whom He intends to save. The difference between us and Calv theologians, on this, is the scope of intention. On that we agree with the Arms {g}: God intends to save everyone. With the Calvs, we agree that we can trust God to never give up on this.
Insofar as the sinner, however, insists on loving their sin (cf RevJohn 22), then by tautology reconciliation hasn’t been achieved. That’s the sinner’s fault, not God’s (as I can testify to as a penitent sinner myself {s!}); but it does mean that a person could be punished by God, even though in continuing hope of salvation, for an indeterminate ongoing period of that person’s time. “Into the eons of the eons”, for example.
Nevertheless, I can and do trust God to keep after that hundredth sheep, even if (switching parable metaphors) the goat has to be put into “brisk cleaning of God” (as the Greek has it in GosMatt’s judgment of the sheep and the goats). But then all of us are promised that we shall be salted with that fire (in GosMark 9:49-50), and that the salting is the best of things and leads to peace with one another. (Sidenote: Gregory doesn’t necessarily agree with me, yet, about that verse meaning everyone will be salted with the everlasting fire. I won’t go into the exegetics here, though--just pointing out not all universalists regard each other’s exegetics to be equally, um, remarkable let us say. {g})
In short, I trust God to save sinners from sin. I don’t trust sinners to repent from sin. If the punishment has to keep going, that’s because of sinners loving their sins (like myself, the sinner); not because God is giving up hope of saving the sinner from sin.
That being said, I don’t think I’m being unreasonable to bet on God. {g} (As St. Paul and other prophets have done, or so I find.)
Incidentally, I’m trying to figure out how God is not forcing a final result through annihilation. It’s God’s choice, in the final analysis, as to whether any of us stay in existence or not. If the suffering of the Son screams against God taking by force what He wants for His own purposes (I like that way of putting it, btw), then why isn’t it screaming against this? The Son doesn’t descend into the pit, in solidarity with sinners, to be annihilated, either, so far as I’ve ever been able to tell.
In any case, in annihilation (which a Calvinist could believe in just as easily as an Arminian, as far as I can tell, however easily that may be), God still chooses not to keep acting toward saving someone from sin, and the result of God’s choice is still absolutely final.
Owen: I agree, Gregory’s final paragraph relies too much on emotional appeal (honest though it surely is). I far prefer technical and systematic accuracy for my conclusions; though I do know Gregory has far more than emotional reasons to make his appeal, and I can sympathize with emotionals following from logical theology. Thus to that extent, I can agree that the finale of a book would be the best place to have an emotional appeal, if one is going to be given.
That being said, and speaking entirely as a technical theologian: I don’t consider “God loves every single individual” to be an assumption. I consider it to be a theological conclusion, following as a corollary from orthodox trinitarian theism (which I also do not consider to be only an assumption, btw.) That’s why I usually describe myself as an orthodox universalist. (Though since I accept the filioque and am not very fond of some tenets of Eastern Orthodoxy, I don’t capitalize the ‘o’.)
It should be noted evangelical/orthodox universalists don’t typically have any problem with God sending people to “hell” (hades and/or Gehenna). Gregory certainly doesn’t, and neither do I.
WF: Actually, I do consider universalism to do the most justice (technically and morally speaking) to every mention of judgment portrayed in Scripture. One of the interesting things I sometimes see from Calv or Arm proponents (and their analogues in non-Protestant congregations), in fact, is an admission that somewhere in their soteriology justice is not being fulfilled. (With this non-fulfillment being typically in favor of ‘the saved’ or ‘the elect’ somehow.)
I agree, though, that if it was a matter of creating the most friendly religion to suit ourselves, universalism would win hands down. Whereas, if it was a matter of creating the most hostile religion to suit ourselves, Calvinism (as perhaps the ultimate us vs. them hopeless division) might win hands down. But I don’t usually suggest Calvinists (or Arminians either) are trying to create a religion to suit themselves--even though as intrinsic sinners we might perhaps be expected to do such a thing a little more plausibly than inventing a religion where self-sacrificially loving other people is paramount. {s}
JRP
JP:
"That being said, and speaking entirely as a technical theologian: I don’t consider “God loves every single individual” to be an assumption. I consider it to be a theological conclusion, following as a corollary from orthodox trinitarian theism (which I also do not consider to be only an assumption, btw.)"
But see, there is where I have problem with such theological conclusions. It is heavily based upon drawing upon seeing a absolute transference of characteristics in one realm to another. Now I am not sure how you derive Trinitarianism to love of every individual, but most attempts to make the Trinity the basis of some theology, instead of the conclusion of our theology, is problematic, as it presumes we understand all the different nuances of the reality of God who is three in one. Nuances which might result in different conclusions that what we have drawn. And it is for that reason, I would rely on revelation over a logical conclusion from Trinitarianism.
And that is where I find Universalism falls short. It can build an impressive logical case, but as ed mentioned above, it has serious exegetical difficulties. And the proposed solutions that I have seen have only created more exegetical difficulties rather than fewer. It falls short of being based upon anything that purports to be revelation from God (Of course that depends on the relationship you see between the Bible and revelation).
Furthermore, I haven't seen clear affirmation of what CU proposes. The main arguments used are essentially negative statements that criticize the traditional understanding of certain passages and then tries to mince words on other passages to affirm CU. Tis the nature of much of theology, actually. But what CU seriously lacks in my experience (granted, I haven't read a lot of material on it) is that there is no place it can point to that we see the actual restoration of all people being talked about, either in narrative or propositional form.
Furthermore, I feel that CU is anthropocentric. It makes the purpose of redemption to redeem humanity itself, whereas I think the Scripture speaks to it being about the redemption of the world as a whole. Now granted, you would accept that too, but if one says God has failed to redeem all of creation if a person is not redeemed, it is essentially basing the success of redemption on the acceptance of people and not on all of creation.
To put it other terms, what is God ultimately working towards? Saving every individual or creating a new world and kingdom of peace? The latter doesn't exclude the former, but it doesn't necessarily include the former either.
Now understood that free will is understood in my theology, and it is for that reason I see no problem with love and yet eternal justice. Of course free will is the conclusion of all the things I think are contained within the Bible, but it is that logical conclusion by which I harmonize the notion of justice and love (which is also, ultimately a logical conclusion and not one based upon revelation).
That the final eternal rejection of some people isn't based upon some meanness in God, but it is what is necessary to recreate the world in a society that is in peace/shalom. Having people who are murders, liars, etc. etc. would upset the harmony and balance of the new world God is creating. Justice is necessary for peace.
Owen wrote: "Having people who are murders, liars, etc. etc. would upset the harmony and balance of the new world God is creating. Justice is necessary for peace."
It would seem by your revelation that the new world God is creating will have none of us. Last time I checked...we all are murderers, liars, thieves, egotists, etc., who are completely full of ourselves. Yes, even those of us who believe.
So maybe Ed is almost right. We all get annihilated.
"... maybe Ed is almost right, we all get annihilated ..."
"... somewhere in their soteriology, justice is not being fulfilled ..."
---------
2 things go by the name "mercy": the real thing from God and the cheap counterfeit. In God's mercy, the evil in us is annihilated and dies on the cross with Christ. In repentance, we kill our sins as a sacrifice. (Yes, someone is bound to say it will not be complete til kingdom come; true enough but for the moment that is beside the point: the evil is always annihilated in God's mercy which works in tandem with repentance.) Therefore, God's mercy is greater than justice.
In the cheap counterfeit, the sinner has his sins overlooked but never cleansed, and the evil inside never goes through the death of the cross. That kind of "mercy" is less than justice.
So what is it that doesn't "fulfill justice" in traditional Christian soteriology? Is it something greater than justice or something less? Is the evil annihilated but separated from us? If we will not be separated from our beloved evils, then it is we who must be separated from the good.
Take care & God bless
WF
Ed wrote: "In repentance, we kill our sins as a sacrifice."
I'm not sure "we" can do anything.
Ed wrote: "the evil is always annihilated in God's mercy which works in tandem with repentance.) Therefore, God's mercy is greater than justice."
Abraham received God's mercy, yet God's justice kept Abe from going into the promised land.
I have a hard time when man thinks he has the ability to override God's will and plan. Because "I" repented" because "I" did good works...makes "me" worthy of God's mercy, grace, love, and justice. I personally am not worthy of anything. Sure...I try to love my neighbor, love the Lord, but in my 50 plus years, and most of them following Jesus, I fail miserably and I'm pretty sure most of the world does too.
I do believe like you Ed, that evil will be done away with. God's mercy, grace, and judgment will burn it out of us and it will be annihilated...eventually.
God bless you, and all of us as we look to Him.
Hi anonymous
I'm not Ed, by the way.
You say you're not "sure we can do anything." Are we in the image of God or not? And if yes then as God is holy we are called to be holy, as God is merciful we are called to be merciful and as God is sovereign then we are called to some sovereignty of our own which is a gift of God.
You speak almost as if you think I'm saying our agency saves us so let me clear that up: our agency does not save us. Meanwhile, God works in and through us so that the penitent offers "the sacrifices of God, a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart that God will not despise" (Psalm 51 paraphrase). It leads us to our prayer "Create in me a clean heart, O God".
Anonymous says: "Abraham received God's mercy, yet God's justice kept Abe from going into the promised land."
Maybe you mean Moses? But no, I'm not saying any of us "overrides God's will and plan" as you were saying. But consider: God's will and plan is that we be more than pawns; God's will and plan is that we become children of God. So when we act, we are not "overriding" God's plan but taking our part in it, since God wills us to act.
Take care & God bless
WF (not Ed)
Sorry WF! Thanks for your comments. Yes, I did mean Moses and I can't believe I wrote Abe! Well, yes I can...my mind isn't like it use to be.
Anyway, to me it seems there is a big difference between choice and free will...which my comment about us not able to do anything would be about. I can choose to be broken, or I can choose not...but whatever that choice would be, God's will will not be thwarted...which His will is to save all mankind.
Scriptures tell us that we can't believe or have faith unless God gives belief or faith to us. Either that's true or like a lot of folks these days, we ignore bit's of scripture or find ways to make those scriptures work for another purpose.
If God alone gives us faith and belief, makes a great vessel or a really rotten one, it would seem that choice is given and not free will...which then turns it all back on God. Because God owns all of creation, His laws dictated how creation worked, then how it would become corrupted, then redeemed. It becomes clear to me that God is responsible for all of it. Hence, I am whom he created me to be, the good, bad, the ugly...and I am created for His purpose, as was Moses, you, John Doe, Pharaoh, Hitler, or anyone else.
Thanks and blessings WF. (not ED!)
Hi anonymous
I've never heard a definition of "free will" that I thought was both coherent and sufficient to meet the theological weight the Arminians would put on it. (I'm Lutheran,btw; we think Calvinists and Arminians are both all wet, loudly proclaiming the only 2 possible answers to a misleading question. So usually in discussions like this I'll have everyone ticked off at me before too long.)
So, anon, you were saying:
"Scriptures tell us that we can't believe or have faith unless God gives belief or faith to us."
Really? Where does it say that? The only reference I've ever seen cited on that was gifts of the spirit given to those who were already Christians. Being Lutheran and unapologetic about Sola Scriptura, you wouldn't mind providing a reference, would you?
While you're reference-hunting, if you can follow Greek or a Greek interlinear, please look up exactly what Paul said in his Mars Hill speech in Athens (Acts 17). Look exactly what it was that God gave to all by raising Christ from the dead (v.31). My point is both the trickiness of translations and our modernist slightly off-centered notions of the relationship between our faith and God's faithfulness.
The objection I have to your scenario is that it does make God the cause of evil. The Bible is clear that everything God created was good. Granted, if God chooses that Person X will never believe and in fact chooses that Person X will be (say) Hitler in all his evil, as you suggest, that makes God directly responsible for all the atrocities in the world. Usually the only verse in the whole Bible cited in this favor is the old KJV translation (semi-faulty) of Isaiah 45:7 where "ra" (a multi-purpose word) as the opposite of "prosperity" is translated as "evil" ... which, you know, evil is not the opposite of prosperity and most translations do a better job with that verse.
So all I'm saying is if you're holding out for God picking and choosing who has faith and causing evil, the reason I can't go along is what Scripture says about the relationship between our faith and God's faithfulness, and what Scripture says about God and the relationship between good and evil.
Take care & God bless
WF
WF - So, anon, you were saying:
"Scriptures tell us that we can't believe or have faith unless God gives belief or faith to us."
Really? Where does it say that?"
Rom. 3:11 says that no man seeks God. John 6:44 says that no man can come to the Son unless the Father draws him. Eph 1:11 God is operating all things in accord with the counsel of His will. Rom 11:32 God shut up the whole to unbelief so that He could do kindness. Phil 1:29 to you it was granted to not only believe...Rom 12:3 God did deal a measure of faith 1 Cor 4:7 that we may not be boastful, what do we have that was not given Matt 13:11 to you it's been given but to many it has not been given Jesus said to the Father in Matt:25 You hide these things from the wise and intelligent /ROm 11:8,32 Rom 9:18 and so on...
God chooses who believes and who he will allow to come to faith in this life. There are more scriptures to back this up, but we know that you have found your truth and nothing I say will matter that much to change your perspective.
Acts 17:30-31 "Indeed, then, condoning the times of ignorance, God is now charging man ,everywhere, to repent, forasmuch as He assigns day in which He is about to be judging the inhabited in righteousness by Man Whom HE specifies, tendering faith to all, raising Him from (among the) dead.
Isaiah 45:6,7 "...I am Jehovah, and there is no one else. Forming the light, and preparing darkness. Making peace, and preparing evil. I am Jehovah, doing all these things." prosperity? there's a reason I stay away from the KJV.
As one who believes in Scripture, I can't understand how anyone can look at it and think that God created this angel or being with free will or a choice, he fell/rebelled and all of a sudden God has this problem that He has to fix because all these other stupid rebellious creatures are going follow this super wacko who rebelled. Like God didn't know that was going to happen? Of course He knew and that is why that before the foundation of the world Jesus was and all things were created through Him and for Him, and HE is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.
We could do this for days...I'm glad your Lutheran. I'm not. I'm not a Calvanist or Arminian or any thing else. I claim to just follow Jesus and really don't know why people want to follow guys with names other than the Name above all names. Now I'll get a freakin comment on how to translate His name and I'll get crucified for not being specific or scholarly enough in my meaning.
Sorry, I didn't have time to go reference-hunting.
Thanks again WF. He lives!
Anon: {{Because "I" repented" because "I" did good works}}
I have a lot of sympathy for that complaint (where ‘repentence’ becomes a work that somehow earns God’s mercy, grace, love, justice, etc. Thank you for including justice in that list, btw. {g})
However, someone can freely cooperate with God in repenting; and that doesn’t remotely abrogate the ontological primacy of God in the action. Our freedom is derivative from God, but it’s still derivative freedom to introduce action. Otherwise we’re puppets and not real children (meaning there can be no ‘sin’ to save us from, either.)
The people who think they can “override God’s will and plan” are not interested in derivative freedom, but in being Independent Facts, “like the Most High”. I agree, they aren’t going to succeed in that, and couldn’t possibly succeed in that; but please don’t confuse those people with those who recognize some creatures as having derivative freedom. If I didn’t think you had freedom to contribute actions (derivative though that freedom must be), I wouldn’t bother treating you as a person, including in disputation.
In discussing things with you, I am treating you as a child of God; not as a puppet (either of God or of some atheistic reality.)
May I add, however, that you have a tendency to treat your disputants as though there is no point in principle of actually discussing things with them? (“There are more scriptures to back this up, but we know that you have found your truth and nothing I say will matter that much to change your perspective.” That wasn’t how I treated WF. Or you, for that matter.)
{{Scriptures tell us that we can't believe or have faith unless God gives belief or faith to us.}}
True; but that still fits very cleanly into derivative freedom. We’re derivative, so everything we have derives from God ultimately; and if God does not intend for us to believe or have faith in Him, then one way or another it isn’t going to happen. Moreover, God is always acting first toward this goal.
Yet again, sin involves the abuse of God’s graciously given gifts. Without free will there is no condemnation, any more than there is any real ‘salvation’.
Derivative freedom, not incidentally, also allows me to make sense both of the scripture references you have in mind, and the references WF has in mind.
(Nice rendering of the “tendering faith to all” from the Areopagus speech, btw.)
{{Like God didn't know that was going to happen?}}
There’s the key problem: your notion of omniscience is similar to many Calvinists and Arminians, where God’s foreknowledge is presented as being that of an entity existing within and dependent upon natural time. In order to assure things happen as such an entity foresees/intends, derivative free will must be excluded. (Calv theological tendency, even though not all of them go that far.) Or else such an entity has an intrinsically limited foreknowledge (if not also power capability) after all. (Arm theological tendency, even though not all of them go that far.)
This is almost certainly what WF was talking about, when she said she believed the Calvs and Arms were both making a debate on a commonly accepted false position.
{{Of course He knew and that is why that before the foundation of the world Jesus was and all things were created through Him and for Him, and HE is before all, and all has its cohesion in Him.}}
I’m afraid you have the implicit ‘because’ backward there. The Father didn’t create the Son to be the foundation and cohesion of the world in order to meet foreknowledge of what the world would do, or for any other purpose. The Father and Son exist in an active self-begetting, self-begotten unity, independent of creation’s existence--and that’s why the 2nd Person (the action of God) is the foundation and cohesion of the world, through Whom and for Whom all things were created. That’s also why God has omnipotence, omnipresence and omniscience in regard to the created world. But that’s true of God substantially, too, not only for the Son.
{{Now I'll get a freakin comment on how to translate His name}}
The Lord saves! Or perhaps the Lord is salvation. (I’m not sure which, but I’m good either way. Not going to deny the Lord saves, either. {g})
JRP
WF (and hereafter for a while): {{In God's mercy, the evil in us is annihilated and dies on the cross with Christ.}}
I have no disagreement with that whatsoever. I would add that this is the fulfillment of God’s justice, too--you might disagree with that, perhaps.
{{In repentance, we kill our sins as a sacrifice.}}
No disagreement at all there, either, though I would stress participation with the action of God in this, with God’s action being more primary than ours toward the result. (I doubt you’d disagree with that either. I just wanted to mention a further most-probable agreement with you. {s})
{{Therefore, God's mercy is greater than justice.}}
This I strenuously disagree with, but only because I don’t pit God’s mercy and justice against each other. On the contrary, I am entirely prepared to say that mercy positively depends upon God fulfilling justice. (But part of the problem is that the idea of mercy has been commonly truncated to only mean salvation from punishment. The joy and pleasure of God--the two words that tend to be translated ‘mercy’--far transcend that, especially in regard to God’s own self-existence.)
I have no disagreement with your intervening paranthetical remark, fwiw, even on a truncated understanding of mercy. {s} But especially on a fuller, wider and more fundamental understanding of it.
{{In the cheap counterfeit, the sinner has his sins overlooked but never cleansed, and the evil inside never goes through the death of the cross.}}
I quite entirely agree with that, too. I even agree with this counterfeit ‘mercy’ being “less than justice”; though by that I mean it is unjust.
So far my only disagreement is with the “greater than justice” remark--which, not-incidentally, could have a direct topical connection with that portion of my reply you quoted for introduction.
That full quote, for reference, was, “One of the interesting things I sometimes see from Calv or Arm proponents (and their analogues in non-Protestant congregations), in fact, is an admission that somewhere in their soteriology justice is not being fulfilled. (With this non-fulfillment being typically in favor of ‘the saved’ or ‘the elect’ somehow.)” [original emphasis]
{{So what is it that doesn't "fulfill justice" in traditional Christian soteriology?}}
Depends on what you meant by “God’s mercy is greater than justice”. Did you mean, that in salvation from sin God gives mercy instead of fulfilling justice toward the sinner? I have certainly met Arms and Calvs both (and some highly confused and inept Kaths, for that matter {s}) who would be meaning that. But possibly you didn’t mean that.
If you didn’t (and your question about whether something greater or less than justice fulfills justice, seems to indicate you didn’t), then I’m still left in a bit of a vacuum as to what the fulfillment of justice is, in your explication of real mercy. But that’s admittedly different from denying that justice is fulfilled to those who are saved from sin.
If you did mean that in salvation from sin God gives mercy instead of fulfilling justice... well, by tautology you’d be saying that salvation from sin doesn’t fulfill justice. Which would mesh up exactly with my parenthetical follow-up to the place you quoted me from. But I don’t always find Calv or Arm theologians explicitly meaning this (which is why I said “sometimes”.)
Incidentally, by ‘Calv’ and ‘Arm’, I don’t necessarily mean Calvinists and Arminians per se. I’m taking them as representative examples of two soteriological tendencies: to deny, in the first case, that God intends and acts to save all sinners from sin; or to deny, in the second case, that God will persist in saving whom He intends to save from sin.
As far as I can tell, you deny the latter, not the former. I know that that doesn’t mean you’re a Free-will Baptist or a Cumberland Presbyterian instead of a Lutheran. {s}
{{If we will not be separated from our beloved evils, then it is we who must be separated from the good.}}
From some of the good ones, true; it may easily come to that, and inevitably will for those who refuse to stop loving their sin.
If you mean separated from God, however, I call ontological foul in favor of omnipresence.
If you don’t mean separated from God but you do mean separated from God’s goodness, then I’m going to have a lot more complaints (starting with God now being a worker of iniquity to that person--and here would be a denial of justice being fulfilled by God, not-incidentally.)
JRP
Sorry for the delay; busy-ness elsewhere.
Owen (and hereafter for a while): {{Now I am not sure how you derive [from] Trinitarianism to love of every individual}}
It would take a while to explain, which is why I didn’t do so in my previous quote. Consequently, then, you really can’t say, until you are sure, that my theological conclusion “is heavily based upon drawing upon seeing a[n] absolute transference of characteristics in one realm to another.” (But, on the other hand, neither are you in any position to accept an explanation I haven’t even tried to give yet.)
There’s a summary later in this comment.
{{most attempts to make the Trinity the basis of some theology, instead of the conclusion of our theology, is problematic}}
I agree, which is why I parenthetically added, “I also do not consider [trinitarian theism] to be only an assumption, btw.” (You may recall quoting me on that. {g})
I find, however, that insofar as topical coherence goes, soteriology follows property-theology: in trying to understand ‘salvation’ (especially salvation from ‘what’), as a relationship between God and man, I had better first figure out what the characteristics of God are, and then distinguish those from characteristics of creatures like ourselves, and come to an understanding of some baseline relationships between us. Then I’m in the best position to try to understand a particular kind of relationship, such as sin, and a subsequent kind of relationship, salvation from sin.
{{And it is for that reason, I would rely on revelation over a logical conclusion from Trinitarianism.}}
You can’t have revelation without logical conclusions, however. Consequently the over-against here is a false division.
{{It can build an impressive logical case...}}
Thank you for saying so. {g}
{{...but as ed mentioned above, it has serious exegetical difficulties.}}
Did you notice that Ed’s one particular remark about exegetical difficulties was directed against something I agreed with him about, namely that freedom of the will must be affirmed? (It was practically the first thing I said, in my first paragraph.)
That’s one fewer exegetical difficulty than you could have been expecting. {g} I touched on some other commonly expected exegetical difficulties, too, in my reply to Ed.
I will observe here, as well, that a doctrine based upon anything that purports to be revelation from God, is certainly using logical conclusions, including in any exegetical attempts at reading that doctrine out of the textual data.
{{Furthermore, I haven't seen clear affirmation of what CU proposes}}
Probably because we’re currently scattered throughout various branches of the church. Consequently we don’t have a formal group kerygma to give; and I suspect there would be some significantly different varieties if we decided to cohere together.
I thought I gave a tolerably clear positive position in my reply to Ed, though; and I even phrased it (as I usually do) in terms of agreement with Calvinists and Arminians on specific positions.
Since it’s possible you skipped over it, I’ll repeat the salient points here: with the Calvinists I trust God to persist in acting to save from sin those whom He intends to save; and with the Arminians I trust God to intend to save all sinners from sin. With the annihilationists I agree that God acts toward the ceasing of the sinner to exist, in some significant ways worthy of stressing in revelation; with the non-annis I agree that the persons themselves shall never cease to exist. (I would add “by God’s grace”, but I can tell you from experience that not all non-annis would agree with that by far. {s} But at least some would.)
{{The main arguments used are essentially negative statements that criticize the traditional understanding of certain passages}}
And yet, in the Gospel verses I specifically mentioned when replying to Ed, I was making positive reference to what the verses actually say.
I agree there has to be mainly positive content if I’m going to argue a position from scriptural testimony; although if I think the traditional understandings are exegetically unsound (not even counting theologically incoherent to what we do believe to be true concerning trinitarian theism, though as someone who thinks it’s important to have a coherent theology I can say that that’s important to me anyway {wry s}), then yes I’ll have to make negative statements criticizing the traditional understandings, too.
{{Tis the nature of much of theology [to make essentially negative statements criticizing someone else’s understanding of passages and then mincing words to affirm one’s own doctrine from those passages instead], actually.}}
Even Calv and Arm theologians have to “mince” a large number of passages, in my experience, not only against each other’s understanding, but also against taking otherwise obviously hopeful passages as really meaning hope for sinners. The sermon I attended this morning featured a quote from Deut 32 as evidence of hopelessness, when the context is quite obviously one of hope for the sinners who shall be stumbling and punished by God; and I’m pretty sure his attempt at quoting the famous passage concluding Hebrews 12 (which itself basically concludes the lesson of that epistle) was intended to suggest hopelessness for sinners, too, despite the context again being hope for salvation from sin.
This happens very regularly. Otherwise we probably wouldn’t be having this discussion now (and you’d probably be a univeralist yourself already. {g})
That being said, I do sympathize with the necessity to read one set of scriptural testimony in light of another set of scriptural testimony. Consequently, then, I am concerned with the principles for why one set should be read in light of another set instead of vice versa. This, however, leads us directly back to metaphysical analysis (even if commonly unrecognized or even dis-acknowledged as such).
{{there is no place it can point to that we see the actual restoration of all people being talked about}}
So you weren’t even curious about the verses I quoted from GosMark? Or you don’t think this could even possibly refer to the salting of everyone by fire toward the goal of being at peace with one another? (Or you skipped over my reply to Ed, perhaps.)
It shouldn’t be surprising that we don’t find the completion in narrative, per se, since the narrative isn’t over yet, even at the end of RevJohn--where there’s a portrait of universal hope for salvation after the ‘lake of fire’ judgment so strong that I’m constantly astounded at how I missed it for so many years. But then, I was trained to miss it, by people who couldn’t or wouldn’t dare to entertain the possibility of hope for the salvation of all sinners from sin.
These things are scattered all over the scriptures, OT and NT both--though interestingly it seems part of the scriptural narrative itself for people to routinely miss them. {s} But then, a lot of people don’t get trinitarian theism from the scriptures either. Frankly, hope of universal salvation is easier to derive from the scriptures than trinitarian theism, not least because there are narrative foreshadowings of it and statements in propositional form. (Sometimes a blend thereof, such as in the famous passage concerning the judgment of Christ in 1 Cor 15.)
In any case, even if I couldn’t point to narrative or propositional statements about the actual restoration of all people, that in itself wouldn’t mean the doctrine couldn’t be legitimately derived from scriptural testimony. There is no systematic statement of trinitarian theism, either, after all. The theological logic has to be added together to discover it; and even passages that look blatantly obvious to us (such as the baptism command of the Great Commission at the end of GosMatt), are only obvious in hindsight. Someone else already did the work.
(Neither, of course, is that observation meant to be a substitute for actually doing the work. {s} I don’t blame people for rejecting it when they can’t find it.)
{{Now granted, you would accept [the redemption of the world as a whole] too...}}
Duh! {g} Heck, I’m writing a whole series of epic novels as a speculative working-out of Rom 8:18-25 (among other things).
If I don’t limit the hope of salvation from sin to humanity, but include all of creation in that hope, then your feeling that my universalism is anthropocentric is... well... only a feeling. {s} And not a very accurate one.
{{but if one says God has failed to redeem all of creation if a person is not redeemed, it is essentially basing the success of redemption on the acceptance of people and not on all of creation.}}
Well, by that ground, I must have a devil-centric theology, too, since I can also say that if God fails to redeem a rebel angel then He has failed to redeem all of creation. And I must have a luni-centric theology, too, since I can also say that if God fails to rescue the Moon from sin (whatever that might mean), then God has failed to redeem all of creation.
Really, I’m not the one insisting on an anthropocentric understanding of Christian universalism here. {s}
I do insist that all of creation is all of creation, and that sinners are created entities (if we disagree on that then we’re actually having a far more theological fundamental disagreement than our soteriologies!) Consequently, insofar as a sinner is not yet redeemed then all of creation has not yet been redeemed. And if God finally fails or flat refuses to even try (or continue trying) to save a sinner from sin, then that sinner won’t be saved from sin. Consequently, God will have chosen not to redeem all of creation.
This seems sufficiently straightforward: if a created entity is not redeemed from sin, then all of creation has not been redeemed. Only some of it has been redeemed (assuming any created entity has been redeemed from sin, of course).
{{To put it other terms, what is God ultimately working towards? Saving every individual or creating a new world and kingdom of peace?}}
I would say both! We apparently disagree about how far God intends that kingdom of peace to extend.
Until God is all in all and every tongue in heaven and earth and under the earth praises God for His mighty acts to save (which is what “confession” means exegetically, btw.) Until all has been salted with fire and we have salt in ourselves and are at peace with one another. Until God has reconciled all things to Himself--all things, whether in the heavens or in the earth--through the blood of His cross. Until Egypt is raised up from Sheol along with the tree of life. Until God has tamed and made covenant even with Leviathan and Bahamut, and the adversaries of the one sacrificed for the sake of the Satan are reconciled to God through the mercy and faithfulness of the one who was sacrificed. Until God can rest complete on the seventh day, the day of the Lord that is coming, when all creation will be freed from slavery and toil. Until there is both no more sea, and also the sea is as clear and peaceful as glass filled with light. The Son must reign, waging war in fair-togetherness (when that’s what it takes), even though there is no wrath in Him, pursuing sinners in mercy and goodness to overthrow them as a king overthrows routing armies, until He can submit Himself to the Father as all things are subject to Him.
That’s what I believe. We’re obviously going to disagree with the exegesis (and I expect the metaphysics ultimately), but you can’t say it isn’t canonically scriptural. (Though admittedly I’ve lost the verse in one of the prophets concerning Egypt and the tree of life. {g} But I definitely saw it; I read it several times, in extended context, to make sure it was saying what I suddenly saw it was saying. Btw, if anyone can find that passage again, I’d sure appreciate it! {sigh} Not that I need it by far, but it was so amazing a statement I keep thinking I had to have made a mistake somewhere. I don’t want to refer to it if that isn’t what it said.)
{{Now understood that free will is understood in my theology, and it is for that reason I see no problem with love and yet eternal justice.}}
Obviously you see no problem with love and justice being two antithetical things, too.
{{it is that logical conclusion by which I harmonize the notion of justice and love (which is also, ultimately a logical conclusion and not one based upon revelation).}}
Well, a division of love and justice not being based on revelation makes sense, in a way... {wry g}
I absolutely agree with free will--as you might have noticed had you not skipped past my reply to Ed--and my harmonization of love and justice doesn’t involve them being two antithetical actions of God. One of the crying failures of the church is its insistence on dividing the justice of God from the love of God.
Positive justice, however, both as a conclusion of metaphysical analysis and as an exegetical conclusion from scriptural revelation, involves the active fulfillment of fair-togetherness between persons, as is eternally and actively true between the Persons of the Self-begetting, Self-begotten God, Who proceeds to us as Person and Persons to persons. To act toward fulfilling non-fair-togetherness, is to act against the foundation upon which all reality depends for existence.
And the blunt fact of the matter is that a doctrine where God gives up acting toward saving sinners from sin, much less never bothers to act toward doing that all, is a doctrine of God refusing to act toward fulfilling justice but acting toward non-fair-togetherness (inequity, injustice) instead.
Your idea of ‘justice’ directly contravenes the fulfillment of justice. There is no logically valid conclusion by which you can possibly ‘harmonize’ that--a fatal contradiction is built into the heart of it. (The idea of ‘harmonizing’ a doctrine of God choosing to ratify permanent disharmony between persons, along with a doctrine of God choosing to act toward fulfilling harmony between persons, should have been a signal of illogic somewhere, too, if perhaps a more subtle one.)
{{Having people who are murders, liars, etc. etc. would upset the harmony and balance of the new world God is creating.}}
So would having a God Who Himself enacts the non-fair-togetherness these people insist on acting.
It shouldn’t be surprising, then, to find that even though the murderers, liars, etc. etc. are prevented from entering the New Jerusalem, the river of life still flows from under the throne out the gates that never shall be closed, and the Spirit continues exhorting the servants of Christ to bring the message to those outside the gate--that they may slake their thirst at the river of life, freely given, without cost, and so obtain permission to enter the city where the leaves of the tree are for the healing of the nations.
Except people keep being surprised when I mention this... {sigh} (Well, I didn’t see it either for over thirty years. {s})
JRP
Hi Jason
1. You were saying: "From some of the good ones, true; it may easily come to that, and inevitably will for those who refuse to stop loving their sin."
That's basically what I mean about not all being ultimately saved. It is not through some fault of God's lack of love nor of lack of power. It is a matter of whether it is a coherent thing for God to force "X" to become "Y" in order to save "X". I mean, if it became "Y" it's no longer X already and he still didn't save X. Or in English (sorry), if someone "refuses to stop loving their sin" then the only way to save that person is to make that person into a different person, so that you lose the continuity between who is saved and who had been lost. That's what happens when you add irresistible force into the equation of salvation: you break what you were trying to save.
2. On God's omnipresence for the damned: you may be familiar with some Eastern Orthodox suggestions that heaven and hell need not be different places; that the fire of torment for the damned need not be a different fire than the fire of the Holy Spirit. The presence of God may be sanctifying and curative for those who love God, but that same presence may be horrifying and destructive for those who despise Him.
3. On justice: I think that "justice" is ultimatley that the evil is destroyed and the good restored, preferably for the wrongdoer as well as the wronged. Meantime what the law dictates as justice may be sightly different. Take the example of David and Bathsheba: the law demanded that David should die. Nathan proclaimed that David would not die because of God's mercy. Was justice fulfilled? You have to give different answers depending on whether it's "the justice of the law" or that ultimate justice by which evil is destroyed and things are restored.
---
Take care & God bless
WF
Jason Pratt said: "In discussing things with you, I am treating you as a child of God; not as a puppet (either of God or of some atheistic reality.)
May I add, however, that you have a tendency to treat your disputants as though there is no point in principle of actually discussing things with them?"
This is one reason I don't like writing out like this...you can't see me, know my face, understand my personality, or know how I'm feeling as a write a certain line. I know I need to be more careful at how I say things...and believe it or not, I think I'm doing better than how I wrote a year ago.
I appreciate your time and attention to all of this and for giving so much thought in how you answered back to all of us. I'm not quite on board with everything you have said, but you have given me more things to work and study through.
thanks again.
Hi anonymous
I wonder if you're maybe too used to talking to Arminians? I think you and I are agreed that sinners don't seek God; God seeks us. Christ says he came to seek and save the lost. Those who are ultimately lost are surely among the lost. I think you and I are agreed that no one comes to Christ unless the Father draws him; yet it is only a breath later that Christ says all are taught by God and all who listen and learn come, and still shortly after that Christ says when he is lifted up all are drawn. So the question, to me, is not who is acting: I think you and I are agreed that God is acting. The question, to me, is whether God is favoring some sinners over other sinners on some basis other than Christ in them. I say no; you seem to be saying yes if I understand you correctly. Let me know if I'm understanding you right.
We're agreed that no one comes to faith on their own, that what we have is from God; yet that is not the same as God choosing who has faith. The way God brings us to faith, as we've seen, is by raising Christ from the dead. It is by God's showing his faithfulness that we have faith. Or as it says elsewhere, faith comes from hearing the message of Christ -- that is how God shows his faithfulness, that is how God has given (or "tendered" if you'd rather) faith to all: by raising Christ from the dead.
Granted that God has hidden from the wise and foolish and revealed to children. That's because the foolishness of God -- which is the cross -- is wiser than man's wisdom, and the weakness of God -- which is the cross -- is stronger than man's strength.
Re: your translation of Isaiah 45:7: in your translation "ra" is still coming across as "evil", which is still a faulty translation. When you have a multi-definition word, context shows us which one is meant. In Isaiah 45:7, "ra" stands as the opposite of "shalom". The opposite of "shalom", any way you slice it, is not "evil".
I was curious, are you quoting Isaiah 45:7 because you believe God is the cause of evil? You mentioned before thinking God made Hitler to be Hitler for God's own purposes. Have I understood you correctly? If you'd rather not answer I'd understand; I certainly don't want to be the cause of your crossing the line to accusing the Holy One of evil. But it sounded like you've already crossed that line and if so I just wanted to make sure I understood you.
So to me the question isn't whether or not our redemption is what you'd call monergistic; to me it's plain that it is and thank God for that. The question, to me, is how God chooses to work his grace: through his power which is a strength which is stronger than our strength, or through Christ which is a weakness which is stronger than our strength.
Take care & God bless
WF
Thanks WF: "The One forming light and creating darkness, causing well-being and creating calamity [Heb. ra, “bad, evil”]; I am the Lord who does all these."
Amos 3:6 "If a trumpet is blown in a city, will not the people tremble? If a calamity [Heb. ra, “bad, evil”] occurs in a city, has not the Lord done it?"
God is the one taking credit for the calamity/evil. I'm not sure how else to think since God is creator of all things. If he did not create calamity/evil then we wouldn't know what it is.
Deut. 30:19; Isaiah 56:4 God holds man accountable for choices, judging according to their deeds (Rev. 20:12, 13). If God were so sovereign that He gives no man a choice to follow good or evil, then how is it that He can yet judge men for their deeds? Would not this be unjust?
I believe that we are in need of understanding free will/choice - God's will/plan to better understand.
Romans 2:17,18 "But if you bear the name Jew, and rely upon the Law, and boast in God, and know His WILL [Greek: thelema, “will”], and approve the things that are essential, being instructed out of the Law . . ." we learn to know God's "will" through His law.
Romans 9:19 "You will say to me then, Why does He still find fault? For who resists His WILL [Greek: boulema, “plan, or higher intention”]?" We see there is a difference between the 2 words used for "will".
Romans 11:32-36,"For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways! For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who became His counselor? Or who has first given to Him that it might be paid back to Him again? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen."
I know this doesn't answer it all but I do hope it gives enough to understand what I believe...and am still learning and working through.
A fascinating discussion. The thing about Hell that always puzzles me is as follows:
1 - God is a loving God.
2 - God knows everything.
3 - God has given me free will.
4 - I can use this free will to reject God and end up in Hell.
5 - Because God knows everything, He must know if I am going to use my free will to reject him and am going to end up in Hell.
6 - ...But, knowing that I am doomed to misuse my free will and go to my eternal damnation, God - the God of Love - goes ahead and creates me anyway.
7 - ...Which seems a weird sort of thing for a God of Love to do. I can only conclude that either He's not a God of Love, or that He's not omniscient. Whichever, He's not the God that the Bible presents to us. Universalism would seem to offer a way out of that dilemma. But...
Hi Anon
I think the problem comes when we in our minds mix the several different things that go by the name of "evil." Which is what I'm trying to get at with digging into "ra" etc. I mean, the cows in Pharaoh's dream were "ra" (evil cows?), but they weren't going to star in any upcoming Spielberg films or Stephen King novels; they're not *that kind* of evil.
We call "disaster" evil (Burma and China are reeling right now; living in a hurricane zone in the U.S., I've seen "disaster" too). God even opens the doors for certain human-originated calamities such as wars. But there are a couple of lines the Bible doesn't cross. God does not cause the evil in our hearts. "Evil" in that sense is not a created thing at all; it is a direction (away from God) or an attitude (enmity towards God / opposition to the good) that does not need "creation" at all, since it does not involve new matter but only the relationship of existing things to each other.
God is good, and all he created was good. This we know. God is against evil, and Jesus disowns the thought that God and the forces of evil might be on the same side when some made the suggestion that he could cast out demons because they were on the same side as him; "a house divided against itself cannot stand."
I was half-way tempted to ramble some more about the different ways God "creates" faith but it's a holiday weekend around here ...
Take care & God bless
WF
Hi Anne H.
You know, I have some relatives (ancestors, while we're on the subject) that I'm fairly sure are not going to be with us in heaven. It was 5 generations back there was a murderer in the family. If God had disallowed him from existing, I wouldn't exist. Nor my mother. Nor my brother. Nor my grandfather, nor his mother ...
Lord have mercy.
WF
Anon,
{{This is one reason I don't like writing out like this...you can't see me, know my face, understand my personality, or know how I'm feeling as a write a certain line.}}
I know that feeling anyway! {sympathetic s} Even emoticons don’t always help.
If you didn’t mean it that way, then you didn’t, and I very gladly retract my observation.
For what it’s worth, please let me affirm again that I think you’re doing very well not to be wussing out on omniscience and omnipotence, as Arminians sometimes (though not always) trend toward. You’re rightly concerned to protect and affirm that in our doctrines.
God’s grace to you!
JRP
PS: {{God is the one taking credit for the calamity/evil.}}
I would say rather ‘proclaiming responsibility’ for the strife. WF is rightly concerned that the One Who is Good not be found to be a doer of iniquity.
WF,
Always nice to have a pleasant exchange on the topics, btw. {bow!} Just wanted you to know I appreciate it.
{{It is a matter of whether it is a coherent thing for God to force "X" to become "Y" in order to save "X".}}
And I agree that it isn’t a coherent. But that’s an entirely different notion from whether it is a coherent thing for God to give up acting toward saving the person from sin (or, per Calvinistic non-election, never intending to act toward that at all, in the case of some sinners.)
That action doesn’t have to involve forcing “X” to become “Y” in order to save “X”. There is such a thing as leading and teaching, too. Sometimes the teaching has to involve punishment; but we don’t complain about the punishment forcing us to become something else when it happens to us--because it doesn’t force us to become something else. (I mean if it’s a loving punishment; the other thing is brainwashing, which I suppose could be a punishment, but not a loving one.)
{{That's what happens when you add irresistible force into the equation of salvation: you break what you were trying to save.}}
I agree. You haven’t noticed that I’ve been agreeing with this the whole time?? {sigh}
That being said: I think I’m required to respect the occasionally annihilistic imagery in scriptural testimony, too. And just as people in repentence receive new names, we also become new people, too. The old man within me has to die so that I will be a new man in Christ. And again, the resurrected body is a new thing without discontinuity from the old body.
In that sense, there is plenty of scriptural testimony to the effect that I, the sinner, am being destroyed--or even wholly ruined! In the OT prophets, Israel is occasionally spoken of as though they will be wiped out of existence through God’s punishment (Rachel weeping for her children “for they are not”, being one famous example out of several that come to mind); and yet God promises to restore them once they have repented. But the whole-runination has to come first, if they (and I) insist on our sins.
{{you may be familiar with some Eastern Orthodox suggestions that heaven and hell need not be different places; that the fire of torment for the damned need not be a different fire than the fire of the Holy Spirit.}}
Yep; though I’m more familiar with the Biblical sources they were getting that concept from. {s} In fact I go farther than your statement here (I half-recall doing that in this thread already), and insist that there cannot be two ‘everlasting’ fires, without abandoning orthodox theology.
{{The presence of God may be sanctifying and curative for those who love God, but that same presence may be horrifying and destructive for those who despise Him.}}
Very far from disagreeing there!--at least as far as the ‘horrifying’ goes. (A careful reader can find me doing the same thing in my series of novels, with regard to the rebel angels.)
I’m far more concerned with God’s intentions and actions, however, in regard to sinners, than I am with how sinners are likely to perceive that action at any given time. That’s why I would take exception to the “destructive” part of your description. (Granted, an insistent sinner might easily perceive it as being “destructive”, but...)
{{On justice: I think that "justice" is ultimatley that the evil is destroyed and the good restored, preferably for the wrongdoer as well as the wronged.}}
Which goes along entirely well with hating the sin but loving the sinner. Certainly I’m going to agree with it as a universalist!--that the good be restored for the wrongdoer as well as for the one wronged by the wrongdoer, with the evil of the wrongdoer being destroyed. (Or at least that God can be trusted to peristently act toward accomplishing this with sinners.)
{{Meantime what the law dictates as justice may be sightly different.}}
True; but the Spirit behind the Law is Who we worship, and to Whom we owe our loyalty and faith. That hardly means a righteous law has nothing to do with the Holy Spirit--much the contrary! But the Law is still a shadow of the good things to come.
{{Take the example of David and Bathsheba: the law demanded that David should die.}}
If it comes to that, the Law very rightly demands that I should die if I commit adultery or murder in my heart. I am very well aware of why I should die for any sin, no matter how ‘small’ it may seem to be; which is why I claim no advantage over any sinner, including Satan himself.
But love and justice transcend the law (and certainly are greater than death and sin). It is love and justice that God will be acting to fulfill in me, and in King David, or any other sinner that could be named; not death and sin.
{{Nathan proclaimed that David would not die because of God's mercy. Was justice fulfilled?}}
Yes, it was; precisely because God did not fulfill sin and death in David, but led David to repentence and so toward righteousness instead.
(It may be noticed that I have a tension between death fulfilling righteousness and death fulfilling unrighteousness--a tension also found in the scriptures! But that is because I understand that there are two very different kinds of death possible, one of which, if fulfilled, would involve the fulfillment of unrighteousness instead of righteousness. The unrighteous death is an incomplete echo of the righteous death.)
{{You have to give different answers depending on whether it's "the justice of the law" or that ultimate justice by which evil is destroyed and things are restored.}}
While I don’t exactly disagree with that, I would say rather that the death truly required by the justice of the true law, is the righteous death, not the unrighteous death. A law that required the unrighteous death would only be a perversion of justice.
{{Or as it says elsewhere, faith comes from hearing the message of Christ -- that is how God shows his faithfulness, that is how God has given (or "tendered" if you'd rather) faith to all: by raising Christ from the dead.}}
Not that I disagree with this either; but I would point out that St. Paul’s statement on God’s faithfulness in the portion of Romans you’re referencing, goes further than only raising Christ from the dead. The word is not ultimately the message about Christ; the Word Himself is Christ. (And the rabbis taught that the feet upon the mountains bringing good news, belonged first and foremost to the Messiah--then to us secondarily as fellow-workers. From the prior local context, I’m sure this had to be what was on Paul’s mind, too, in making the reference.)
God’s grace to you!
JRP
Thanks Jason. I know I don't have the education that many do who are commenting here...in fact, I barely got out of high school! But...I have walked with Jesus for a long time and have tried to learn through the help of the net, blogs like these, and just reading, praying, and seeking. Thanks for all your care by commenting and bringing insight to an obvious doctrine that many are struggling with (thankfully!).
Blessings.
Hi Jason
Well, I certainly caught you in an ... *agree*able ... mood. ;)
Take care & God bless
WF
I'm slightly worried by Weekend Fisher's earlier observation about family members with homicidal tendencies. He seems to be saying "It was perfectly all right for God to create my murderous ancestor knowing that he would burn in Hell for all eternity, because if he hadn't been created my parents and I wouldn't be here."
Can we really claim that God is justified in making nasty, doomed-to-damnation, people because they in turn make nice, destined-for-heaven, people? Personally, if I knew that the price of my existence was someone else's eternal torment I'm not sure I'd want that price to be paid; fond though I am of living.
June 30,2008. Rather than the word "universalist" which doesn't have a very Biblical "ring" to it, I would rather polarize with the "group"professing "reconciliation/redemption" of all things. I am in the process of reading a book by Gerry Beauchermin, Hope Beyond Hell, in which he gives some very convincing scriptures to support that belief/hope, i.e. the ultimate salvation of all people. Steven Jones was the first one I encountered adhering to this and his teachings really make sense to me. This final quote that I am responding to sounds almost like Mr. Beauchermin, and is a foundational argument for all who lean in this direction. I'm 72, searching for truth since age 37, though not as diligently as I have for about 1 1/2 years. I have responded to what I believe to be God's grace on my life, and have asked Jesus to be my Lord and Saviour. Recently, with many tears, I have prayed asking the Lord to show me the truth of this matter of ultimate reconciliation, to change my mindset, my paradigm. That if it will have a dramatic effect on the way I live the rest of my life, if it will change my heart to be more like my Father's (which I hold to be loving and merciful) then I want to embrace it. This is not a popular belief -- as you well know, and is called heretical, and those who are high profile in teaching are called False Prophets. I have been learning that God is love because that is His nature, and he loves unconditionally, without partiality ALL people. I have come to believe that the way in which we identify and relate to the truths of "the elect", "the chosen" can lead to religiosity, Pharisaism, pride, hautiness, and all the things that Jesus preached against. Gerry Beauchermin handles this topic with grace. Thank you for your web site. It's very informative and stimulating.
Post a Comment
<< Home