|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Hell. Surprised it's not a DH? So am I.
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
I agree with you about the judgement thing. That was what I was originally trying to say (Although I did it very badly). I didn't mean we would be able to just go "Well, judge me very lightly because I don't like being judged" - I meant the standard you talked of.
But surely this negates the concept of eternal hell? If we will recieve different rewards punishments based on our actions then some will suffer worse than others. Unless their can be variations of the suffering on people in a "lake of fire"
quote:
"Yes, salvation is a work of God, not our own work. He gives us the power to believe and the power to obey. Otherwise it is predestination. If we do not make use of this free gift and believe and obey Him, we will not be saved."
This is where we start getting into some serious double speak, bringing gifts of faith etc into simply makes the same point more complicated. Because the reason you believed/were saved and someone else is not is either :
1. Because God did not give them that gift. (Which you do not agree with/ Predestination)
2. You chose to use the gift both of you were given in a way that the other person did not....which undeniably is a work.
This is why I am saying, you can twist matters and complicate matters all you like (indeed Arminians have done this for a very long time) but there is no way you make it so that it isn't works based salvation if you are saved and someone else is not. Somewhere down the line, you have done something better than someone else and therefore you are getting a reward for your choice.
quote:
Matthew 7:21 Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven.
I don't know how relevant it is to start proof texting now. I am well aware that on the surface at least, some scriptures seem to speak against Universal Salvation - but thats not the issue at hand. I can whip out a lot of proof texts for Universalism and I'm sure you can match me with verses about "eternal" destruction etc but that's not what we're doing here! We're discussing how we are saved, by God or by God and us.
Jesus taught repentance - nothing about this contradicts the belief that all will eventually be saved.
Jesus taught judgement - nothing about this contradicts the belief that all will eventually be saved.
p.s. I agree with Mathew 7:21 - it doesn't say they will "never" be saved but they will not gain entry when they are simply not ready. A lot of Evangelists are just about the most unchristlike people I have ever met, yet they think they have a free pass into heaven because they have said the right prayer.
Ok, lets approach this from another angle. Which of these statements is true?
1. Christ died for some of the sins of all men.
2. Christ died for all the sins of some men.
3. Christ died for all the sins of all men.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
John,
Of course, your option (3) is true. However, if man rejects Christ's forgiveness, what more can God do?
That is the standard approach. And Freddy's argument is well known to me, and does begin to make some sense after a while. ![[Biased]](wink.gif) As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement.
The difference comes down to an issue of "free will" as has been described earlier, and just how important it is.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
quote:
As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement
That's quite a non-sequiter though, it just unnecesarily complicates matters. As God gave us life in the first place, it follows that any gift we have is a gift from God. Of course we wouldn't have the ability to choose if we didn't get that ability from God but then again, we wouldn't breathe if it wasn't a gift from God.
I appreciate you don't neccesarily believe that, I'm just tracking forward what someone else may say.
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
quote:
As I have summarized before, his final line is that salvation does rest upon a choice we must make, but that the ability to make that choice at all is granted completely by God. Though you must choose, you gain no credit since you would not be able to choose without God's enablement
That's quite a non-sequiter though, it just unnecesarily complicates matters. As God gave us life in the first place, it follows that any gift we have is a gift from God.
John, I'm not seeing how it is a non-sequiter or how it complicates anything. It describes the life we seem to ourselves to lead, in which we seem to ourselves to try or not try, to do well or badly, to learn and change or not. It also makes sense of the Bible, since Jesus always talks as if our salvation depends on our being good people.
To my mind it simplifies, not complicates.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
So it seems to me that the bottom line for the stated universalist scenario, is that every one is really 'in Christ' whether they know it or not or choose it or not? Everyone is a Christian? Salvation through Christ need not be chosen but salvation is granted gratis despite evil committed, good done or faith exercised?
Further..If I'm a Buddist am I really a Christian or a Moslem or a Hindu?..I need help here!
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
If I'm a Buddist am I really a Christian or a Moslem or a Hindu?..I need help here!
Here there is no Greek* or Jew*, circumcised* or uncircumcised*, barbarian*, Scythian*, slave* or free*, but Christ is all, and is in all.
Colossians 3:11
There is neither Jew* nor Greek*, slave* nor free*, male* nor female*, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.
Galatians 3:28
*Read: Moslem, Buddhist, Hindu, athiest, etc.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Jamac, I in no way accept universal salvation. But I do accept the idea that people are accepted in heaven regardless of their religion on this earth.
If they sincerely live as Christ taught then they are prepared for heaven whether that preparation has been as Jew or gentile.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Jamac, I in no way accept universal salvation. But I do accept the idea that people are accepted in heaven regardless of their religion on this earth.
If they sincerely live as Christ taught then they are prepared for heaven whether that preparation has been as Jew or gentile.
Interesting Freddy,
The proviso to being accepted is being 'in Christ' first surely. It is Christ who creates the unity of Jew, Greek. How can someone Who is a sincere practitioner of say Islam or Buddah or Krishna be in Christ? if they may have never heard of him or disespouse him in favour of their own religious particularity?
How can this be Biblically reconciled without the Universalist mind-set?
[ 05. August 2006, 06:06: Message edited by: Jamac ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?
Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
[QUOTE] [QB] Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?
All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice.
quote:
Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?
Their failure to respond to his appeals through conscience, revelation of scripture or drawing of the Holy Spirit
Ro 8:9 "..If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ he does not belong to him.."
Let's take 1 Cor 15:22
"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."
It means contextually that believers in Christ will be resurrected see v.19 which creates a context of 'we, who have hoped in Christ..' In v17 it says if Christ was not raised 'our faith'is worthless.
In v23 this resurrection is contextualised as for '..those who are Christ's."
Yet, v22 says: "in Christ ALL shall be made alive."
Do we not have to decontextualise it to make it support a universalist framework?
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
quote:
All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice
How do you know that? Where does it say in the Bible "we come to be in Christ by a faith choice"?
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
What is the plain meaning of this? If I say, "I like ice-cream, especially vanilla" does it mean I only like vanilla ice cream? No, of course not.
At first reading, this seems plainly Universalistic. Ask someone who knows nothing about Christianity to tell you what that means and I think their answer would be simple "Paul believed that God saves all people, with a special blessing for believers".
Usually, people say something like "He is the potential saviour of all men, but only the saviour of Christians". I got this off an arminian website :
"Those who take this verse at face value cannot be in danger of teaching universalism. If God were to actually save all men, then how would believers be saved in a special sense? The very fact that the verse says that there is a special sense in which believers are saved implies that there is a sense in which unbelievers are not saved. Unbelievers are not actually saved, even though God the Saviour has desired their salvation and provided for it in the death of His Son."
How can he be the saviour of someone who he hasn't saved?
If a fireman climbs into a burning building and somebody refuses to come out with him, can he claim he is the "saviour" or that he has "saved" them? In no way at all. Simply because he attempted to save that stubborn soul in the house does not mean he actually HAS saved them or has any right to be called their "Saviour". "Saviour" implies he HAS saved all men, it is done, he is their saviour, the saving has been done. The fact that believers have a special blessing in no way implies that non-believers are not saved!
I Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.
Whatever Adam does, Christ undoes. Prof. DeRose says "The grammatical function of "in Christ" here is not to modify or limit the "all." The passage doesn't say, "...so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive." If it said that, I wouldn't be so cheered by the passage. Rather, "in Christ" is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb "shall be made" or perhaps the whole clause, "shall all be made alive." Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ."
The trouble with taking it the way you take it is it basically means "Not at all like all people died in Adam (because they had no choice in that), those who believe in Christ (via a completely different process of free choice) will be made alive" and it means that adam is far more important and significant in human history than Christ. It was Adam who cast all people into sin, yet Christ is only powerful enough to save some?
Jesus 'will see His desire and be satisfied'. if schindler was completely dissatisfied with the number of jews he saved, how would Jesus feel seeing most of those He attempted to save perish? Completely dissatisfied, would be my answer. You do not hold up someone's hand and declare Him the victor and the saviour if most of the people He tried to save refused to be saved. If a man went to save children from a burning building and couldn't get the kids to come out from under the bed, you would commend him for his attempts, but everyone would grieve for the failure and there would not be rejoicing, but sorrow. Can you imagine the inappropriateness of rejoicing over his attempts and giving him a hero party in the face of such tragic failure?
We've got slightly off track here and started proof texting, which is not what I wanted to do.
We've got to what demas said on the last page, where Freddy has admitted that good people of other religions can get into heaven based on their works....which is works based salvation, just as relying on your mental choices for salvation is works based salvation.
This boards very own Tyler Durden (Rev. Holy) said :
"Thus, Arminian theology seems to make nonsense of Paul’s statements about the impossibility of boasting in Ephesians 2:8-9 and Romans 3:7. If it is our choice that either ‘qualifies’(!) us for salvation or condemns us to damnation, as Arminianism suggests, then the correct answer to the question ‘Why is John Doe saved?’ is not ‘because Jesus died for his sins’. According to Arminianism, Jesus died for everybody’s sins. What has made the difference, in the final analysis, is John Doe’s own decision. Thus, even if it is still meaningful to call Jesus his saviour – since he could not have been saved without Christ’s atoning work – at the very least, John Doe is his own ‘co-saviour’ and could legitimately pray like the Pharisee in Luke 18:11: ‘God, I thank you that, unlike other people, I chose to respond to you’."
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
[QB] quote:
All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice
How do you know that? Where does it say in the Bible "we come to be in Christ by a faith choice"?
"By Grace you have been saved through faith and that not of yourselves it is the gift of God" Eph 2:8
quote:
1 Timothy 4:10: "We have our hope set on the living God, who is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe."
What is the plain meaning of this?
As you explanation suggests, but there is a possibility Paul was referring to the fact that all benefit from Christ in that the devil is no longer the dominating spiritual force on earth. Christs coming has many widespread benefits even to those who don't yet know him personally.
quote:
It was Adam who cast all people into sin, yet Christ is only powerful enough to save some?Jesus 'will see His desire and be satisfied'. if schindler was completely dissatisfied with the number of jews he saved, how would Jesus feel seeing most of those He attempted to save perish? Completely dissatisfied, would be my answer. You do not hold up someone's hand and declare Him the victor and the saviour if most of the people He tried to save refused to be saved. If a man went to save children from a burning building and couldn't get the kids to come out from under the bed, you would commend him for his attempts, but everyone would grieve for the failure and there would not be rejoicing, but sorrow. Can you imagine the inappropriateness of rejoicing over his attempts and giving him a hero party in the face of such tragic failure?
His power to save all is not in question. It is only the refusal of many to 'get out from under the bed and let the fireman carry them out'. We have to trust that at the end of the story Christ will indeed have something to celebrate. I'm certainly grateful for the touch of God in my life.
The basic issue though is whether God needs us to defend his character because he is not PC enough for us or inclusive enough. To me the balance and weight of scripture does not justify a universalist stance.
quote:
We've got slightly off track here and started proof texting, which is not what I wanted to do.
We've got to what demas said on the last page, where Freddy has admitted that good people of other religions can get into heaven based on their works....which is works based salvation, just as relying on your mental choices for salvation is works based salvation.
I thought Freddy answered that issue very effectively.
[ 05. August 2006, 10:29: Message edited by: Jamac ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
The proviso to being accepted is being 'in Christ' first surely. It is Christ who creates the unity of Jew, Greek. How can someone Who is a sincere practitioner of say Islam or Buddah or Krishna be in Christ? if they may have never heard of him or disespouse him in favour of their own religious particularity?
How can this be Biblically reconciled without the Universalist mind-set?
By taking a careful look at what Christ says about salvation, Jamac.
Although Christ does indeed emphasize belief in Him as the grounds for salvation, His stronger emphasis is on doing the things that He teaches.
His Matthew 25 scenario, in which the sheep and goats are divided, does not hinge so much on the acceptance of Christ but on the treatment of the neighbor.
Taking all of Christ's sayings into account, the common denominator of those will enter the "kingdom of heaven," or "life," or "eternal life," or who are "saved" is that they "do the will of My Father" or are "righteous" or "keep My commandments" or "hear these sayings of Mine and keep them."
In other words the common sense division of people into "good" and "bad" is consistent with what Christ teaches. "Good" people are saved, "bad" people are not.
The bottom line is that to the extent that the teachings of Islam, the Buddha, or any other religion, are consistent with Christ's teachings, to that extent they are helpful in leading to salvation. The genuine division is between those who love God and the neighbor, and those who only love themselves and the world. The former are "good" and go to heaven when they die, whereas the latter are "bad" and go to hell when they die.
According to Christ, anyway.
The reason that they are all saved by Christ is that He "overcame the world" taking away the "power of darkness" for everyone in the world. He liberated the entire human race, not just those who know of Him.
At the same time, no one comes to the Father except by Him because the things that He taught are the guide to a life of love to God and the neighbor. There is no different way.
Furthermore, the power is in His words, so it is more difficult to repent if you do not have the light and are guided by the mistaken concepts of false religion.
There is a great fear in evangelical Christianity of "works based" salvation. But the distinction that Christ makes is not so much about "works" but about who the author of salvation is. It is always Him, never us. The power is in Him, not in us. Those who trust in themselves, and not in God, are condemned. And God looks at the heart, not just the actions of the body. Obeying Christ in life is the way to be given "a heart of flesh."
The reasoning that it is wrong make our salvation hinge on any kind of effort or belief on our part is not actually consistent with Christ's words. The mistake isn't in thinking of salvation as "works based" but in thinking of it as "self based." Christ taught both faith and works - not that righteous acts "earn" anyone's way into heaven, but that a selfish and materialistic lifestyle is the broad road that leads to destruction. If we believe in Christ and obey His Word He will give us the strength to avoid that destruction and live a life of love to Him and the neighbor.
We get no credit. We don't save ourselves. God saves us. He saves everyone on earth to the extent that they live sincerely as Christ taught - regardless of what their religion has been. If they do know and accept Christ they will be able to do this much more easily. In fact, without Christianity humanity will never be able to be reformed. I think that this is the Gospel message.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
I have just done my best to wade through the first six pages and would like to add a few points I don't think anyone has mentioned.
The calvinist response to eternal punishment being unjust because any sin committed within our lifetime is finite is to say that the sin is of infinite gravity because God is infinitely big/holy/perfect etc.
Double predestination (the idea that God also predestines to Hell) has been mentioned, as has its apparent unjustness. The argument goes that God is not obligated to save anybody, so while it may appear unfair, it's not correct to say it's unjust.
Paul, that famous universalist (!) in Romans 9 asks:
quote:
What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?
I don't know what I think about all this at the moment, but I can see that the sort of 'inscrutable mystery' that calvinists go on about and John Spears finds so annoying might actually make sense from a different, eternal perspective - I'm with Lamb Chopped on the importance of remembering our place in the scheme of things, and to answer Demas on this point, I do in some sense 'fear' the Devil in a similar way to God to the extent that he is a being of a higher order than I.
Finally, I have another question.
Somebody mentioned reincarnation way back. If there is a resurrection to some kind of meaningful existence after death, and we have the ability to choose in this life hereafter, what is the difference between that and reincarnation ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Somebody mentioned reincarnation way back. If there is a resurrection to some kind of meaningful existence after death, and we have the ability to choose in this life hereafter, what is the difference between that and reincarnation
Thank you for that summary, Eutychus. I have wondered the same thing. Especially if, as seems true of virtually everyone, we don't remember our past incarnations. For all practical purposes, then, we die and are raised up to new life in either scenario. For that matter, the same is true of those who believe that we are raised up at the last day. We die, then we awake to new life - unconscious of any intervening time.
But in the Christian scenario, people in the next life are aware that they have lived on earth and that they are now living in heaven. Whether they are in a place and live a life that is similar to life on earth is another question.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
But in the Christian scenario, people in the next life are aware that they have lived on earth and that they are now living in heaven. Whether they are in a place and live a life that is similar to life on earth is another question.
This is complicated. I've moved away from what Melon seems to term "spiritual salvation" here because I see it as removing us too much from getting on and making a difference in the world here and now. And I'm keen to emphasise the incarnate nature of our resurrected bodies... but it's just occured to me that if we insist on them being incarnate again, that is more or less reincarnation...
Would the only difference would be that next time round, we will all remember this time?
And are people in Hell (assuming there are any, if it exists, etc etc etc) incarnate? The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers. Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too? And wouldn't being "raised corruptible" be even more like reincarnation ("try again")? Or is Hell just a state of disembodied torment?
[ 05. August 2006, 13:07: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
And are people in Hell (assuming there are any, if it exists, etc etc etc) incarnate? The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.
Revelation 20 seems to assume that both the good and evil will be raised up and judged:
quote:
Revelation 20.11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well, and the good ones get to enter the gates of the holy city. Both the bad and good seem to have bodies.
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too? And wouldn't being "raised corruptible" be even more like reincarnation ("try again")? Or is Hell just a state of disembodied torment?
Corinthians seems to be mainly talking about good people, but it can be read as speaking about everyone.
quote:
1 Corinthians 15:35 But someone will say, “How are the dead raised up? And with what body do they come?” 36 Foolish one, what you sow is not made alive unless it dies. 37 And what you sow, you do not sow that body that shall be, but mere grain—perhaps wheat or some other grain. 38 But God gives it a body as He pleases, and to each seed its own body.
39 All flesh is not the same flesh, but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of animals, another of fish, and another of birds.
40 There are also celestial bodies and terrestrial bodies; but the glory of the celestial is one, and the glory of the terrestrial is another. 41 There is one glory of the sun, another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars; for one star differs from another star in glory.
42 So also is the resurrection of the dead. The body is sown in corruption, it is raised in incorruption. 43 It is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory. It is sown in weakness, it is raised in power. 44 It is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body. There is a natural body, and there is a spiritual body. 45 And so it is written, “The first man Adam became a living being.” The last Adam became a life-giving spirit.
46 However, the spiritual is not first, but the natural, and afterward the spiritual. 47 The first man was of the earth, made of dust; the second Man is the Lord from heaven. 48 As was the man of dust, so also are those who are made of dust; and as is the heavenly Man, so also are those who are heavenly. 49 And as we have borne the image of the man of dust, we shall also bear the image of the heavenly Man.
Personally, I think that it is a mistake to read this as a resurrection of the body in this world. To me it seems to clearly say that it is about the spiritual bodies that people will have in heaven.
As for hell, I think that the same general idea applies. People there have a body, made of spiritual substance, that agrees in form and appearance with their true inner selves. It will therefore not be as attractive, functional, or comfortable as the bodies of those in heaven. Happily, it will vary as the spirit changes.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?
All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice.
This must be read with the clause, "by my specific understanding." If you define salvation a certain way from the beginning, of course you will come to certain conclusions about every verse you encounter. See below.
quote:
quote:
Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?
Their failure to respond to his appeals through conscience, revelation of scripture or drawing of the Holy Spirit
Ro 8:9 "..If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ he does not belong to him.."
What if the point here is that all have the spirit of Christ, though?
quote:
Let's take 1 Cor 15:22
"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."
It means contextually that believers in Christ will be resurrected see v.19 which creates a context of 'we, who have hoped in Christ..' In v17 it says if Christ was not raised 'our faith'is worthless.
In v23 this resurrection is contextualised as for '..those who are Christ's."
Yet, v22 says: "in Christ ALL shall be made alive."
So, it depends when verse you use to interpret the others, no? If we start with saying "in Christ ALL shall be made alive," then the other verses mean that all are in Christ, and if they weren't, they wouldn't have the spirit of Christ in them, etc.
quote:
Do we not have to decontextualise it to make it support a universalist framework?
The passages express conflicting ideas about salvation. You use Tradition and Reason to choose one, and then reinterpret or "reconcile" the others. It's what we all do.
-Digory
[Wow. Code fixes. A lot of them.]
[ 05. August 2006, 16:00: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
I would like to point out a few (selectively biased) things that Eutychus and Freddy have just said, and see what implications can be drawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.
- Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too?
Originally posted by Freddy:
- Corinthians seems to be mainly talking about good people, but it can be read as speaking about everyone.
- Revelation 20 seems to assume that both the good and evil will be raised up and judged:
quote:
Revelation 20.11 Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away. And there was found no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works.
- The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well, and the good ones get to enter the gates of the holy city. Both the bad and good seem to have bodies.
If you notice, the Revelation verse that Freddy quotes requires Freddy's addendum "The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well..." in order to make it necessarily point to some being unredeemed. Otherwise, the verse simply says that each person is judged, with no speaking of how this judgment turns out for anyone specifically.
The NT is "very quiet" about the resurrection of unbelievers, perhaps because 'unbeliever' made little sense in a resurrection sense because at that point there will be none?
And Eutychus's question about being raised incorruptible meaning that all would be redeemed, juxtaposed with Freddy's answer that the verse can be read to be speaking about everyone, 'good' and 'bad'?
Pardon me, folks, but your inner-universalist is showing.
-Digory
[ 05. August 2006, 16:23: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
I would like to point out a few (selectively biased) things that Eutychus and Freddy have just said, and see what implications can be drawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
- The NT talks about believers being 'raised incorruptible' but it is very quiet about the bodily resurrection of unbelievers.
- Wouldn't being "raised incorruptible" mean they had been redeemed too?
Whoa, you are mistaking my speculation for conviction and compressing it into a logical sequence I didn't intend.
If 1 Cor 15 can be held to be speaking about a bodily resurrection for all (and I think that is a pretty big 'if' - just because the NT doesn't say much about the physical condition of unbelievers after death doesn't mean this passage necessarily applies) then the question of some kind of universal redemption is raised.
I wonder whether Hell isn't disembodied. (I might wonder ŕ la Great Divorce whether it was just less substantial, but Freddy would be welcoming me into the Swedenborgian church ).
I think the premise that a lot of evo types are closet universalists and/or annihilationists is not inaccurate, but it's not quite where I'm at. For reasons much like those outlined by others here, I still tend to think Hell is a reality worth being saved from, even if I can't support that conviction by flawless metaphysics.
[ 05. August 2006, 17:11: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
If you notice, the Revelation verse that Freddy quotes requires Freddy's addendum "The bad ones, of course, don't fare so well..." in order to make it necessarily point to some being unredeemed. Otherwise, the verse simply says that each person is judged, with no speaking of how this judgment turns out for anyone specifically.
Digory, you should have checked. My quote ended at verse 13. The next verses say:
quote:
Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
So it does speak of how this judgment turns out for the evil. For some reason their names are not found in the Book of Life. Maybe this implies that they no longer have life, even that they no longer exist. Except that there they are. In any case I'm sure it's not a good feeling.
I should note that I see readings like these as highly metaphoric. There is no "throne" and there are no "books," much less a giant book that might or might not have your name in it. Descriptions like these are visual, memorable, and even entertaining ways of laying out, for the simple in heart, the complexities of our transition into life in the spiritual world.
I don't think this shows any inner universalist showing in me. Nor does the idea that Corinthians 15 speaks of the resurrection of both the good and the evil. Both good and evil live after death, and pursue happiness in their own particular ways.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, you should have checked. My quote ended at verse 13. The next verses say:
quote:
Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
So it does speak of how this judgment turns out for the evil.
Yes, if you believe that there will be any not found written in the Book of Life. Of course, there might not be.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the premise that a lot of evo types are closet universalists and/or annihilationists is not inaccurate, but it's not quite where I'm at. For reasons much like those outlined by others here, I still tend to think Hell is a reality worth being saved from, even if I can't support that conviction by flawless metaphysics.
No disrespect meant to you or Freddy, or anyone else, by suggesting you are really universalists.
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Tortuf
Ship's fisherman
# 3784
|
Posted
We tend to create our own Hell here on Earth all the time. I can't tell you how many folks I have seen who seem to "Have it all" who are as unhappy as unhappy can be.
Perhaps Hell is just that same kind of thing in the afterlife. We create a place for ourselves that is awful, when we have so much. We have a God who loves us so much that God sent Jesus to us to save us while we were sinners. And, we are fully capable of so wanting something "different" that we mess up what we have in a quest for that different whatever.
C.S. Lewis hinted at the ability to redeem ourselves even after death in the Screwtape Letters. I like that image. Not sure it is true, but it makes me happy.
Posts: 6963 | From: The Venice of the South | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
How can this be Biblically reconciled without the Universalist mind-set?
Originally posted by Freddy:
By taking a careful look at what Christ says about salvation, Jamac.
You have in my view to look at the wider NT for definitions of salvation. The gospel as Jesus preached it was quite different to that preached by Paul. You'd agree that in a wider sense, the definition of salvation is quite prescriptive. eg ethiopian eunuch could only be baptised if he believed with all his heart.
The actions urged by Jesus are I'd suggest not determiners of salvation, but injunctions for believers subsequent to it. You believe and are saved..then you are in a position to keep his commandments. I certainly agree, Freddy, with your final sentence "Without Christianity humanity will never be reformed."
Regarding the salvation of those from other faiths, you seem to be having a bet both ways to me. Its OK to be a Buddist to the extent that it is consistent with Christ's teachings yet if they Know Christ they will be better off.
[Fixed blown code.]
[ 06. August 2006, 14:53: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
Well weren't they "in Adam" without ever hearing or believing in him?
All are in Adam; by nature, by birth. We come to Christ as a faith choice.
This must be read with the clause, "by my specific understanding." If you define salvation a certain way from the beginning, of course you will come to certain conclusions about every verse you encounter. See below. quote:
Whats to stop them being "in Christ" without them ever hearing or believing in him?
Their failure to respond to his appeals through conscience, revelation of scripture or drawing of the Holy Spirit
Ro 8:9 "..If anyone does not have the spirit of Christ he does not belong to him.."
What if the point here is that all have the spirit of Christ, though?
quote:
Let's take 1 Cor 15:22
"For as in Adam all died, so in Christ shall all be made alive.."
It means contextually that believers in Christ will be resurrected see v.19 which creates a context of 'we, who have hoped in Christ..' In v17 it says if Christ was not raised 'our faith'is worthless.
In v23 this resurrection is contextualised as for '..those who are Christ's."
Yet, v22 says: "in Christ ALL shall be made alive."
So, it depends when verse you use to interpret the others, no? If we start with saying "in Christ ALL shall be made alive," then the other verses mean that all are in Christ, and if they weren't, they wouldn't have the spirit of Christ in them, etc.
quote:
Do we not have to decontextualise it to make it support a universalist framework?
The passages express conflicting ideas about salvation. You use Tradition and Reason to choose one, and then reinterpret or "reconcile" the others. It's what we all do.
-Digory
I don't think any linguist would accept that you can randomly select a passage from a text that suits you and read the rest of the text in the light of your interpretation of that one piece.
You contextualise texts by looking for antecedents. In this case it is the resurrection that creates the framework for the discussion. Those resurrected are believers not everybody.
[Fixed disastrous code.]
[ 06. August 2006, 14:58: Message edited by: professor kirke ]
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jason™
Host emeritus
# 9037
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I don't think any linguist would accept that you can randomly select a passage from a text that suits you and read the rest of the text in the light of your interpretation of that one piece.
You've missed my point. We all do exactly that. Exclusionists take the passages on hell and use them to interpret all of the passages about God's eternal, undying love for us. Universalists take the passages on God's love and use them to interpret the passages about eternal punishment.
Do you deny that?
quote:
You contextualise texts by looking for antecedents. In this case it is the resurrection that creates the framework for the discussion. Those resurrected are believers not everybody.
Only those who are resurrected are dead in Adam, then, also? Otherwise, you have employed a self-serving double standard, haven't you?
-Digory
Posts: 4123 | From: Land of Mary | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
You've missed my point. We all do exactly that. Exclusionists take the passages on hell and use them to interpret all of the passages about God's eternal, undying love for us. Universalists take the passages on God's love and use them to interpret the passages about eternal punishment.
Yep.
And which doctrine is more clearly outlined in the New Testament - that God will eternally torture some people, or that God is love?
I would say that the teaching that God loves us and is seeking to save us is clear and undeniable, repeated many times in unambiguous language.
And the doctrine that God will fail in this attempt and that some will be lost mostly rests upon specific prooftexts from parables and highly symbolic apocalyptic passages.
(This paper is a good starting point if you don't feel like tackling an entire book, btw)
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Great Gumby
Ship's Brain Surgeon
# 10989
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
Digory, you should have checked. My quote ended at verse 13. The next verses say:
quote:
Revelation 20.14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
So it does speak of how this judgment turns out for the evil.
Yes, if you believe that there will be any not found written in the Book of Life. Of course, there might not be.
I think this illustrates your point about reading passages in line with your expectations, Digory. It seems to me, as someone who seems to hold a position on a completely different plane from the main views in this discussion, that you're reading against the grain here. Maybe, if an eternity in hell were a theoretical, but not practical possibility, you could argue the case, although I'd have reservations, but otherwise it renders the text as meaningless as saying "Anyone not subject to the laws of gravity floated into the sky and away into space."
--------------------
The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool. - Richard Feynman
A letter to my son about death
Posts: 5382 | From: Home for shot clergy spouses | Registered: Feb 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by professor kirke:
You've missed my point. We all do exactly that. Exclusionists take the passages on hell and use them to interpret all of the passages about God's eternal, undying love for us. Universalists take the passages on God's love and use them to interpret the passages about eternal punishment.
Do you deny that?
I don't deny that we each see things with our own gloss but I deny we can validly ignore context for our own convenience. I deny that one automatically understands a text from the point of view of one's preconceptions. I deny also that text depends for meaning entirely upon the reader though I know you didn't suggest this.
I maintain that there is a plain meaning, a common sense reading if you like. I also maintain that the fundamental issue in this debate is that God is not inclusive enough for some of our sensibilities and so we need to reinvent him to make him acceptable and PC. Hell ain't PC. However, we can't write it out of the Bible because we don't like it.
quote:
Only those who are resurrected are dead in Adam, then, also? Otherwise, you have employed a self-serving double standard, haven't you?
I don't understand what you mean here..sorry.
Incidentally,I notice you keep fixing code. Sorry if I stuff-up quotes. Still learning.
Jamac
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
And which doctrine is more clearly outlined in the New Testament - that God will eternally torture some people, or that God is love?
Demas, I like this question. It is extremely important, in my opinion, to emphasize what the NT emphasizes, and to accurately assess the way that positions are represented in Scripture.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
I would say that the teaching that God loves us and is seeking to save us is clear and undeniable, repeated many times in unambiguous language.
I agree.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
And the doctrine that God will fail in this attempt and that some will be lost mostly rests upon specific prooftexts from parables and highly symbolic apocalyptic passages.
This, I think, under-represents what the New Testament actually says. It does not rest only upon specific prooftexts. It is implicit in hundreds of passages throughout the New Testament.
The distinction between good and evil is the topic addressed numerous times in every chapter of the New Testament, as it is in the Old Testament. The success of the good and the failure of the evil is the subtext of virtually everything that Jesus says. There is not a single parable where this is not the topic.
As others have said, Greek does not have words that express absolute permanence. Words translated "eternal", "everlasting", and "forever" are about long periods of time. They are normally understood idiomatically to refer to permanence.
The ultimate failure of the wicked is expressed countless times. Only a percentage of those times include explicit references to "eternal punishment" or similar ideas. Instead, their "rejection" is expressed using concepts such as that they will remain in darkness, that they will not enter the wedding feast, that they will be cast out of the vineyard, that their goods will be taken from them, that they will not enter the city, that they will not be fruitful, that they will be crushed, that they will wither, that they will be blown away like chaff, that they will be exposed.
Even more commonly, their failure is the implicit opposite of the success and blessings accorded to those who repent, who love God and the neighbor, who do as Christ teaches, who believe and have faith, who receive the Word of God, who become as little children.
Time limits are not usually placed on these conditions. The good are blessed, the wicked are not. The entire emphasis is also on the possibility of change, repentance, forgiveness and the resulting happiness. So it is not as if there is any a priori assumption of permanent wickedness for the wicked.
So the passages that state or imply long-lasting and even permanent suffering for the wicked after death stand in contrast to the state of sinners in this life. There are no statements to the effect that sinners will some day repent after death, or that all in hell will someday be moved into heaven. The statements that "all people" will be saved have usually been understood to mean that someday all people on earth will be converted - not those in hell. There is no impication that the opportunity for reform that is available in this world will be similarly available in the next life. Quite the opposite. Otherwise parables such as that of Dives and Lazarus, or the Wedding Feast make no sense.
It is not accurate, therefore to say that the idea that some will be lost mostly rests upon specific prooftexts. It is taught on every page.
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
(This paper is a good starting point if you don't feel like tackling an entire book, btw)
This is a very nice paper. Talbott's argument is that there is an inconsistent set of three propositions:
quote:
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile
all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either
consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no
hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
He then goes on to show that all three of these can't be true, specifically that 1) and 2) eliminate 3).
My own opinion, though, is that the three are perfectly consistent if you understand the importance of genuine autonomy to God's ultimate purpose, and if you understand the metaphors associated with the biblical descriptions of hell.
It is true that an easy reconciliation of all of these passages is just to say that what appears in the gospels to be a permanent future state for the wicked is really only temporary. This is Talbott's argument.
I can see the appeal of this position. Isn't it interesting, though, that although these ideas have been discussed from the beginning of Christianity they have been rejected by virtually all denominations. I think that this is because the idea that there will be no permanent consequences, regardless of how you live or what you believe, seems to defeat the most central biblical message: "Turn away from evil."
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Talbott's argument is that there is an inconsistent set of three propositions:
quote:
(1) It is God's redemptive purpose for the world (and therefore his will) to reconcile
all sinners to himself;
(2) It is within God's power to achieve his redemptive purpose for the world;
(3) Some sinners will never be reconciled to God, and God will therefore either
consign them to a place of eternal punishment, from which there will be no
hope of escape, or put them out of existence altogether.
He then goes on to show that all three of these can't be true, specifically that 1) and 2) eliminate 3).
My own opinion, though, is that the three are perfectly consistent if you understand the importance of genuine autonomy to God's ultimate purpose, and if you understand the metaphors associated with the biblical descriptions of hell.
Just to expand on this a little, Talbott's 1) does not account for the importance of humanity's genuine autonomy.
God could undoubtedly easily reconcile everyone to Himself if this was not an issue. Similarly, He could have set it up so that autonomy was theoretically possible, but that no resistance ever actually happened. Would that have been autonomy?
Autonomy is important because of the nature of God's purpose in creation, which follows from God's nature as love itself. Love is often understood to have three qualities:
- Love desires to have an object that is not itself.
- Love desires to be joined freely with the object of its love.
- Love desires to make the object of its love happy.
If humans aren't genuinely free to be joined or not joined to God, then God's purpose can't be fulfilled.
Is that worth destroying people to eternity over?
I think that it is, if you understand the meaning of the biblical metaphors associated with hell. The biblical images of hell describe the relative unhappiness of a self-centered and worldly life, compared with a God centered and heavenly one. People aren't punished to eternity, they are simply frustrated because of the impossibility of accomplishing their ends. This frustration, the obstacles that they encounter, and the resulting unahppiness, are what are described as the fires and punishment of hell.
At any point, however, they prefer their situation to a heavenly one because it gives them the opportunity to continue to pursue their goals and desires.
The process is very similar to the situations that many people get into in this world. Many people's unhappiness is self-generated. Poor work-ethics, poor relationship skills, and poor impulse controls lead to unhappy situations. In the next life the temporal causes of these conditions are accounted for and dissipated, leaving only the person's actual freely chosen motivations.
As long as people are free to lead their lives as they choose, some people will inevitably make choices that bring them less happiness than others. All that the doctrine of hell asserts is that some people will use that freedom to make choices that are radically poorer, and therefore radically less happy, than others.
This is the scenario in Lewis' "Great Divorce."
You can say that it is possible that no one will make those choices, or especially that no one will continue to make those choices forever. That would be nice. I don't think, though, that this is a realistic appraisal of human nature.
More importantly, I need to realize that I myself would be quite happy to make choices that please only myself, and which actually do the opposite. I need to realize that this could damage me, and my potential to serve God, permanently. It makes it a serious business. It is entirely different if the consequences are not really essential.
One thing that I wonder about the universalist position is where the dividing line is between eternal punishment, fairly long-lasting punishment in the next life, very short term punishment in the next life, and no punishment at all. Is it possible that all of our selfishness will be immediately dissipated when we rise again after death, and that there is no unpleasantness at all, ever, for anyone?
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?
It's not like any of us actually thinks we're going to hell ANYWAY! We're all sinners. Perhaps we should look at Jesus' teachings first and worry about "the afterlife" after life*. He didn't have much to say about it, did he?
* Which, as the clever ones will have noted, will answer our question without us needing/being able to ask it...
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?
That's how I feel about my retirement in the oh-so-distant future. Not to mention my eating habits and the so-called connection between high-fat diets and heart disease.
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
Perhaps we should look at Jesus' teachings first and worry about "the afterlife" after life*. He didn't have much to say about it, did he?
Heh-heh. ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Orb
Eye eye Cap'n!
# 3256
|
Posted
Fancy being a bit more oblique there on the latter point, Freddy?
Of course, the difference between heart disease and heaven is that believing in heart disease has an observable consequence in the here and now.
--------------------
“You cannot buy the revolution. You cannot make the revolution. You can only be the revolution. It is in your spirit, or it is nowhere.” Ursula K. Le Guin, The Dispossessed
Posts: 5032 | From: Easton, Bristol | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
Sorry Op. I thought you were joking. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.
As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about
- heaven - 34 verses
- Eternal life - 16 verses
- Everlasting life - 15 verses
- Hell - 10 verses
- Hades - 4 verses
- Our resurrection - 5 verses
Not to mention dozens of other references to judgment, condemnation, being prepared, being forgiven, salvation, blessing, the fate of the rich and poor, and similar topics.
Jesus talks quite a bit about the next life, but it is true that He doesn't say much about what it looks like.
[ 09. August 2006, 00:07: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Freddy, I haven't forgotten you but can't respond just at the moment.
I think you are putting forward some very interesting points which I want to engage with.
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Soror Magna
Shipmate
# 9881
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ophthalmos:
I don't think that heaven and hell are worth bothering thinking about. No one knows for sure, so why spend time worrying about it either way?
It's not like any of us actually thinks we're going to hell ANYWAY!
Of course not! But THOSE people.... OliviaG
--------------------
"You come with me to room 1013 over at the hospital, I'll show you America. Terminal, crazy and mean." -- Tony Kushner, "Angels in America"
Posts: 5430 | From: Caprica City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Freddy:
[QB] Sorry Op. I thought you were joking.
Good point about the consequences of a high-fat diet.
As for Jesus, I thought that almost all of His statements were about heaven and how to get there, not to mention avoiding hell and its unpleasantness. As far as explicit statements go, here is a quick, and not very accurate, count of Jesus' statements about
- heaven - 34 verses
- Eternal life - 16 verses
- Everlasting life - 15 verses
- Hell - 10 verses
- Hades - 4 verses
- Our resurrection - 5 verses
Not to mention dozens of other references to judgment, condemnation, being prepared, being forgiven, salvation, blessing, the fate of the rich and poor, and similar topics.
Jesus talks quite a bit about the next life, but it is true that He doesn't say much about what it looks like.
Freddy, in reading your previous posts I get the impression that you see the concept of Hell as a metaphor for what is basically bad 'karma.' Is this the impression you intend? If so is heaven the opposite?
I ask because I'm essentially a literalist since simplicity seems the clear route to faith for me. The apparent anomalies one does find in scripture are in my belief and experience, paradoxical but not irreconcilable.
I'm not denying there is metaphor in the scripture but it seems to me that it is clearly signalled and that you can't read something figuratively, or as allegory without good textual justification.
I've noticed for instance elsewhere that folk regard the story of lazarus and the rich man as a parable. To me there is little evidence for it being such and so I read it literally. ie There is a bloke in Sheol right now who had words with Abraham from the other side of a great gulf in the nether regions of sheol..
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Freddy, in reading your previous posts I get the impression that you see the concept of Hell as a metaphor for what is basically bad 'karma.' Is this the impression you intend? If so is heaven the opposite?
Jamac, maybe sort-of, in the sense that heaven and hell are actually present realities in our lives.
Our satisfaction and peace in this life depend on the same foundation as they do in the next life. Fundamentally, if we are self-centered and materialistic we will not have the satisfaction and peace that we will experience if we are genuinely caring people.
Unfortunately, the perception of the results of these foundational qualities is clouded by the events and circumstances of this world - so that a life of comfort, wealth, and ease can mask unhappiness. By contrast a life of hardship, misfortune and deprivation can mask the inner joy of heaven.
In the next life, the masking effects of this material world are dissipated, and things appear more and more as they really are. So I see heaven and hell as real places, where people go after they die. Life goes on in the afterlife, and people do what they do, with good results in heaven, and bad ones in hell.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I ask because I'm essentially a literalist since simplicity seems the clear route to faith for me. The apparent anomalies one does find in scripture are in my belief and experience, paradoxical but not irreconcilable.
That is fine with me. I agree that simplicity is the clear route to faith.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I'm not denying there is metaphor in the scripture but it seems to me that it is clearly signalled and that you can't read something figuratively, or as allegory without good textual justification.
I understand. I, on the other hand, think that Scripture is nothing but a series of magnificantly brilliant metaphors, which describe repeatedly and in detail the way to heaven, the purpose of the Incarnation, and the spiritual history of humanity.
These metaphors are marked by a flawless, internally consistent symmetry, much of which is innately understood by people who love the Bible and read it with an eye to doing God's will.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
I've noticed for instance elsewhere that folk regard the story of lazarus and the rich man as a parable. To me there is little evidence for it being such and so I read it literally. ie There is a bloke in Sheol right now who had words with Abraham from the other side of a great gulf in the nether regions of sheol..
I somewhat agree. It is not a parable in the sense that it means something other than what it seems to be about - unlike parables like the Sower, which appears to be about farming, or the Pearl of Great Price which appears to be about investing in pearls. Anyone reading those parables easily understands that they are about spiritual life.
The parable of Dives and Lazarus is about the life after death, and about belief in the testimony of Moses and the prophets, and about trusting in riches.
But I have a hard time reading it literally. Do good people literally sit in Abraham's bosom? How could Abraham accommodate so many people? Is there literally fire in hell, so that the people there are literally thirsty? Can they look up and see the people in Abraham's bosom and talk to Abraham? Is there literally a "great gulf" that they can talk over but not cross? The scenario is easy to imagine, it forms a definite mental picture. But it is surely an impossible scenario, not meant to be taken literally.
The message, though, is perfectly consistent with the biblical message:
- There is a life after death.
- Some are happy there, and some are unhappy.
- Don't trust in riches, they can't help you after death.
- Do trust in Moses and the prophets.
- If you go to hell you can't cross the gulf and go to heaven.
- People in this world believe what they wish to believe and act the way that they wish to act - sending one from the dead to each person would not persuade.
Or whatever. These exact messages may be off the mark. But I do think that this is a parable, and that it has these kinds of messages in it.
My opinion, though, is that the heaven and hell that is described in this parable, and others like it, are not so much places as states of being. You don't go to hell and receive punishment. Rather, your chosen desires bring you no happiness, but rather a punishing and fiery state of suffering. This is hell - whether you are in this life or the life after death.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Freddy, I see what you mean. If Abraham had a bosom it would have to be rather a large one! The issue is I suppose how literal and how metaphorical should one be. Abraham's bosom for instance seems to me to be a place name so there is a limit to the literalness of my reading here.
You do suggest there is a real afterlife though so metaphor must not be your bosom (sorry) bottom, line.
Does it really come down to agreed rules of reading? Literary theory in other words. If that is the case it's a wonder any of us are ever on the same page. The more you see text as only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission the more confusion and cross-purposes will abound.
I can suggest for instance a reading of Shakespeare's play Henry IV part one, for instance, that is stand alone. In that case, the King is in the right. Or, I can read it in the light of the previous play Richard II in which case the King is a 'might is right' merchant and deserves to be deposed and the prince, who becomes Henry V in a later play, has no legitimate throne.
The text thus becomes non objective. It is only one element of a variety of factors that conspire to create meaning, others being the audience's previous knowledge, or the author or even the mores of the times. It is thus free for all to bring in their premises, stipulations and preconceptions however well grounded or not. The consequence is we can never objectively know anything.
I prefer not to see the Bible in this way though I can see any other text this way. The difference being that if it is God-breathed, then there is objective security if we discern the way to read it.
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Does it really come down to agreed rules of reading? Literary theory in other words. If that is the case it's a wonder any of us are ever on the same page. The more you see text as only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission the more confusion and cross-purposes will abound.
Jamac, this is a very good point. I guess it does come down to agreed rules of reading. Isn't that, to some extent anyway, what denominational differences are all about?
I wouldn't say, though, that this means that text is only one ingredient in the transmission of meaning rather than the medium of that transmission. The text is the medium of transmission, but all texts need to be understood and interpreted.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
The text thus becomes non objective. It is only one element of a variety of factors that conspire to create meaning, others being the audience's previous knowledge, or the author or even the mores of the times. It is thus free for all to bring in their premises, stipulations and preconceptions however well grounded or not. The consequence is we can never objectively know anything.
I wouldn't say that the text becomes non-objective. But it does depend on agreed-upon rules of reading.
To my mind Jesus offered a model of this when He explained the Parable of the Sower. He interpreted each scenario in that parable using a simple formula in which worldly things stand for spiritual ones. His explanation is so obvious that it barely needed explaining - like pointing out that darkness means ignorance and sin, and that light means its opposite. Nevertheless, He explained both the rudiments of the system and also the rationale behind using parables instead of plain language.
This certainly opens the way for people to bring their premises, stipulations and preconceptions, however well-grounded or not. It doesn't have to be this way, though. A denominational interpretation that is both self-consistent and consistent with all biblical teachings can head that off. The important thing is to see any individual statement as only a piece of a larger interlocking puzzle. Its valid interpretation depends on the extent to which it is understood in the context of the whole.
So I agree that an objective understanding is the goal, and that if people interpret willy-nilly then we can never objectively know anything. I think that we can objectively know if we can agree on the rules of reading. In my experience this works beautifully within denominations. It is understandably more problematic in an ecumenical setting.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
The thing about the Rich Man and Lazarus not being a parable, I find that quite odd.
Jesus sets out speaking to the crowd, he begins speaking to them in parables. In this same dialogue he gives :
The parable of lost coin
then
The parable of the lost sheep
then
The parable of the prodigal son
then
The parable of the unjust administrator
then
he suddenly stops speaking in parables and gives a warning to people that if they are rich, they will go to hell and if they are poor they will go to heaven (thus making a mockery of all this faith and good works business).
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
then
he suddenly stops speaking in parables and gives a warning to people that if they are rich, they will go to hell and if they are poor they will go to heaven (thus making a mockery of all this faith and good works business).
Yes, that would be odd. I guess it's just that we don't usually hear the parable in context.
It has always also seemed strange to me that people have often taken this parable as saying that the rich go to hell and the poor to heaven. That would, I agree, make a mockery of all the faith and good works business. It seems more consistent to read Dives' riches as symbolic of the love of riches and luxury, and Lazarus' poverty as symbolic of those who are "poor in spirit," that is, who look to God and are aware of their own inadequacy.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
There is a very exact meaning of this parable I think. It's don't believe that it's about the afterlife at all. I could be wrong of course - but I think it would be very odd to try and take this as a literal story when considering it's context.
In Mathew it says Jesus only spoke in parables to the multitude :
"All these things spoke Jesus unto the multitudes IN PARABLES and without a parable spoke he not unto them. That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying, ‘I will open my mouth in parables; I will utter things which have been kept secret from the foundation of the world.’"
Matthew 13:34–35
N.T. Wright, the Bishop of Durham recently said he thought this was a parable about Israel and the gentiles, check out this article for a full study of it :
http://www.askelm.com/doctrine/d030602.htm
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
John, thanks for the link to N.T. Wright's explanation. Very interesting.
The idea that Jesus did not mean the parable to indicate anything about the afterlife seems farfetched to me, but it is surely a possibility. I do agree that it is very symbolic of a judgment on Israel and Judah, and that Lazarus represents the gentiles.
I certainly agree, also, that it is a parable.
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
John Spears
Shipmate
# 11694
|
Posted
That link isn't actually N.T. Wright, It Dr. Ernest Martin - Wright only commented briefly, but said similar things.
The thing about the five brothers is surely the most interesting facet of the whole tale, is five significant? I think so.
"Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and Judah and the Rich Man each had "five brethren." Not only that, the five brothers of the parable had in their midst "Moses and the prophets" (verse 29). The people of Judah possessed the "oracles of God" (Romans 3:1–2). Though the Rich Man (Judah) had been given the actual inheritance of Abraham’s blessings (both spiritual and physical), Christ was showing that he had been unfaithful with his responsibilities. When the true inheritance was to be given, Judah was in "hades" and "in torment" while Lazarus (Eleazar, the faithful steward) was now in Abraham’s bosom. He was finally received into the "everlasting habitations" (verse 9)."
Dr. E Martin
Posts: 140 | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by John Spears:
The thing about the five brothers is surely the most interesting facet of the whole tale, is five significant? I think so.
I agree. If you look at other places where the number five comes up, there is often a similar context.
As I see the examples, five is a number that seems to stand for the amount of good that is left or the amount of evil that is left. It has the implication of there being few remaining, or of being defeated, but it also can have the opposite implication that great things can be accomplished by a few.
Examples of five in the sense of the evil that remains, or of a negative and failing state: - The five kings of the Amorites that attack Gibeon and are defeated by Joshua. Joshua 10
- The five lords of the Philistines. I Samuel 6
- The five men of the failing tribe of Dan who took Micah’s idols. Judges 18
- The number that will frighten you if you are unfaithful – “At the threat of five you shall flee.” Isaiah 30:17
- The number of foolish virgins. Matthew 25:2
- The number of husbands the Canaanite woman had. John 4:18
- The number of kings who have fallen. Revelation 17:10
Examples of five in the sense of the few good that remain who can overcome evil or sustain the rest:
- The five golden tumors and five golden mice that was the Philistines trespass offering. 1 Samuel 6:4
- David’s five smooth stones that he gathered to attack Goliath. 1 Samuel 17:40
- The five wise virgins. Matthew 25:2
- The five loaves that Jesus used to feed five thousand men. Matt. 14:15-21; Mark 6:38 seq.; Luke 9:12-17; John 6:5-13
Dives five brothers fit right into this series because they remain in the world, are apparently wicked, and need to be reformed.
I think that the message about Israel's situation that Dr. Martin gives is a very good analysis of the parable also.
[ 18. August 2006, 13:12: Message edited by: Freddy ]
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jamat
Shipmate
# 11621
|
Posted
Good stuff here John and Freddy. Useful for me anyway as I have a message to prepare on this.
One reason I don't think it is a parable is that it uses a name. No other parable Jesus spoke seems to do this.
Also.. The context of all of the previous parables, beginning with the lost sheep, is to suggest God's attitude to the needy is far different to that of the Pharisees who taught (at least some of them) a health and wealth gospel viz that wealth was a sign of blessing. Thus the Lazarus and rich man story, has an outcome that would have affronted them. as it is opposed to their own teaching.
Another interesting point is that this story comes chronologically (according to A.T. Robertson's 'A Harmony of the Gospels,' ed 1950 originally 1922) not too long before a guy named Lazarus is actually raised from death by Jesus. This he called a 'sign of Jonah' and was to be his last public sign to affirm his credentials as messiah. The evidence for the chronological point is that of the gospel writers, only Luke ever claims chronlogical order in Luke 1:3
--------------------
Jamat ..in utmost longditude, where Heaven
with Earth and ocean meets, the setting sun slowly descended, and with right aspect
Against the eastern gate of Paradise. (Milton Paradise Lost Bk iv)
Posts: 3228 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Freddy
Shipmate
# 365
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
One reason I don't think it is a parable is that it uses a name. No other parable Jesus spoke seems to do this.
Jamac, I like what you are saying in most of this post, but this first point makes me wonder what you think a parable is and what this story is by comparison.
Are you thinking that this is a story about an actual person that Jesus knows, and whose fate Jesus knows because He is God? Would Jesus have literally seen into the next life and witnessed these events?
I'm not doubting that He could have done this, or that Jesus knew precisely what happens with everyone after death. But I'm thinking that at the very least this is a hypothetical situation that He is describing here. To my mind, this makes it a parable - a story with a meaning.
Most of Jesus' parables are perfectly possible and even likely stories. Many of them could easily have been based on actual incidents - the prodigal son, the good samaritan, the unforgiving servant. They are called parables because they have a meaning beyond what is obvious from the text, not because they may or may not have literally happened. We assume that they are not literally true stories because that seems probable, but it doesn't especially matter either way.
The story of the rich man and Lazarus has the typical elements of a parable. It has a moral at the end about the importance of belief. It features the very poor and the very rich, who seem to be being compared with the pharisees. It has some elements that seem to be literally improbable - actually sitting in Abraham's bosom, having a dialogue between hell and heaven.
I guess the real issue is that those who speak about it being a parable sometimes emphasize that it has nothing to do with heaven and hell or the life after death. This, as I said, seems farfetched to me, since the picture of heaven and hell and the fate of the good and evil in the parable is consistent with everything else Jesus says. But I'm wondering if this is your main point.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Also.. The context of all of the previous parables, beginning with the lost sheep, is to suggest God's attitude to the needy is far different to that of the Pharisees who taught (at least some of them) a health and wealth gospel viz that wealth was a sign of blessing. Thus the Lazarus and rich man story, has an outcome that would have affronted them. as it is opposed to their own teaching.
I completely agree. Riches and blessings are not synonymous, and this is one of Jesus' major points. We need to seek treasure in heaven, not this world.
quote:
Originally posted by Jamac:
Another interesting point is that this story comes chronologically (according to A.T. Robertson's 'A Harmony of the Gospels,' ed 1950 originally 1922) not too long before a guy named Lazarus is actually raised from death by Jesus. This he called a 'sign of Jonah' and was to be his last public sign to affirm his credentials as messiah. The evidence for the chronological point is that of the gospel writers, only Luke ever claims chronlogical order in Luke 1:3
I'm not sure how relevant this point is, or how likely the chronological connection between the two Lazarus' is. I agree that Luke presents itself far more chronologically than the other gosepls. I don't know if we are meant to see this chronology as literally precise.
I have often wondered whether there is any connection between the two Lazarus'. Jesus evidently loved them both. I very much agree with John that they stand for the Gentiles, or those who are humble and needy and long for an understanding of God. I have always been taught this. But I don't know why Jesus would want to portray his close friend as a misreable beggar - except prerhaps to bring some immedicay to the story. Teachers often include present individuals in stories like these.
In any case, Jamac, good luck with your talk. Tell us what further ideas you come up with. ![[Angel]](graemlins/angel.gif)
--------------------
"Consequently nothing is of greater importance to a person than knowing what the truth is." Swedenborg
Posts: 12845 | From: Bryn Athyn | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
