Thread: Purgatory: Rob Bell and Universalism Board: Limbo / Ship of Fools.
To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=11;t=000829
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Mr Nooma's forthcoming book Love Wins has been met with some controversy due to its supposed universalist themes.
Here's an example of the kind of response he's been getting. There's a video preview of the book lower in the page, done in true Nooma style, in which Bell asks a lot of questions, but only alludes to his what his own view might be.
Now, as a universalist myself, I'm quite glad that a prominent Christian is at least raising these kind of questions.
What I don't get is the strong condemnation and phrases like 'false teacher', 'wolf in sheep's clothing' which are being chucked about. When I talked to my minister about my own beliefs (I attend an evangelical Baptist Church), his response was "I disagree with you, but recognise that it's a belief which has been part of the orthodox church since the very beginning, so I have no problems with you believing that." This to me seems very reasonable. But very often universalism is met with strong opposition, and the (in my view unfounded) pronouncement that it is denying the gospel.
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
[ 02. December 2011, 09:07: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
I have my (strong, vehement) opinions on this. I don't think I can express them in terms that are understandable.
But I think it boils down to boundaries, and community, and us, and them, and being afraid of having boundaries that are not solid and well-defined.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
It makes people feel less special if God loves everyone.
It's an ego thing.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
When I find opposition to my (pretty universalist) beliefs I find quite a bit of fear there. I think some people think if they let go of one aspect then the whole house of cards will fall down.
It doesn't ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
<typo city!>
[ 28. February 2011, 11:37: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Um I hate to say this Wood, but you sound rather tribal and as if you have solid, well-defined, black and white boundaries between whatever it is you believe and what you think non-universalists believe. It's a bit scary in fact...
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
More tribal, surely?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
Um I hate to say this Wood, but you sound rather tribal and as if you have solid, well-defined, black and white boundaries between whatever it is you believe and what you think non-universalists believe. It's a bit scary in fact...
Told you I wasn't being terribly coherent.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
More tribal, surely?
More tribal. Yes. My mistake.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I see a lot of 'Churchy' activities as pretty tribal. Hymn singing comes to mind. I'm sure some of it is healthy, but when it comes to exclusive beliefs to keep those who are different out - then it needs questioning imo.
The idea that God loves and accepts people of all faiths and none is not one which all Christians want to embrace. Maybe because it removes a lot of the need for evangelising?
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
It's possible to find reasons to evangelise even if you're not a universalist, although I'd be hard pushed to build an argument from scriptural precedent.
I think the concern about universalism from christian quarters is more to do with how (or when) the issue of individual sin is dealt with (or as the writer in the link from the OP puts it, the wrath of God).
[doh]
[ 28. February 2011, 11:52: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I think that, in matters of religion as in other areas of life, many people operate with a zero-sum mentality...in this case, if God extends an extraordinary amount of grace in order to save an "undeserving" person, then the worth of the grace extended to me, a Real Christian[tm], is somehow diminished.
And if you combine that perhaps unconscious fear with a literalist reading of Scripture -- "Well, if the Bible talks about a hell with everlasting fire, then it must be so" -- well, then Bell is a dangerous heretic and Very Bad Man.
I read some conservative Evangelical handwringing over Bell ("I'm praying for him"...often the pious equivalent of "**** you," IMHO) and my own thought was that I wished all this anti-heretic passion could be channeled toward, say, con-ev nationalist idolatry, "creeping gnostisicsm," the Prosperity Gospel or some other more worthy cause.
[ 28. February 2011, 12:01: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
It makes people feel less special if God loves everyone.
It's an ego thing.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
I doubt that either are generally true. I don't think there's a need a postulate any ulterior motive at all. Just put yourself in the position of someone who is convinced that universalism is false - to him, it must follow that the universalist is telling people who are, in actual fact, headed for Hell, that they are basically safe to carry on in their own way. Is it a surprise that some people might consider universalism to be an irresponsible and dangerous teaching?
Imagine that a friend of yours had swallowed deadly poison, and the antidote was right there in front of him, and some very earnest, very well-meaning person was telling him that the worst which was in store for him was a bit of an upset stomach, and that he didn't need to take the antidote (although the advisor had, personally, often found it to be helpful), wouldn't you feel that some forceful expression of a contrary opinion was appropriate, since you knew that if your friend didn't take the cure, he'd die in agony?
The facts alone (as so perceived) would be enough to cause some people to get angry. It's not necessary to assume that ego, or group identity, or any other sort of bad faith, is behind it.
(FWIW, I'm a hopeful-universalist, and believe that no one is beyond God's mercy, but do not believe that we have a warrant for believing as a certainty that no one will ultimately reject that mercy. I'm not angry about a more thorough-going universalism, because it doesn't (on my view) put anyone at a significantly increased risk of suffering eternal misery. But if I thought that it did, I hope I'd have enough compassion to be at least a little narked to hear it taught).
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I think the concern about universalism from christian quarters is more to do with how (or when) the issue of individual sin is dealt with (or as the writer in the link from the OP puts it, the wrath of God).
This is where I think it's a misunderstanding of what Universalist theology says.
I believe that people will have to answer for their sin, and that it's a lot better to choose to follow Christ now than not to.
The only difference is that I believe that there will be an end to that process; that God's discipline will be restorative - not that people will be annihilated/punished for ever at the end of it.
My main problem with the more mainstream view is that it often claims to be solely based on 'what the bible teaches'. But core arguments (that repentance is not possible after death, and that it's impossible to derive universalism from the bible's teachings) to me are demonstrably not true when you actually look at the bible. It's possible to derive many different teachings of the afterlife from the bible - there are some very 'Universalist' passages in there. And the idea of repentance not being possible is a philosophical construct based on the underlying theology, not something stated in the bible itself.
Criticisms of Universalism seem to boil down to the caricature of "God'll just relent and let everyone in anyhow", which isn't really what Universalism is about.
It was the stigma of that type of caricature that stopped me from embracing Universalism for a long time, which made it hard to be objective when I was looking at the theological arguments for and against it.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
There are conservative evangelical 'heresy hunters' who specialise in criticising the Prosperity Gospel etc, LutheranChick ... but they've not made as much noise of late as they have in the past.
Some of them are so vehemently anti anything that doesn't agree with them that they can be counter-productive.
That said, there are some good conservative evangelical critiques around - but you need to be wary of a particular bias with many of them.
But that's true of anything.
In my experience, the huffing and puffing tends to die down after a wee bit. The big fuss over Steve Chalke and his 'cosmic child abuse' comment over penal substitutionary atonement seems to have died down, for instance, but it was hot a few years back.
There are certain shibboleths that conservative evangelicals will always rally around. PSA is one of them. Eternal conscious torment in hell fire is another ... but its popularity is waning.
You could also add 'sola scriptura', justification by grace through faith, regeneration through faith (rather than baptismal regeneration) and a number of other core issues to the equation.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:
to him, it must follow that the universalist is telling people who are, in actual fact, headed for Hell, that they are basically safe to carry on in their own way.
This is exactly what I mean. It doesn't follow that to be a Universalist means that you think that people are basically safe to carry on in their own way at all. It's based on that caricature, and an oversimplification of the theology.
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
Seems like there are some problems of definition here. I note Justin Taylor in his addition has to pull back (pending actually reading the book ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
) from alleging "full-blown universalism" to (perhaps) annihilationism, and Gamaliel, you seem to be conflating the two, too.
There's quite a lot of theological room between "only the elect" and "all men" being saved.
[ 28. February 2011, 12:36: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
When I find opposition to my (pretty universalist) beliefs I find quite a bit of fear there. I think some people think if they let go of one aspect then the whole house of cards will fall down.
It doesn't
<typo city!>
To be terribly honest, Boogie, I don't find your beliefs frightening. Just sometimes tremendously vague and woolly. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
Though universalism ia very much a minority view within Christianity, it has a long pedigree, and may have been much more widespread in the early Church than it is now. Many of the Church Fathers taught Apokatastasis or the Resoration of All Things. Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
I have been a universalist for over 40 years, but I've pulled back from the extreme position I held when I was younger, not because of the flack it always seems to draw from Christians who seem so sure that many will perish, but because I now acknowledge that it's God's call, not ours. I live quite comfortably with this definition from the Catechism of the Catholic Church:
1058 The Church prays that no one should be lost: "Lord, let me never be parted from you." If it is true that no one can save himself, it is also true that God "desires all men to be saved" (1 Tim 2:4), and that for him "all things are possible" (Mt 19:26).
If we acknowledge that God desires all to be saved, and that, for God all things are possible, I think we can have every confidence in His mercy.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Nice one PaulTH. Thanks
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
The arguments for a "purgatorial" view of hell are not new. William Barclay got himself into a lot of hot water for expressing them forty years ago, but in reality they go all the way back to Origen. What is new is that this time they are being postulated by people who heretofore have been squarely in the evangelical camp, and other evangelicals --- some other evangelicals --- are actually willing to give them consideration.
I've been a wannabe universalist ever since first reading Barclay on the subject back in the '80s. In the end, I think one has to concede it's God's call, but one can certainly hope. If God is love AND God is just, I should like to think that in the end, hell will be emptied.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Though universalism ia very much a minority view within Christianity, it has a long pedigree, and may have been much more widespread in the early Church than it is now.
Which is why when people condemn it as 'heresy' nowadays they don't know what they're talking about. AFAIK it was never condemned in any of the ecumenical councils and has always been within the spectrum of orthodox Christian belief.
(I have a general problem with the idea of calling anyone a heretic anyhow, but even within accepted usage it seems to be a big stretch to extend it to universalism).
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think I am conflating the two, Eutychus, but I can see what you're getting at.
I don't know how 'Orthodox' this is but I've heard Orthodox say, 'We may hope that all will be saved but we can't say for sure that all will be saved ...'
Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on
:
What I mean is that I think there's a lot of theological room between believing there is hope for all to be saved (surely not a belief which is the sole preserve of the Orthodox?) and definite eternal conscious torment in hell for at least some.
Meanwhile, on reflection, I'm wondering whether Wood believes that everyone except universalists is going to hell ![[Two face]](graemlins/scot_twoface.gif)
[ 28. February 2011, 14:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Ok - you're right, Eutychus, this is indeed a view that is not restricted to the Orthodoxy - just as 'orthodoxy' itself isn't (as I keep telling the Orthodox but they won't listen ... ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
).
I don't know whether Wood is saying what you're teasingly accusing him of saying, but I do know that he's had to put with some crap over the years, just as you have done ...
So if he's a bit hellish about some aspects then I can hardly blame him ...
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
From a Protestant perspective, universalism doesn't fit with most common understanding of scripture. Off the top of my head, I can think of three views supported by scripture: damnation of unbelievers, annihalation of unbelievers, and univeralism. If you maintain scripture is infallible, you must reconcile the portions of scripture that support your belief with those that don't. More evidence exists for damnation of the unbeliever than the other two especially universalism. Given the hermeneutic of those who preach eternal damnation, dismissing the evidence for universalism makes more sense than trying to explain away all of the evidence for the other views.
For those who are not Protestant, is is likely that either they are unfamiliar with the historical support for universalism, dismiss it as heresy, or figure that universalism has since been rejected by the larger church. Nevertheless, as I understand it, universalism remains a possibility in both Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox theology. Hans Urs Von Balthasar, not associated with the more liberal wing of the Roman Catholic Church, believed it was a possibility and his view along with Rahner's more well know Anonymous Christian seem to be the standard understanding of the issue for modern Roman Catholics.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Right
Firstly stop simplifying Protestantism, Biblical inerrancy is not the fall point of Protestantism. The holding the bible as supreme authority for what we do never went solely with inerrantist perspective.
Let me remind you therefore that United Churches of Christ, PCUSA and many Methodist are bona fide main line Protestants. Indeed if you want to know what is central to Protestantism you are better looking at them than at your independent evangelical. Very few of their members are inerrantist.
After all John Hick is a Protestant Reformed theologian and you can't get much more liberal than that.
What is more remarkable is the way liberals in the Reformed tradition use the Bible. The question is something Biblical is never far from their minds. Yet their styles and ways of reading the Bible are very, very different from your inerrantist approach.
Their approach is simply:
- here the bible is contradictory
- so what is going on with this?
- what situations does the contradiction arise in?
- what can we learn from this contradictory evidence?
Often here we learn that there is truth both in the judgement of God and in the overwhelming love of God and that these two are not easily contained in neat theological paradigms.
Jengie
Posted by anteater (# 11435) on
:
quote:
What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
As Eliab said . . it's really very obvious.
Some issues are really matters of life and death. This is one of them. I tend to universalism, but with less than full conviction. But you don't want to debate that.
I was told by a friend about a leader of 20th century thought in statistics, who later in life, was co-opted by the Tobacco Industry to lecture on the subject of the non-conclusive nature of the link between smoking and cancer. He was ostracised by most of his community. Is that hard to understand?
Is it hard to understand why people get emotional about abortion? If you really believe that it is killing kids, the emotion follows. And if you really believe that the Unsaved go to Hell, doesn't the emotion also follow? OK I don't share their belief but I understand why they are emotionally engaged.
I know universalists say that they think that non-believers will have a hard time of it. But what are they saying? The love of God will be beaten into them by the punishments of Hell?
In fact, I think universalism goes with calvinism, otherwise you have to ask as did CSL, are they saved "according to their will or against it".
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
I'm not interested in discussing the theological justification for Universalism - we've done that elsewhere. What I'm wondering about is why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church.
It's born out of ignorance. For instance, the page you linked to was an attack on Rob Bell suggesting that he has moved very far away from a Biblical Christianity. What they really meant to say was that he had moved away from their concepts of Christianity and that they were totally ignorant of two thousand years of Christian history, tradition, Biblical readings and scholarship and theology that spelt out a million alternative readings to theirs. Some people genuinely can't cope with a world that is big, often unfathomable and terribly grey. They need a narrow, black and white world, and they spend all their time and energy trying to create it and vehemently locking out anyone who might disagree with them even in the smallest point.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
I'm going to add my two cents' worth, although I know full well this may throw the discussion into the Dead Horses' inerrancy corral.
The question of universal redemption, along with such other matters as abortion, homosexuality, women's ordination, and so forth, is beyond debate with some evangelicals because of their a priori insistence that Scripture is verbally inspired, thus inerrant, and (following the same line of logic) always internally consistent. It seems to me that if you start with that assumption, you have a hermeneutic that pretty much precludes discussion of any of these things ("God said it, I believe it, and that settles it." How many times have I heard that from my con-evo or fundie friends?)
[ 28. February 2011, 15:46: Message edited by: WearyPilgrim ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Some issues are really matters of life and death. This is one of them. I tend to universalism, but with less than full conviction. But you don't want to debate that.
Obviously it's not my call and if you want to debate it, go ahead! I get your 'less than full conviction' - none of us know for sure what will happen, and I think a certain amount of agnosticism is the healthiest thing (certainly healthier than telling someone that you know for sure they're going to Hell).
I'm wondering what will happen with those evangelical church leaders who have lapped up Nooma until now, but will suddenly feel all awkward because Rob Bell's actually a heretic ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
. Are we going to see bonfires of Nooma DVDs lighting up the evangelical sky? Or might this actually provoke some healthy debate?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think that'll happen all of a sudden, Goperryrevs. There have been some concerns about Nooma in con evo circles for some time. The mileage varies, but I suspect those that use the Nooma material will continue to use it and those that don't, won't.
Your place sounds more 'open evangelical' to me - like many Baptist and Anglican evangelical outfits. They'll probably continue to use Nooma. The more hell-fire-and-damnation types probably never took to Nooma in the first place.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
You may be surprised to discover that I am not a universalist! LOL
What I do believe is this:
That God loves the world - not just the church.
That Jesus died for the world - not just the church.
That the Gospel is appropriate, and is Good News for all: young and old, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight (and all the variations ), people of faith, people with no faith.
I believe that eternal life, the forgiveness and grace of God is freely available to all people at all times and that 'whosoever will, may be saved.'
As a Wesleyan/Arminian I believe in 'unlimited atonement' - rather than the Calvinist's 'limited atonement.'
Because the grace of God is universally available, because there is no restriction on who may be saved, because there are no ceremonies that need to be observed in order to receive grace, because there are no 'chosen ones', because there is no 'one correct church', and particularly because none of us can have any kind of claim of grace in order to possess it for ourselves or our kind, I am content to say that no one need be excluded from the Kingdom.
But I also have to say that no one, by the same token of freely accessible grace, can presume to be included either.
Grace is abundantly available but it is not irresistable nor automatic. Grace is not conferred upon the unwilling; neither is it conferred upon those unconscious to the claims of God's love. The grace that saves is not given without repentance, and common grace - the grace that everyone who has ever lived has receioved - is there to lead people, if they follow it, to the point where they may choose to follow Christ.
It is only in the choosing that saving grace is conferred, that the penitent is redeemed and the soul is made a child of God and a part of the Kingdom of God.
The Kingdom is denied to those who refuse the claims of Christ but to those who have heard imperfectly; to those who have been misled by false assumptions or faulty teaching, and, of course, to those who never had the opportunity to hear of the love of Christ, then God's grace and mercy is abundant and they will be judged according to the light they have received.
Why do people reject universalism?
well it has nothing to do with parochialism ro fear of lowering the boundaries.
It has nothing whatever to do with having an inage of a wrathful god who likes to smite sinners.
it has to do with a rounded picture of God who is love unlimited, compassion that is indescribeable and grace that is overflowing and yet who is holy, just, sin-hating and perfect in his dealings with us.
There is, in the heart of the non-universalist, a desire that all men and women should be saved - hence the great catholic and protestant missionery endeavours and the tremendous efforst to evangelise the world; and hyet there is also a great sadness that so many are dying in trespasses and sins, with no assurance or hope of eternal life.
God wants all to be saved - what more could he do than to give his only Begotten Son to a substitutionary, sacrificial, love-expressing death?
But not even God can frogmarch an atheist into heaven and make him love him for it.
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
There will be those, dreadfully and heart-breakingly, to whom the Judge of the Throne will say, 'depart from me for I never knew you.'
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
But I think it boils down to boundaries, and community, and us, and them, and being afraid of having boundaries that are not solid and well-defined.
Oh please. And universalism derives from a desire to be popular in society, a denial of the holiness of God, and thinking sin doesn't matter that much.
Shibboleths aired, how about a serious discussion of why people come to their views without impugning their motives?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Your place sounds more 'open evangelical' to me - like many Baptist and Anglican evangelical outfits. They'll probably continue to use Nooma. The more hell-fire-and-damnation types probably never took to Nooma in the first place.
Oh, we don't use anything new-fangled like Nooma in my church - we're still on 80's editions of songs of fellowship for our music books!
But yes, despite the con-evo core, there's actually quite some variety of theology in our church. And as you can tell the minister is very accepting and inclusive despite being reasonably conservative himself.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
And will all repent after death? I'm not being facetious - but in the only story (I think) we have about what is beyond the grave from Jesus lips, the rich man still seems to hold unrepentantly the attitudes he held in life.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Repentence and faith are also key, but I believe, with some (certainly not all) of the ancient witnesses that the chance to repent will come after death as well as before it.
And will all repent after death? I'm not being facetious - but in the only story (I think) we have about what is beyond the grave from Jesus lips, the rich man still seems to hold unrepentantly the attitudes he held in life.
No, not necessarily. That is why I am a soft universalist. It is possible that some people will not.
Interestingly two of the bible passages most commonly trotted out to prove the existence of torment in the afterlife, the Dives-and-Lazarus story and the sheep and goats in Matthew 25, portray salvation as being works-based and don't mention "faith" at all.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Too late to add:
As St Clive said, "The gates of Hell are locked on the inside."
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
As usual on this topic, you talk a lot of sense mousethief.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It is kind of you to say so. I have done a great deal of reading and studying and praying about this topic.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Right
Firstly stop simplifying Protestantism, Biblical inerrancy is not the fall point of Protestantism. The holding the bible as supreme authority for what we do never went solely with inerrantist perspective.
Let me remind you therefore that United Churches of Christ, PCUSA and many Methodist are bona fide main line Protestants. Indeed if you want to know what is central to Protestantism you are better looking at them than at your independent evangelical. Very few of their members are inerrantist.
After all John Hick is a Protestant Reformed theologian and you can't get much more liberal than that.
interestingly, though, Hick was booted from PCUSA on precisely his universalism. 20 yrs. later, though, we adopted a beautifully worded statement that wouldn't be too far from his pov.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
Exactly.
It's making grace into a zero-sum proposition -- that if God extends what seems like more grace to a less "saveworthy" person, it somehow takes away from the grace of a more "deserving" person.
As Martin Luther said: We are all beggars. This is true. In the final analysis there is no one more "graceworthy" than another.
I also object to the idea that people who are not Christians of record or in a way that is easily discernable by self-assigned salvation police are "rejecting Christ." Did Gandhi really "reject Christ"? No; he rejected Christian dogma and Christian stupidity. Did my son-in-law "reject Christ" growing up in a Southern Baptist milieu where he lived in fear of bullying and beatings from his "good Christian" peers and neighbors because of his sexual orientation? No; he rejects the idiot Christians who have provided him with his primary understanding of Christianity.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
interestingly, though, Hick was booted from PCUSA on precisely his universalism. 20 yrs. later, though, we adopted a beautifully worded statement that wouldn't be too far from his pov.
Interesting indeed, he is still a recognised URC minister, at least I assume so, otherwise he'd have had to resign, although my Dad thirty years ago admitted he would not have been able to get a pastorate. However if I had guessed at his origin I would have said Congregational, normally our more liberal members are, so I would have assumed United Churches of Christ in the US. This despite having his book on Philosophy of Religion as a text for first theology in St Andrews.
Jengie
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I also object to the idea that people who are not Christians of record or in a way that is easily discernable by self-assigned salvation police are "rejecting Christ." Did Gandhi really "reject Christ"? No; he rejected Christian dogma and Christian stupidity. Did my son-in-law "reject Christ" growing up in a Southern Baptist milieu where he lived in fear of bullying and beatings from his "good Christian" peers and neighbors because of his sexual orientation? No; he rejects the idiot Christians who have provided him with his primary understanding of Christianity.
What a good point, LutheranChik. I've always been a so-called traditional evangelical as regards heaven and hell but I've never really examined the universalist position and your post is a good starting point for me to do so. Would God, who is both love and justice, refuse to accept into eternity with himself those who have been given such a distorted view of what he is like? ![[Confused]](confused.gif)
Posted by Twangist (# 16208) on
:
I'm suprised that no-one's mentioned John Stott's Annihilationism yet.
ISTM that Rob Bell and Steve Chalke attract controversy in this way because they are espousing (as far as we can tell - Bell's latest product isn't out yet) non-evo positions from inside the evo community and attempting to justify them in an evo way.
I've certainly come across Bell and others being described as "neo-liberals".
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Antipathy to universalism ? It's because mandatory, compulsory universalism is impossible. As impossible, as meaningless as any other form of predestination. Both extremes predicated on a sub-sophomoric understanding of the omni-attributes of God which that lovable heresiarch Augustine infected the West with.
But it's mainly not due to that rational objection but due to psychotic fear in depraved damnationists. Like Augustine. Like all of us at sime stage of our development.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The attitude, prevalent in school sports' days that 'all must win a prize' only destroys the concepts of grace, justice, mercy, repentance and faith in the heart of the Gospel.
"All must" and "all shall" aren't the same thing. How does it destroy grace for God to extend it to all? How does it destroy justice, when Christ has died for us? How does it destroy mercy to extend it to all?
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
Could you quote a source for this please?
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I'm suprised that no-one's mentioned John Stott's Annihilationism yet.
ISTM that Rob Bell and Steve Chalke attract controversy in this way because they are espousing (as far as we can tell - Bell's latest product isn't out yet) non-evo positions from inside the evo community and attempting to justify them in an evo way.
I've certainly come across Bell and others being described as "neo-liberals".
Yes. As I "lefty-evo" myself I recognize it well. I suppose it's common in every group: when an outsider happens to agrees with you (e.g. a non-evo lefty) you embrace them eagerly, and willingly overlook the differences. But when an insider breaks ranks to disagree on a single key issue (e.g. universalism, gay rights, etc.) they are vilified as if they were the illegitimate spawn of Lucifer's drunken one-night stand.
Bell is in good company: Jim Wallis, Tony Campolo, Ron Sider, Glen Stassen will gladly welcome him to the club.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
Christian tradition pretty much unanimously affirms that there is one human being who has definitely gone to Hell.
He came back.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
Interestingly, no such slackers appear anywhere in the story. Perhaps that's because no one ever turns down the offer when it's given by the master himself (as opposed to the rumors of work sometimes bandied about by less reliable representatives). Who knows? All I know is that the Storyteller doesn't seem to imagine such a circumstance.
[ 28. February 2011, 23:06: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Someone I know once told a story about that once.... had something to do with a vineyard and some workers hired at different times of the day....
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
Interestingly, no such slackers appear anywhere in the story. Perhaps that's because no one ever turns down the offer when it's given by the master himself (as opposed to the rumors of work sometimes bandied about by less reliable representatives). Who knows? All I know is that the Storyteller doesn't seem to imagine such a circumstance.
Well, that's one view. Another equally possible view is that any such slackers are simply not relevant to the point that the Storyteller is trying to convey. If the point of the story is that it doesn't matter how long your period of service is, then people without any service at all are not part of the issue at hand.
There are OTHER stories in the Gospels that seem to convey that not everyone is going to the wedding feast, for example. Or that they will be thrown out.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I'm suprised that no-one's mentioned John Stott's Annihilationism yet.
I think that is where a lot of the confusion comes from. Stott believes in hell as conscious torment, just that it is not eternal, it ends. However, ISTM, there is a huge difference between that POV and annihilationism which is that some people simply cease to exist at death.
The problem comes because both views often get called Annihilationist. Then, in a lot of circles, the rather lazy argument goes something like this - 'well, if John Stott is an Annihilationist then Annihilationism must be okay' - and then any form of Annihilationism is smuggled in.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note Justin Taylor in his addition has to pull back (pending actually reading the book )
This is what bothers me most of all about this.
Publishers love to stir up a storm in order to promote a book and the web makes it too easy for people to engage in this manufactured fight without even having read the book yet.
A plague on both your houses.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
I don't recall those being part of the story. As such, shoehorning them into the story is a hunka-hunka burnin' eisegesis. You will have to find another parable to make that point, if you can.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To be terribly honest, Boogie, I don't find your beliefs frightening. Just sometimes tremendously vague and woolly.
You are right - I don't express myself brilliantly and I know none of the jargon - but my beliefs are deeply thought through and held so they are not in the least woolly.
So don't patronise me, please.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are OTHER stories in the Gospels that seem to convey that not everyone is going to the wedding feast, for example. Or that they will be thrown out.
This is what I find strange though. Almost all our imagery for Hell comes from the gospels (and revelation). Jesus was well known for speaking figuratively, but even if we assume that he was speaking literally, then Hell isn't going to be full of 'sinners'; it will be full of Pharisees, full of religious people. They're the ones whom Jesus routinely condemns in the gospels (and in the story you quoted). Maybe the fact that the bible is mostly read by religious people means that we colour our reading to skip, or reinterpret this.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Good outline of Arminianism, Mudfrog, but I suspect that you mean prevenient grace where you say common grace, and that the bit about prizes comes not from school sports days, but from Lewis Carroll's Dodo: "Everybody has won, and all must have prizes".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
But what about the ones that were never hired at ANY time in the day, possibly because they turned down the job?
I don't recall those being part of the story. As such, shoehorning them into the story is a hunka-hunka burnin' eisegesis. You will have to find another parable to make that point, if you can.
Already done in a post not far above yours.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are OTHER stories in the Gospels that seem to convey that not everyone is going to the wedding feast, for example. Or that they will be thrown out.
This is what I find strange though. Almost all our imagery for Hell comes from the gospels (and revelation). Jesus was well known for speaking figuratively, but even if we assume that he was speaking literally, then Hell isn't going to be full of 'sinners'; it will be full of Pharisees, full of religious people. They're the ones whom Jesus routinely condemns in the gospels (and in the story you quoted). Maybe the fact that the bible is mostly read by religious people means that we colour our reading to skip, or reinterpret this.
How is that relevant to the point at hand, exactly? Surely a Universalist view would mean that the Pharisees and religious people will be going to heaven as well.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
Could you quote a source for this please?
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopaedia of Religious Knowledge is probably the source for this. A bit long in the tooth, maybe, but I haven't seen any compelling evidence refuting the basic claim, and the fact that the Emperor Justinian, who had his own political axes to grind, had to jump through hoops to try to get universalism anathematized in the 6th century rather suggests that it was, at least in the east, at minimum a significant minority view.
[ 01. March 2011, 08:44: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Twangist:
I'm suprised that no-one's mentioned John Stott's Annihilationism yet.
I think that is where a lot of the confusion comes from. Stott believes in hell as conscious torment, just that it is not eternal, it ends. However, ISTM, there is a huge difference between that POV and annihilationism which is that some people simply cease to exist at death.
The problem comes because both views often get called Annihilationist. Then, in a lot of circles, the rather lazy argument goes something like this - 'well, if John Stott is an Annihilationist then Annihilationism must be okay' - and then any form of Annihilationism is smuggled in.
Well, strictly speaking, only views of the "Stott-like" variety should be labelled "annihilationist". The idea that the wicked cease to exist at death is more properly called "conditional immortality" (effectively the Jewish understanding) and in my experience is commonly held amongst those Open Evos who don't admit to universalist leanings. Whilst accepting it is Stott's view, I don't think annihilationism is any where near so commonly believed as CI. I refer you to ken of this parish as to the unsatisfactoriness of annihilationism.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To be terribly honest, Boogie, I don't find your beliefs frightening. Just sometimes tremendously vague and woolly.
You are right - I don't express myself brilliantly and I know none of the jargon - but my beliefs are deeply thought through and held so they are not in the least woolly.
So don't patronise me, please.
To be honest (again), the main reason I replied was because the idea that the reason for people to disagree with you was 'fear' also came across as rather patronising.
Why on earth would I be afraid of other people going to heaven along with me? To borrow terminology already used, I don't think it's a zero sum game. I don't think that if someone else gets a spot that means that I might lose mine. It's not a case of 144,000 seats and I just gave up mine by converting someone.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are OTHER stories in the Gospels that seem to convey that not everyone is going to the wedding feast, for example. Or that they will be thrown out.
This is what I find strange though. Almost all our imagery for Hell comes from the gospels (and revelation). Jesus was well known for speaking figuratively, but even if we assume that he was speaking literally, then Hell isn't going to be full of 'sinners'; it will be full of Pharisees, full of religious people. They're the ones whom Jesus routinely condemns in the gospels (and in the story you quoted). Maybe the fact that the bible is mostly read by religious people means that we colour our reading to skip, or reinterpret this.
How is that relevant to the point at hand, exactly? Surely a Universalist view would mean that the Pharisees and religious people will be going to heaven as well.
It's relevant both for Universalists and non-Universalists (and to clarify, my own viewpoint; I'm a soft-universalist like mousethief. I don't know that all will be saved, but I hope for it, and I think that given the infinite nature of eternity it probably happen. I certainly don't think the possibility is excluded in scripture or reason).
For non-Universalists, to borrow Jesus' imagery of sheep and goats, the people that often get put into the 'sheep' category aren't the same people that Jesus seems to put in that category (I'm talking wider than what he says in just that one parable by the way - more looking at his attitude throughout his whole ministry). So if we derive whole theologies about who gets saved and who doesn't, then we'd better be very careful.
For the Universalist, as I've already said a number of times, it's not just about "getting into heaven". Judgement still comes, and if the people that Jesus judged most harshly are the people who are like us, then we'd better look very carefully at ourselves.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
There are OTHER stories in the Gospels that seem to convey that not everyone is going to the wedding feast, for example. Or that they will be thrown out.
This is what I find strange though. Almost all our imagery for Hell comes from the gospels (and revelation). Jesus was well known for speaking figuratively, but even if we assume that he was speaking literally, then Hell isn't going to be full of 'sinners'; it will be full of Pharisees, full of religious people. They're the ones whom Jesus routinely condemns in the gospels (and in the story you quoted). Maybe the fact that the bible is mostly read by religious people means that we colour our reading to skip, or reinterpret this.
How is that relevant to the point at hand, exactly? Surely a Universalist view would mean that the Pharisees and religious people will be going to heaven as well.
It's relevant both for Universalists and non-Universalists (and to clarify, my own viewpoint; I'm a soft-universalist like mousethief. I don't know that all will be saved, but I hope for it, and I think that given the infinite nature of eternity it probably happen. I certainly don't think the possibility is excluded in scripture or reason).
For non-Universalists, to borrow Jesus' imagery of sheep and goats, the people that often get put into the 'sheep' category aren't the same people that Jesus seems to put in that category (I'm talking wider than what he says in just that one parable by the way - more looking at his attitude throughout his whole ministry). So if we derive whole theologies about who gets saved and who doesn't, then we'd better be very careful.
For the Universalist, as I've already said a number of times, it's not just about "getting into heaven". Judgement still comes, and if the people that Jesus judged most harshly are the people who are like us, then we'd better look very carefully at ourselves.
I agree with all of that, but I still don't think that it's at all relevant to the general question of Universalism vs non-Universalism.
I know I've not said anything about the identity of those not going to heaven. I just think there's a fair amount of work to be done to explain away the numerous references in the gospels to being thrown out, or locked out, and wailing and gnashing of teeth and so forth.
I would have to label myself as a soft theoretical Universalist or something. I might like everyone to be saved, but I find it hard to be comfortable with any kind of expectation of that result with passages of the kind I've just described.
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
To follow on from that, goperryrevs, I'd be genuinely interested in anything you can point to, Biblically speaking, to indicate that the weeping and gnashing of teeth would be restorative as you described on the first page of this thread.
Because as far as I can see, weeping and gnashing of teeth is basically the last thing any of the stories ever say about these people (whoever 'these people' might be).
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
There is, in the heart of the non-universalist, a desire that all men and women should be saved.
This has always seemed so obvious to me as to go without saying. But seeing the response of a lot of evangelicals to what they think Rob Bell's book is likely to be saying, it almost seems as if there is an equally strong desire that at least SOME men and women should be lost. It's the anger at the mere idea that God might find a way to save everyone, that puzzles me.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I agree with all of that, but I still don't think that it's at all relevant to the general question of Universalism vs non-Universalism.
Ok, as I said in the OP, that wasn't my focus, but I guess it's unavoidable. It's relevant in that as far as I know, there isn't a doctrine that teaches that religious people go to Hell. The people that go to Hell are either unbelievers or sinners (or a combination of both). All Christians* believe that the ultimate decision lies in Jesus' hands. Yet Jesus himself accepted sinners and criticised the religious people. The first step in acknowledging the case for Universalism is acknowledging that we don't actually know from scripture who will get saved and who won't. Despite many asserting that the Scriptures are crystal-clear, there are a number of seemingly contradictory ways that people get judged, that can't be happily combined into one easy package. People are judged (directly by Jesus) on their belief, on their works, on whether they judge others or not, on their hypocrisy, and so on.
So if the non-universalist theories that exist aren't actually that compatible with Scripture, then it might be a good idea to look at why that might be the case.
This is just the beginning of the argument, the whole of which I simply don't have time to go into at the moment, but hopefully that gives you an idea why it is relevant.
If I could get one message across it's this: that for almost any belief you have about the afterlife (and that most definitely includes the more mainstream ones), there will be scriptures that back it up, and scriptures that appear to contradict it. It is not just Universalists that have to 'explain away' problem passages. Everyone has to do that. The question is who makes best sense of the whole, and my answer to that is that the soft Universalist position makes the best sense of scripture.
* A dangerous phrase if ever there was one, since there's very little we all agree on.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I know I've not said anything about the identity of those not going to heaven. I just think there's a fair amount of work to be done to explain away the numerous references in the gospels to being thrown out, or locked out, and wailing and gnashing of teeth and so forth.
I would have to label myself as a soft theoretical Universalist or something. I might like everyone to be saved, but I find it hard to be comfortable with any kind of expectation of that result with passages of the kind I've just described.
The very simple and short answer is that just because someone is thrown out, it doesn't mean that they can never come back.
Our courts judge people and condemn them to prison. When they have served their punishment, society deems that they have 'paid' for their crimes, and they are once again free.
Now I don't think that Hell works in that way. I don't think it's about punishment; it's about discipline, self-revelation and ultimately restoration. But that someone can be judged and condemned doesn't mean that they can't be restored, even in our finite world. I find it strange that people struggle so much with exactly the same concept in an infinite world.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
I agree with all of that, but I still don't think that it's at all relevant to the general question of Universalism vs non-Universalism.
Ok, as I said in the OP, that wasn't my focus, but I guess it's unavoidable. It's relevant in that as far as I know, there isn't a doctrine that teaches that religious people go to Hell.
Really? This is what I believe, and most of the Christians I know along with me.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
it almost seems as if there is an equally strong desire that at least SOME men and women should be lost.
I think that's because it appears to confirm the existence of free-will. But to me, that's a weak argument.
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
To follow on from that, goperryrevs, I'd be genuinely interested in anything you can point to, Biblically speaking, to indicate that the weeping and gnashing of teeth would be restorative as you described on the first page of this thread.
Because as far as I can see, weeping and gnashing of teeth is basically the last thing any of the stories ever say about these people (whoever 'these people' might be).
I'd love to go into it more, but I don't have much time now. Maybe someone else can take the baton on! In short, when Jesus uses phrases like that he's speaking very figuratively in apocalyptic language that his contemporaries understood, often to make a strong point. When he told his disciples to gouge their eyes out or cut their arms off, he was speaking metaphorically, not literally - he did that a lot.
In terms of the restoration, this is more from the whole thrust of Scripture, the nature of God as revealed in Jesus, and an understanding of salvation as being a process, rather than a discrete status (I'm saved; You're not).
Hope that's useful for the time being!
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Trudy Scrumptious:
It's the anger at the mere idea that God might find a way to save everyone, that puzzles me.
I think it's because if you believe there even might be an eternal Hell and someone is teaching Christians that there definitely isn't and so they don't need to worry too much about people going there - well, I think it's not that puzzling why one might get angry about that.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Christian tradition pretty much unanimously affirms that there is one human being who has definitely gone to Hell.
He came back.
It was Hades, actually.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
There is a form of evangelism which seems to believe that without the threat of eternal punishment, the gospel loses its cutting edge. I've been bothered by it for years. It has always "tasted" wrong to me.
I think in its depths the issue is karma or grace. Grace tells us that, under the mercy of God, folks don't get what their sins deserve. Karma says they do.
I'm in favour of proclaiming and living out grace in every way possible, in so far as it depends on me. In recent years I've become intrigued by the Orthodox views (in so far as I understand them correctly), that Heaven and Hell are in some sense the same place; the eternal presence of God is bliss for some, torture for others, but it is the same eternal presence. Also, the notion that Hell may, ultimately, be empty, after some post-death purging process.
These kinds of theological reflections strike me as a good and helpful way of seeking to come to terms with the intolerable notion of eternal punishment for time-based and therefore limited wrongs (however heinous they may appear). To my fallible mind, Hell is an intolerable doctrine.
But in the end, I don't know what will be. I see the warnings and the hope, and hope that in eternity mercy will triumph over judgement somehow. But as a matter of personal faith-sharing, I've never believed that scaring people into the kingdom was a good idea. Seeing one's own wrongs is about personal conviction, not fear of consequences. "A man persuaded against his will is of the same opinion still".
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The first step in acknowledging the case for Universalism is acknowledging that we don't actually know from scripture who will get saved and who won't.
While I agree with the acknowledgment, I genuinely don't see that it's a step either towards OR away from Universalism.
You could use exactly the same logic to argue that because we don't know from scripture who will get saved and who won't, that perhaps no-one gets saved.
You cannot, by pointing out (correctly) that it's not possible to identify the members of either conceptual class ('saved' and 'unsaved') then go on to make claims that are based on the idea that one of the two classes is empty. Zero is a number of people. And we've just said we don't know how many people are in either class, because we can't identify the members of either class.
I suppose that if you what you mean is just that 'zero' is a possible answer for the number of unsaved then yes, okay, that could be described as 'a step towards Universalism'. It rules Universalism in as a possibility. But at the same time it rules in total failure. No-one got saved, and we all got it horribly wrong. The number of saved is zero.
Either of those possibilities logically flowed from the bare proposition that we can't identify who is saved and who is not.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Christian tradition pretty much unanimously affirms that there is one human being who has definitely gone to Hell.
He came back.
It was Hades, actually.
Indeed, and no one will go to hell until judgment day.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
It's the anger at the mere idea that God might find a way to save everyone, that puzzles me.
Indeed. On another website where the Bell thing was being discussed, I came away with the impression that these people really heart their conviction that God isn't going to save everyone.
I don't know why. I'm a Lutheran, so I don't think that "free will" is all it's cracked up to be -- thus I don't buy the rather bizarre argument that God restoring even the most resistant of human beings at the end of all things amounts to some sort of "spiritual rape," as one exciteable individual described it. ("I believe that I by my own will cannot believe on the Lord Jesus Christ or come to faith in him...") I like to think of myself as a hell agnostic who nonetheless hopes that, in the end, "all will be well and all manner of thing will be well." And I don't think that that in any way diminishes my own faith or desire to share it with others.
[ 01. March 2011, 11:54: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
The really crazy thing about this argument is that everyone seems to be assuming that annihilationism is an intermediate position between unoversalism and hell, when in fact it is a more extreme one. And that rgw udea of a limited period in Hell followed by oblivion is a less nasty form of annihilationism when in fct it is the cruelest idea of them all.
That's just one of the many reasons that there is no point in joining in - other reasons include but are not limited to that old rhetorical scam of claiming that your opponents are afraid to hear what you say to them, and that they have already strted lobbing around that nasty weasel word "tribal".
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The first step in acknowledging the case for Universalism is acknowledging that we don't actually know from scripture who will get saved and who won't.
While I agree with the acknowledgment, I genuinely don't see that it's a step either towards OR away from Universalism.
---
I suppose that if you what you mean is just that 'zero' is a possible answer for the number of unsaved then yes, okay, that could be described as 'a step towards Universalism'. It rules Universalism in as a possibility. But at the same time it rules in total failure. No-one got saved, and we all got it horribly wrong. The number of saved is zero.
That's exactly what I mean, and although it might not seem that big a step for you, but for me it was a massive step. Because of the stigma attached to universalism, the reaction even the idea of it got in the evangelical circles I was in, I never even considered it as a possibility (however much I hoped in the back of my mind it might be true).
But the realisation that it was something that, as you say, is ruled in as a possibility (due to the reasons above), meant that I could actually look at it objectively and reasonably. I was fairly new to the Ship, and started a thread (my first one ever), read up on it, and was delighted to discover that actually the arguments for it were quite strong. It took about a year of mulling it over, but I found I was persuaded, and as Boogie put it, the whole house of cards didn't fall down (as I would have feared in my more evangelical days).
Actually, I've gone through this type of process a few times now - for example, re-evaluating my stance on homosexuality. As a result, I'm much more hesitant to say something's "biblical", because my view on what that means has changed on a number of issues.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
I note Justin Taylor in his addition has to pull back (pending actually reading the book )
This is what bothers me most of all about this.
Publishers love to stir up a storm in order to promote a book and the web makes it too easy for people to engage in this manufactured fight without even having read the book yet.
A plague on both your houses.
Yes. I'm not sure that Bell's going to affirm a throughgoing universalism - I suspect he'll dance around the issue in his thoughtful/annoyingly vague way (take your pick according to taste - I'd go with a bit of both), and end up with an optimistic affirmation of God's love while allowing for the possibility that there might be a few people who absolutely refuse him and so end up in some kind of hell or annihilation.
Publicising the book in terms that strongly suggest universalism is a way of riling up the con-evo crowd to generate a storm of controversy and hence publicity. When the book's published, Bell can then say how sad it is that all those hell-believing conservative types are so judgemental and he's been misunderstood, etc., and comes out looking reasonable and moderate by comparison.
Of course, this marketing strategy wouldn't work if some con-evo bloggers weren't so predictably quick to brand him a false teacher, a wolf and so on.
Personally I think the weight of Biblical witness is against universalism, though I can understand the impulse to affirm it and some of the arguments that can be advanced for it. As for Rob Bell, I'll wait to read some reviews from people who've actually read his book. I liked Velvet Elvis a lot, though I found it frustratingly vague on some issues in places.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
Christian tradition pretty much unanimously affirms that there is one human being who has definitely gone to Hell.
He came back.
It was Hades, actually.
Indeed
Mudfrog agrees with me? ![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Help!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Exactly, the oblivious grave, not in some weird imparsimonious state going back in time to before the Flood or otherwise preaching only to those who died in it.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think that Rob Bells book is going to fly off the shelves when it actually comes out. I will buy a copy! Because he is a good communicator, and I am (now) interested to hear what he actually has to say.
He seems to be another in a long line of people who are genuinely tackling difficult issues, and coming to challenging conclusions. Good for him, right or wrong. At least he is getting people talking.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Isaac, I think you'll find, if you haven't done so already, that it's the Wesleyan strand within Protestantism that resonates most closely with the Orthodox - who seem to have an allergy towards Calvinism for the most part.
This should really be no surprise to either Mudfrog or your goodself. Differences will remain, of course, but I've seen, but not read, a book from an Orthodox stable recently that was drawing parallels between the Wesleyan and Orthodox traditions over a number of issues.
But you probably knew that already.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think that Rob Bells book is going to fly off the shelves when it actually comes out. I will buy a copy! Because he is a good communicator, and I am (now) interested to hear what he actually has to say.
He seems to be another in a long line of people who are genuinely tackling difficult issues, and coming to challenging conclusions. Good for him, right or wrong. At least he is getting people talking.
+1 Especially the bit I've put in italics. I think it's so important for there to be some people who push at the edges of orthodox belief, especially with issues where there is a bit of theological amnesia going on.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
There's nothing orthodox about Augustine's schoolboy predestinarianism.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I was fairly new to the Ship, and started a thread (my first one ever), read up on it, and was delighted to discover that actually the arguments for it were quite strong. It took about a year of mulling it over, but I found I was persuaded, and as Boogie put it, the whole house of cards didn't fall down (as I would have feared in my more evangelical days).
Actually, I've gone through this type of process a few times now - for example, re-evaluating my stance on homosexuality. As a result, I'm much more hesitant to say something's "biblical", because my view on what that means has changed on a number of issues.
Yes, that's what I meant by the 'fear' reaction that I do detect in some people (I'm not using it rhetorically - it's a reaction I've seen). The fear that letting go of an idea and being persuaded towards a more Universalist stance may lead to a 'slippery slope' is one I've often seen in my (evangelical) Church.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
Thanks, Gamaliel, I did know that already. Despite our differences, I do have a soft spot for Mudfrog (somewhere in my back garden, I believe... Sorry, it's an old one, but I couldn't resist it).
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Alter:
I can think of three views supported by scripture: damnation of unbelievers, annihalation of unbelievers, and univeralism.
Can anyone tell me where in Scripture it says that unbelievers are damned eternally? When Jesus talks of damnation, I think He was using a heavy dose of hyperbole, such as plucking out eyes and hating father and mother. Even so, as Mousethief has pointed out, his threats of hell are all works based, ie very Jewish. They say nothing about faith or belief.
There is an arguement that when Jesus spoke these words, they were pre-death and resurrection and, therefore, belonged to the old order which was destroyed by His triumph over death. So where does it specificaaly say that unbelief or lack of faith leads to eternal damnation?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
And again, where Jesus does seem to imply that there is a place of eternal separation from God for certain people -- as has been previously noted, Jesus seems to tie winding up there not with having incorrect belief, but incorrect action -- withholding love and compassion from others. Feeling any cognitive dissonance, my fellow children of the Reformation?
And -- another point: What is the point of eternal torment? And what is the point of it for people outside the faith community? Because Scripture would seem to indicate that the purpose of discipline/punishment for breaking religious rules is restorative; to right the wrong as much as possible, to create contrition in the heart of the wrongdoer and to eventually return that person to the community of the faithful; to mend the broken place created by the sin involved. How does "Go to hell" accomplish those things? What is the point of punishment that has no rehabilitative end in sight? How is God sending someone to hell, for no purpose other than vengeance and/or the divine version of a "final solution" to problem people, any different than any other dictator sending enemies to the gulag or gas chamber or killing fields?
Posted by Beeswax Altar (# 11644) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Alter:
I can think of three views supported by scripture: damnation of unbelievers, annihalation of unbelievers, and univeralism.
Can anyone tell me where in Scripture it says that unbelievers are damned eternally? When Jesus talks of damnation, I think He was using a heavy dose of hyperbole, such as plucking out eyes and hating father and mother. Even so, as Mousethief has pointed out, his threats of hell are all works based, ie very Jewish. They say nothing about faith or belief.
There is an arguement that when Jesus spoke these words, they were pre-death and resurrection and, therefore, belonged to the old order which was destroyed by His triumph over death. So where does it specificaaly say that unbelief or lack of faith leads to eternal damnation?
None if you offer alternate interpretations of what those passages mean. Also scripture doesn't support universalism if you interpret the ones that do as not.
As to works righteousness, it depends on how you interpret scripture. Giving more weight to the synoptics makes a strong case for salvation being connected exclusively with good works. Read the NT as a whole assuming all of it is equally inspired and you get a different picture. The synoptic emphasis on works in no way contradicts the Johannine and Pauline emphasis on faith. Faith leads to works. The true believer performs the good works God has for them to perform. However, good works in and of themselves cannot save because all fall short of the glory of God and the wages of sin is death. Those who give priority to the synoptics will counter that Jesus originally focused on actions and not belief but his later followers changed what he said.
It depends on your point of view.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So where does it specificaaly say that unbelief or lack of faith leads to eternal damnation?
The sheep and goats is, as you say, works-based. And there's a good case for 'eternal punishment' being a poor translation anyhow.
The first passage that came to mind was revelation - the lake of fire where the beast and false prophet are tormented forever. Those whose names are not written in the book of life are thrown into the same fire. But again, getting your name into the book appears to be works-based elsewhere too.
You could say John 3:18, but there's no mention of eternity there, just condemnation.
So I give up. Anyone else?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Beeswax Altar:
Those who give priority to the synoptics will counter that Jesus originally focused on actions and not belief but his later followers changed what he said.
Very true, but it's from John and Paul that we get all the quotes which support universalism. Paul most certainly emphasises faith, but he makes no mention anywhere of hell or eternal damnation. This is because they were writing with the post resurrection experience behind them in which Jesus had conquered sin, death and the devil. Christus Victor! The synoptics deal with the Jewish Jesus, who may have been in a state of kenosis and therefore not omniscient in His human body. Nothing suggests to me that God didn't put all that right on the cross.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I think that Rob Bells book is going to fly off the shelves when it actually comes out. I will buy a copy! Because he is a good communicator, and I am (now) interested to hear what he actually has to say.
He seems to be another in a long line of people who are genuinely tackling difficult issues, and coming to challenging conclusions. Good for him, right or wrong. At least he is getting people talking.
+1 Especially the bit I've put in italics. I think it's so important for there to be some people who push at the edges of orthodox belief, especially with issues where there is a bit of theological amnesia going on.
I am thinking of people like Dave Tomlinson and The Post-Evangelical, who made some very pointed and harsh criticisms of the Evangelical church, and, although he was very substantially wrong in his analysis (maybe not wrong, but blinkered), his challenges made a big difference.
I think Rob Bell is doing something similar - making people actually think and justify their positions. If it makes people discuss and explore what they actually believe about life after death, even if the conclusions are that Rob Bell is wrong, then he has succeeded.
Having seen some (one? Maybe more) of the NOOMA videos, I think he is very good at challenging and poking and pointing to make us think, rather than giving us answers. We like - I was going to say in the evangelical church, but it its also true across other parts of the church too - to be told what the "truth" is. When we are forced to think about our faith, to understand it for ourselves, we react badly, either claiming that they are wishy-washy, because they do not tell us clearly what they believe; or that they are wrong because they are discussing things that someone has told us are wrong.
And it pisses me off when people change their views on people because they write something that they may disagree with, rather than letting challenging words from people they trust challenge them.
[ 01. March 2011, 19:13: Message edited by: Schroedinger's cat ]
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
I don't think Dave Tomlinson was that far off the mark, Schroedinger's Cat. In what respect was he 'substantially wrong'?
His critique of a particular kind of evangelicalism was fairly accurate, it seems to me - but perhaps would have been tempered somewhat if he'd had more contact with Open Evangelicals and some broader CofE, Baptist and Methodist or URC evangelicals when he wrote the book.
The bulk of his criticism was aimed at independent charismatic evos and independent conservative evos ... and the cap pretty much fitted. I know. I've been there.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Years ago a fierce, hard old fundamentalist, the only Christian of all his siblings, suggested to me sadly and wistfully that perhaps God enables us to forget those we loved on earth when we reach Heaven.
There is, of course, a theological tradition that our pleasure will be enhanced by the knowledge of the sufferings of the damned, both because of the joy of knowing what we have escaped, and because of our joy that God's justice and righteousness are being vindicated in the shrieks and writhings of each massa peccata.
This can be found in Catholicism (Aquinas) and Calvinism/Cosmic Fascism (Jonathan Edwards, Robert Murray M'Cheyne).
The fact that such attitudes are now pretty much unthinkable, even amongst conervative evangelicals, raises the sort of question I ask about in the Hankering After Holiness thread: how can theological emphases and attitudes change so radically over generations?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Question all you want. I've met them.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
The fact that such attitudes are now pretty much unthinkable, even amongst conervative evangelicals, raises the sort of question I ask about in the Hankering After Holiness thread: how can theological emphases and attitudes change so radically over generations?
Because change is here to stay. Nothing is static in any other area of life, why should it be so in theology?
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Thanks Boogie; that thought has actually crossed my own mind more than once.
As I pointed out recently in another thread, not only can you not step into the same river twice, but you can't step into the same river once.
From a historical and theological point of view, the issue is not the fact of change, but the why and how and timing of it.
As regards the specific question of acceptance of the thought of the sufferings of the damned, we have to ask whether we have become "better", ie kinder and more humane, than previous generations of Christians, or just less consistent and more cowardly in pushing the scriptural evidence to its logical conclusion.
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere that when it comes to change, our thinking is dominated by technology, in which the latest is necessarily the best; this is not true in areas such as theology and morality, hence widespread "chronological snobbery".
(For what it's worth, my wife is an annihilationist, and I desperately hope she is right, but am not convinced to the point of certainty).
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Question all you want. I've met them.
And I've met catholics who refuse to believe that any protestant is in the church - it doesn't mean that it's official or majority teaching.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere that when it comes to change, our thinking is dominated by technology, in which the latest is necessarily the best; this is not true in areas such as theology and morality, hence widespread "chronological snobbery".
I'm afraid that's one area of St Clive's thinking that I find unconvincing, a sort of post-hoc rationalisation of his attatchment to social conservatism. I don't think it is fair to dismiss the "on giants' shoulders" argument as "chronological snobbery".
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I don't think Dave Tomlinson was that far off the mark, Schroedinger's Cat. In what respect was he 'substantially wrong'?
His critique of a particular kind of evangelicalism was fairly accurate, it seems to me - but perhaps would have been tempered somewhat if he'd had more contact with Open Evangelicals and some broader CofE, Baptist and Methodist or URC evangelicals when he wrote the book.
The bulk of his criticism was aimed at independent charismatic evos and independent conservative evos ... and the cap pretty much fitted. I know. I've been there.
I think the problem was that his critique was of evangelicalism, but the problems he identified were with some portions of the the evos. There were excellent parts of the evos who had the same concerns as DT. The problem is that he was rather blinkered in his perspective. So he was totally right in what he said about some parts of evangelicalism, but lumped many, like me, who would accept his analysis, in with people I would not agree with.
So for someone like me, he was wrong in his analysis. Which is a pity, because I believe his answers were spot on. Looking 10+ years on, much of his assessment has been taken on board by most of the evo church, which has moved the centre of evangelicalism, but not really impacted the right wing who are the ones he was critiquing in the first place.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by Kaplan Corday
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere that when it comes to change, our thinking is dominated by technology, in which the latest is necessarily the best; this is not true in areas such as theology and morality, hence widespread "chronological snobbery".
I'm afraid that's one area of St Clive's thinking that I find unconvincing, a sort of post-hoc rationalisation of his attatchment to social conservatism. I don't think it is fair to dismiss the "on giants' shoulders" argument as "chronological snobbery".
The problem comes when when the snobs jump of the giants shoulders and stand on stilts of their own making.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't think it is fair to dismiss the "on giants' shoulders" argument as "chronological snobbery".
Not fair for things we discover or make up for ourselves, but quite fair for things revealed by God within history.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't think it is fair to dismiss the "on giants' shoulders" argument as "chronological snobbery".
Not fair for things we discover or make up for ourselves, but quite fair for things revealed by God within history.
Is there anything significant "we discover or make up for ourselves" that isn't the result of standing "on giants' shoulders"?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Question all you want. I've met them.
And I've met catholics who refuse to believe that any protestant is in the church - it doesn't mean that it's official or majority teaching.
I'm glad I never implied anything of the sort. Why did you say this?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Question all you want. I've met them.
And I've met catholics who refuse to believe that any protestant is in the church - it doesn't mean that it's official or majority teaching.
I'm glad I never implied anything of the sort. Why did you say this?
I said it because you told Kaplan Corday that you had met the type of people who drool over people burning in hell, after he questioned that assertion.
My point was that, just because you'd met these types of people, it didn't stand to reasion that all evangelicals were like them; I have, as I said, met Catholics who believe Protestants are outside the church - that doesn't mean therefore that all Catholics are like that (unless of course, they are!)
Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on
:
Have to agree with mousethief here: as far as I can see he never claimed that the people he'd met were representative or in the majority.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Kaplan made a claim of the form "There are no X." I responded that I have, indeed, met X.
Why is this so difficult to understand?
Who said all evangelicals are like them? Who said most evangelicals are like them? Who said many evangelicals are like them? Not me. Not anybody on this thread.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
OK mousethief, mea culpa, your inexorable logic convinces me that I engaged in a wild and unjustifiable generalization.
I should have specifically spelled out that I have neither met anyone who was gloating at the prospect of sinners burning in hell, nor read about them, and therefore concluded that this is not a significant contemporary attitude in evangelicalism, but that I am not conversant with the views of all the millions of evangelicals in the world, it is therefore possible that there are some, somewhere, who do in fact hold such views.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
It was nothing.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
A cool clip of the book.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
p.s. I think "Love wins" is an excellent description of Christos Victor atonement theory!. What a clever boy.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A cool clip of the book.
Cool is an interesting description - high on style, low on content was my response.
He came across to me exactly the same as the numpty who put the graffiti on the Gandhi quote - i.e. his response to certainty is certainty (in the video clip at least) without giving any basis for it all.
The message of the video was simple - believe in Christianity because it is cool. (Full Stop. Period.)
If, on the other hand, the video had not been deliberately pitched as an attack on one version of Christianity and then had gone on to ask all those legitimate questions (as just that, questions, rather than accusations) then it might have been quite powerful as a trailer.
What makes me laugh about all this is that people often try to defend Rob Bell as if it is all these nasty conservative who are always picking on him. He can hardly claim to be pouring oil on troubled waters here.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
The message of the video was simple - believe in Christianity because it is cool. (Full Stop. Period.)
Really? I thought the message of the video was "the view of Christianity with which you perhaps are familiar may not be authentic. Read my book to discover an alternative point of view".
Yes, it's a sales pitch, and you can't encapsulate a whole book in a 2 minute video clip, but it seems unfair to label the book as vacuous based only on the guy's style.
[ 03. March 2011, 08:44: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
A cool clip of the book.
Which is typical Rob Bell - lots of questions, lots of issues raised, and ( in this clip ) no resolutions. I cannot fault him on what he says. I am intrigued by what he doesn't say ( and he doesn't say he believes in universalism ). He asks difficult questions, he raised the difficult points, and clarifies them, and then gets criticised for saying things that he hasn't said. He must be a vicar.
And I think the Love Wins title of a section of his work is brilliant. It is Christus Victor ( as you say Evensong ), but without the weight of theological expectation on it. It is starting out with a positive message, and then seeing how we get to it.
Why does the church so hate clean positive messages? Why are we so determined to have bad news as well, and often more prominently? Love Wins means there is a fight, there is some downside, but it is starting with a positive, uplifting message. I like Rob Bell more and more because he goes through the difficult questions, but he always remains focussed on the positive. And he knows how to market a book......
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
Love wins.
What does that mean??
Who or what is love fighting against in order to 'win'?
And in the context of who goes to heaven or hell, are we saying that somehow love wins - overrules - something? And in that case, again, what does love overrule?
Justice?
Righteousness?
Holiness?
If God is just, righteous and holy, are not these thiongs integral to his being and essence as much as love? And is his universe not run on the same lines as his nature - justice, righteousness and hholiness as much as love?
Or are we saying that God is battling within himself and that somewhat schizophrenically, justice, righteousness and holiness are somehow in a struggle with love and the three of them are trying to get the upper hand?
Are we saying that 'love wins' means that in the end the love of God overpowers his (unreasonable and, to post-modern sensibilities, unacceptable) holiness and righteousness that would judge people's sins?
What sort of God is in turmoil within himself?
I cannot believe that this 'love wins' message does the Christian faith any kind of favours because it says
1. That God is inconsistent
2. That some vague, undemanding 'love' is going to say 'there, there, it's OK, I have love for all of us - come on in anyway...'?
The Gospel is that the love of God is as strong as death, that love will outlast faith and hope, that the love of God is broad and high and deep, etc, etc, etc...
But the love of God is seen in contrast with the reality of sin and darkness and the love of God is also vulnerable and can be rejected and ity is in love that Jesus Christ will judge the world and there will be those who are outsiode the love of God through free will.
If God's love 'wins' - i.e. if it overrules, overturns justicem choice and freewill - then it is not love at all. Rather it is self-indulgent jeaous possessiveness that won't allow the object of love to choose to reject that love.
If God's love 'wins' and, in the context of this discussion, unilaterally brings everyone into eternal life (Heaven), that is not love. Love offers itself and hopes for a willing, loving res;ponse.
Love that forces the other party to love it back, to be possessed by it for ever because "Then you'll love me, you'll see!" is no love at all - it's rape.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I don't think it is fair to dismiss the "on giants' shoulders" argument as "chronological snobbery".
Not fair for things we discover or make up for ourselves, but quite fair for things revealed by God within history.
In theory, I agree with this, in practice, I'm not sure we can separate the two. What we are really talking about is not how revelation has changed through the ages, but how doctrine, which is the human response to and understanding of revelation, has changed. The formulation of doctrine is, I think, a process where the "on giants shoulders" principle does apply, (though, of course, the Holy Spirit plays His part too). Once someone has had an original insight, that will, to a lesser of greater degree, change forever how all who follow (chronologically) that thinker, view the unchanging revelation. That thought may be seen as an error to avoid or a truth to be embraced, but from that point on, it is "a different river".
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Mudfrog, I suppose the answer is "wait for March 29th and buy the book, but as someone who I would guess is on the same page as RB, I'll attempt an answer;
quote:
Who or what is love fighting against in order to 'win'?
Traditionally, sin and death.
quote:
And in the context of who goes to heaven or hell, are we saying that somehow love wins - overrules - something? And in that case, again, what does love overrule?
Justice?
Righteousness?
Holiness?
Bell is saying (I suggest) that Jesus is victorious over the power of evil, that is, classic Christus Victor. Love does not win over Justice, Righteousness and Holiness because they are not the enemy. Rather they are themselves different aspects of love. Think of it like a symphony, with those as the musical themes. When you get to the final movement, those themes are woven together, resolved into the meta-theme which is cleasrly identifiable as containing those themes (listen to any movement of Beethoven's 5th, and you are clearly listening to the same piece of music), but is more than the sum of the parts. That meta-theme is love. It follows that, when love triumphs, so do Justice, Righteousness and Holiness.
quote:
Or are we saying that God is battling within himself and that somewhat schizophrenically, justice, righteousness and holiness are somehow in a struggle with love and the three of them are trying to get the upper hand?
As opposed to the scizophrenia of a God who loves justice, but yet condemns an innocent man for the sins of others, who desires that all people be saved, but is quite happy to sent some of those He loves to hell? You tell me which is the scizophrenic God.
quote:
Are we saying that 'love wins' means that in the end the love of God overpowers his (unreasonable and, to post-modern sensibilities, unacceptable) holiness and righteousness that would judge people's sins?
"People's sins" have already been judged on the cross, and found to be less powerful than love (since Jesus was raised). Death has already been conquered. As witnessed by those well known postmoderns such as Gregory of Nanzianus and Origen.
quote:
What sort of God is in turmoil within himself?
I cannot believe that this 'love wins' message does the Christian faith any kind of favours because it says
1. That God is inconsistent
2. That some vague, undemanding 'love' is going to say 'there, there, it's OK, I have love for all of us - come on in anyway...'?
How so? How is God in turmoil against Himself. Surely the view I am espousing is utterly consistent. Each of us is in deep trouble. Each of us is loved by God as a parent loves their child, and each of us is rescued by God from that trouble, at terrible cost. How is that undemanding love, lierally, for Christ's sake? How could we even imagine a more demanding love?
quote:
The Gospel is that the love of God is as strong as death, that love will outlast faith and hope, that the love of God is broad and high and deep, etc, etc, etc...
But the love of God is seen in contrast with the reality of sin and darkness and the love of God is also vulnerable and can be rejected and it is in love that Jesus Christ will judge the world and there will be those who are outside the love of God through free will.
If God's love 'wins' - i.e. if it overrules, overturns justice, choice and freewill - then it is not love at all. Rather it is self-indulgent jeaous possessiveness that won't allow the object of love to choose to reject that love.
Well, freewill would be rather a good thing if we had it, but at the moment we don't. Our will is constrained by many things, amongst them the very law of sin and death that makes us unable to save ourselves, as Paul so eloquently points out in Romans 7. But it doesn't stop there. Ultimately love will triumph, and it's not just God's love for us. There are other passages that describe the transformation that will occur at the eschaton, but perhaps my favourite is Phil 2:9-11 . We may not know the precise mechanism by which this will happen, but the scriptures are pretty clear that the ultimate triumph of God, will occur.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
Love wins.
What does that mean??
Who or what is love fighting against in order to 'win'?
Which has been, since Anselm, the biggest objection to Christus Victor alone, without propitiation, as an atonement model.
But we digress.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I thought the message of the video was "the view of Christianity with which you perhaps are familiar may not be authentic. Read my book to discover an alternative point of view".
Actually this was exactly what I was reacting to.
Those nasty conservatives have managed to stop eating babies for long enough to call him a false teacher. They did so in response to (in your words) being told their gospel is not authentic. I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. (Apart from using euphemisms that is.)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I thought the message of the video was "the view of Christianity with which you perhaps are familiar may not be authentic. Read my book to discover an alternative point of view".
Actually this was exactly what I was reacting to.
Those nasty conservatives have managed to stop eating babies for long enough to call him a false teacher. They did so in response to (in your words) being told their gospel is not authentic. I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. (Apart from using euphemisms that is.)
Well that wasn't quite what your post said. You seemed, to me, to be complaining of lack of content, of style over substance. Well, there's certainly style by the bucket-load, but it was pointing to an examination of his ideas in a biblical context, which is something "conservatives are usually thought of as being pretty hot on (when, of course, they're not eating babies ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
). Now Rob's a big boy, and I suspect he can hold his own in any theological debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss his ideas when all you have to go on is a 3 minute promo video.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Those nasty conservatives have managed to stop eating babies for long enough to call him a false teacher. They did so in response to (in your words) being told their gospel is not authentic. I'm puzzled as to what the difference is. (Apart from using euphemisms that is.)
The most embarassing bit of this whole thing is the way that so many conservative evangelicals seem to spend all day blogging and discussing the views of other promininent Christians. As you said Johnny, it's doing Bell's publicity for him.
Hey, Gospel Coalition: If you really think the book is damaging, stop publicising it to people! Stop blogging and go and spread your own Gospel if it's so much better!
Actually, with that in mind, I should probably stop contributing to this thread! ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
One of my pastorly friends -- who likes Bell -- observes that Bell seems to want to claim as something new and unique the kind of ideas that regularly arise in a typical mainline seminary/divinity school. In other words, "What's the big deal?"
Well, I suppose it is for the con-evos. Seriously, how do they do theology when anyone who dares to vet an idea off the party line gets dogpiled on as a dangerous heretic who's sending souls to hell? Jeebus H.
One wonders how they'd fare in a roomful of rabbis arguing over Torah.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
quote:
Actually, with that in mind, I should probably stop contributing to this thread!
Well, I guess if nothing else this thread has been enlightening in how 'con evo's' (whatever they are) treat one of their own that dares to express and idea even slightly out of the box compartments. Personally I found the video fairly conservative. He really only asks questions, which surely most people ask themselves at one point or another if they care to think about their faith at all.
It's all a little strange to me. For instance, I don't like John Hick - in fact he probably comes top of my theological hate list, but if he's mentioned on a thread I don't suddenly feel a compulsion to dog-pile him and chew away at him like a terrier with a bone.
So what if he's wrong, or to be classed as a heretic. People can make up their own minds on these things, so why feel so threatened by it?
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Well, I guess if nothing else this thread has been enlightening in how 'con evo's' (whatever they are) treat one of their own that dares to express and idea even slightly out of the box compartments.
Such has always been the way, though. Bart Campolo got it a couple of years back for writing a not terribly radical piece on the limits of God's grace; Brian McLaren got it for his take on penal substitution; Steve Chalke, likewise... It happens.
In my experience heresy, however you define it, wherever you draw the line, is generally considered to be more of a threat to orthodoxy than atheism or other religions.
I recall a friend of mine, a few years after uni, telling me how he was told by one of his far more conservative friends that liberals were, quote, "worse than murderers", and that while someone who stabs you can just kill your body, liberals kill your faith forever, the reasoning being that if you're in error, you think you're saved and you're not, while people who are like atheists or Muslims or whatever at least know they're not Christians and might change their minds.
While I don't think many people would express it that way, I don't think the substance of the view is that uncommon either.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
mudfrog - "Love Wins" over the usual bad stuff, not over other aspects of God - righteousness, justice etc. We are not talking about a schizophrenic God, and you seem to be twisting the arguments to show that he somehow has to be.
If you want "Love Wins" deconstructed and explained, it is more like that God's victory, as we see in Revelation, is assured. That one of the most important aspects of God is his love. It is full of meaning, but it makes a positive and pointed statement to start from. It allows you to unpack it in a variety of ways.
So it is Christus Victor, but not as an atonement theology, where it is valid, as one atonement theology among others. Rather, it is a bigger picture than just atonement, it is a summary of Genesis to Revelation. And, IMO, a good one for 2 words.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
[QUOTE]The most embarassing bit of this whole thing is the way that so many conservative evangelicals seem to spend all day blogging and discussing the views of other promininent Christians.
um.... you mean like we do here?
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As opposed to the scizophrenia of a God who loves justice, but yet condemns an innocent man for the sins of others,
Ah, I see...
You are suggesting that it's unjust for God to condemn an inn ocent man for the sins of others....
hmmm
That would only be the case if you are an adoptionist, if Christ wasn't the divine, co-eternal, co-existent Son of God, or if he was, then ionly the man suffered.
Have you never read that God was in Christ reconciling the world to him self?
Have you never read Moltmann's The Crucified God?
Can we rerally suggest that God stands passively by while a man suffers - or, as appears to be the case; God sugfers, experiences death in Christ.
Accprding to Barth, Christ himself is not a man 'sent' and condemned to redeem the world, but is the expression of the eternal self-sacrifial nature and essence of God.
God is both judge and condemned man - in Christ the Godhead substitutes himself for fallen humanity.
There is no 'innocent man' condemned to die for the guilty. According to the Scripture Jesus became sin for us - our whole sinful nature was poured into him as he chose to leave his glory behind and take on the form of a slave and take our nature, our sin, to the cross.
Sunbstitutiionary atonement is not, has never been, about a chosen man upon whom the wrath of gpod is visited in a display of questionable justice.
Justioce and righteousness and holiness cannot be set aside by love. They have to be fulfilled by love/.
Justice demans condemnation and yes indeed, our sins were condemned - punished - on the cross.
But The Saviour clearly said "That whosoever
believes shall not perish but have eternal liofe. He who does not believe stands condemned already."
The tragedy of love in the eternal heart of God is that it can be rejected. If love was automatic or imposed - and if it was imposed with no love returned - then it is no love at all.
The Gospel is clear, salvation is for all, the provision of salvation is for all, but the blessings of salvation are for those who believe.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
As opposed to the scizophrenia of a God who loves justice, but yet condemns an innocent man for the sins of others,
Ah, I see...
You are suggesting that it's unjust for God to condemn an inn ocent man for the sins of others....
hmmm
That would only be the case if you are an adoptionist, if Christ wasn't the divine, co-eternal, co-existent Son of God, or if he was, then ionly the man suffered.
Have you never read that God was in Christ reconciling the world to him self?
Have you never read Moltmann's The Crucified God?
Can we rerally suggest that God stands passively by while a man suffers - or, as appears to be the case; God sugfers, experiences death in Christ.
Accprding to Barth, Christ himself is not a man 'sent' and condemned to redeem the world, but is the expression of the eternal self-sacrifial nature and essence of God.
God is both judge and condemned man - in Christ the Godhead substitutes himself for fallen humanity.
There is no 'innocent man' condemned to die for the guilty. According to the Scripture Jesus became sin for us - our whole sinful nature was poured into him as he chose to leave his glory behind and take on the form of a slave and take our nature, our sin, to the cross.
Sunbstitutiionary atonement is not, has never been, about a chosen man upon whom the wrath of gpod is visited in a display of questionable justice.
I very much agree with all of the above, but I think Christus victor gets us there more clearly than subsitutionary imagery.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
[QUOTE]The tragedy of love in the eternal heart of God is that it can be rejected. If love was automatic or imposed - and if it was imposed with no love returned - then it is no love at all.
The Gospel is clear, salvation is for all, the provision of salvation is for all, but the blessings of salvation are for those who believe.
I don't see any of the above as self-evident, nor as "clear" in Scripture as you're making it out to be. When the Father was loving the Prodigal from afair, while the Prodigal was rebellious and unloving and far from him, was the Father's love "no love at all"??? Indeed, Scripture is full of depictions of God's aching love for a rebellious, unloving people-- God grieves and weeps in a way that cannot be described as "no love at all". Any parent who has loved a rebellious and wayward child can surely understand that this is, indeed, love.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
The Gospel is clear, salvation is for all, the provision of salvation is for all, but the blessings of salvation are for those who believe
No, Mudfrog, Scripture is not clear; hence the variety of atonement theories and afterlife scenarios within Christendom.
Why is this such a difficult and frightening concept -- that different people or faith communities can read Scripture and come to different conclusions about what it means?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Why is this such a difficult and frightening concept -- that different people or faith communities can read Scripture and come to different conclusions about what it means?
It just shows that the idea that Scripture as an independent, objective foundation for theology is dead in the water. I don't find that difficult or frightening, because I knew it already.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
When the Father was loving the Prodigal from afair, while the Prodigal was rebellious and unloving and far from him, was the Father's love "no love at all"??? Indeed, Scripture is full of depictions of God's aching love for a rebellious, unloving people-- God grieves and weeps in a way that cannot be described as "no love at all". Any parent who has loved a rebellious and wayward child can surely understand that this is, indeed, love.
Well indeed - of course the father never stopped loving the son, but that love did not impose, it did not drag the boy back, it did not coerce or restrain the boy from leaving in the first place.
The glory of the story is that as soon as the boy started home the father hitched up his robe and ran to meet him. That is grace, forgiveness and love.
The boy repented (changed his mind) first and all the floodgates of love were released to restore and welcome him home. It's a beautiful story but it assumes the return of the son before restoration is given - even though it's more than the boy could have dared hope for.
I think, despite the need for repentance and faith, that forgiveness and grace is more easily offered than we assume. But we cannot presume on the love of God.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
The Gospel is clear, salvation is for all, the provision of salvation is for all, but the blessings of salvation are for those who believe
No, Mudfrog, Scripture is not clear; hence the variety of atonement theories and afterlife scenarios within Christendom.
Why is this such a difficult and frightening concept -- that different people or faith communities can read Scripture and come to different conclusions about what it means?
I'm sorry, but which Scriptures are you ignoring here? If there is no repentence, no faith, no forgiveness of sin, there is not eternal life.
The Scripture is indeed clear on these things!
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
I question the assertion that there are conservatives out there who are drooling at the prospect of people burning in Hell, and who therefore feel cheated at the thought of universalism or annihilationism / conditional immortality.
Question all you want. I've met them.
Yes. It's a really depressing experience when you do meet them too.
I've met more who are scared and sad and guilty and losing sleep about the thought of their loved ones burning, though.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Whatever, Mudfrog.
(This reminds me of a conversation I had with some frowny-faced neo-Calvinist types on Beliefnet about The Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name -- one of those other "Scripture is clear" issues -- one of whose representatives informed me that he thought I must have some deep-seated issues that would make me question what they had been saying, and that he hoped I'd pray about it. On another day I would have called him out as a pompous, self-righteous asshat...but this was in the context of a serious discusson on the theology of Lady Gaga ![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
, so I just let it slide.;-))
[ 03. March 2011, 14:26: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Whatever, Mudfrog.
(This reminds me of a conversation I had with some frowny-faced neo-Calvinist types on Beliefnet about The Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name -- one of those other "Scripture is clear" issues -- one of whose representatives informed me that he thought I must have some deep-seated issues that would make me question what they had been saying, and that he hoped I'd pray about it. On another day I would have called him out as a pompous, self-righteous asshat...but this was in the context of a serious discusson on the theology of Lady Gaga , so I just let it slide.;-))
"Whatever Mudfrog"?
Is that the end of the conversation?
I say that the bible is clear - quoting a verse - and you deny it's clear. Period?
What happened to discussion and reasoned debate? I could list a number of references that show unequivocally that repentence and faith is needed; that a response is needed.
You might disagree on those and we could have a discussion on them. but you can't just say 'whatever'.
you say the scripture isn't clear - well why is it that the church from day 1 offers forgiveness and absolution? If the Bible isn't clear about the response to the gospel, then why have we taught it for 2000 years. repentence and faith is REQUIRED for eternal life. there is no doubt.
I think you need to do better than 'whatever!
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
Mudfrog, you have missed the point. As far as justice is concerned it matters not a jot whether Christ "volunteered" to die for our sins (which He did), or whether He was the Father's helpless fall-guy. If, on the cross, God was dealing with sin by punishment (which is not, I believe, what was happening), and if Jesus was innocent of wrongdoing, then how could the cross be an act of justice. It would be the innocent being punished for sins that are not His own, which is an act of injustice whether the sinbearer was willing or not. It would be an act of sacrifice, a noble act, an act of love, but it would not be a just act, according to your criteria. So your argument that I am not taking into account God's justice, but you are, is stood on its head.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Have you never read Moltmann's The Crucified God?
Have you? He's a universalist; you shouldn't be reading that stuff. It could corrupt.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
I think you need to do better than 'whatever!
So do I, Mudfrog, but given your own history of disappearing from debates, can you blame her?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Whatever, Mudfrog.
(This reminds me of a conversation I had with some frowny-faced neo-Calvinist types on Beliefnet about The Issue That Dare Not Speak Its Name -- one of those other "Scripture is clear" issues -- one of whose representatives informed me that he thought I must have some deep-seated issues that would make me question what they had been saying, and that he hoped I'd pray about it. On another day I would have called him out as a pompous, self-righteous asshat...but this was in the context of a serious discusson on the theology of Lady Gaga , so I just let it slide.;-))
"Whatever Mudfrog"?
Is that the end of the conversation?
I say that the bible is clear - quoting a verse - and you deny it's clear. Period?
What happened to discussion and reasoned debate? I could list a number of references that show unequivocally that repentence and faith is needed; that a response is needed.
You might disagree on those and we could have a discussion on them. but you can't just say 'whatever'.
you say the scripture isn't clear - well why is it that the church from day 1 offers forgiveness and absolution? If the Bible isn't clear about the response to the gospel, then why have we taught it for 2000 years. repentence and faith is REQUIRED for eternal life. there is no doubt.
I think you need to do better than 'whatever!
C'mon Mudfrog. There wouldn't be people here arguing with you, hell, I wouldn't be here arguing with you, if the scriptures were as clear as you believe them to be. We can all play "prooftext poker" (I'll see your John 3:18 and raise you a I Cor 15:22). And, of course, the specific evangelical doctrines which you collate together under the banner of "The Gospel", has not been the message of the church for 2000 years, or of the whole of the church at any time. What has been universally held is that God, in His infinite mercy and love, has moved in history in the person of Christ, to rescue a broken creation.
[ 03. March 2011, 15:12: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
Okay, Mudfrog...if you want me to invest more time in this discussion...
Going back to the story of the Prodigal Son: As multiple professors and my pastor have pointed out to me, what the prodigal did when he decided to go back to Dad on the farm was not clearly "repentance" in an Evangelical come-to-Jesus scenario. He was acting in his own self-interest -- going back to Dad with a rehearsed speech and hoping he'd get his ancient Palestinian version of "three hots and a cot" back even if it meant a demotion to field hand.
And if you pay attention to the story -- Dad doesn't care what his kid has to say, or why. And when his other son starts playing the righteous-outrage card, Dad ignores him.
So the parable isn't really as clear as you make it out to be, is it?
And -- regarding Christus Victor -- here is a defense of Christus Victor from an Evangelical individual (who used to hang out on a Christian forum that I did as well, which is how I know his theological pov). So the idea that Christus Victor is an idea rejected by real "Bible-believin'" Christians is apparently not true for this Evangelical.
You might want to read it, if you need more convincing that Christus Victor and the soteriological conclusions that may follow from that theory are consistent with someone who takes a high view of Scripture.
Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on
:
Thank you, Lutheran Chik, for serendipitously bringing this up. I've been looking for a source in the Gospels to illustrate that God's love and mercy are not dependent on our own resolves to do right or our own virtue in carrying out repentance in a strict and proper manner.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Moltmanns "The Crucified God" is an an awesome book. Which doesn't mean that I have to believe in universalism, just because he does. For me, the critical point is the com-passion of God with Jesus.
And "whatever" is a far better response than "FOAD" or a call to hell. It is just an acceptance that there is no further discussion to be had on this, because neither side will change.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And "whatever" is a far better response than "FOAD" or a call to hell. It is just an acceptance that there is no further discussion to be had on this, because neither side will change.
It's still rude. "I don't think we're going to get any further with this so we probably should just agree to disagree" makes a better alternative, just sayin'.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
The Scripture is indeed clear on these things!
This seems to have escaped you, but no it isn't. Or we wouldn't be having this discussion. As Beeswax Alter said, you can prove, eternal damnation, anihilationism or universalism from Scripture depending on what you choose to quote. Perhaps it's a matter of temprament. Those who revel in the thought of most of creation writhing for eternity tend to believe in it.
quote:
Originally posted by Mudfrog:
But The Saviour clearly said "That whosoever believes shall not perish but have eternal liofe. He who does not believe stands condemned already."
Here you've prooftexted a perfect case of anihilationism. To perish is to die. This is confirmed by St Paul when he writes "The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Whose plain and clear meaning, as often seems so important to you, is that we die through our sin, and may be resurrected to new life through Christ. there is nothing implicit of eternal punishment in your quote.
So again, I ask, because this seems to be such a bedrock of much Christian belief; Where in Scripture, does it say that eternal damnation comes from unbelief? Can one of you sola scriptura evo's please enlighten me on this one?
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
And "whatever" is a far better response than "FOAD" or a call to hell. It is just an acceptance that there is no further discussion to be had on this, because neither side will change.
It's still rude. "I don't think we're going to get any further with this so we probably should just agree to disagree" makes a better alternative, just sayin'.
Well yes, but I understand the feeling of just wanting to say "woteva", because I can't be arsed to argue any more.
My point was that it was a deliberate conclusion to the discussion, and I am not sure mudfrog got that point. I was getting tired of the discussion as well. So, from my point of view, it was not intended to be rude, but is was intended to be dismissive.
And mudfrog, scripture is not clear on much in all honesty, and I am an evangelical through and through. That is why it takes study and conversation and exploration and work to understand what the tenor of scripture is. Quoting proof texts does not mean anything, and brings scriptural interpretation into disrepute.
I think scripture teaches that "no-one can come to God except through Christ". I do not think that it teaches explicit, open, and public acceptance of the western image of Christ to get to heaven. It is a very narrow sort of view that assumes this - I am not accusing you of this, but I know those who do argue for this position.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now Rob's a big boy, and I suspect he can hold his own in any theological debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss his ideas when all you have to go on is a 3 minute promo video.
I was trying to be fair to him. I deliberately did not comment on his views on universalism earlier on the thread because the book has not been published yet. Until Evensong posted that link we didn't really have anything to discuss.
I also agree that it is hardly fair to critique his views on universalism from a 3 minute promo video.
However, this is a video he has made himself so if it misrepresents him then that is entirely his fault.
The style over content may be a bit harsh considering it is just a promo video but my other point still stands. I agree with Lep that The Gospel coalition guys should drop it and stop feeding him publicity. Nevertheless, in the words of a playground fight, "He started it."
I don't get how the conservatives are being accused of not allowing room for universalism on this thread. Rob Bell is clear in this video what his intention is. Conservative Christianity is not an authentic gospel - i.e. there is no room for conservative theology.
Why is anyone surprised when conservatives respond by saying they think his gospel is inauthentic?
Posted by iGeek (# 777) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Having strongly defined, black-and-white boundaries is easier. And less scary. And less tribal.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
More tribal, surely?
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
More tribal. Yes. My mistake.
And don't call him Shirley.
(apologies to Leslie Nielsen ... couldn't help it)
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
I like Rob. He is a nice guy.
Reading between the lines of his work for some time a soft universalist position would not suprise me. Indeed I already assumed it.
How he fits within orthodoxy depends on your understanding of orthodoxy ...
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Perfectly orthodox Mr. Green. Soft universalism, I like that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Mudfrog, you have missed the point. As far as justice is concerned it matters not a jot whether Christ "volunteered" to die for our sins (which He did), or whether He was the Father's helpless fall-guy. If, on the cross, God was dealing with sin by punishment (which is not, I believe, what was happening), and if Jesus was innocent of wrongdoing, then how could the cross be an act of justice. It would be the innocent being punished for sins that are not His own, which is an act of injustice whether the sinbearer was willing or not. It would be an act of sacrifice, a noble act, an act of love, but it would not be a just act, according to your criteria. So your argument that I am not taking into account God's justice, but you are, is stood on its head.
This is why Christus victor is a better image for what mudfrog was trying to emphasize than the more transactionary substituionary atonement.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
Back in time to the world as it was twenty-four hours ago.
Kaplan Corday: "OK mousethief, mea culpa, your inexorable logic convinces me that I engaged in a wild and unjustifiable generalization."
mousethief: "It was nothing".
Ummm, actually I was being sarcastic.
Go on, say it, so you were you!
Thanks for the laugh, but I've learned my lesson, and won't try that again, at least not without an emoticon.
Let me use another issue to explain my language.
I have heard leftists criticize evangelicalism on the grounds that it is anti-Semitic, presumably on the basis of the syllogism:-
All evangelicals are right-wing.
Right-wingers are anti-Semitic.
Ergo, evangelicals are anti-Semitic.
(Of course the reality , oddly enough, is that if there is a problem within evangelicalism in this area it is rabid Zionism).
I have never met, read of, or heard of, any evangelical anti-Semites, and would therefore have no hesitation in stating the generalization that evangelicals are not anti-Semitic.
At the same time, I don't have the slightest doubt that amongst all the millions of evangelicals, there must be a few anti-Semites, but if anyone cited them I would not see them as a threat to the general statement.
Anomalies and aberrations do not normally vitiate a general rule.
It is like telling a child that all dogs have four legs, only to have them tell you that they have seen one with three, accompanied by an indignant,"But you said..."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
At that point I was being sarcastic, yes. But I was not pressing the point out of sarcasm but out of dislike of untruth.
Logically, if you say "evangelicals are not anti-Semitic" you are saying "all evangelicals are not anti-Semitic." Why not just qualify your statement so it's not overstating what you want to say? If you want to say "anti-semitism is not a characteristic evangelical trait" why would you say "there are no evangelical anti-semites"? Why not say what you mean?
By the way I really doubt that the syllogism you gave is why most people who think evangelicals are anti-semitic think evangelicals are anti-semitic. Probably most people who think "evangelicals are anti-semitic" (which is of course an overgeneralization on their part but they're not here so I can't castigate them) think so because they have heard evangelicals say anti-semitic things.
Casting my memory back to my days as a benighted (jk!) evangelical, I don't ever remember having any discussions with fellow evangelicals that made me think they were anti-Semitic. So I certainly wouldn't make that generalization. And I agree that there are more than one or two rabidly Zionist evangelicals out there.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now Rob's a big boy, and I suspect he can hold his own in any theological debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss his ideas when all you have to go on is a 3 minute promo video.
I was trying to be fair to him. I deliberately did not comment on his views on universalism earlier on the thread because the book has not been published yet. Until Evensong posted that link we didn't really have anything to discuss.
Well, the video was on the page I linked to in the OP, I even mentioned it in the OP too. And I think there was still plenty else to discuss, but hey ho.
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
So let's just twiddle our thumbs until the book comes out then.
(Or watch paint dry as KC and MT deconstruct exactly what a generalisation is.)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
So let's just twiddle our thumbs until the book comes out then.
(Or watch paint dry as KC and MT deconstruct exactly what a generalisation is.)
If it is about critiquing what Rob Bell actually believes or teaches, then yes we should wait to see what he actually says in his book. It astounds me the number of people who know exactly what he is going to say before they had read it.
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Watching KC and MT or paint drying is far less interesting.
Posted by testbear (# 4602) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I thought the message of the video was "the view of Christianity with which you perhaps are familiar may not be authentic. Read my book to discover an alternative point of view".
FWIW, this, ISTM, is all that Rob Bell has ever said. About anything. It's his message, and it's his audience.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
ISTM, FWIW, that the 'FWIW' and the 'ISTM' was completely superfluous to the construction of your sentence.....FWIW, or so ISTM.
[sorry, but I just had to get that out of my system]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the OP.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the OP.
I think it does. This is honestly what I find strange. All he does in the promo is ask questions. I don't remember him actually giving any opinions or conclusions. And yet this video is the very thing that people are riled against. So what is so wrong with asking questions? I guess people see them as leading questions, but still, questions are there to make people think. It seems like the people objecting to Rob Bell, before the book is even out, are objecting to independent thought. To me this is a worrying thing.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
All he does in the promo is ask questions. I don't remember him actually giving any opinions or conclusions. And yet this video is the very thing that people are riled against. So what is so wrong with asking questions? I guess people see them as leading questions, but still, questions are there to make people think.
Yes, and as JJ (hardly a conevo) put it, Rob Bell is suggesting here that the conservative gospel is inauthentic. The use of the graffiti about Gandhi at the beginning is clear - he takes the ramblings of an anonymous nutter as representing a popularist view of the gospel and then uses questions to deconstruct it. The fact that he uses questions actually makes the caricature even worse.
Are you really surprised that people get riled when someone accuses them of believing in an inauthentic gospel?
The use of questions just adds to the likelihood to annoy. Anybody watching it is made certain that he is attacking a view of the gospel. Only he doesn't make it clear exactly what view he is attacking. It's a common enough technique, it means that you will almost certainly respond to the clip depending on whether you are positively or negatively inclined to him already. And surprise, surprise, the marketing machine has obviously worked. Those at The Gospel Coalition will cause his book sales to soar as his support base grows from those already inclined to his views and keen to defend him from them. It is very calculated marketing. And it is working.
Oh dear, I think I'll leave this thread now. The more I think about it the lower Rob Bell drops in my estimation. (And none of it has anything to do with his views on universalism, because I don't know what they are.)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The use of questions just adds to the likelihood to annoy. Anybody watching it is made certain that he is attacking a view of the gospel. Only he doesn't make it clear exactly what view he is attacking. It's a common enough technique, it means that you will almost certainly respond to the clip depending on whether you are positively or negatively inclined to him already.
But what you have to understand also is that this is his normal style. If he was usually a typical preacher, normally providing arguments and conclusions, and started doing this it would be odd, but the truth is that this is his style. He throws open all of the questions, and then helps you to explore them. But he doesn't give answers - he explores answers. It is a style that I prefer, but I understand that other may not.
To have a clip like this is clever - using his style to tease and challenge. And, whether you like it or not, it is working.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you really surprised that people get riled when someone accuses them of believing in an inauthentic gospel?
Well, usually it's the liberals and universalists that are accused of having an inauthentic gospel, so it's quite refreshing to see the conservatives have that particular criticism labelled at them (and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.) It can only help the conservatives to analyse and understand their own position.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.)
Have you heard of a guy called Jesus?
Were the questions Jesus asked confrontational?
{ETA - for clarity]
[ 05. March 2011, 11:02: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Ship's Stowaway (# 16237) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
Could you quote a source for this please?
I'm not PaulTH, but have been reading up on universalism lately, not having been exposed to it in my youth. Here are resources:
1. The Ancient History of Universalism by Hosea Ballou II, pub. 1829 -- available as free PDF download from Google books -- this may be one source for PaulTH's quote -- has a ton of historical documentation
2. Modern History of Universalism by Thomas Whittemore, pub. 1860 -- available as free PDF download from Google Books
3. A founder of American Universalism:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Hosea-Ballou.php
4. Original Universalist Church in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist_Church_of_America#cite_note-11
5. The Christian Universalist Association -- group rebuilding Universalism with a Christian focus --
http://www.christianuniversalist.org/
6. Preterist Universalism --
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Universalist/index.html
7. Brief Outline of Universalist Thought in Church History --
http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html
8. A founder of American Universalism:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Hosea-Ballou.php
[ 05. March 2011, 11:07: Message edited by: Ship's Stowaway ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
He's certainly right when he says that our views of heaven and hell expose what we believe God's character to be.
But I reckon his book will be a disappointment and give the answer to one of his first questions 'How do we become one of the few?'
Ho hum.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.)
Have you heard of a guy called Jesus?
Were the questions Jesus asked confrontational?
No, I haven't, do enlighten me!
What I meant was, compared to the phrases like 'wolf in sheep's clothing', 'heretic' and 'false teacher' that have been chucked at Bell for his views, his critique of theology he disagrees with has been slightly more restrained.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
Interesting blog post from one of my fav theologicans who actually has read Love Wins:
Greg Boyd weighs in
Posted by Gargantua (# 16205) on
:
The Rob Bell controversy has now hit the New York Times, yet!
Pastor Stirs Wrath With His Views on Old Questions
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Interesting blog post from one of my fav theologicans who actually has read Love Wins:
Greg Boyd weighs in
He says just what I said on another thread -
"What does truth have to fear? (I sometimes wonder if the animosity some express toward Universalists [or toward those some assume are Universalists] is motivated by the fear that the case for Universalism might turn out to be more compelling than they can handle."
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
cliffdweller: thank you for that link........
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Quote from Greg Boyd:
, Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News
I often wonder how those firm believers in eternal damnation can ever call their message "good news." I think its pretty bad news that God stuck us here amid all this pain and corruption, and then damns us eternally if we don't make the right choices. If there is any unfathomably good nature of the Good News, it must be that Love keeps no tally of wrongs(1 Cor 13.5). If to know all is to forgive all, our omniscient Creator must deal with us mercifully.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Jengie
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
I see that Mudfrog has gone silent, as he has in the past, when I ask him to prove, from Scripture, as he is a Sola Scriptura Protestant, that anyone will be damned eternally for unbelief. If we analyse the various strands in Scripture we have 3 different interpretations. That we are eternally damned for lack of good deeds. That we are condemned to anihilation for not accepting Christ, or that we are all saved as a result of Christ's conquest of death.
The Johanine and Pauline traditions say that death ie anihilation is the result of sin. This is quite logical if we are a mortal species, for whom God can grant eternity in certain circumstances, such as righteousness, faith imputed as righteousness or belief in Christ's resurrection. Both the Pauline and Johanine traditions also give, at the very least, the hint of universal salvation in that Christ conquered sin, death and the devil.
The Matthew tradition has the hard sayings about eternal damnation. But they are always works related. This is consistent with some of the sects of Judaism in Jesus' time. There is never any mention of faith or belief in the threats of eternal damnation in Matthew. To come up with a belief that we are eternally damned because we don't believe in Jesus or accept Him as personal saviour, we must take His sayings out of context, put them in a blender, and come out with our own mix. The Church has done this over the ages as a power tool with which to control the masses. There is enough room, in Scripture, and in the teachings and traditions of the Church, to allow for at least the soft universalism of Hans Urs von Balthasar or Bishop Kallistos Ware. This is my view and I still challenge anyone to disprove it from Scripture.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
But there are also the people we did it to. There is innocent suffering in this life are you saying that these injustices must be overlooked. It sounds like a bullies charter.
Jengie
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Vengeance is a natural human instinct. When we're hurt and damaged, we want to hurt back. But this is what Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, told us to renounce. Pray for those who spitefully use you. Forgive seventy times seven. That God makes the sun to shine on the good and the wicked. If you seriously hope that everyone who did you an injustice is going to eternal damnation, you haven't read your Bible.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
But there are also the people we did it to. There is innocent suffering in this life are you saying that these injustices must be overlooked. It sounds like a bullies charter.
Not overlooked - the pain of suffering should never be overlooked. We should be constantly working against injustice imo.
We naturally want to hit back - but Jesus taught us a better (and incredibly tough) way. An eye for an eye just ends up with everybody blind.
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Jengie
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Jengie
That criticism applies to the mainstream view too. Victim and perpetrator will live alongside in heaven in that understanding as well. The numbers might not be as high, but the principle's the same.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Conidering I agree with everything in your first paragraph, I think the problem, then, is in your question, and your understanding of what universalism necessarily says. The idea of a 'free pass' might be in some universalist theology, but it's not in mine.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To come up with a belief that we are eternally damned because we don't believe in Jesus or accept Him as personal saviour, we must take His sayings out of context, put them in a blender, and come out with our own mix. The Church has done this over the ages as a power tool with which to control the masses.
While we're waiting for Mudfrog to prove his assertions from Scripture, I wonder if you'd like to furnish some proof for that last assertion of yours?
Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on
:
It depends what mainstream you are talking about, the RC stance on Purgatory would not imply a free input into heaven.
Then you have to take the fact that judgement was part and parcel of story, that everyone has to face up to their sins. I would say everyone has to feel the pain they have caused. We cannot say that the penalties don't exist unless we are willing to give up the justice of God.
I suspect that full repentance and therefore full conversion is only possible at that point but that is me. In this life we are only practising.
Jengie
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Jengie
Part of me can't help but bring in the debate in criminology between restorative and retributive models of justice. Here in Canada, in some quarters, we are looking at the restorative justice model as opposed to the traditional retributive model.
Restorative justice focuses on repairing relationships between offender and victim. Part of the model includes truth-telling, the victim and those affected by the crime voicing their hurts and wounds honestly. The offender, hopefully can understand the full emotional and physical consequences of their action. It has nothing to do with "letting the criminal off the hook." The offender is called to account and face the victims of his or her crime.
From listening to the truth-telling of the victim, the offender hopefully will come to full repentance of their actions, and seek to make restitition. With this admittence of guilt and profound repentance, the victim may start to forgive.
In contrast, retributive justice seeks primarily to "punish" the offender in the name of the State. But punishment can only go so far. You can lock someone up in jail, but for most crimes short of murder, the offender will eventually be released into society. There is no guarantee that the offender's hearts will be changed.
Universalism isn't exactly the right word, the more appropriate term is "universal reconciliation." The hope for the salvation of all means the hope that all will come to repentance. It has nothing to do with the wicked saying "screw that, I want to keep on stomping on the poor and screwing over the weak, let me into heaven."
Perhaps that is why even though I hope for universal reconciliation, I also acknowledge the possibility of hell. Not because God is a tyrant who enjoys sending people to perdition, but rather that some people are simply unwilling to go to heaven. They are unwilling to repent, unwilling to stop hurting others, unwilling to love. Because of this, they have deliberately excluded themselves from heaven, because the joy of heaven lies precisely in loving. If you are unwilling to love, it is impossible to experience heaven even if your soul is floating in the clouds.
[ 05. March 2011, 21:13: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
While we're waiting for Mudfrog to prove his assertions from Scripture, I wonder if you'd like to furnish some proof for that last assertion of yours?
I base this on that age old teaching of the Church, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus . If there is no salvation outside the Church, and the Church has the right to dogmatise and anathematise, and to excommunicate, then the Church is setting itself up as arbiter of who is saved and who is damned. I still believe that when God told Moses "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Ex33.9) He was telling us that salvation and mercy are his call and not ours.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
To me, that only points me toward a "soft" universalism subsumed under Christ's Lordship.
If we start with what "I" (or I presume, most of "Us") would do if "I" were in charge of the pearly gates, I'm gonna guess most of us are gonna let Gandhi in, and most of us are gonna keep Saddam Hussein out. As Jengie indicates, if any of us have suffered a serious abuse, we're probably not gonna wanna see our abuser in the next life. If any of us have had our child suffer at the hands of another, we're probably gonna wanna usher that despicable abuser to the nether regions personally.
So, by instinct, most of us have more grace than what a very conservative reading of Scripture would suggest, yet most of us, by human inclination, would fall short of a more generous universalism.
All of which we see reflected in the gospels, and the many parables that point us to:
1. When we finally do find out "who gets in" and "who doesn't" there are going to be a LOT of surprises on both sides of the equation
2. Jesus always seems to be surprising us by demonstrating more grace than anyone else would expect
3. Jesus makes the final call
Given all of the above, #3 seems only right and just.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Sublime as ever Cliffdweller.
Jengie John: when the NAZIs rise in the resurrection with the Jews even Satan might be moved to repent. Or should God burn the NAZIs alive forever despite the Jews' forgiveness of them? And if Satan repents, should we demand justice regardless?
The former things will be past. Death cancels ALL debts. Well one does.
And if we took your search for justice to its conclusion, we should demand God's surrender and damn Him. He allows all injustice. I thought He was supposed to be omnipotent?
If God were just above loving He'd have blinked and the Sun would have gone out permanently at the murder of His Son.
Well He would if we were Him.
And no, I haven't suffered enough loss yet to be lost in understandable hatred. If I do, I pray the resurrection would redeem me. By the salvation of my persecutors.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I meant was, compared to the phrases like 'wolf in sheep's clothing', 'heretic' and 'false teacher' that have been chucked at Bell for his views, his critique of theology he disagrees with has been slightly more restrained.
Since your title is 'Rob Bell and Univeralism' it seems we have two separate things to discuss now - 1. Rob Bell. 2. Universalism.
If you want to talk about Rob Bell specifically then I'm not sure that his technique is more restrained.
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational. Personally I like enquiring minds who are open to discussion, but I tend to find those who only ask questions more closed than those who simply state their position.
The NT is full of warnings against false teachers - the warning runs right through the teaching of Jesus, Paul, John and Peter like a stick of Brighton rock. The later NT letters are especially replete.
I draw two conclusions from this:
1. Simply claiming someone is a false teacher doesn't mean anything. I, like you, am rather sick and tired of the self-appointed evangelical gatekeepers of truth. Those, for example, who attack Rob Bell here without even reading his book. You can't just throw accusations around like this without talking it through and giving the other person the chance to fairly respond and engage. Innocent until proven guilty should be the maxim. Questioning things is normal, simply asking questions does not make one a 'false teacher'.
2. It is equally the height of arrogance to shrug off such accusations. The NT warns us so frequently that it is crazy not to take it seriously. If someone calls me a false teacher then I have to at least consider the possibility. Having done so I may then dismiss the claim for the fruitlube theory it is, but I can't just shrug it off automatically. And hiding behind 'I was just asking questions' is the biggest cop out of them all. When considering faith as a destination or a journey the pendulum has now swung too far towards journey - we are now stuck on a roundabout where there is no longer any attempt to go anywhere at all.
[Wow - Rob Bell really does push my buttons! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
]
[ 06. March 2011, 02:14: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational.
I listened again to Rob Bell's questions - I don't find them any of these things.
Challenging, yes.
His first question is a great one 'Is Ghandi really burning in hell for all eternity?'
If he is, then what does that say about God's character?
All Christians should be asking similar questions imo - and if these questions go 'viral' then all the better.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Since your title is 'Rob Bell and Univeralism' it seems we have two separate things to discuss now - 1. Rob Bell. 2. Universalism.
Or there is 3 (which was my main question in the OP), which was regarding the relatively extreme response to Bell and his I'll.
Otherwise, I take your points, but do note that one man's false teacher is another man's true teacher.
Oh and AB, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
(stupid iPhone autocorrect - ilk not I'll)
Posted by Trudy Scrumptious (# 5647) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(stupid iPhone autocorrect - ilk not I'll)
If everyone was using iPhones, we'd be having this discussion about whether Gandhi and other nonChristians were going to burn forever in he'll.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I base this on that age old teaching of the Church, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.
Apart from being a rather simplistic reading of history, that doesn't provide any evidence for motivation - your "power tool with which to control the masses."
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational.
I listened again to Rob Bell's questions - I don't find them any of these things.
I didn't say that Rob Bell was being sarcastic, I was challenging the assumptions that by definition using questions was not confrontational.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
His first question is a great one 'Is Ghandi really burning in hell for all eternity?'
If he is, then what does that say about God's character?
Both of those are closed questions. When you add that to the fact the first question is taken from an anonymous nuttier who graffitied a picture, I'd say that that they were closed and leading questions. Questions like these do not provoke discussion, they close it down - for the 'obvious' answers are implied.
My response to the first question would be - 'but if I was going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here.'
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I'm confused.
Why is it so hard to get from ...
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
one man's false teacher is another man's true teacher.
to this ... ?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
the relatively extreme response to Bell and his ilk.
Surely you've answered your own question.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My response to the first question would be - 'but if I was going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here.'
You mean that you wouldn't ask the question in the first place?
If that's the case, fair enough - but that doesn't make it less of a question worth asking. It clarifies very well the fact that some Christians believe people of other faiths are hell bound, and must be converted.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
How does regarding any new or non-majority idea as a potentially dangerous "false teaching" square not only with the academic process of discussing and evaluating ideas on their own merits but also the relatively free and easy way in which the rabbinical tradition discusses/argues Scripture?
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be a part of a Christianity with that crabbed and paranoid a theological school of thought. Honestly, my encounters with neo-Calvinists and other exciteable heresy-hunters -- combined with my own childhood background in a branch of Lutheranism that tended to find heresy under every rock and behind every curtain -- often make me want to declare myself post -Christian and be done with it.
Once I found myself in what had begun as a fairly lightheared online discussion about the souls of animals, of all things, and the Usual Suspects were practically offering themselves to the martyr's stake in their conviction that such an idea was a dangerous, damnedable heresy that must not stand...to which my reaction was, "Oh, for Christ's sake, get over it." And frankly I'd rather spend eternity with dogs and cats than with hysterical conservative theologians.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Once I found myself in what had begun as a fairly lightheared online discussion about the souls of animals, of all things, and the Usual Suspects were practically offering themselves to the martyr's stake in their conviction that such an idea was a dangerous, damnedable heresy that must not stand...to which my reaction was, "Oh, for Christ's sake, get over it." And frankly I'd rather spend eternity with dogs and cats than with hysterical conservative theologians.
Me too - and 'For Christ's sake' is exactly right.
Posted by Mudfrog (# 8116) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I see that Mudfrog has gone silent, as he has in the past,
...no, Mudfrog has a life and since Thursday has travelled across the country for a family funeral, has returned home to finish a 4000 word essay on Salvationists and Methodists in shared sacramental worship, prepared worship for this morning and fallen asleep.
I'll get back to you when I meet myself coming back
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
It clarifies very well the fact that some Christians believe people of other faiths are hell bound, and must be converted.
You are doing it again.
Your use of the word clarifies shows that (in your mind) the question is not asked to raise discussion but actually to set boundaries.
I don't have any problem with people doing that. I just think that it shows greater integrity to spell it out rather than pretending that you aren't doing the same thing by using questions.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
How does regarding any new or non-majority idea as a potentially dangerous "false teaching" square not only with the academic process of discussing and evaluating ideas on their own merits but also the relatively free and easy way in which the rabbinical tradition discusses/argues Scripture?
Stop being so black and white - what's wrong with a bit of nuance?
I never assume that the people I meet on the street are thieves but both my front and back door have a lock. Nobody seems to think I'm horribly conflicted in living like this.
Posted by pete173 (# 4622) on
:
I've read the book in pre-publication form.
It's complex. Rob's style (which I don't find to my liking, because he writes a bit like he Noomas) is (of course) postmodern, and he hectors the reader into adopting his point of view. He indulges in hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum in order to prove his points. But his position is not coherently argued, and that will mean that the discussion with the conservatives who have leapt into print to oppose him before reading him will be engaged in a dialogue of the deaf. Propositional it ain't.
What he has to say is not a million miles from the eschatological stuff that Tom Wright has produced.
But those who approach the book with a desire to find a "heresy" will be able to quarry enough quotes to satisfy their desire to vilify him.
His stuff on "heaven" is implausibly vague in speaking about the future dimension of the age to come. It's quite close to a realised eschatology.
I could have wished for a bigger vision of the new heavens and the new earth (cf. Wright Surprised by Hope
When he writes about hell, there is the same issue. It’s mostly described in terms of this-worldly experience, and purposely vague when there is any future focus in the stuff he’s pretending to exegete.
His exegesis is weak and he parodies views which which he disagrees (it was a bit like reading James Barr's diatribe on Fundamentalism!)
On universalism, he takes the CS Lewis Last Battle approach to other faiths. He’s incapable of embracing objectivity – which kind of undermines his theological method - so the sacraments are not objective and true because they are true (which is what we old fashioned modernists believe!) but “true for us” [wet nonsense...] [grrr..]
The evangelical community won't be able to discuss the book or its arguments because the style, the approach and the content aren't susceptible of the sort of debate that we need. Like Steve Chalke, he'll just become a boo figure to those who don't want to focus on whether the points he's raising are worth discussing.
It's sad, because he's an apologist for the faith
who has a huge appeal to pomos. But it will all degenerate into the usual witch hunt, I'm afraid.
The book merits proper discussion (even though there are places where the argument slips through your fingers) - but it won't get it.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
I never assume that the people I meet on the street are thieves...
That's not my experience dealing with most conservative Evangelicals, sadly. And that's why whenever I try to engage with them, it's usually a mistake on my part.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
Rob's style (which I don't find to my liking, because he writes a bit like he Noomas) is (of course) postmodern, and he hectors the reader into adopting his point of view. He indulges in hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum in order to prove his points.
Ah, hectoring, that was the word I was reaching for.
Thanks Pete - for the whole review - at last someone who has actually read the book.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
I never assume that the people I meet on the street are thieves...
That's not my experience dealing with most conservative Evangelicals, sadly. And that's why whenever I try to engage with them, it's usually a mistake on my part.
So you leave your front door wide open then?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
I don't find your metaphor particularly helpful in discussions of theology in particular or of the academic process in general.
If you were a scientist or literature scholar or other academic, would you have the same compulsion to "lock your door"?
[ 06. March 2011, 21:41: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
I never assume that the people I meet on the street are thieves...
That's not my experience dealing with most conservative Evangelicals, sadly. And that's why whenever I try to engage with them, it's usually a mistake on my part.
Now, LC, remember we're friends....
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I don't find your metaphor particularly helpful in discussions of theology in particular or of the academic process in general.
If you were a scientist or literature scholar or other academic, would you have the same compulsion to "lock your door"?
Okay, sorry, let me unpack the metaphor.
I don't treat everyone I meet as a thief but I am not so foolish to believe that thieves do not exist.
Same with false teachers. How do you handle the many, many NT warnings about them?
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
Same with false teachers. How do you handle the many, many NT warnings about them?
I think the m.o. of many of the great intellects of Christianity (Gregory of Nyssa comes to mind) was to out-argue the other side. Which is not the same as falling into hysterical fits, or stopping one's ears with one's fingers: "Lalalalala, not listening to the heretic...lalalalala, not listening to the heretic..."
And, again -- what is so terribly frightening about the topic of Universalism? Good grief. Calm down, everybody. You're talking about the afterlife -- something that none of us know anything about with certainty, no matter what you think you know and why. That should provide a nice level playing field of humility for any discussions about it.
Cliffdweller: I think you know I am not talking about your brand of Evangelical; think the ueber-earnest neo-Puritans who seem to have the bully pulpit on Beliefnet's blogs.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
[QUOTE] I think the m.o. of many of the great intellects of Christianity (Gregory of Nyssa comes to mind) was to out-argue the other side. Which is not the same as falling into hysterical fits, or stopping one's ears with one's fingers: "Lalalalala, not listening to the heretic...lalalalala, not listening to the heretic..."
I don't think anyone, on this thread at least, would disagree with that.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
[QUOTE]
Cliffdweller: I think you know I am not talking about your brand of Evangelical; think the ueber-earnest neo-Puritans who seem to have the bully pulpit on Beliefnet's blogs.
I know. But still, it stings, cuz, much as I agree w/ you, that's my peeps you're talkin' about.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
And, again -- what is so terribly frightening about the topic of Universalism? Good grief. Calm down, everybody. You're talking about the afterlife -- something that none of us know anything about with certainty, no matter what you think you know and why. That should provide a nice level playing field of humility for any discussions about it.
My hunch is that the vitriol against universalism masks an insecurity regarding the mission of the Church. The idea is that if everyone gets to heaven, then the church's mission becomes irrevelant, why proclaim the Gospel when they are going to get into heaven anyway?
Cynically, I would say that the fear of hell is great for motivating people to give money. If you can convince people that those starving non-Christians "over there" (ie: in Africa and Asia) are going to end up suffering for all eternity, you can manipulate people's understandable compassion and pity to persuade them to fork over the money for the work of "saving their souls."
In a pluralistic landscape, Christians may need to examine what "mission" means. Is mission primarily directed about the afterlife? Or is mission about building the reign of God here and now? Should the money go towards sending evangelists, or should it go towards building hospitals and schools in Africa and Asia, (without btw, including the condition that they must become Christian)? Strange given that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and the Roman Centurion, two people clearly outside of his group, with compassion and understanding that some Christians are stuck with "Unless you agree with me, I won't love you."
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My hunch is that the vitriol against universalism masks an insecurity regarding the mission of the Church. The idea is that if everyone gets to heaven, then the church's mission becomes irrevelant, why proclaim the Gospel when they are going to get into heaven anyway?
Yes. If your primary understanding of the Christian message is the obtaination of a "get out of Hell free card" through theological rectitude, then universalism is a great threat.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
And, again -- what is so terribly frightening about the topic of Universalism? Good grief. Calm down, everybody. You're talking about the afterlife -- something that none of us know anything about with certainty, no matter what you think you know and why. That should provide a nice level playing field of humility for any discussions about it.
Very true - it will sure be a waste of hot air if we all wake up annihilated.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Strange given that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and the Roman Centurion, two people clearly outside of his group, with compassion and understanding that some Christians are stuck with "Unless you agree with me, I won't love you."
Interesting choice of examples - especially the Samaritan woman.
Jesus embarrasses her by delving straight into her private life (exposing her serial monogamy), then going on to say that salvation comes exclusively from the Jews and that he is the Messiah.
Not really very pluralistic.
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Universalism isn't pluralistic either
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Strange given that Jesus spoke to the Samaritan woman and the Roman Centurion, two people clearly outside of his group, with compassion and understanding that some Christians are stuck with "Unless you agree with me, I won't love you."
Interesting choice of examples - especially the Samaritan woman.
Jesus embarrasses her by delving straight into her private life (exposing her serial monogamy), then going on to say that salvation comes exclusively from the Jews and that he is the Messiah.
Not really very pluralistic.
Not necessarily, in the story from John's Gospel, Jesus articulates the theological difference between Jews and Samaritans. Jews believe that worship should occur at the Jerusalem Temple and Samaritans believe that worship should occur at the mountain. Jesus responds by stating neither, that true worship occurs when people worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
What does that mean for differences between Christianity and other religions?
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Pete173
He’s incapable of embracing objectivity – which kind of undermines his theological method - so the sacraments are not objective and true because they are true (which is what we old fashioned modernists believe!) but “true for us” [wet nonsense...] [grrr..]
I'm not sure you are being totally fair here, Pete. I suspect that RB believes that the sacraments are objective and true (or at last as objective and true as any other minister of his particular tradition believes them to be, which view may not be particularly acceptable to an Anglican). It's just that he doesn't think that objective truth, whilst necessary, is sufficient. It can only affect our lives, he would probably argue, if it becomes true for us. Now I'm not sure I agree wholeheartedly with that, (in my view the sacraments have a transcendental power of their own) though there is some truth in it, but I don't see how it is a particularly "wet" approach to personalise the truths of the Chritian life in this way.
[ 07. March 2011, 09:11: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Would it not be truer to say that he has a more memorialist view of the sacrament of the Eucharist for instance (I'm actually guessing and stereotyping from his stable, cos I don't actually have a notion what he thinks)? If this were the case, then the focus would very much be making something 'true' for yourself in partaking of the sacrament of the Eucharist.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Universalism isn't pluralistic either
Interesting point to raise - it is and it isn't. The type of universalism that isn't pluralistic involves God forcing people to worship him rather like some Maoist dictator.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not necessarily, in the story from John's Gospel, Jesus articulates the theological difference between Jews and Samaritans. Jews believe that worship should occur at the Jerusalem Temple and Samaritans believe that worship should occur at the mountain. Jesus responds by stating neither, that true worship occurs when people worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
Some how you've managed to pretty much quote the whole section while missing out the verse I was referring to in the middle:
quote:
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4: 22
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
I suspect you might be right, Fletcher, but had Pete chosen RB's view of, say, the Resurrection, I think he would have been equally troubled. Now I have absolutely no doubt that RB is perfectly orthodox in his belief in an objective resurrection. Nevertheless, in an apologetic work, I think it highly likely that he would stress the importance of a subjective experience of the risen Christ. Apologetically speaking, he might well argue, objective truth is necessary but not sufficient.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Apologies to Fletcher - my first quote above was his and not AB's. (Preview was not enough of my friend.)
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by johnny S:
quote:
The type of universalism that isn't pluralistic involves God forcing people to worship him rather like some Maoist dictator.
Really? I'm not quite sure I follow what you are saying.
If you argued that salvation comes through Christ, you can assert that no-one comes to the Father except through Christ. What some argue is that this gift requires our response (even though there have been almost 2000 years of arguing what that response should be), whereas a universalist position might say we should respond out of love to a free gift from self-giving love. I'm not sure that Mao used love to get his way, to be honest.
I could of course use the same argument for evangelical Christianity. It would be wrong, and it would be a hideous mis-representation in many ways, but I could argue that it owes more to a Maoist approach. For instance, conformity is a hallmark of Maoism, and I could argue that evangelical Christianity appears to be going down that route by demonising anyone who dares to step out of the box.
[ 07. March 2011, 10:31: Message edited by: fletcher christian ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
What some argue is that this gift requires our response (even though there have been almost 2000 years of arguing what that response should be), whereas a universalist position might say we should respond out of love to a free gift from self-giving love.
Is that a typo? Did you mean to put 'respond' in the second half? Isn't the universalist position that you don't have to respond at all?
And if so, then you have redefined love to mean something it normally can't mean - namely that it is not a free choice but something that can be forced upon you.
Come to think of it, wasn't redefining words one of the things The Little Red book was all about?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the universalist position that you don't have to respond at all?
And that's what I was talking about regarding the caricature at the beginning of the thread.
The universalist position isn't that you don't have to respond, but that everyone will ultimately respond.
(well, that's my position - I can't speak for all universalists obviously).
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Is that a typo? Did you mean to put 'respond' in the second half? Isn't the universalist position that you don't have to respond at all?
And if so, then you have redefined love to mean something it normally can't mean - namely that it is not a free choice but something that can be forced upon you.
Come to think of it, wasn't redefining words one of the things The Little Red book was all about?
No, it wasn't a typo. I don't think that the universalist position is that you don't have to respond at all. It might be for some, in that some might argue such a case. It wouldn't be a position I would take, personally speaking.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the universalist position that you don't have to respond at all?
And that's what I was talking about regarding the caricature at the beginning of the thread.
This is getting complicated.
Sorry, I shouldn't have said 'the' universalist position here. I meant to say that the 'non-pluralistic version' doesn't require a response.
Universalism is a bit of an umbrella term. Similarly, as was pointed out early on John Stott's position isn't really annihilationism but is often smuggled alongside it.
I was arguing that a non-pluralistic universalism is coercive love. YMMV.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The universalist position isn't that you don't have to respond, but that everyone will ultimately respond.
I am aware of this position I just think that it is the least credible of all the universalist positions. Given all the millennia of recorded human history there is simply no evidence at all that, given enough time everyone will respond to God, given enough time. Post-mortem conversion (ISTM) is equally wishful thinking - it just begs the question of what changes everything in the afterlife and why this life can't be like that now.
ISTM this position is not so much faith as 'head in the sand'.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(well, that's my position - I can't speak for all universalists obviously).
Is it just me or is there something pythonesque about a particular universalist?
[ 07. March 2011, 11:13: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by fletcher christian (# 13919) on
:
Johnny, to be honest I think you just have a really hard time coping with anything that doesn't neatly fit in your handy, ready-made box.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by fletcher christian:
Johnny, to be honest I think you just have a really hard time coping with anything that doesn't neatly fit in your handy, ready-made box.
And what's funny, is that is always what closed-minded people say to people who disagree with them.
Night, night people. Universal sleep and rest for everyone.
![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif)
Posted by Mr Clingford (# 7961) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Post-mortem conversion (ISTM) is equally wishful thinking - it just begs the question of what changes everything in the afterlife and why this life can't be like that now.
We will no longer see things through a glass darkly? We will see God face to face?
[ 07. March 2011, 11:31: Message edited by: Mr Clingford ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Sorry, I shouldn't have said 'the' universalist position here. I meant to say that the 'non-pluralistic version' doesn't require a response.
Thanks for clearing that up.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The universalist position isn't that you don't have to respond, but that everyone will ultimately respond.
I am aware of this position I just think that it is the least credible of all the universalist positions. Given all the millennia of recorded human history there is simply no evidence at all that, given enough time everyone will respond to God, given enough time. Post-mortem conversion (ISTM) is equally wishful thinking - it just begs the question of what changes everything in the afterlife and why this life can't be like that now.
It's interesting that you've gone to arguing against this from a philosophical position, rather than a scriptural position.
(I'm not necessarily putting you in this category), but quite often people say that they don't agree with universalist theology for because it's 'unscriptural', but as soon as you ask for specific reasons, they resort to philosophical arguments. And ISTM that the philosophical arguments against eternal punishment (for example) are far more problematic than those against post-mortem conversion.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
If one believes that the Holy Spirit, and not one's own mentation or feeling, creates saving faith, then our love of God/faith in God is indeed something that has been given to us. (The Lutheran position -- "I believe that I cannot by my own reason or strength believe in Jesus Christ, my Lord, or come to Him; but the Holy Ghost has called me by the Gospel, enlightened me with His gifts, sanctified and kept me in the true faith; even as He calls, gathers, enlightens, and sanctifies the whole Christian Church on earth, and keeps it with Jesus Christ in the one true faith.." -- which I'm sure Johnny S disagrees with vehemently.)
I don't feel like a Maoist puppet...do you?
Rather than God acting as a dictator in the afterlife, how about entertaining the proposition that, once they get there, even the most stubborn and God-antagonistic of souls will experience a metanoia?
I find the whole, "God is too nice of a God to effect reconciliation with people who don't want to be reconciled" a rather strange and unconvincing argument. It reminds me of our current family situation, where my obviously incompetent elderly uncle-in-law is about to be sprung out of the hospital back into his unhygenic, unsafe home, where he's likely to wind up killing himself either deliberately or through self-neglect...because in my state we apparently value "freedom" so much that this is considered an okay outcome.
I'd like to think that God is more like a loving, proactive Parent and Physician and less like a state bureaucrat administering us a spiritual "competency" test and then letting us toddle off to our doom while patting Godsself on the back that, by golly, that's our "free" choice.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Given all the millennia of recorded human history there is simply no evidence at all that, given enough time everyone will respond to God, given enough time. Post-mortem conversion (ISTM) is equally wishful thinking - it just begs the question of what changes everything in the afterlife and why this life can't be like that now.
I agree - there will be a few who, even when they experience God's love fully, will completely reject it. Even after 'time' has passed (If there is time as we know it).
They, I believe, will cease to 'be'. No eternal torment - or any other kind of torment.
I don't see God as a God of punishment, but as a God of reconciliation and forgiveness - alongside complete freedom.
S/he can't expect us to forgive our enemies without showing the way - as Jesus did on the cross. There was no repentance from those he forgave - he just did it.
So does God imo.
[ 07. March 2011, 12:51: Message edited by: Boogie ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I don't see God as a God of punishment, but as a God of reconciliation and forgiveness - alongside complete freedom.
S/he can't expect us to forgive our enemies without showing the way - as Jesus did on the cross. There was no repentance from those he forgave - he just did it.
So does God imo.
Hell yes. And Jesus wouldn't have told his disciples to forgive '70x7' (or whatever he said) times if he wasn't prepared to do the same.
My wife was discussing this recently with some Christians who described the punishment of Hell as 'in the end you run out of chances'. That ain't the God I know. You never run out of chances, in this life or the next.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
The story "A Vision of Judgment" (H.G. Wells) is over a hundred years old, but, then, so is this argument.
In it, he spells out how a loving God might go through the process of judging everyone without condemning them to everlasting fire.
Wells had a rather jaundiced view of Christianity, but he did understand the principles quite well.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Boogie
I agree - there will be a few who, even when they experience God's love fully, will completely reject it. Even after 'time' has passed (If there is time as we know it).
And yet one of the main themes of the New Testament is the ultimate triumph of God. If Jesus' mission was not to loose one of those who had been given to Him by the Father, and the Father has committed all things to Jesus, then if any are lost that must be indicative of a failure of that mission.
Posted by Dafyd (# 5549) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I was arguing that a non-pluralistic universalism is coercive love.
It's no worse than all but the weakest forms of predestination in that respect. I'd say Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin would all argue a stronger form of predestination than you say universalism needs.
[ 07. March 2011, 17:37: Message edited by: Dafyd ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Isn't the universalist position that you don't have to respond at all?
That's not MY universalist position. Which I've already laid out above.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
If one believes that the Holy Spirit, and not one's own mentation or feeling, creates saving faith, then our love of God/faith in God is indeed something that has been given to us.
This is a good point often overlooked. If faith is a gift of the Holy Spirit, as Scripture says it is, and faith is required for salvation, then God (the Holy Spirit) is choosing whether to impart this faith or not. In choosing not to impart faith to an individual, God is electing that person for eternal damnation ie double predestination. I will never believe that God, who loves all creatures, elects some for sweet delight and some for endless night. If God, either in this life or the next, gives faith to all, then all will be saved. This doesn't have to go against free will if we are all given the chance to see clearly the rewards of that faith.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
It's interesting that you've gone to arguing against this from a philosophical position, rather than a scriptural position.
I don't that's fair - I was replying to a post. If the post was arguing on a scriptural basis I would have replied on one.
Actually I've steered clear of the discussion over scripture on this thread because I think it has been done to death (particularly hell).
I'm more than happy to demonstrate why universalism is not scriptural though.
[ 07. March 2011, 22:02: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't that's fair - I was replying to a post. If the post was arguing on a scriptural basis I would have replied on one.
Fair enough; that's why I said that I wouldn't necessarily put you in that category. It's just something I've noticed that other people do, and I find it ironic.
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Universalism isn't pluralistic either
Interesting point to raise - it is and it isn't. The type of universalism that isn't pluralistic involves God forcing people to worship him rather like some Maoist dictator.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not necessarily, in the story from John's Gospel, Jesus articulates the theological difference between Jews and Samaritans. Jews believe that worship should occur at the Jerusalem Temple and Samaritans believe that worship should occur at the mountain. Jesus responds by stating neither, that true worship occurs when people worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
Some how you've managed to pretty much quote the whole section while missing out the verse I was referring to in the middle:
quote:
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4: 22
I don't think you can isolate one verse from an entire conversation and extrapolate an exclusivist theology of salvation from it. One could say, taking the entire conversation as a whole begs the question, how can we proclaim what we believe to be true without denigrating the other or negating their point of view?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't think you can isolate one verse from an entire conversation and extrapolate an exclusivist theology of salvation from it.
I agree, which is why I highlighted what you had missed out from that paragraph.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
One could say, taking the entire conversation as a whole begs the question, how can we proclaim what we believe to be true without denigrating the other or negating their point of view?
I also agree that is a legitimate question to ask, but I don't see where you get it from the text. The bit I quoted would surely have been both denigrating and partially negating to Samaritans.
I still think that you are asking the right question, just that you have leapt about 15 steps to get there.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
I think the m.o. of many of the great intellects of Christianity (Gregory of Nyssa comes to mind) was to out-argue the other side. Which is not the same as falling into hysterical fits, or stopping one's ears with one's fingers: "Lalalalala, not listening to the heretic...lalalalala, not listening to the heretic..."
St. Nicholas, at one of the ecumenical councils, reportedly resorted to hitting someone over the head with his staff.
(And I just realized that may be why Kris Kringle did the same in "Miracle On 34th Street"!)
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Universalism isn't pluralistic either
Interesting point to raise - it is and it isn't. The type of universalism that isn't pluralistic involves God forcing people to worship him rather like some Maoist dictator.
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
Not necessarily, in the story from John's Gospel, Jesus articulates the theological difference between Jews and Samaritans. Jews believe that worship should occur at the Jerusalem Temple and Samaritans believe that worship should occur at the mountain. Jesus responds by stating neither, that true worship occurs when people worship the Father in spirit and in truth.
Some how you've managed to pretty much quote the whole section while missing out the verse I was referring to in the middle:
quote:
You Samaritans worship what you do not know; we worship what we do know, for salvation is from the Jews.
John 4: 22
I see your point, Johnny, but earlier you added the word "exclusively" and concluded that the passage is "Not really very pluralistic." I think the passage actually allows for a somewhat pluralistic interpretation in that even though Jesus says that salvation is from the Jews, he doesn't say that it's exclusively so and he doesn't say she has to become a Jew in order to find salvation. So while he's not saying that one religion is as good as another, I don't see how he's going all that far to the opposite extreme either.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
St. Nicholas, at one of the ecumenical councils, reportedly resorted to hitting someone over the head with his staff.
Nicea. Arius.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I think the passage actually allows for a somewhat pluralistic interpretation in that even though Jesus says that salvation is from the Jews, he doesn't say that it's exclusively so and he doesn't say she has to become a Jew in order to find salvation. So while he's not saying that one religion is as good as another, I don't see how he's going all that far to the opposite extreme either.
True. I'd be interested in what you mean by 'somewhat pluralistic' though.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I think the passage actually allows for a somewhat pluralistic interpretation in that even though Jesus says that salvation is from the Jews, he doesn't say that it's exclusively so and he doesn't say she has to become a Jew in order to find salvation. So while he's not saying that one religion is as good as another, I don't see how he's going all that far to the opposite extreme either.
True. I'd be interested in what you mean by 'somewhat pluralistic' though.
It seems to me that a common, implicit assumption is that salvation is nothing more than a binary, all-or-nothing proposition. But when I say "somewhat pluralistic" I have in mind that salvation is actually a continuum (as is its opposite). So my reading of the passage is that it allows for salvation outside of Judaism, but at the same time establishes a benefit to true worship over misguided worship.
[ 08. March 2011, 06:26: Message edited by: W Hyatt ]
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
St. Nicholas, at one of the ecumenical councils, reportedly resorted to hitting someone over the head with his staff.
Nicea. Arius.
Loads of Church Fathers (and notorious hereticks like Arius) did it.
In fact, I put it to the people here that not one of the sainted Fathers of the Church Catholic would make it more than a few months on SoF without getting banned or experiencing numerous hell threads (St. Cyril of Alexandria probably wouldn't have lasted a week, actually).
But then, the rules of argument were different then.
[ 08. March 2011, 08:48: Message edited by: Wood ]
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Goldn Key:
St. Nicholas, at one of the ecumenical councils, reportedly resorted to hitting someone over the head with his staff.
It was a slap in the face, I heard.
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
Loads of Church Fathers (and notorious hereticks like Arius) did it.
In fact, I put it to the people here that not one of the sainted Fathers of the Church Catholic would make it more than a few months on SoF without getting banned or experiencing numerous hell threads (St. Cyril of Alexandria probably wouldn't have lasted a week, actually).
St Jerome wouldn't have lasted that long either. *sigh* Those were the days!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
It seems to me that a common, implicit assumption is that salvation is nothing more than a binary, all-or-nothing proposition. But when I say "somewhat pluralistic" I have in mind that salvation is actually a continuum (as is its opposite). So my reading of the passage is that it allows for salvation outside of Judaism, but at the same time establishes a benefit to true worship over misguided worship.
I'll have to think about this a bit more.
A lot of this comes down to language. Since salvation in the NT has the sense of 'being healed' I'm struggling to see how that healing could not eventually become complete for everyone and still mean salvation.
In other words it still sounds like pluralism to me. Although that may just be because I find it much harder to think of salvation in the terms you describe.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Although that may just be because I find it much harder to think of salvation in the terms you describe.
I think that it's quite an important issue that has quite a large effect on our worldview. Someone (can't remember who) once explained salvation to me as the entire process of a patient arriving in A&E, and then slowly being recuperated. So there's that immediate (perhaps binary) 'saving' - saving their life, but that is only the beginning of the process, where the person is slowly brought to full health.
So, I know a lot of Christian doctrine separates 'salvation' and 'sanctification', but the impression I've got is that the Greek word that is used covers both senses, and that is why it's important to see it as a continuum, not just a single action. This is getting a bit Kerygmanic though, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can illuminate my meagre understanding.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Although that may just be because I find it much harder to think of salvation in the terms you describe.
I think that it's quite an important issue that has quite a large effect on our worldview. Someone (can't remember who) once explained salvation to me as the entire process of a patient arriving in A&E, and then slowly being recuperated. So there's that immediate (perhaps binary) 'saving' - saving their life, but that is only the beginning of the process, where the person is slowly brought to full health.
So, I know a lot of Christian doctrine separates 'salvation' and 'sanctification', but the impression I've got is that the Greek word that is used covers both senses, and that is why it's important to see it as a continuum, not just a single action. This is getting a bit Kerygmanic though, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who can illuminate my meagre understanding.
I don't think anyone would disagree with the continuum on that level. However, that is a continuum of time. I was thinking of a horizontal continuum across other religions etc.
Using the medical analogy it is easy to see the healing process as a gradual one. It is the one fundamental disease being healed though. I'm trying to think how that plays into this debate.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
goperryrevs: the following was taken from a Ship discussion about salvation:
quote:
You seem to be construing salvation as an object you can possess. Some of us don't see it that way. Rather, we see it as a process that begins before we are even born, and ends only when we have become by grace what God is by nature.
Think of someone who had gone spelunking, fallen off a rock cliff deep underground, and was seriously injured. And to top it off, they've lost their light. They're helpless. And now the water in the cave is rising, and if someone doesn't arrive and save them, they'll drown. (where you are before you understand anything about Jesus)
But they're not saved the moment the rescuers appear, with lights and ropes, at the top of the cliff. (when someone tells you the first bit that makes sense about Jesus) They're not saved when one of the rescuers lowers himself down the cliff and arrives at their side. (when someone takes extra trouble to help you) They're not saved when the leg has been splinted. (you’re now going to church) They're not even saved when they've been raised to the top of the cliff, so they won't drown. (you’ve been baptized) They still have to get out of the cave. Sometimes the rescuers will have to carry them, because of their injuries. Sometimes they'll have to crawl, with great pain and difficulty, through passages that are so narrow that no one can go by their side. (the church or friends’ community tries to keep you going) Through that whole process, they are being saved. But they don't have their salvation until they have made it all the way out of the cave, out of the darkness, into the light of day.
When we have achieved theosis, when we have become by grace what God is by nature, then we can say that we have salvation. Before that point, it seems a dangerous thing to say.
Unfortunately, I didn't record the name of the poster, and my Google-fu isn't up to finding that.
It does imply that the religious beliefs of those who help you (either in the cave or in the salvation process) may not matter as much as the help they are able to give you. There's certainly no point in waiting for the person with the right qualifications to come along! Rob Bell's presentation is an example of that: he offers some useful insight or direction, whether you agree with the whole of his theology or not.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Unfortunately, I didn't record the name of the poster, and my Google-fu isn't up to finding that.
That appears to have been Josephine on 05 January, 2008 at about 21:00 GMT.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Unfortunately, I didn't record the name of the poster, and my Google-fu isn't up to finding that.
That appears to have been Josephine on 05 January, 2008 at about 21:00 GMT.
Ha! I knew it! I read that and thought, "That sounds like my wife's writing." I showed it to her and she said, "Well, it sounds like something I could have written, but I don't remember writing it."
And then I scrolled down and saw your post. Ha! Pity I didn't talk her into a wager.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I don't think anyone would disagree with the continuum on that level. However, that is a continuum of time. I was thinking of a horizontal continuum across other religions etc.
Using the medical analogy it is easy to see the healing process as a gradual one. It is the one fundamental disease being healed though. I'm trying to think how that plays into this debate.
My use of the normal Christian terms is clumsy because I am not a native speaker, and I am probably including more under the umbrella of salvation than I should, but to try to continue the medical analogy:
I believe that when we allow God to heal us even the slightest bit, then he can save us. And just as healing can occur within any medical paradigm, salvation is available in any religion. But that is not the same thing as saying that all medical paradigms are equal, especially for a developmental disease or condition like childhood malnutrition, the effects of which (I would guess) can last a lifetime. Everyone can be healed and can continue to heal until they are well, after which they can lead a full, productive life. But the quality of our medical care can affect how productive we can be even after we are well. Our healing is complete, but the permanent effects will differ with each patient.
To me, this is somewhat pluralistic. I don't think the end result is the same for everyone, but we can all enjoy the benefits of being fully healed, so I see a both a time continuum and a horizontal continuum.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I believe that when we allow God to heal us even the slightest bit, then he can save us.
This resonates with me. I think that even in the most depraved of people, there will be parts of their lives where you can say that God is working on them, changing them (saving them). So for that person to then be consigned to destruction or everlasting punishment, never to be ultimately redeemed or reconciled, means that this good work of God's is also lost. I can see why people don't have a problem with this, but for me, if God is the healer, then he's at work healing everyone. I accept the argument that some people might not ultimately get better (or want to get better), but I think that even the most 'sick' people will be cared for, operated on (and so on) by God for the rest of eternity.
I'm interested in Johnny's argument here:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Post-mortem conversion (ISTM) is equally wishful thinking - it just begs the question of what changes everything in the afterlife and why this life can't be like that now.
and what others think of it. One thing it brought to mind was the vision of the afterlife in Lost. (sorry for any spoilers if people haven't seen it). I thought it was an incredibly thoughtful, provoking concept. I really liked the way people had to come to terms with their own lives, before 'moving on' into paradise. It seemed to me to be a very Orthodox idea (at least as those Orthodox on the ship have presented their theology, which I wouldn't have known much about otherwise - specifically about Heaven and Hell being the same place). I like the way that some characters weren't ready to move on yet, but that for those that did, it was a corporate act. And it left open the possibility of universal reconciliation, that given the fullness of time, those that weren't ready would become ready. Obviously I'm not saying that it presents an accurate view of the afterlife, just that some of the concepts and ideas were very thought provoking.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I don't think the end result is the same for everyone, but we can all enjoy the benefits of being fully healed, so I see a both a time continuum and a horizontal continuum.
That's the bit I don't get. What does it mean that everyone is fully healed if it is not the same for everybody?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I accept the argument that some people might not ultimately get better (or want to get better), but I think that even the most 'sick' people will be cared for, operated on (and so on) by God for the rest of eternity.
Isn't that a very individualistic view of eternity? The whole point of the human sickness is that we make everyone else sick. Those who don't want to get better will be making everyone else sick.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
One thing it brought to mind was the vision of the afterlife in Lost. (sorry for any spoilers if people haven't seen it). I thought it was an incredibly thoughtful, provoking concept. I really liked the way people had to come to terms with their own lives, before 'moving on' into paradise. It seemed to me to be a very Orthodox idea (at least as those Orthodox on the ship have presented their theology, which I wouldn't have known much about otherwise - specifically about Heaven and Hell being the same place). I like the way that some characters weren't ready to move on yet, but that for those that did, it was a corporate act. And it left open the possibility of universal reconciliation, that given the fullness of time, those that weren't ready would become ready. Obviously I'm not saying that it presents an accurate view of the afterlife, just that some of the concepts and ideas were very thought provoking.
Yes and if Lost is the metaphor for the afterlife it raises the same question - what is the point of this life? Why can't Lost start now?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I accept the argument that some people might not ultimately get better (or want to get better), but I think that even the most 'sick' people will be cared for, operated on (and so on) by God for the rest of eternity.
Isn't that a very individualistic view of eternity? The whole point of the human sickness is that we make everyone else sick. Those who don't want to get better will be making everyone else sick.
In what way? In Jesus' parable of Lazurus and the Rich man, there's still interaction between 'heaven' and 'hell' (I know it's a parable, so we should be careful of getting doctrine from it). Jesus himself managed to live amongst the squalor of humanity without getting 'sick'. So the interaction doesn't necessarily mean contamination (for want of a better word!).
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
One thing it brought to mind was the vision of the afterlife in Lost. (sorry for any spoilers if people haven't seen it). I thought it was an incredibly thoughtful, provoking concept. I really liked the way people had to come to terms with their own lives, before 'moving on' into paradise. It seemed to me to be a very Orthodox idea (at least as those Orthodox on the ship have presented their theology, which I wouldn't have known much about otherwise - specifically about Heaven and Hell being the same place). I like the way that some characters weren't ready to move on yet, but that for those that did, it was a corporate act. And it left open the possibility of universal reconciliation, that given the fullness of time, those that weren't ready would become ready. Obviously I'm not saying that it presents an accurate view of the afterlife, just that some of the concepts and ideas were very thought provoking.
Yes and if Lost is the metaphor for the afterlife it raises the same question - what is the point of this life? Why can't Lost start now?
Well, I think it does. God is already at work in each of us - the afterlife is just a continuation of that process. What was interesting in Lost was that their lives in this world gave a context for their experiences in the next life. Maybe God will use our experiences in this life retrospectively, to shape us and prepare us ready for our eternal life with him.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes and if Lost is the metaphor for the afterlife it raises the same question - what is the point of this life? Why can't Lost start now?
And most importantly, what do you call a polar bear on a desert island?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
And most importantly, what do you call a polar bear on a desert island?
Most polar bears don't shit in the words - just the ones in Lost.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I don't think the end result is the same for everyone, but we can all enjoy the benefits of being fully healed, so I see a both a time continuum and a horizontal continuum.
That's the bit I don't get. What does it mean that everyone is fully healed if it is not the same for everybody?
You might ask how, if a skyscraper and a cathedral are both fully built, they can be different.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
I can see why people don't have a problem with this, but for me, if God is the healer, then he's at work healing everyone. I accept the argument that some people might not ultimately get better (or want to get better), but I think that even the most 'sick' people will be cared for, operated on (and so on) by God for the rest of eternity.
I'm not sure that you're allowing for a high enough view of our freedom. I think there's a point at which God endorses our decisions, where if we have rejected him, he endorses that and allows us to go to our self-chosen damnation.
A robust understanding of sin involves the recognition that in our fallen condition we naturally hate God and cling onto our sin, like Gollum clinging to his precious even though it casts him in the fires of Doom. Hell is eternal because sinners will resist God for all eternity.
Hell is both locked from the inside, and God's decision - his judgement - to confirm that.
Personally I don't find the idea of the afterlife in Lost particularly interesting, just another variation of Purgatory as psycho-therapy that seems to be doing the rounds in telefantasy (see also Ashes to Ashes and Being Human for other recent examples). Rather than being purged of their sins, people go to Purgatory to "resolve their issues".
Sin and redemption go a lot deeper than that. Sin isn't just guilt-feelings or a lack of self-esteem, but actual moral guilt in the eyes of a just and loving God. Salvation is real forgiveness of actual guilt paid for in blood, and our glorious transformation into the image of God, not just letting go of one's issues and moving on.
(I'm a Protestant, but I do believe that every Christian goes through a painful process of being purged from their sins before the hereafter. It's just a lot quicker, and known as "death".)
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
I can see why people don't have a problem with this, but for me, if God is the healer, then he's at work healing everyone. I accept the argument that some people might not ultimately get better (or want to get better), but I think that even the most 'sick' people will be cared for, operated on (and so on) by God for the rest of eternity.
I'm not sure that you're allowing for a high enough view of our freedom. I think there's a point at which God endorses our decisions, where if we have rejected him, he endorses that and allows us to go to our self-chosen damnation.
A robust understanding of sin involves the recognition that in our fallen condition we naturally hate God and cling onto our sin, like Gollum clinging to his precious even though it casts him in the fires of Doom. Hell is eternal because sinners will resist God for all eternity.
Hell is both locked from the inside, and God's decision - his judgement - to confirm that.
Personally I don't find the idea of the afterlife in Lost particularly interesting, just another variation of Purgatory as psycho-therapy that seems to be doing the rounds in telefantasy (see also Ashes to Ashes and Being Human for other recent examples). Rather than being purged of their sins, people go to Purgatory to "resolve their issues".
Sin and redemption go a lot deeper than that. Sin isn't just guilt-feelings or a lack of self-esteem, but actual moral guilt in the eyes of a just and loving God. Salvation is real forgiveness of actual guilt paid for in blood, and our glorious transformation into the image of God, not just letting go of one's issues and moving on.
(I'm a Protestant, but I do believe that every Christian goes through a painful process of being purged from their sins before the hereafter. It's just a lot quicker, and known as "death".)
Fistly, let me say that I agree with the last sentence.
But I think your doctrine of free will is a lot higher than anything you will find in the Scriptures. In fact, St Paul devotes a whole chapter, Romans 7, to the theme that we do not have anything like free will. You, yourself, allude to this teaching in your above post. If our fallen condition leads to our hatred of God and clinging to sin, (something, again, which I think exceeds any warrant from scripture) then clearly we are not free, so your main point falls.
As for "Lost", I can't comment because I haven't seen it, but the problem of sin is not so much moral guilt (which is freely and completely dealt with by forgiveness) as that it is destructive of God's beloved creatures and creation.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Jesus himself managed to live amongst the squalor of humanity without getting 'sick'.
But don't the gospel writers want us to see that as something that sets him apart?
When Jesus touches the lepers or the woman who has been bleeding for 12 years the amazing thing is that the normal Jewish transfer is reversed - instead of Jesus becoming unclean they become clean. However, the contrast works because that is not what normally happens in this life.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Maybe God will use our experiences in this life retrospectively, to shape us and prepare us ready for our eternal life with him.
So why can't he do it now? Is he just having a laugh with us?
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Jesus himself managed to live amongst the squalor of humanity without getting 'sick'.
But don't the gospel writers want us to see that as something that sets him apart?
When Jesus touches the lepers or the woman who has been bleeding for 12 years the amazing thing is that the normal Jewish transfer is reversed - instead of Jesus becoming unclean they become clean. However, the contrast works because that is not what normally happens in this life.
But what about Peter (I think it is) who is so holy that handkerchiefs only have to touch him to have healing power? I've heard this described as 'contagious holiness', with the idea that we can have it in a similar way to how Jesus had it. Like Jesus made the defiled pure by his presence, we can also bring purity and wholeness (shalom) by our presence.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But what about Peter (I think it is) who is so holy that handkerchiefs only have to touch him to have healing power? I've heard this described as 'contagious holiness', with the idea that we can have it in a similar way to how Jesus had it. Like Jesus made the defiled pure by his presence, we can also bring purity and wholeness (shalom) by our presence.
It was Paul, but it is a good question.
I have to say that the only person I've come across who was trying to apply that today was a prosperity charlatan who asked people to send in handkerchiefs, with their $20, for him to bless them.
Although that is not say that there aren't more sane interpretations out there.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Thanks, W Hyatt, for taking the trouble
And thanks to Josephine for the quote. Always there when you need her!
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
But what about Peter (I think it is) who is so holy that handkerchiefs only have to touch him to have healing power? I've heard this described as 'contagious holiness', with the idea that we can have it in a similar way to how Jesus had it. Like Jesus made the defiled pure by his presence, we can also bring purity and wholeness (shalom) by our presence.
It was Paul, but it is a good question.
I have to say that the only person I've come across who was trying to apply that today was a prosperity charlatan who asked people to send in handkerchiefs, with their $20, for him to bless them.
Although that is not say that there aren't more sane interpretations out there.
Dutch Sheets apparently engages in a similar practice, according to his book. He describes a couple with an unruly son, they would take bits of cloth Sheets had prayed over, cut them up, and sew them into the hems of son's clothes & heels of his shoes. After months of this, son's eventual turn around (and that of a friend who borrowed his shoes) were attributed to Sheet's intercession.
fwiw, that inclined me to read him more as the former (charlatan) than the latter (sane).
[ 09. March 2011, 22:29: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Dutch Sheets apparently engages in a similar practice, according to his book.
Well ... I ... never.
I assumed that you made his name up but google tells me it's his real name. (To be honest I was rather worried that even googling his name may not be worksafe. )
You learn something new every day.
Dutch Sheets. Dutch Sheets {mutters to himself}
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
always good to know where the crazy people hang out.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Maybe God will use our experiences in this life retrospectively, to shape us and prepare us ready for our eternal life with him.
So why can't he do it now? Is he just having a laugh with us?
I think he is and does. But maybe for some people it takes a bit longer than one lifetime.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Although that is not say that there aren't more sane interpretations out there.
I think the sane interpretation is the principle, which is about understanding Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity. The principle is that his extraordinariness wasn't in his divinity, it was in his humanity. Jesus doing amazing stuff like that isn't that amazing if the reason he did it was because he is God - God can do anything, so it's hardly mind-blowing.
But Jesus as a human, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having laid aside his divine powers, is something we can aspire to. We have the same Holy Spirit, and that's why he said we'd do greater things than He did.
So our communion with the Trinity, the indwelling of the Spirit, means that we can, as Kevin put it, bring purity and wholeness to others, because by association we're bringing God's purity and wholeness.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by goperryrevs
The principle is that his extraordinariness wasn't in his divinity, it was in his humanity. Jesus doing amazing stuff like that isn't that amazing if the reason he did it was because he is God - God can do anything, so it's hardly mind-blowing.
But Jesus as a human, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having laid aside his divine powers, is something we can aspire to. We have the same Holy Spirit, and that's why he said we'd do greater things than He did.
Just because it stands repeating
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think he is and does. But maybe for some people it takes a bit longer than one lifetime.
A bit longer? What about all the people where there is no evidence of it happening at all in this life?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
But Jesus as a human, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having laid aside his divine powers, is something we can aspire to. We have the same Holy Spirit, and that's why he said we'd do greater things than He did.
I completely agree as a theological principle. It is the evidence of that actually happening now that I'm struggling with.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
97%+ of humanity. They have a bearable or even more bearable Judgement Day coming.
Jesus saves.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes and if Lost is the metaphor for the afterlife it raises the same question - what is the point of this life? Why can't Lost start now?
And most importantly, what do you call a polar bear on a desert island?
"Lost".
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I think he is and does. But maybe for some people it takes a bit longer than one lifetime.
A bit longer? What about all the people where there is no evidence of it happening at all in this life?
That's the bit I disagree with. Every good thing comes from God, and there is no one who is completely depraved, with no good in them whatsoever. So, as I said, in every single person there is some good, some way in which God is working in their lives.
Posted by Wood (# 7) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
quote:
Originally posted by Wood:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes and if Lost is the metaphor for the afterlife it raises the same question - what is the point of this life? Why can't Lost start now?
And most importantly, what do you call a polar bear on a desert island?
"Lost".
FINALLY.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Every good thing comes from God, and there is no one who is completely depraved, with no good in them whatsoever. So, as I said, in every single person there is some good, some way in which God is working in their lives.
You're setting the bar extremely low here.
I didn't say that there is not some good in everyone. (If you can forgive the double negative.) You were talking about the Lost style chance to improve. I countered that with people who don't seem to be getting any better - indeed they appear to becoming more bitter.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Every good thing comes from God, and there is no one who is completely depraved, with no good in them whatsoever. So, as I said, in every single person there is some good, some way in which God is working in their lives.
You're setting the bar extremely low here.
I didn't say that there is not some good in everyone. (If you can forgive the double negative.) You were talking about the Lost style chance to improve. I countered that with people who don't seem to be getting any better - indeed they appear to becoming more bitter.
I guess you're talking about the idea that everyone's lives head in one direction or the other, then that Heaven or Hell are the ultimate conclusion of the direction that our lives take.
I'm not so sure it works like that. I was kind of talking about two different things, and I think you're merging them. Firstly, the point about there being 'good' in everyone means that (if annihilation or eternal punishment is true) God will essentially be writing that good off. In some ways you could see this as a worthy thing (he's willing to invest with no expectation of return), but from another view it's a very sad thing - like God is giving up on something good. I believe that he never gives up on anyone. With both eternal punishment and annihilation, God gives up on people.
In terms of 'getting better', I think that the biggest factor for that is submission. The reason some of us take longer to be sanctified/saved is because we're not willing to let God have the control. This is why I don't buy the idea I described in the first paragraph. The worst sinner, once they 'see the light' and understand that actually, God's way is the best way, who submits their will to God for him to change them, can change overnight. Everyone's different though, some of us find it harder to give all of our lives to God.
To take a biblical illustration, in the story of the woman caught in adultery, it was the old men that repented first, followed by the young men. I think that this is how ultimate reconciliation will happen - bit by bit. People who would not have turned will see others they know and love doing so, and will reconsider. Some people may be more stubborn, and will need a lot more work, but in the end finally everyone will be reconciled to God.
I can't believe in annihilation (although morally I think it is the second most acceptable view), because it would mean that God has given up on those people. The possibility has to be left open for some to choose not to repent, so I can't say for certain that everyone will, but they'd be like one of the men in the story left standing in the street, holding on to stone (and their own self-righteousness), while the woman and everyone else has gone off to a party.
However, just as in the bible story, where all the men finally repented, I think that the same will happen in the afterlife too. And think of the party when the last person puts away their pride and walks in through the gates!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
A good article on the sociology of the Rob Bell debate.
quote:
The metaphor of the body of Christ preaches the need to value different perspectives – to be ideologically interdependent.
Amen.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I guess you're talking about the idea that everyone's lives head in one direction or the other, then that Heaven or Hell are the ultimate conclusion of the direction that our lives take.
I'm not so sure it works like that.
I don't think it works like that either - I was trying to get my head round how you (and others) think universalism works.
I'd asked you what the point of this life was if God can gradually change all of us in the next life. I'm not sure you've answered that question yet.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, the point about there being 'good' in everyone means that (if annihilation or eternal punishment is true) God will essentially be writing that good off. In some ways you could see this as a worthy thing (he's willing to invest with no expectation of return), but from another view it's a very sad thing - like God is giving up on something good. I believe that he never gives up on anyone. With both eternal punishment and annihilation, God gives up on people.
I think you are using the term 'good' in different ways there. I'm sure that Hitler had redeeming characteristics and there was good in him, I don't think Dietrich Bonhoeffer thought that he would have been writing the good off though.
I agree that everyone person has inherent value and that either annihilation or hell means the destruction of that person. That is something I find hard to take. However, I think that introducing 'good' into the discussion becomes very morally confused.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of 'getting better', I think that the biggest factor for that is submission. The reason some of us take longer to be sanctified/saved is because we're not willing to let God have the control. This is why I don't buy the idea I described in the first paragraph. The worst sinner, once they 'see the light' and understand that actually, God's way is the best way, who submits their will to God for him to change them, can change overnight. Everyone's different though, some of us find it harder to give all of our lives to God.
I think that is a great explanation of the gospel.
I don't see how it squares with universalism though:
Either God would have to coerce people to submit to him or I would expect to see evidence in this life that everyone eventually will voluntarily choose to submit to him. I find it impossible to project from this life to the next and assume that everyone will eventually submit to God - unless something changes dramatically.
And since both of those options involve God introducing some major change in the next life it again begs the question of why this life couldn't be like that now.
[ 12. March 2011, 03:47: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by JohnnyS
Either God would have to coerce people to submit to him or I would expect to see evidence in this life that everyone eventually will voluntarily choose to submit to him. I find it impossible to project from this life to the next and assume that everyone will eventually submit to God - unless something changes dramatically.
But, of course, something does change at death. We die. When we die, we are no longer subject to the law, as Paul points out in Romans 7. Our sin-enslaved bodies are left behind, to be transformed into a body like Christ's. The battle between our "flesh", as Paul calls it, the entropy of sin, and the way of the Spirit, has no meaning any more, because our flesh is no more.
Now, no doubt Paul was in some way speaking figuratively, but he does seem to have believed that sin was tied up with our mortal bodies, and that our release from those bodies at death would also release us from sin. Indeed, his entire argument of why we need to be saved rests on the identity, in his thinking, between sin and death. Our obedience to Christ now brings that eschatological hope into present reality, but, even for Christians it is only a downpayment, an earnest, as the KJV calls it, of a time when our wills truely will be free.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now, no doubt Paul was in some way speaking figuratively, but he does seem to have believed that sin was tied up with our mortal bodies, and that our release from those bodies at death would also release us from sin.
Yes, no doubt about it imo.
We are necessarily selfish in our mortal bodies - we have to be so to survive. There is nothing more 'selfish' than a tiny baby. This doesn't mean we don't/can't learn to care for others, but we have to take heed of our physical needs or we'd be no use whatever to others.
In fact we wouldn't exist at all without the 'selfish' nature of animalkind - we would never have evolved into humans in the first place.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of 'getting better', I think that the biggest factor for that is submission. The reason some of us take longer to be sanctified/saved is because we're not willing to let God have the control. This is why I don't buy the idea I described in the first paragraph. The worst sinner, once they 'see the light' and understand that actually, God's way is the best way, who submits their will to God for him to change them, can change overnight. Everyone's different though, some of us find it harder to give all of our lives to God.
I think that is a great explanation of the gospel.
<Tangent alert: that's a great explanation of the meaning of Islam too>
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But, of course, something does change at death. We die. When we die, we are no longer subject to the law, as Paul points out in Romans 7. Our sin-enslaved bodies are left behind, to be transformed into a body like Christ's. The battle between our "flesh", as Paul calls it, the entropy of sin, and the way of the Spirit, has no meaning any more, because our flesh is no more.
Now, no doubt Paul was in some way speaking figuratively, but he does seem to have believed that sin was tied up with our mortal bodies, and that our release from those bodies at death would also release us from sin. Indeed, his entire argument of why we need to be saved rests on the identity, in his thinking, between sin and death.
How does that interpretation of Paul square with the body being a temple of God and the Holy Spirit?
quote:
1 Corinthians 6.14-7.4
14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple* of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
And, erm, isn't your interpretation of Paul above rather gnostic? ![[Paranoid]](graemlins/paranoid.gif)
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
But, of course, something does change at death. We die. When we die, we are no longer subject to the law, as Paul points out in Romans 7.
You've explained that very well, in my opinion. Sin and mortality are pretty much one and the same thing, or near enough to each other so as to make no odds, in my opinion.
However, that doesn't mean that we are guaranteed immortality for our spirits when our mortal bodies die.
I'm aware that in Matthew 22:29-32, Jesus explains that when a person rises from a dead, a person becomes like an angel in heaven. To my way of thinking, an angel is inherently immortal; the fact that angels are immortal and that men are mortal is what distinguishes angels from men.
So I do agree with you in some ways. Death is a monster, death is an enemy. To be saved from death means that death is defeated. Mind you, just as not everyone was saved from the dragon that St George slayed, not everyone is saved from death either. Just because an enemy is defeated, it does not necessarily follow that everyone was saved from that enemy.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
How does that interpretation of Paul square with the body being a temple of God and the Holy Spirit?
quote:
1 Corinthians 6.14-7.4
14And God raised the Lord and will also raise us by his power. 15Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Should I therefore take the members of Christ and make them members of a prostitute? Never! 16Do you not know that whoever is united to a prostitute becomes one body with her? For it is said, ‘The two shall be one flesh.’ 17But anyone united to the Lord becomes one spirit with him. 18Shun fornication! Every sin that a person commits is outside the body; but the fornicator sins against the body itself. 19Or do you not know that your body is a temple* of the Holy Spirit within you, which you have from God, and that you are not your own?
And, erm, isn't your interpretation of Paul above rather gnostic?
I'm not entirely convinced that the two square either - to such an extent that I suspect Romans 7 and 1 Corinthians 6 might have been written by two different people.
More likely, though, I suspect that this "body is a temple" thing is prone to misinterpretations of its own. It seems to me that hope for the afterlife, and hope for the future renewal of the heavens and the earth, is of foundational importance not only to Christianity, but several other religions too. You can't undo the importance of that hope just by flagging up a Bible passage that seems to say our mortal bodies are temples.
You can spot heresy anywhere if you look hard enough.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that the whole point of the idea of the body being a temple is that having that body thrown into a beast-filled arena would be rather meaningless if it wasn't. Does it matter how you live and die? It seems to me that it does.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To my way of thinking, an angel is inherently immortal; the fact that angels are immortal and that men are mortal is what distinguishes angels from men.
The classic, orthodox (small-o) position is that what distinguishes angels from men is that the former are non-corporeal/non-material and the latter are corporeal/material.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
'strewth mousethief! Spot on. Apart from the corporeal.
[ 12. March 2011, 14:26: Message edited by: Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard ]
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To my way of thinking, an angel is inherently immortal; the fact that angels are immortal and that men are mortal is what distinguishes angels from men.
The classic, orthodox (small-o) position is that what distinguishes angels from men is that the former are non-corporeal/non-material and the latter are corporeal/material.
It's interesting you say that - because I think that brings up the question of the Evangelical bugbear over 1 Corinthians 15:44. Writers like Tom Wright would insist that "spiritual" does not mean non-corporeal, but rather that it means a spiritual body is even firmer than a physical one.
And in the context, I think that makes sense - because verse 43 describes a body being "sown in weakness" and "raised in power".
So - when Jesus says in Matthew 22:30 that the resurrected body is like an angel, I think it works the other way too; an angel is like a resurrected body. Which is why I'm inclined to view the attributes of angels in terms of how Evangelicalism describes resurrected bodies.
We could very easily get wrapped up in semantics over this one, though. When you say that an angel is "non-corporeal" or "non-material", many people would interpret that as meaning that an angel is like a ghost. Perhaps that is what you mean - but on the other hand, perhaps it isn't. I honestly can't tell either way.
Not saying that one way of understanding it is right and another is wrong though. But is it possible to trace the origin of the idea that angels are non-corporeal bodies? Does it get spelled out more explicitly anywhere in the Bible, or in early church writings? Thanks.
[ 12. March 2011, 14:57: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of 'getting better', I think that the biggest factor for that is submission. The reason some of us take longer to be sanctified/saved is because we're not willing to let God have the control. This is why I don't buy the idea I described in the first paragraph. The worst sinner, once they 'see the light' and understand that actually, God's way is the best way, who submits their will to God for him to change them, can change overnight. Everyone's different though, some of us find it harder to give all of our lives to God.
I think that is a great explanation of the gospel.
<Tangent alert: that's a great explanation of the meaning of Islam too>
Yeah, that.
I don't do things God wants me to do because I'm submitting to Him. I'm doing them because He loves me.
Geez, doesn't anybody read Paul anymore?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I composed a nice lengthy reply this morning before my frigging phone lost it. Nice. Second try!
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I don't do things God wants me to do because I'm submitting to Him. I'm doing them because He loves me.
Geez, doesn't anybody read Paul anymore?
I was aware as I typed that what I was describing was relevant to Islam, but that doesn't mean it's not applicable to Christians too. I don't think it's either/or, Doc Tor. God is our parent, we do things because he loves us, but we also do them because he knows best.
In terms of Johnny's question, someone earlier described the change referring to what Paul described as seeing in a mirror faintly. The big change will be perspective, and I think that links with what JJ was talking about. As to why, I don't know fully. Maybe we all have to undergo death in order to understand what Life's really about.
Regarding people who show no inclination of following the gospel, there's a proverb (middle eastern I think) that says "with understanding comes forgiveness". God knows our hearts and why we are the way we are, and he knows how to woo us too, without compromising our free will.
I might have forgotten something I typed in response to one of your questions this morning, Johnny. Sorry if that's the case, and feel free to re-ask questions
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
God is our parent, we do things because he loves us, but we also do them because he knows best.
The problem with the 'God knows best' bit is that we move seamlessly onto all those bits of the OT where we're told we have to stone people for various crimes and sins. Did God know best then? Did God known best when He sanctioned Joshua's ethnic cleansing of Caanan? (Or was it what people thought God wanted them to do? Or was convenient to do it and say that's what God wanted them to do?)
The Christian revelation of God is that God is love.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
You're right. Personally, I'm fairly liberal on a lot of the old testament - I think a lot of those examples are humans justifying their own behaviour by saying God told them. Of course, that brings its own conundrums, but yes, God knows best without God is love is very shaky ground. That's why they need to go hand in hand. If God is love, then there's nothing wrong with God knows best.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted be Evensong
How does that interpretation of Paul square with the body being a temple of God and the Holy Spirit?
God's purpose for our bodies is that they should become the temple of the Holy Spirit, and, because of the atonement, we can know that in part. But it is an eschatalogical hope that is only partially realised in the here and now. Its fulfilment awaits the time when our bodies will be renewed; resurrection bodies like that of Christ. We can anticipate that time by "putting to death the flesh, and living in the Spirit", but its full realisation is yet to come.
There is nothing gnostic about this. There is nothing about a corporeal existence that is inherently second class. It's just that this particular corporeal existence, this current body, is bound to the law of sin and death. We are not liberated from our sinful bodies to become some sort of free-floating spirit, but, ultimately, to a renewed "physical" existence. It's just that the "physics" will be somewhat different.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
To my way of thinking, an angel is inherently immortal; the fact that angels are immortal and that men are mortal is what distinguishes angels from men.
The classic, orthodox (small-o) position is that what distinguishes angels from men is that the former are non-corporeal/non-material and the latter are corporeal/material.
This may well be the case, but it is nevertheless true that humans are not immortals in the way in which angels have been thought of as immortal. We are mortals who have been given eternal life. Apart from that, we would cease to exist at death.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Then we've turned away.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Then we've turned away.
I did say "apart from that", that is, if it were not for the gift of eternal life.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted be Evensong
How does that interpretation of Paul square with the body being a temple of God and the Holy Spirit?
God's purpose for our bodies is that they should become the temple of the Holy Spirit, and, because of the atonement, we can know that in part. But it is an eschatalogical hope that is only partially realised in the here and now. Its fulfilment awaits the time when our bodies will be renewed; resurrection bodies like that of Christ. We can anticipate that time by "putting to death the flesh, and living in the Spirit", but its full realisation is yet to come.
There is nothing gnostic about this. There is nothing about a corporeal existence that is inherently second class. It's just that this particular corporeal existence, this current body, is bound to the law of sin and death. We are not liberated from our sinful bodies to become some sort of free-floating spirit, but, ultimately, to a renewed "physical" existence. It's just that the "physics" will be somewhat different.
I agree with you for the most part.
I suppose the premise that this current body is bound to the law of sin and death is where I struggle.
Yes it's Pauline.
But I don't see it anywhere else much in the bible......so it doesn't really float with me....
God created us, ....and "it was good".....
Paul was too hung up on the rhetoric of fitting Jesus into the picture. He goes too far in equating sin with death and Adam from Genesis IMO. Quite within his rights as a Rabbi, but still wrong IMO.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
quote:
originally posted by goperryrevs
The principle is that his extraordinariness wasn't in his divinity, it was in his humanity. Jesus doing amazing stuff like that isn't that amazing if the reason he did it was because he is God - God can do anything, so it's hardly mind-blowing.
But Jesus as a human, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having laid aside his divine powers, is something we can aspire to. We have the same Holy Spirit, and that's why he said we'd do greater things than He did.
Just because it stands repeating
A bit late but:
I like this too.
It does have some issues with it however.
For example: According to a Chalcedonian definition of Christ, he was without sin.
If he was without sin, was he really human? And are we (who are not without sin) capable of what goosberryrevs says above?
Maybe this is too tangential.
Anyone want to start another thread on this?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he was without sin, was he really human?
I don't see the issue. Do we only start to become human when we sin? Or do we instead become less and less human the more we sin and the more we give in to our animal-like nature?
quote:
And are we (who are not without sin) capable of what goosberryrevs says above?
Certainly not from our own abilities. But why not, if it is really the Holy Spirit working through us? In which case we will only provide whatever limitations there will be to what the Holy Spirit can do through us.
I'm struck by the similarities between what goperryrevs describes for our post-resurrection bodies and what Swedenborg describes as a current spiritual reality that is merely above our consciousness while we live in this world. If one has to posit that the laws of physics will have to change, why is it important that our bodies have to be physical at all? What does "physical" even mean if the laws of physics have to change?
And whether you say that the laws of physics will change or that our post-resurrection bodies will not be physical, that does not imply that our current physical existence must be inherently bad. It can just as well mean that the inherent value of living with physical limitations is limited to the duration of our natural life and that our finite, natural life provides us with a permanent (maybe even "solid"?) foundation for an eternal life after death.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
If he was without sin, was he really human?
I don't see the issue. Do we only start to become human when we sin? Or do we instead become less and less human the more we sin and the more we give in to our animal-like nature?
Let me rephrase.
I haven't met anybody that is perfect (without sin). Being broken (to various degrees) seems to be part of being human.
And if Jesus was perfect (without sin), then that kind of puts him in a different ballpark from us normal folk.
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
And are we (who are not without sin) capable of what goosberryrevs says above?
Certainly not from our own abilities. But why not, if it is really the Holy Spirit working through us?
Because we're starting from a different spot from Jesus.
We have sin, he doesn't.
So the action of the Holy Spirit would presumably have to be different......?
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And if Jesus was perfect (without sin), then that kind of puts him in a different ballpark from us normal folk.
OK, I see your point. Personally, I think it was only important for him to start out like the rest of us, not for him to live his life like the rest of us.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And if Jesus was perfect (without sin), then that kind of puts him in a different ballpark from us normal folk.
OK, I see your point. Personally, I think it was only important for him to start out like the rest of us, not for him to live his life like the rest of us.
I agree. But did he start out like the rest of us if he was born without sin?
Hell....when you come to think of it, can't say my dad was the Holy Spirit.......
[ 13. March 2011, 06:29: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But did he start out like the rest of us if he was born without sin?
Actually, I think we are all born without sin too, just the inclination to sin. It's such a strong inclination that we all do sin, but I don't think we're born with it. I think that Christ started with the same inclination, but that he also had the power to resist it completely. Not particularly mainstream, I grant you, but I do think he started out like the rest of us.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
That, and he was God incarnate.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
Actually, I think we are all born without sin too, just the inclination to sin. It's such a strong inclination that we all do sin, but I don't think we're born with it. I think that Christ started with the same inclination, but that he also had the power to resist it completely. Not particularly mainstream, I grant you, but I do think he started out like the rest of us.
Yes, I agree. There is no way that we could do what he asked and 'follow him' if he had inborn advantages.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's OK JJ, I was replying to the rationalizations above that deny the consistent nature of God from Genesis to Revelation, Aleph to Omega as incidentally pragmatic killer.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But did he start out like the rest of us if he was born without sin?
Actually, I think we are all born without sin too, just the inclination to sin. It's such a strong inclination that we all do sin, but I don't think we're born with it. I think that Christ started with the same inclination, but that he also had the power to resist it completely. Not particularly mainstream, I grant you, but I do think he started out like the rest of us.
Fair enough.
I guess I'm just wondering how creedal christianity justifies the idea that he was fully human, yet without sin.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
He started out as fully human as all of us, with a fully human nature and desires and will. He also had a divine will. That's the difference. Prince trumps toad, which is why He couldn't sin. But He certainly suffered all the pangs we all feel.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
He started out as fully human as all of us, with a fully human nature and desires and will. He also had a divine will. That's the difference. Prince trumps toad, which is why He couldn't sin. But He certainly suffered all the pangs we all feel.
He couldn't sin because he was God too?
Well that kind of stuffs it up for us doesn't it? We're not God too.
By your account, he was not fully human because he was God too.
I don't actually think that is the Chalcedonian position.
The Chalcedonian position says he has two natures that do not intermingle.
Crickey....this is a bit of tangent....maybe we should start a new thread...
[ 13. March 2011, 14:07: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It's one of the givens, the paradoxes, the particle-wave dualities. He was FULLY humand and FULLY divine. The divine is greater. Can't lose. We are divine in HIS humanity.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by pete173:
I've read the book in pre-publication form.
It's complex. Rob's style (which I don't find to my liking, because he writes a bit like he Noomas) is (of course) postmodern, and he hectors the reader into adopting his point of view. He indulges in hyperbole and reductio ad absurdum in order to prove his points. But his position is not coherently argued, and that will mean that the discussion with the conservatives who have leapt into print to oppose him before reading him will be engaged in a dialogue of the deaf. Propositional it ain't.
...
...
His exegesis is weak and he parodies views which which he disagrees (it was a bit like reading James Barr's diatribe on Fundamentalism!)
On universalism, he takes the CS Lewis Last Battle approach to other faiths. He’s incapable of embracing objectivity – which kind of undermines his theological method - so the sacraments are not objective and true because they are true (which is what we old fashioned modernists believe!) but “true for us” [wet nonsense...] [grrr..]
.
Having also read the book I have to say I do not recognise what Bishop Pete is describing here. I found the book challenging and conversational in style. It did, in places, indulge in polemics, but that worked in the context.
My take Is that:
1. It isn't so much a theological work as a missional work, aimed at those on the borderlands of faith, or those burned out. As such, it isn't aiming to do the same as NT Wright etc.
2. I have come to the conclusion that Rob isn't interested in being a part of evangelicalism and so doesn't really care if he becomes a hate figure there. They are not his audience (as seen by his move from Zondervan to Harper One in the US).
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It's one of the givens, the paradoxes, the particle-wave dualities. He was FULLY humand and FULLY divine. The divine is greater. Can't lose. We are divine in HIS humanity.
Hate to say this but Martin has it, almost. We are not yet divine, but are now able to become so. God became man so that man might become God.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
What do I yet lack oh mighty mouse? What sin of omission?
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Thank you, ianj. I found pete's response to be rather OTT as well. It reads a bit as if he really wants to talk about heresy or some other debate-stopper, rather than accepting that people do have questions, and that the answers aren't always obvious.
At least, not to the lost or wandering.
Fine if you have absolute certainty, but that is not a blessing I'm sure that I want.
I do tend to the "Last Battle" or even the "Abou Ben Adhem" school of thought - which, I suppose, makes me a non-Christian to the True Believers. Glad it isn' their call.
I always preferred Gandhi's take on Christianity anyway - it wasn't the idea of Christianity that drove him away, it was the practitioners.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Amen 'aitch Bee.
It makes you truly orthodox though.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
What do I yet lack oh mighty mouse? What sin of omission?
We are not yet fully divine. But the transformation has begun, as St Clive says.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
That's just grammar mate. It is done from eternity. We're all included in the divine, lifted up to the Father in the Spirit, by God's vicarious and now transcendent humanity in Jesus. But if you want to be more right, you can have it. Are we not in the heavenlies? And of course you're right, we're still meat-bound for a while yet. If that's all you mean. Nothing esoteric ?
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
2. I have come to the conclusion that Rob isn't interested in being a part of evangelicalism and so doesn't really care if he becomes a hate figure there. They are not his audience (as seen by his move from Zondervan to Harper One in the US).
Are we taking bets on what he will convert to in later life?
I reckon Sacramental Methodism Stanley Hauerwas style (and yes he worships in an Anglican church).
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Yet again, Martin PCN is the one who gets it right. What he said.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Nothing esoteric. Just that on the ground in the spacetime reality we now inhabit, we're still a work in progress.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Thanks for trying folks. But that's not an answer to my question of his humanity as per Chalcedon.
Don't worry about the tangent....
As you were.
[ 14. March 2011, 01:42: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks for trying folks.
I don't think this is condescending enough. Can you give it another go?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks for trying folks.
I don't think this is condescending enough. Can you give it another go?
Sorry. Wasn't meant to sound condescending. Truly.
The whole theosis dual nature thing is not where I was heading...I was trying to be more specific.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
There's a very detailed review of Love Wins (twenty pages!) over on The Gospel Coalition site by Kevin DeYoung, from a conservative evangelical viewpoint, here. I'm broadly sympathetic to its reaction, though not having read the book I don't know whether it represents Bell accurately.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I guess I'm just wondering how creedal christianity justifies the idea that he was fully human, yet without sin.
To sin is to be less than fully human, to turn away from what God created humanity to be. Sin is fundamentally abnormal to our humanity.
This is of course in tension with the conclusions often drawn about human nature from evolutionary science, but that our present human condition is normal to us because we evolved this way. But it's the secular interpretation of the science that contradicts the Biblical doctrine of the Fall, not the science itself necessarily.
Posted by Prudentius (# 11181) on
:
This article appeared on March 14. It might be of interest to participants in this discussion. Cathleen Falsani on Rob Bell
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But did he start out like the rest of us if he was born without sin?
Actually, I think we are all born without sin too, just the inclination to sin. It's such a strong inclination that we all do sin, but I don't think we're born with it. I think that Christ started with the same inclination, but that he also had the power to resist it completely. Not particularly mainstream, I grant you, but I do think he started out like the rest of us.
Has anyone here read the Gary Anderson book "Sin: A History" yet?
I have not read it. Nevertheless, I'm led to believe that it presents a thesis that the meaning of "sin" - and the words in ancient languages that are now translated as "sin" - has subtly but radically changed over the past thousand years or two.
I'm not yet convinced that we cannot assume that the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "sin", and the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "mortality", aren't actually synonyms of each other. Much of the meaning of St Paul's letter to the Romans is made a lot simpler and more consistent if you assume that they are synonymous.
In other words - to say that we are born with original sin, and to say that we are mortal, means one and the same thing - and that to say "the wages of sin are death" becomes a tautology. Christ is without sin in the sense that he is God - however, to say that he "became sin" means the same thing as saying he became human or mortal. To deny that he became sin is to deny the incarnation, and to deny Christ's humanity - and therefore also his death. And if you deny that Christ died, you also deny that he entered a state from which he can be meaningfully said to have resurrected. So, to say that Christ was without sin but became sin is merely an expression of Incarnation theology.
Still, that's how I see it.
On a related subject:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Thanks for trying folks. But that's not an answer to my question of his humanity as per Chalcedon.
Okay, I'll have a go ...
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
For example: According to a Chalcedonian definition of Christ, he was without sin.
If he was without sin, was he really human? And are we (who are not without sin) capable of what goosberryrevs says above?
Hmm.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Although that is not say that there aren't more sane interpretations out there.
I think the sane interpretation is the principle, which is about understanding Jesus' humanity as well as his divinity. The principle is that his extraordinariness wasn't in his divinity, it was in his humanity. Jesus doing amazing stuff like that isn't that amazing if the reason he did it was because he is God - God can do anything, so it's hardly mind-blowing.
But Jesus as a human, empowered by the Holy Spirit, having laid aside his divine powers, is something we can aspire to. We have the same Holy Spirit, and that's why he said we'd do greater things than He did.
So our communion with the Trinity, the indwelling of the Spirit, means that we can, as Kevin put it, bring purity and wholeness to others, because by association we're bringing God's purity and wholeness.
goperryrevs has put it very well I think. In all honesty, I can't see any other rationale for thinking what Jesus did amazing apart from that one. Once you say that Jesus was God - and that he did what he did because he was God - it ceases to be extraordinary. On the contrary, it's more like we're rationalising it away.
Once again:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
And are we (who are not without sin) capable of what goosberryrevs says above?
Well - if it was easy for humans (who are not without sin) to do this, then what Jesus did wouldn't be amazing and extraordinary. It's precisely because it's not easy that it is amazing.
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I guess I'm just wondering how creedal christianity justifies the idea that he was fully human, yet without sin.
To sin is to be less than fully human, to turn away from what God created humanity to be. Sin is fundamentally abnormal to our humanity.
You sure about that? I thought it was rather the other way round.
It's looking like a debate about semantics to me. It all depends on how you define "sin".
[ 15. March 2011, 18:34: Message edited by: Jessie Phillips ]
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I'm not yet convinced that we cannot assume that the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "sin", and the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "mortality", aren't actually synonyms of each other. Much of the meaning of St Paul's letter to the Romans is made a lot simpler and more consistent if you assume that they are synonymous.
It kind of makes a hash of, "for through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death."
If they're synonymous it's saying that sin/death entered the world through sin/death. Rather tautological.
quote:
and that to say "the wages of sin are death" becomes a tautology.
Which I'd say is a pretty good reductio against it.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
I'm not yet convinced that we cannot assume that the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "sin", and the words in ancient Greek we now translate as "mortality", aren't actually synonyms of each other. Much of the meaning of St Paul's letter to the Romans is made a lot simpler and more consistent if you assume that they are synonymous.
It kind of makes a hash of, "for through one man sin entered the world, and through sin, death."
If they're synonymous it's saying that sin/death entered the world through sin/death. Rather tautological.
I agree.
But there's still a problem.
It would be nice if there was a passage in the New Testament where the concept of "sin", and the concept of "death", are both clearly defined, and put side by side so that you can contrast them, and be absolutely crystal clear what the difference between the two is.
But there is no such passage in the New Testament. Indeed, I'm not sure there's such a passage in the Apostolic Fathers, or any other surviving ancient Greek literature, Christian or non-Christian.
It's all very well to say that Paul describes the relationship between "sin" and "death" as though it's obvious what the difference between the two is. But we can't just assume that a difference must therefore exist, and then just make up the details of that difference out of thin air. There needs to be evidence in the form of contemporaneous documents that backs it up. But that's what I'm not yet seeing.
But perhaps I've missed it? Can anyone point to a passage in the Bible that does explain the difference between sin and death more clearly?
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
I've heard it said that sin is an archery term, and that it means 'missing the target' (which would fit with Paul's "falling short of the glory of god"), but I've no idea how much truth there is in it. I also presume the Greek and Hebrew words have different roots. Add that to the fact that words can have nuanced, multiple meanings, and I'm not sure the straightforward answer you're looking for exists, I'm afraid. Maybe worthy of a new thread in Kerygmania?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
Has anyone here read the Gary Anderson book "Sin: A History" yet?
Thanks for the link Jessie. Will follow it up.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
I don't see that we need to have a biblical compare-and-contrast to say the two aren't the same. You could pick any two words the Bible doesn't contrast and say they were the same thing. The burden of proof is on someone making a claim, not someone denying it.
They are spoken of as different many times, in that they are said to be in a cause-effect relationship. The wages of sin is death. Through one man sin entered the world and through sin death. In absence of any positive evidence that they are the same thing, the default assumption is that they are not, and I think these two verses rather back that up. There is therefore a pretty strong case that they are not the same, and no case at all that they are. Even in the absence of some kind of intrabiblical dictionary.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Wow, this issue has really kicked off on the internet. The only thing moving faster than the blogs is Rob's book.
Has anyone watched the Martin Bashir interview? I'm trying hard not to be biased but Rob Bell really did look like a bunny caught in the headlights - as if he didn't expect to be asked any real questions. Rather than disagreeing with him I was more embarrassed for him.
The interview is pretty short but much longer is this radio interview of Martin Bashir (about his interview of Rob Bell) which is very interesting.
Martin Bashir radio interview
I don't think Rob Bell is coming out of this very well at all.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
It doesn't seem to be affecting the book sales too much though. It is is currently #3 in the Amazon.com book charts. That's #3 overall in all book sales.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The interview is pretty short but much longer is this radio interview of Martin Bashir (about his interview of Rob Bell) which is very interesting.
Martin Bashir radio interview
I don't think Rob Bell is coming out of this very well at all.
It would be lovely to believe that all Christians, when challenged with evidence of their untruths, would have the humility to apologise and not do it again.
Those with ears, etc...
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
On re-reading, my last post might be construed as a personal attack on Johnny.
Not meant that way - for clarification: many of the media commentators criticising Bell hadn't even bothered to read the book before launching their attacks. Those same commentators don't seem to think twice about being 'economical' with the truth when it suits them, either.
A commitment to the truth, wherever it leads, is a universal good.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On re-reading, my last post might be construed as a personal attack on Johnny.
Don't worry, I didn't read it like that.
(Of course the thing that caught Rob Bell by surprise was precisely the fact that Martin had read the book!)
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
On re-reading, my last post might be construed as a personal attack on Johnny.
Don't worry, I didn't read it like that.
(Of course the thing that caught Rob Bell by surprise was precisely the fact that Martin had read the book!)
And done his research. And wasn't prepared to take waffle in lieu of an answer.
What was telling, I thought (in the Bashir/Edwards interview) was Bashir's anecdote about asking a difficult question in the mosque, and being told he'd burn in Hell if he asked that again. At the age of 12.
Bashir is certainly no friend of fundamentalism, of whatever stripe. I'd be careful about lionising the man, just in case, you know...
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Martin Bashir radio interview
I don't think Rob Bell is coming out of this very well at all.
Thanks for the link Johnny, it was very interesting. It certainly sounds like Rob Bell is very selective in his quoting in those examples of Luther and John 3:17. From my point of view, that's sad, because for those that disagree with Bell, it's just going to entrench them in their positions and ignore the issues he's raising. The only thing I disagreed with Martin Bashir on (although I didn't listen to the whole interview) was what he said about Origen and Arius (that Rob Bell quoted Origen but ignored Arius, despite both being declared anathema by the church). The two are very different in terms of their acceptance in the Church, and I thought that was an unfair criticism.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
I listened to the whole recording, which was not the interview with Rob Bell, but about the interview. Martin Bashir was pretty fair, until it came to the end of the piece.
At this point Martin Bashir asked Rob Bell -
“Do you believe that regardless of how you respond to the teachings of Christ you will be accepted into the Kingdom of heaven?”
Then later he said, referring to the same question and Rob Bell’s lack of an answer, “It was a simple yes or no answer and Rob refused to answer it.”
what??
A ‘yes or no’ answer to something theologians have wrestled with for generations?
I think not. Martin Bashir’s own evangelical faith has coloured his responses to an enormous degree – however good he is at his job (and he is excellent at it)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Thanks Boogie, that's interesting. I'm afraid I didn't get to the end.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Bashir is certainly no friend of fundamentalism, of whatever stripe. I'd be careful about lionising the man, just in case, you know...
I did laugh out loud at Martin's attempts to deflect the question - are you an evangelical Christian? This time it was the journalist squirming because he didn't answer the question!
But yes, you are right, you could tell that the interviewer asked him because he wanted to claim a celebrity scalp. So good for Martin for resisting so admirably.
(I'd already worked out he went to Tim Keller's church though - he quotes a famous Keller illustration part way through about the cultural difference between the East and the West.)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The only thing I disagreed with Martin Bashir on (although I didn't listen to the whole interview) was what he said about Origen and Arius (that Rob Bell quoted Origen but ignored Arius, despite both being declared anathema by the church). The two are very different in terms of their acceptance in the Church, and I thought that was an unfair criticism.
(It also made me smile a bit at Martin's attempts to pronounce Arius.)
I don't think that criticism is fair. Origen was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople. I know that how binding that council was is debated and the other factors around it, however that is (ISTM) precisely the point. Rob Bell is disingenuous in the way that he glosses over these complicated issues. The fact that a journalist can look at history and see both Origen and Arius declared anathema should tell us something. Yes, you are right in that it is a bit more complicated than that, but it is Rob Bell who is wanting to air-brush out the wrinkles.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I listened to the whole recording, which was not the interview with Rob Bell, but about the interview. Martin Bashir was pretty fair, until it came to the end of the piece.
At this point Martin Bashir asked Rob Bell -
“Do you believe that regardless of how you respond to the teachings of Christ you will be accepted into the Kingdom of heaven?”
Then later he said, referring to the same question and Rob Bell’s lack of an answer, “It was a simple yes or no answer and Rob refused to answer it.”
what??
A ‘yes or no’ answer to something theologians have wrestled with for generations?
I think not. Martin Bashir’s own evangelical faith has coloured his responses to an enormous degree – however good he is at his job (and he is excellent at it)
I thought it was a good interview - perhaps a bit over-aggressive in making assertions tagged with "Aren't you?" and "Isn't it?", but good journalism in that it was well-researched and held Bell's views up to critical scrutiny.
Bashir was asking Rob Bell for his own position on universalism/post-mortem conversion - "do you believe...?", so expecting a yes or no answer is fair enough, I think.
I think Bashir's own faith had an influence in that it meant that he took the issues seriously and he understood the questions at stake. But Bashir's style is generally very aggressive, and I think he is sincere in his claim on that radio interview that his concern as a journalist was to get clear, honest answers. So while Bashir's background undoubtedly coloured his approach, the tough questioning is also typical of his journalism.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The only thing I disagreed with Martin Bashir on (although I didn't listen to the whole interview) was what he said about Origen and Arius (that Rob Bell quoted Origen but ignored Arius, despite both being declared anathema by the church). The two are very different in terms of their acceptance in the Church, and I thought that was an unfair criticism.
(It also made me smile a bit at Martin's attempts to pronounce Arius.)
I don't think that criticism is fair. Origen was condemned at the Second Council of Constantinople. I know that how binding that council was is debated and the other factors around it, however that is (ISTM) precisely the point. Rob Bell is disingenuous in the way that he glosses over these complicated issues. The fact that a journalist can look at history and see both Origen and Arius declared anathema should tell us something. Yes, you are right in that it is a bit more complicated than that, but it is Rob Bell who is wanting to air-brush out the wrinkles.
Yes, of course. It seemed to me that both Rob Bell and Martin Bashir were glossing over the complicated issues.
Of couse, Origen was never condemned for his Universalism
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
Bashir was asking Rob Bell for his own position on universalism/post-mortem conversion - "do you believe...?", so expecting a yes or no answer is fair enough, I think.
Is it?
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that Rob Bell's book has been written to ask the questions, not provide black and white answers. In fact it seems to be putting the case that cut and dried answers are not going to be found.
Which is important imo.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Then later he said, referring to the same question and Rob Bell’s lack of an answer, “It was a simple yes or no answer and Rob refused to answer it.”
what??
A ‘yes or no’ answer to something theologians have wrestled with for generations?
I agree with the Revolutionist here - I think you have misunderstood the significance of the question here Boogie.
Martin asked a yes and no question because he was trying to get Rob Bell to nail his colours to the Universalist mast (if he does adopt this position).
Rob refused to answer because he wants to have his cake and eat it. He wants to appeal to people who embrace universalist thinking without losing his evangelical credentials. I'd have more time for him if he came clean about his position. Let's actually discuss this important issue. For someone who apparently likes asking questions, he really doesn't like answering them.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
Book got a favourable review in UK Christianity magazine (4/5*). My impression that Rob has adopted the RC view is further confirmed.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Is it?
I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that Rob Bell's book has been written to ask the questions, not provide black and white answers. In fact it seems to be putting the case that cut and dried answers are not going to be found.
Which is important imo.
From the reviews I've read, it seems that in Love Wins, Rob Bell both argues against a traditional evangelical understanding of heaven and hell, raises lots of questions, but also gives his own responses to those questions.
It's fair enough for Rob Bell to write a book rejecting the traditional evangelical understanding of the afterlife. There's arguably a case to be made for Bell's views from within an evangelical perspective - that is, arguing it from the Bible, offering fresh exegesis of the text. There have been those who have argued for universalism from within the evangelical camp, such as John Stott. But when Bashir put it to Bell mishandles the Bible and history, and that the driving force for Bell's case is adapting the Christian faith to modern culture, Bell dodged the issues.
ISTM that Rob Bell is advancing a view in his book, but when someone tries to pin him down on the implications of what he's saying, he dances around the issues trying to still sound traditionally evangelical and avoid being pinned down with any labels. I got the impression on the interview that Bell is trying to appeal both to an evangelical audience and to a broader audience, but is tying himself up in knots trying to be all things to all people (which is a laudable aim, but waffle is probably not what St Paul had in mind). If Bell isn't willing to own the position he sets out in his book, then it's difficult to discuss it sensibly.
There's a broader issue here: a confusion of "raising questions" with vagueness. But clarity is necessary for good debate and discussion.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Of couse, Origen was never condemned for his Universalism
I know you were making that comment slightly tongue in cheek but that is one of the key issues here.
People argue over exactly what the Origenists were anathematised for. What we do know is that universalism pretty much disappeared from view (in East and West) after the 6th century councils - and took several centuries to resurface.
I think it is fair for someone, like Martin Bashir, to read up on the history and compare Origen with Arius. After all Nicea and Constantinople hardly ended the debate over the nature of the Trinity either.
[ 18. March 2011, 23:03: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
People argue over exactly what the Origenists were anathematised for.
St John Climacus, in his Ladder of Divine Ascent, seems to have no doubts when he writes of universalism: quote:
Let all of us, and especially the fallen, beware lest we sicken in heart from the disease of the godless Origen. For this foul disease, by using God’s love for man as an excuse, is readily accepted by pleasure-lovers.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
St John Climacus, in his Ladder of Divine Ascent, seems to have no doubts when he writes of universalism:
Hey, I agree with you ID, I was just trying to be generous in my disagreement with others.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Just an illustrative note here:
I was in the staffroom of the school I retired from today, and some commentary was going around about a particularly unlovely bit of Christian negativism.
The general consensus was that, if the Golden Rule/Second Great Commandment didn't apply, then neither did Christianity.
And that the judgmentalism shown in defining on your own who was going to Hell was part of that force which drives people away from having anything to do with Christianity.
The (mostly young) staff involved are exactly the group that Rob Bell is talking to. His position makes more sense to them, and might bring them to the point where they could discuss Christianity without disparaging it. They are intelligent enough to work out fallacies, but need to have that intelligence involved.
And flat assertions that someone like Gandhi could not possibly be "saved" will drive them all far away (just as Gandhi was)
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I was in the staffroom of the school I retired from today,
Hey congratulations! I hope you were treated as the dignitary you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The (mostly young) staff involved are exactly the group that Rob Bell is talking to. His position makes more sense to them, and might bring them to the point where they could discuss Christianity without disparaging it.
I think you are raising a key point here HB. Most of his argument is based on experience. You are right in that he is appealing to the 'gut feel' of this demographic.
I see this debate crossing an widening fault-line in Christianity today. That is the gap between those who move from theology to experience and those who do the reverse.
What saddens me is that (ISTM) good theology is a dialectic between the two. However, at the moment, I see no difference between conservatives who say, 'the bible says' and those like Bell who say 'my experience says'. While this remains the discourse we will never make any progress.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And flat assertions that someone like Gandhi could not possibly be "saved" will drive them all far away (just as Gandhi was)
Yes, and in so doing you are drawing our attention, once again, to just how weak Bell's argument was. That quote came from anonymous piece of graffiti. Surely this is a case of strawman par excellence? If Bell had picked on mainstream articulations of the gospel he would have been engaging properly.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I was in the staffroom of the school I retired from today,
Hey congratulations! I hope you were treated as the dignitary you are.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
The (mostly young) staff involved are exactly the group that Rob Bell is talking to. His position makes more sense to them, and might bring them to the point where they could discuss Christianity without disparaging it.
I think you are raising a key point here HB. Most of his argument is based on experience. You are right in that he is appealing to the 'gut feel' of this demographic.
I see this debate crossing an widening fault-line in Christianity today. That is the gap between those who move from theology to experience and those who do the reverse.
One of the hallmarks of "postmodernism" is experience.
A good thing in my opinion and about time. Too much of Christianity has been that flow you spoke about from doctrine to experience.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
And that the judgmentalism shown in defining on your own who was going to Hell was part of that force which drives people away from having anything to do with Christianity.
The (mostly young) staff involved are exactly the group that Rob Bell is talking to. His position makes more sense to them, and might bring them to the point where they could discuss Christianity without disparaging it. They are intelligent enough to work out fallacies, but need to have that intelligence involved.
And flat assertions that someone like Gandhi could not possibly be "saved" will drive them all far away (just as Gandhi was)
And let the Church say, Amen!!
I'm 36. Gen X
Christianity of the above genre is a complete turn off.
Growing up as a non christian ( and sometimes being vilified by them) I was one of those that told them in no uncertain terms what I thought of them.
I think Bell appeals to the younger crowd. So if you don't like him, it means you're ancient and stuffy.
[ 19. March 2011, 07:01: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
One of the hallmarks of "postmodernism" is experience.
A good thing in my opinion and about time. Too much of Christianity has been that flow you spoke about from doctrine to experience.
Actually, experience is also one of the hallmarks of Orthodoxy; the flow between doctrine and experience goes in both directions, the one informing the other in a kind of hermeneutic spiral.
But this raises the question of whose experience, since Orthodoxy is discriminating about which experience is normative. Postmodernism assumes that the privileging of one person's or group's experience is an exercise of power, an act of violence even. This is a very compelling notion for many people today, both inside and outside the church, based, as it is, on a (selective) reading of history. That doesn't make it true, but that hasn't discouraged postmodernists, since truth for them is a relic of modernism.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
But this raises the question of whose experience, since Orthodoxy is discriminating about which experience is normative.
Yes. Just like any other person or groups exercise of power in terms of claiming truth.
They can't all be right. Who decides who is right?
We can't, so we try look to experience in a more global sense than the church has looked before.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Postmodernism assumes that the privileging of one person's or group's experience is an exercise of power, an act of violence even. This is a very compelling notion for many people today, both inside and outside the church, based, as it is, on a (selective) reading of history.
How do you see it as a selective reading of history?
I see it as the most global and historically accurate one I've ever come across.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
That doesn't make it true, but that hasn't discouraged postmodernists, since truth for them is a relic of modernism.
True.
An impossible dream in an ideological/abstract sense.
Posted by nomadicgrl (# 7623) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, and in so doing you are drawing our attention, once again, to just how weak Bell's argument was. That quote came from anonymous piece of graffiti. Surely this is a case of strawman par excellence? If Bell had picked on mainstream articulations of the gospel he would have been engaging properly.
But I do think this is mainstream for a lot of people. They may not loudly proclaim, "Gandhi is in Hell" without being asked about the subject; but I know a lot of my conservative evangelical friends and family, if pressed, would indeed answer that yes, though it is sad, that is indeed where Gandhi likely is.
In fact Philip Yancey, a fairly evangelical writer, tells of how much hate mail and how many letters of concern that he was now a heretic he received after mentioning in an article that maybe we don't know the outcome of Gandhi's eternal status. He said it was one of the largest responses he's ever received.
I also know many non-Christians who raise exactly this issue when objecting to Christianity. So I don't think it's fair to call it a "straw man".
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Orthodoxy is discriminating about which experience is normative.
Yes. Just like any other person or groups exercise of power in terms of claiming truth.
It would be foolish to deny that history is replete with examples of coercion in the name of 'truth'. It would also be foolish to deny that they furnish compelling evidence of an apparently limitless human capacity for such coercion. However, to assert that all truth claims are coercive is not only contradictory (it is itself a truth claim), but appears to depart from reasonable historical analysis and enter the realms of conspiracy theory.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Call me old, ancient and stuffy, Evensong, but it should be 'you're' and not 'your' in 'your an asshole' and it should also be 'arsehole' and not 'asshole.'
There.
Not that's sorted let's clear up the Universalism thing ...
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Yes, and in so doing you are drawing our attention, once again, to just how weak Bell's argument was. That quote came from anonymous piece of graffiti. Surely this is a case of strawman par excellence? If Bell had picked on mainstream articulations of the gospel he would have been engaging properly. [/QUOTE]
Just why is an "anonymous piece of graffiti" not a comment to be discussed, given the context in which it was made?
ISTM that your disparagement indicates a weakness in your argument, not Bell's.
Seeing the graffiti on a specific piece of art triggered a meditation by Bell. On your assumption, he has no right to meditate beecause youy haven't approved the subject in the first place.
That is exactly what the young people object to - the idea that no-one can critique religious ideas unless the administration approves.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by nomadicgrl:
But I do think this is mainstream for a lot of people. They may not loudly proclaim, "Gandhi is in Hell" without being asked about the subject; but I know a lot of my conservative evangelical friends and family, if pressed, would indeed answer that yes, though it is sad, that is indeed where Gandhi likely is.
Whether a view is fairly popular or not among evangelicals is not the same as whether it fairly represents their theology.
However, don't you see how you have already changed significantly what Bell said. It is not a minor thing to refrain from commenting on Gandhi's eternal resting place or to use the word 'likely' and therefore inject a degree of uncertainty. You have already toned down the position of your friends by a large degree.
IME most evangelicals would say that the only way to have assurance was through faith in Christ but not to presume to know what that means for Gandhi.
If you are going to engage with people then you need to take their best arguments not their worst.
(Of course, if you want to sell books then you do the opposite.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(Of course, if you want to sell books then you do the opposite.)
Cheap shot.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
it should also be 'arsehole' and not 'asshole.'
Britist!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Orthodoxy is discriminating about which experience is normative.
Yes. Just like any other person or groups exercise of power in terms of claiming truth.
It would be foolish to deny that history is replete with examples of coercion in the name of 'truth'. It would also be foolish to deny that they furnish compelling evidence of an apparently limitless human capacity for such coercion. However, to assert that all truth claims are coercive is not only contradictory (it is itself a truth claim), but appears to depart from reasonable historical analysis and enter the realms of conspiracy theory.
Quite right on both of those accounts Isaac David.
Postmodernism is just modernism without the anxiety.
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
Call me old, ancient and stuffy, Evensong, but it should be 'you're' and not 'your' in 'your an asshole' and it should also be 'arsehole' and not 'asshole.'
There.
Not that's sorted let's clear up the Universalism thing ...
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Just why is an "anonymous piece of graffiti" not a comment to be discussed, given the context in which it was made?
Who said that was anything wrong with discussing the comment?
I'm surprised that you can't see the distinction between discussing the comment (maybe even in public, but within the context it was made) and using it as a foil for the promo to your new book.
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Seeing the graffiti on a specific piece of art triggered a meditation by Bell. On your assumption, he has no right to meditate beecause you haven't approved the subject in the first place.
That is exactly what the young people object to - the idea that no-one can critique religious ideas unless the administration approves.
As a simple statement of fact I have talked to many RCs who have described extremely superstitious practices. I could cite many anecdotes that showed that it was fairly widespread among several people groups. However, if I ever published a book entitled Why the Pope is the anti-Christ I would never cite these examples because, although they are common, I don't think it is fair to say that they necessarily come from their RC beliefs. It would only be fair to do so if the Vatican produced some kind of Papal missive encouraging said practices.
I wish Rob Bell would fight fair too.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Cheap shot.
Of course.
That was the point - if I was Rob it would be an expensive shot.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Postmodernism is just modernism without the anxiety.
Really?
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Well, I just speak the Queen's English, Mousethief. You can't imagine Her Majesty saying 'ass' instead of 'arse' can you? Unless she were referring to a donkey of course. 'Then Balaam smote his ass ...'
You look it up. The Anglo-Saxon Old English is on our side.
I don't mind you guys altering spellings to make things easier for yourselves - 'color' instead of 'colour' for instance (incidentally, I notice you've written 'colour' on your Onion Dome blog, is that a concession?).
Back to the thread ...
I think Johnny's got a point. I've come across Pentecostals, for instance, who are just as superstitious (in their own way) as the RCs he's talking about ... but I wouldn't say that their superstition was a direct outworking of their theology (at least not at all points). They would be just as superstitious if you transplanted them to an RC or an Orthodox setting.
I suspect Bell is tilting at the worst aspects of evangelicalism in order to make his point - but then, that's what we all do here when we post in Hell about some issue or other.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Postmodernism is just modernism without the anxiety.
Really?
Yeah really.
It's very liberating.
[ 20. March 2011, 13:26: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Original dialogue from The Day After Tomorrow:
Jeremy: Friedrich Nietzsche? We cannot burn Friedrich Nietzsche! He was the most important thinker of the 19th century!
Elsa: Oh, please! Nietzsche was a chauvinist pig who was in love with his sister.
Jeremy: He was not a chauvinist pig!
Elsa: But he was in love with his sister.
Brian: Uh, excuse me, you guys? Yeah. There's a whole section on tax law down here that we can burn.
Source: Wikiquote
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
IME most evangelicals would say that the only way to have assurance was through faith in Christ but not to presume to know what that means for Gandhi.
Sounds exactly like "Ghandi will fry etarnally but I don't want to say so" to me.
Posted by nomadicgrl (# 7623) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by nomadicgrl:
But I do think this is mainstream for a lot of people. They may not loudly proclaim, "Gandhi is in Hell" without being asked about the subject; but I know a lot of my conservative evangelical friends and family, if pressed, would indeed answer that yes, though it is sad, that is indeed where Gandhi likely is.
Whether a view is fairly popular or not among evangelicals is not the same as whether it fairly represents their theology.
However, don't you see how you have already changed significantly what Bell said. It is not a minor thing to refrain from commenting on Gandhi's eternal resting place or to use the word 'likely' and therefore inject a degree of uncertainty. You have already toned down the position of your friends by a large degree.
...
Yes, I debated a while whether to include the word "likely", because some of my friends as you say would not feel they are capable of making definite statements on a specific person's eternal destiny, others of them feel they can (and I have heard them do so). I decided to present the less extreme of the positions, but for the sake of accuracy I should have made that clarification.
(Also to be clear the refrain from commenting aspect is more that they might not bring up the subject themselves as a way to start discussions but if asked they would indeed state their views).
As for whether or not it represents their theology - well it may or may not represent the theology of the particular denominations they attend, but it certainly is their very sincere belief that this is what the church and Bible teach.
Finally, my main point was that I seem to hear you saying that the question Bell is engaging with is "unfair" or based on a straw man, but from my experience it's not. If a significant amount of a population believe this, or think this is what the church believes (mistaken or not) it's a fair question for discussion, in my mind, and as I mentioned in the mind of other evangelical writers too.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Springboarding on what Nomadicgirl has said, one has to keep in mind why Bell wrote the book. If he is to be believed (and he should know), he wasn't writing a polemic against Evangelicalism, necessitating that he carefully pick out the most representative of Evangelical teachings let he be accused of attacking a straw man, or arguing his best against their worst.
He was writing a book to appeal to people who have been accosted with the worst. He's trying to find common ground with people who are repulsed by the idea that Ghandi is going to Hell. Hence he's going to hit the "Ghandi is going to Hell" trope right between the eyes.
I've seen this in a lot of places where this book is being discussed. He's not writing an argument AGAINST Evangelicalism aimed at Evangelicals. He's writing an argument FOR Christianity aimed at non-Christians.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Exactly. the young schoolteachers I mentioned would engage in a discussion about salvation, but would simply tune out any of the definitive "I know who I'm going to keep out of my Heaven" statements so beloved of the fundagelicals.
Why would they bother to even sample Christian thought if Gandhi is already condemned without any hope? They know they haven't got a faint chance in that case. (particularly if the end-times start in May!)
And, once they tune out, you've lost your chance to even speak to them.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I've seen this in a lot of places where this book is being discussed. He's not writing an argument AGAINST Evangelicalism aimed at Evangelicals. He's writing an argument FOR Christianity aimed at non-Christians.
I think that is just a huge cop out.
It is interesting that you make that defence considering my analogy with Roman Catholicism. I have come across quite a few Jack Chick style tracts from Fundies simply attacking RC belief. Indeed, our church received one anonymously in the mail last year - apparently we needed to know this stuff too.
The tracts point out the errors of the RC church but explicitly state that their intended target is non-believers. I'm sure they'd be delighted if some RCs converted to Protestantism as a result but the aim of the tracts has always been stated as pointing out what 'true faith' looks like to the non-churched. And the way they show what 'true Christianity' (TM) looks like is by contrasting it with common false perceptions.
So if you are putting Rob Bell in the same methodological category as that mob then I fully agree.
[ 20. March 2011, 21:54: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Gamaliel:
I suspect Bell is tilting at the worst aspects of evangelicalism in order to make his point - but then, that's what we all do here when we post in Hell about some issue or other.
I agree but am I really asking too much to expect higher standards for those who publish they thoughts for a much wider market?
I don't think it says much for Rob Bell that you couldn't even use the purgatory board as your example.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
I sometimes wonder whether the whole hell issue, because of some of the unfortunate theological baggage associated with it, has brought about more emotional arguing than it has needed to.
The matter of universalism aside, I think one has to take into consideration Paul's words in Romans 2:12-16, in which he says that while all are guilty, God is fair in his judgments: "The Gentiles are a law to themselves . . . their conflicting thoughts [accusing] or perhaps [excusing] them." Whatever punishment is given, it would appear that it is meted out according to how people have responded to the light that has been given them.
In the same way, those named in the condemnation in Revelation 20:15 would seem to be those who have stubbornly and persistently gone after what is evil ("every one who practices [present tense] falsehood"). Practice is volitional, is it not? It is the PURSUIT of sin.
So this isn't just a case of God willy-nilly insisting that if you don't watch your step, you're going to physically roast in hell for all eternity. That's the popular caricature, but I'm not convinced it's as simple as that (or that the caricature is at all Biblical).
[ 20. March 2011, 22:52: Message edited by: WearyPilgrim ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
I'm wondering whether Tom Wright has done a book on Hell, in the same way he's done a book on Heaven. I found 'Surprised by Hope' to be a reasonably comprehensive and orthodox summation of the 'good' side of the afterlife. IIRC, he didn't talk about Hell that much, though it's a while since I read it.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Original dialogue from The Day After Tomorrow:
Jeremy: Friedrich Nietzsche? We cannot burn Friedrich Nietzsche! He was the most important thinker of the 19th century!
Elsa: Oh, please! Nietzsche was a chauvinist pig who was in love with his sister.
Jeremy: He was not a chauvinist pig!
Elsa: But he was in love with his sister.
Brian: Uh, excuse me, you guys? Yeah. There's a whole section on tax law down here that we can burn.
Source: Wikiquote
I didn't like his idea of will to power. But I really like how he clears the slate:
quote:
What has happened, at bottom? The feeling of valuelessness was reached with the realization that the overall character of existence may not be interpreted by means of the concept of “aim,” the concept of “unity,” or the concept of “truth.” Existence has no goal or end; any comprehensive unity in the plurality of events is lacking:
Modernism is all about aim. It evens tries to answer the question "why" with aim.
But it can't, and it hasn't IMO.
And that, is liberating. Because the why question has bugged me my whole life.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
I think postmodernism's critique of modernism is well-founded, but I don't care for postmodernism's 'solution'. Orthodoxy isn't either modernist or postmodernist.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
I think postmodernism's critique of modernism is well-founded, but I don't care for postmodernism's 'solution'.
I'm not sure postmodernism has a solution. Or only one at any rate.
quote:
"Postmodernism is, almost by definition, a transitional cusp of social, cultural, economic and ideological history when modernism's high-minded principles and preoccupations have ceased to function, but before they have been replaced with a totally new system of values. It represents a moment of suspension before the batteries are recharged for the new millennium, an acknowledgment that preceding the future is a strange and hybrid interregnum that might be called the last gasp of the past." Adair, Gilbert
I'm really interested to see where post postmodernism goes.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
Orthodoxy isn't either modernist or postmodernist.
Because I know you want me to ask, I'll ask. Why is Orthodoxy neither modernist nor postmodernist?
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm really interested to see where post postmodernism goes.
I'm only interested to see that it goes, and goes quickly.
quote:
Because I know you want me to ask, I'll ask. Why is Orthodoxy neither modernist nor postmodernist?
As with all good things, it's mostly a matter of timing. Seriously, though, since Orthodoxy offers a comprehensive metanarrative it obviously cannot be postmodern. Although metanarratives are one of the features of modernism which postmodernism critiques, Orthodoxy doesn't share modernism's commitment to rationalism and scientific objectivity.
Orthodoxy isn't rationalist in that is not a philosophical system based on reasoning from first principles.
Scientific objectivity, or empiricism, is a bit trickier, because you will find some Orthodox writers describing Orthodox spirituality as 'the science of sciences' which provides empirical evidence of its truth to anyone who takes it up in good faith. However, there is a crucial qualification: the scientific method which is part of the modernist paradigm separates the knower from the thing known.
A scientist gathers empirical evidence to verify a hypothesis. Other scientists may repeat the first scientist's procedures to confirm the hypothesis. The knowledge gained by this process can be disseminated to the scientific community and the public, without their needing to carry out the same procedures.
The Orthodox 'empirical method', on the other hand, is personal and existential, involving the knower intimately in the thing known.
BTW, scientist and philosopher Michael Polanyi has criticised the modernist description of scientific method on the grounds that real science involves carrying out its procedures within a scientific community - a model, if you like, of tradition (or Tradition). Andrew Louth, an Orthodox theologian based at Durham University in England, in an essay entitled Discerning the Mystery: An Essay on the Nature of Theology, uses this argument, as well as those of Hans-Georg Gadamer, Werner Jaeger and other modern writers, to make a compelling case for doing theology within tradition.
Orthodox theology does not depends on Louth's argument, of course, as it has been around for rather longer than he has!
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
Gandhi seems to be a real deal breaker for some folks.
I watched someone walk out (noisily) of a talk by Steve Chalke after Chalke used Gandhi as a 'good example'. Although it was clear after the talk that Steve felt far more comfortable with the Curate of a well known evo shack rather than the Curate of a country parish.
Which brings us to the current Evangelical 'culture'.
Much like the debate over PSA my issue is not so much with the theology itself but the exclusive way certain aspects of theology are held to be essential to Evangelical (painted as orthodox) faith without any reference to the historical views of other Evangelicals.
In the case of universal reconciliation Wesley was certainly sympathetic in later life, and Calvinism seems predestined to spawn universalists. If anything Calvinism results in a more absolute universalism, whereas the Arminians tend more to Orthodox and Catholic 'Hopes of reconciliation'.
This may be why the Calvinistic guardians of Evangelical 'Orthodoxy' become so incensed by views like Rob's. Because their theological system offers them no middle ground.
What really Azazel's me is the way all this plays out in the media - Christian and otherwise - as a liberal vs. conservative conflict. Neither (American) Liberal or Evangelical protestantism represent authentic Christian Orthodoxy.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Er, Ed, isn't there some irony between this:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Much like the debate over PSA my issue is not so much with the theology itself but the exclusive way certain aspects of theology are held to be essential to Evangelical (painted as orthodox) faith without any reference to the historical views of other Evangelicals.
and this:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
What really Azazel's me is the way all this plays out in the media - Christian and otherwise - as a liberal vs. conservative conflict. Neither (American) Liberal or Evangelical protestantism represent authentic Christian Orthodoxy.
ISTM you are complaining about exclusive evangelicals and you respond by being categorically exclusive.
(I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your orthodox history just pointing out the irony of your exclusivist position.)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
I'm really interested to see where post postmodernism goes.
I'm only interested to see that it goes, and goes quickly.
Och, not so fast, Jesus was a pomo.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
quote:
Because I know you want me to ask, I'll ask. Why is Orthodoxy neither modernist nor postmodernist?
As with all good things, it's mostly a matter of timing. Seriously, though, since Orthodoxy offers a comprehensive metanarrative it obviously cannot be postmodern. Although metanarratives are one of the features of modernism which postmodernism critiques, Orthodoxy doesn't share modernism's commitment to rationalism and scientific objectivity.
Science is but one meta narrative it critiques. It is not confined to that one alone.
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
However, there is a crucial qualification: the scientific method which is part of the modernist paradigm separates the knower from the thing known.
A scientist gathers empirical evidence to verify a hypothesis. Other scientists may repeat the first scientist's procedures to confirm the hypothesis. The knowledge gained by this process can be disseminated to the scientific community and the public, without their needing to carry out the same procedures.
The Orthodox 'empirical method', on the other hand, is personal and existential, involving the knower intimately in the thing known.
In that case....I'd identify Orthodoxy as postmodern. Postmodernism is all about Experience......
The rub, of course, is that Orthodoxy has truth claims that might lead to "violence".
If it doesn't, well then, it's smashingly postmodern.
This is my personal take.
The cross, in its expression of non-dominating love, reflects something of the essence of postmodernism.
We left modernism with Auschwitz some say. I'd say history provides plenty of other examples, but that's the one that seems to be common in public consciousness.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
This sounds like that kind of retrospective in which to an existentialist, Plato was an existentialist; to a phenomenologist, Plato was a phenomenologist; to a libertarian, Plato was a libertarian....
Post-modernism did not exist in first century Palestine. Jesus was not a pomo.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Much like the debate over PSA my issue is not so much with the theology itself but the exclusive way certain aspects of theology are held to be essential to Evangelical (painted as orthodox) faith without any reference to the historical views of other Evangelicals.
Yes, that's exactly the issue for me too. It's obvious that the Bible is not so clear that it leaves sincere people entirely in agreement with one another (No True Scotsman fallacies notwithstanding), so we should surely be generous and gracious when we disagree, recognising that we might not be right. Stating or implying that someone is a heretic just shuts down debate and demands assent to the party line. ![[Disappointed]](graemlins/disappointed.gif)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Gandhi seems to be a real deal breaker for some folks.
I watched someone walk out (noisily) of a talk by Steve Chalke after Chalke used Gandhi as a 'good example'. Although it was clear after the talk that Steve felt far more comfortable with the Curate of a well known evo shack rather than the Curate of a country parish.
Which brings us to the current Evangelical 'culture'.
Much like the debate over PSA my issue is not so much with the theology itself but the exclusive way certain aspects of theology are held to be essential to Evangelical (painted as orthodox) faith without any reference to the historical views of other Evangelicals.
In the case of universal reconciliation Wesley was certainly sympathetic in later life, and Calvinism seems predestined to spawn universalists. If anything Calvinism results in a more absolute universalism, whereas the Arminians tend more to Orthodox and Catholic 'Hopes of reconciliation'.
This may be why the Calvinistic guardians of Evangelical 'Orthodoxy' become so incensed by views like Rob's. Because their theological system offers them no middle ground.
What really Azazel's me is the way all this plays out in the media - Christian and otherwise - as a liberal vs. conservative conflict. Neither (American) Liberal or Evangelical protestantism represent authentic Christian Orthodoxy.
Right on, Edward. So, for example, where in the review that the Revolutionist linked to, it says:
quote:
Universalism (though in a different form than Bell’s and for different reasons) has been present in the church since Origen, but it was never in the center of the tradition.
Every point of Christian doctrine has been contested, but some have been deemed heterodox. Universalism, traditionally, was considered one of those points.
I find it frustrating. Firstly, because it makes it sounds like Origen came up with universalism, and it had never existed in the church before (when I've heard strong arguments that it was in fact in the centre of church tradition for the first 300 years), and secondly because it hasn't traditionally been deemed heterodox, by any of the ecumenical councils (I think the suggestion that it was at the 5th is pretty disputable), or even by people like Augustine (though he disagreed with it).
And there are plenty of well-respected theologians, ancient and modern, who either were universalists, or leaned towards universalism, yet the evangelical viewpoint you describe paints this awkward aspect out of their lives. Having spent my Christian life within the Evangelical culture, it's frustrating, because it just feels like a misrepresentation of Church History and Christian Thought.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Edward Green:
Much like the debate over PSA my issue is not so much with the theology itself but the exclusive way certain aspects of theology are held to be essential to Evangelical (painted as orthodox) faith without any reference to the historical views of other Evangelicals.
You are singing my song there.
Posted by Edward Green (# 46) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Er, Ed, isn't there some irony between this:
...
ISTM you are complaining about exclusive evangelicals and you respond by being categorically exclusive.
(I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your orthodox history just pointing out the irony of your exclusivist position.)
I have sympathies with Wesleyan theology especially Oden's paleo-orthodoxy. I am not a big fan of the Calvinist Evangelical Hegemony.
I don't claim not to be exlusivist - especially as as I increasingly hold very strong views on orthodoxy! The depiction of certain strands of evangelicalism as 'the only orthodoxy' is what gets my goat (and drives it into the wilderness).
As a Sacramental Anglican I am very aware that other traditions have some very serious questions about our authenticity. At present I see my position as authentic, but I may yet be proved wrong and swim for the warm safe shores of Orthodoxy, Rome or even the Lutherans.
Perhaps that certain hegemony needs some historical perspective - yes even from their own Evangelical tradition.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Post-modernism did not exist in first century Palestine. Jesus was not a pomo.
Can you cite a proof-text for that, preferably from an item of clothing?
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
Now i have a proper copy of the book, rather than the pre-release edition, I have gone back and reread it.
What strikes me here is the same as struck me on the Steve Chalke issue (quick disclaimer - I ran the PR and later published Steve when working at his publishers). Love Wins is not written as a theological book, as a 'teaching' book or as a 'devotional'. It is in a genre that is perfectly common outside of religious publishing but sadly scarce within, that of the personal reflection.
The shelves of Waterstones/B&n (pick your side of the pond) is full of books that offer a personal take on a difficult issue. They don't offer a comprehensive analysis, informed historical perpectives or the sheen of professional authority. They are instead conversational in tone, incomplete and a little ragged around the endges. However, they do connect with their intended audience whilst making the 'professionals' sneer.
That is another reason why this book is having the reception it has - it isn't rigorous enough for the theologian but is tackling subjects they believe to be their domain. The fact that it really isn't completely definite with its conclusion only makes things worse.
Most of the arguments I have read have come from people wanting the book to be something it isn;t.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
That would be my impression from watching the video clip that started this whole thread. Bell is wondering about a particular idea, in a manner that should get people thinking and talking.
I notice also that Saint Clive basically does the same thing in both "The Last Battle" and "The Great Divorce", but no-one accuses him of heresy or apostasy.
Leigh stated much more firmly that Abou ben Adhem was part of the universally-saved, and that didn't seem to bother the Victorian Christians.
Is there something a teensy bit anxious about some the present-day evangelical pack?
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
I notice also that Saint Clive basically does the same thing in both "The Last Battle" and "The Great Divorce", but no-one accuses him of heresy or apostasy.
That's not actually true, though. I've certainly heard of folk criticising _The Last Battle_ for universalism, and _The Great Divorce_ as heterodox in the extreme.
But normally behind closed doors. Prof Lewis still has such a store of retained affection in both Christian and non-Christian circles (mainly thanks to Narnia) that complaining is akin to whipping granny for eating the last digestive.
Sure, there are some ultrafundies who rail against him, but I for one expect him to be going "onward and upward". With his pipe and and a mug of industrial strength tea.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Ianjmatt - So it is like Richard Dawkins writing a book on Darwinian Evolution and, when he gets peer-reviewed, his fans rushing to his defence with, "Oh, but it is only his personal view."
If what you say is true than I want Rob's 'phone number - I've got a bridge to sell him.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Ianjmatt - So it is like Richard Dawkins writing a book on Darwinian Evolution and, when he gets peer-reviewed, his fans rushing to his defence with, "Oh, but it is only his personal
I don't know to be honest. Is the book written in that style?
Posted by Dinghy Sailor (# 8507) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've certainly heard of folk criticising _The Last Battle_ for universalism
That's funny, I've heard plenty of folk complain tht Lewis sends Susan to Hell in that book because she liked lipstick. Does this give the lie to both (opposite) misreadings?
Posted by Saul the Apostle (# 13808) on
:
Haven't been following this particular thread but was debating this elsewhere.
I came across this radio interview with Martin Bashir being interviewed following his interview with Bell on MSNBC. I found the radio interview here useful as it seems to pin Bell down and I was left wondering why Bell couldn't or wouldn't give a straight answer to Bashir?
http://www.godandculture.com/ra/bashir_edwards.mp3
Saul the Apostle
[ 22. March 2011, 23:39: Message edited by: Saul the Apostle ]
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dinghy Sailor:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I've certainly heard of folk criticising _The Last Battle_ for universalism
That's funny, I've heard plenty of folk complain tht Lewis sends Susan to Hell in that book because she liked lipstick. Does this give the lie to both (opposite) misreadings?
I think it means you should take your theology from a fantasy book...
tbh, Susan's rejection of Narnia still bothers me, after all these years. Lipstick was a symptom, not a cause. She became a Narnia-denier, and Aslan wasn't going to force Narnia on her. The Great Divorce, which might be a practical outworking of that scenario, was written 11 years before The Last Battle.
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
This is my personal take.
I don't doubt Bauckham's seriousness of purpose in this extract, but I cannot find it anything other than trite. It fails in comparison to anything I have read by Orthodox writers. Worse yet, it fails in comparison to anything I have read in the Scriptures. That is my personal response.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I find it frustrating. Firstly, because it makes it sounds like Origen came up with universalism, and it had never existed in the church before (when I've heard strong arguments that it was in fact in the centre of church tradition for the first 300 years), and secondly because it hasn't traditionally been deemed heterodox, by any of the ecumenical councils (I think the suggestion that it was at the 5th is pretty disputable), or even by people like Augustine (though he disagreed with it).
I think you've got to prove that first.
Maybe you missed it, but earlier I pointed out that universalism pretty much died out (in East and West) for about 5 centuries after the 6th century. I think there is evidence is fairly compelling that the councils did deem universalism to be heterodox.
And then we've got the secondary issue of whether modern appeals to universalism have anything in common with those of the early church fathers. For example, it does make smile that the rejection of hell as eternal has often turned on a refutation of platonic influence on Christianity. (IMO the rejection of platonism is right - the 'soul' is not immortal inherently.) However, the same people lap up Origen who was uber platonic.
[ 22. March 2011, 23:56: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Ianjmatt - So it is like Richard Dawkins writing a book on Darwinian Evolution and, when he gets peer-reviewed, his fans rushing to his defence with, "Oh, but it is only his personal
I don't know to be honest. Is the book written in that style?
Okay, let's back up a bit.
What do you mean by saying that it makes a difference that is just his personal views?
Forgive me if I've misread you but it appears that you are defending things like Rob's appalling misquoting of Luther because 'it's just his personal views.'
Sorry if I jumped on you, but it does seem to be a trend in evangelicalism today. I'm left wondering if the point is that it is okay to lie and distort the truth to non-Christians, as long as it is for the purpose of evangelism.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I think it means you should take your theology from a fantasy book...
Arse. Shouldn't, that meant to read.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
With his pipe and and a mug of industrial strength tea.
You misspelled "beer."
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
With his pipe and and a mug of industrial strength tea.
You misspelled "beer."
Well, Jack did like a pint. But at Inklings meetings, Warnie brewed up tea in the proper English manner. Probably the only thing that got them through yet another of Tolkien's philological discursions.
Posted by ianjmatt (# 5683) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
With his pipe and and a mug of industrial strength tea.
You misspelled "beer."
Well, Jack did like a pint. But at Inklings meetings, Warnie brewed up tea in the proper English manner. Probably the only thing that got them through yet another of Tolkien's philological discursions.
Apart from the beer at the Eagle and Child and the brandy fuelled late-night decorations of Norse and Icelandic sagas.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ianjmatt:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Probably the only thing that got them through yet another of Tolkien's philological discursions.
Apart from the beer at the Eagle and Child and the brandy fuelled late-night decorations of Norse and Icelandic sagas.
To be fair, once the novelty had worn off, I'd be hitting the brandy too.
"Get back to the plot, Tollers!"
/tangent
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
And then we've got the secondary issue of whether modern appeals to universalism have anything in common with those of the early church fathers. For example, it does make smile that the rejection of hell as eternal has often turned on a refutation of platonic influence on Christianity. (IMO the rejection of platonism is right - the 'soul' is not immortal inherently.) However, the same people lap up Origen who was uber platonic.
That's true. Personally I'm no big fan of Origen - he was too much a philosopher and not enough a theologian. However, I do think that it's important to recognise that he did have a massive influence on many streams of orthodox Christian thinking despite his rejection by the church later on.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Maybe you missed it, but earlier I pointed out that universalism pretty much died out (in East and West) for about 5 centuries after the 6th century.
In the West, yes. Isaac David, would you say that's true for the East? As a Protestant I think the Church 'lost' many of its original teachings which were strong in the first few centuries. Doesn't mean that they weren't there in the first place, so I'm tempted to just say 'so what?'
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think there is evidence is fairly compelling that the councils did deem universalism to be heterodox.
Why didn't they ever spell it out then? From what I've read, I think that this is a pretty fair description of the 5th Council. But yes, I'm no historian, so if you can persuade me otherwise then go ahead.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S: quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
or even by people like Augustine (though he disagreed with it).
I think you've got to prove that first.
In terms of that specific point, I can't find a reference, but the quote I remember is something like that he had a "gentle disagreement" with fellow Christians who taught universal reconciliation. Hardly a scathing condemnation of heresy.
[ 23. March 2011, 10:04: Message edited by: goperryrevs ]
Posted by Isaac David (# 4671) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Maybe you missed it, but earlier I pointed out that universalism pretty much died out (in East and West) for about 5 centuries after the 6th century.
In the West, yes. Isaac David, would you say that's true for the East?
Sorry. No idea. But Johnny is probably right.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Thanks anyway ID
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
That's true. Personally I'm no big fan of Origen - he was too much a philosopher and not enough a theologian. However, I do think that it's important to recognise that he did have a massive influence on many streams of orthodox Christian thinking despite his rejection by the church later on.
I don't follow you here.
You seem to be saying that, overall, he had an unhealthy impact on Christianity and his followers were later anathematised.
You seem to be building a good case for agreeing that Origen's teaching falls somewhere between odd minority sect and heretical.
Saying that a Christian has thought this before isn't really much of an argument. That pretty much covers anything. Showing that universalism was a mainstream position is a different matter.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As a Protestant I think the Church 'lost' many of its original teachings which were strong in the first few centuries. Doesn't mean that they weren't there in the first place, so I'm tempted to just say 'so what?'
Isn't this commonly called the Dan Brown hypothesis?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Why didn't they ever spell it out then? From what I've read, I think that this is a pretty fair description of the 5th Council. But yes, I'm no historian, so if you can persuade me otherwise then go ahead.
What you mean is - why didn't they spell it out clearly enough for us? They thought it was clear enough back then. They question still remains - what did they think? Considering all the bad press the Origenists got I think the burden of proof is on universalists to overturn the traditional position.
Incidentally did you really mean to cite that blog as a fair historical description of the 5th council? The guy lists only one recommended blog - The Evangelical Universalists Forum.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
You seem to be saying that, overall, he had an unhealthy impact on Christianity and his followers were later anathematised.
No, just that he was influential, but not to my taste. I'm talking wider than just universalism. ISTM he was one of many that got so stuck on thinking philosophically about theology that they lost the point of it all in the first place.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Saying that a Christian has thought this before isn't really much of an argument. That pretty much covers anything. Showing that universalism was a mainstream position is a different matter.
Sure. So what do you say to PaulTH*'s reference earlier regarding the six theological schools, four of which were universalist?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
As a Protestant I think the Church 'lost' many of its original teachings which were strong in the first few centuries. Doesn't mean that they weren't there in the first place, so I'm tempted to just say 'so what?'
Isn't this commonly called the Dan Brown hypothesis?
No. It's called Protestantism, and as you say, it relies on showing that those original teachings were there (something that Dan Brown singularly fails to do).
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Considering all the bad press the Origenists got I think the burden of proof is on universalists to overturn the traditional position.
You've equated Origenists with universalists there. That's the problem. Origen got bad press for plenty of things, his Christology included. When did either of the Gregorys get bad press for their universalism? Or any of the other revered theologians who leaned towards universal reconciliation?
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Incidentally did you really mean to cite that blog as a fair historical description of the 5th council? The guy lists only one recommended blog - The Evangelical Universalists Forum.
The source doesn't matter. A quick google search brought it up, and from what I've read before elsewhere, it seemed a very fair concise reflection. If you think it's not, tell me why.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
From what I understand, what the Fathers decried was not universal salvation per se, but universal salvation caused by fiat, i.e. God overriding free will.
I'm a "soft-boiled" universalist in that I don't believe God will override our free will, but in the end we will all choose to turn to Her. The possibility still exists for a soft-boiled universalist that some will hold out indefinitely. I hope that is not the case, but of course have no way of knowing. That is an open possibility in my brand of universalism.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So what do you say to PaulTH*'s reference earlier regarding the six theological schools, four of which were universalist?
I'm still waiting for PaulTH* to reply to Dafyd's request that he cite references for this.
I've not heard this before and it sounds very much like wishful thinking.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You've equated Origenists with universalists there. That's the problem. Origen got bad press for plenty of things, his Christology included. When did either of the Gregorys get bad press for their universalism? Or any of the other revered theologians who leaned towards universal reconciliation?
All I was saying is that Origenism (if that is a word) is not a good stream to stand within if you are going to persuade other Christians that your doctrine in mainstream.
I think MT has a very good case in arguing that his form of 'soft' universalism was held by some of the Early Church Fathers. However, I can't really see how you can call it universalism.
In modern terms, the debate into which Rob Bell is trying to speak concerns whether God would send anyone to hell or not. MT's answer is still 'yes - possibly'. And AFAIK it has always been the answer of the church. Saying I hope that hell will be empty is different to what other branches of the church say but, ISTM, it is still not universalism.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The source doesn't matter. A quick google search brought it up, and from what I've read before elsewhere, it seemed a very fair concise reflection. If you think it's not, tell me why.
The source does matter. You cited someone who is giving his take on history with the sole purpose of defending universalism. He may be right but you're not going to convince anyone who isn't already convinced.
When I've got more time I'll come back with my take on his history.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Thanks. Someone (Jengie Jon?) did reply with a reference to the theological schools - have a look back through the thread.
And just to repeat, my view is very close to mousethief's - he's certainly not ever said anything on this issue that I disagree with. Perhaps you're right, universalism may not be the best word. Soft universalism, universal hope, hope for universal reconciliation; there are a number of different phrases to choose from.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted bt Johnny S
I'm still waiting for PaulTH* to reply to Dafyd's request that he cite references for this.
I've not heard this before and it sounds very much like wishful thinking.
I think you must have missed my post upthread. I would guess that Paul's source is the Scaff-Herzog encyclopaedia. (Link in original post)
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
Ah thanks Jolly Jape. Sorry to confuse you with the other JJ.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
I think you must have missed my post upthread. I would guess that Paul's source is the Scaff-Herzog encyclopaedia. (Link in original post)
Okay, thanks - I either missed this first time round or had forgotten it. Apologies.
I'm not sure the encyclopaedia is much help here though:
1. It doesn't answer Dafyd's request for sources - it simply states what Paul did.
2. It strongly reinforces the point I was making earlier that the platonic notion of losing individual consciousness as the soul is absorbed into the infinite is a massive disconnect from modern universalism. (A lot of the debate around modern universalism feels to me as if we can get to Edinburgh from London by going via Paris. )
3. Even the wording is ambiguous. Why does the sentence quoted come immediately after another sentence (that begins a new paragraph) that reads: "In the West this view had fewer adherents and was never accepted by the church at large." Is this just terrible editing or is the point that the editors want to stress how much of a minority view it was?
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In modern terms, the debate into which Rob Bell is trying to speak concerns whether God would send anyone to hell or not. MT's answer is still 'yes - possibly'.
I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote; if I was unclear, I apologize. I do not believe God sends anyone to Hell. I believe those who remain in Hell choose to do so of their own free will.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
In modern terms, the debate into which Rob Bell is trying to speak concerns whether God would send anyone to hell or not. MT's answer is still 'yes - possibly'.
I'm not sure how you got that from what I wrote; if I was unclear, I apologize. I do not believe God sends anyone to Hell. I believe those who remain in Hell choose to do so of their own free will.
I think you are arguing over semantics here MT. I could have put it the other way round - 'does God choose to send everyone to heaven?' - in which case your answer would be 'No'.
Either way I still don't think it is universalism. (My understanding is that universalism has to answer 'yes' to that question.)
(Although this getting into a discussion of how absolute free will is - I don't think many people would make human freewill quite as totalitarian as you are doing here.)
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I think you are arguing over semantics here MT. I could have put it the other way round - 'does God choose to send everyone to heaven?' - in which case your answer would be 'No'.
It's not about God sending. That's the point you're missing. Free will. I made that pretty clear.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
It's not about God sending. That's the point you're missing. Free will. I made that pretty clear.
I know. I got that. And as I said you have made free will absolute.
I accept free will but you'll have a much easier job convincing anyone that universalism was, historically, a mainstream doctrine than you will that absolute free will ever was.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I'm still waiting for PaulTH* to reply to Dafyd's request that he cite references for this
The paragraph was pasted from a Wikipaedia article, but I can't remember which. However, all the info is contained in a book, "Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church during its First Five Hundred Years" by J.W. Hanson (1899) which can be read online here and here.
quote:
Originally posted by Mousethief:
I'm a "soft-boiled" universalist in that I don't believe God will override our free will, but in the end we will all choose to turn to Her. The possibility still exists for a soft-boiled universalist that some will hold out indefinitely. I hope that is not the case, but of course have no way of knowing. That is an open possibility in my brand of universalism.
Over many years, I have come to exactly this point of view. I used to be a "hard boiled" universalist, but now I realise that all is in the hands of God and I can't gainsay how He runs His own creation. Yet I believe that "every knee shall bow" when we no longer see through a glass darkly, and that God will restore ALL things. Both Scripture and the teachings of the Church, when taken as a whole over two millennia, allow us to at least hope and pray that all will be saved.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Okay, I've had time to come back to this:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Why didn't they ever spell it out then? From what I've read, I think that this is a pretty fair description of the 5th Council. But yes, I'm no historian, so if you can persuade me otherwise then go ahead.
My main gripe comes here:
quote:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, as well as their impious writings...
Arguing over exactly what it was that got Origen the naughty chair seems somewhat irrelevant. (Not irrelevant to the discussion but irrelevant to anyone trying claim historic orthodoxy for universalism.)
According to the council anyone who uses any of Origen's 'impious writings' is anathema. And that seems to be how the church took it for centuries afterwards.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The paragraph was pasted from a Wikipaedia article, but I can't remember which. However, all the info is contained in a book, "Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church during its First Five Hundred Years" by J.W. Hanson (1899) which can be read online here and here.
Thanks Paul, I will have a look.
I've never heard it of it before, which does make me a tad suspicious - i.e. it was written over 100 years ago, so if it's historical analysis is spot on then it should be both well known and regularly cited in current historical work today.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
According to the council anyone who uses any of Origen's 'impious writings' is anathema.
There were many others, not anathematised, apart from Origen, who taught universal salvation. Some of their quotes are here.
I am aware that Tentmaker is a universalist site, and that it remains a controversial point of view, but neither Mudfrog nor any other believer in Sola Scripura answered my question:
Where in Scripture does it say that anyone will go to eternal damnation for unbelief?
This is of the utmost importance, because the Christian view most expressed in Protestant evangelical circles is that we go to hell if we don't accept Christ as our personal saviour. I Matthew's gospel, Jesus separates the sheep and the goats, based entirely on works . Paul and John write of condemnation for not accepting Christ, but they never mention damnation. both of them, in other places, hint at universal salvation.
So I say that the Biblical position is equivocal and confusing. If I am missing something, I wish someone would point it out. It's also worth remembering that all of Jesus' mentions of eternal damnation come from the pre-crucifiction time before He had conquered sin, death and the devil.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My main gripe comes here:
quote:
If anyone does not anathematize Arius, Eunomius, Macedonius, Apollinaris, Nestorius, Eutyches, and Origen, as well as their impious writings...
Arguing over exactly what it was that got Origen the naughty chair seems somewhat irrelevant. (Not irrelevant to the discussion but irrelevant to anyone trying claim historic orthodoxy for universalism.)
According to the council anyone who uses any of Origen's 'impious writings' is anathema. And that seems to be how the church took it for centuries afterwards.
You can't argue that they literally meant that everything Origen thought and wrote was anathema. Origen thought and wrote plenty of 'orthodox' things. It was his unorthodox teachings that they had a problem with, which is why they spelt out in the specific anathemas against the Origenists (who, like Calvinists, one could say went beyond what their forerunner actually taught).
Just because Origen taught a form of universalism, doesn't mean that by condemning him they condemned universalism. You might as well say that because he taught that Jesus was the Son of God they were condemning that too.
So again, since other universalists like the Gregorys (and others) were not condemned, the most you can say is that it was an Origen form of Universalism that was condemned (including the pre-existence of souls). Of course, after Origen's condemnation people shied away from universalist theology because it was associated closely with him, (and as I noted at the beginning of this thread, that stigma remains, though perhaps for different reasons). However, this doesn't mean that universalism was ever officially condemned - in fact for me the evidence suggests very strongly that it wasn't.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If I am missing something, I wish someone would point it out.
I don't usually like proof texts, but seeing as you asked:
2 Thessalonians 1:9
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
If I am missing something, I wish someone would point it out.
I don't usually like proof texts, but seeing as you asked:
2 Thessalonians 1:9
And you believe that do you Leprechaun?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
You can't argue that they literally meant that everything Origen thought and wrote was anathema. Origen thought and wrote plenty of 'orthodox' things. It was his unorthodox teachings that they had a problem with, which is why they spelt out in the specific anathemas against the Origenists (who, like Calvinists, one could say went beyond what their forerunner actually taught).
Just because Origen taught a form of universalism, doesn't mean that by condemning him they condemned universalism. You might as well say that because he taught that Jesus was the Son of God they were condemning that too.
But that wasn't what I said.
They condemned Origen (and the others) as a false teacher. That doesn't mean that everything he said was wrong but it did mean that the church was saying - have nothing to do with his teaching.
I agree that doesn't condemn universalism per se but this thread is about Rob Bell and Universalism. He used the historical case of Origen to bolster his case and, I would argue, does not have history on his side to do so.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
So again, since other universalists like the Gregorys (and others) were not condemned, the most you can say is that it was an Origen form of Universalism that was condemned (including the pre-existence of souls). Of course, after Origen's condemnation people shied away from universalist theology because it was associated closely with him, (and as I noted at the beginning of this thread, that stigma remains, though perhaps for different reasons). However, this doesn't mean that universalism was ever officially condemned - in fact for me the evidence suggests very strongly that it wasn't.
You are moving into a very slippery argument here:
1. You want to remove all the platonic influence from universalism - and I'm not sure can from the early Fathers.
2. You want to say that the universalism condemned wasn't 'your' universalism.
All of this looks like twisting history to suit your argument ... but I suppose I would say that.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
I've never heard it of it before, which does make me a tad suspicious - i.e. it was written over 100 years ago, so if it's historical analysis is spot on then it should be both well known and regularly cited in current historical work today.
I imagine damnationists back then despised it as much as damnationists now despise Bell. Small wonder it wasn't catapulted into the mainstream.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
FWIW, my copy of the book has arrived today, so I might rejoin this discussion when I have read it.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The paragraph was pasted from a Wikipaedia article, but I can't remember which. However, all the info is contained in a book, "Universalism The Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church during its First Five Hundred Years" by J.W. Hanson (1899) which can be read online here and here.
Okay I've now had time to skim read it - it was very long.
I will say that he was thorough!
However, I still can't see where anyone gets the claims that all those schools were universalist. There is plenty of discussion of individuals but I can't see evidence for all those schools as institutions.
As I said, I only skimmed it, so it is possible that I missed it but it does look to me as if the summaries on wiki (and elsewhere) are rather jumping the gun.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
There were many others, not anathematised, apart from Origen, who taught universal salvation. Some of their quotes are here.
I'm not sure what it is supposed to prove by simply listing one sentence quotes from people - that seems even worse than proof-texting bible verses to me - but that aside all these quotes say different things.
Indeed many of them point to a position like that of John Stott - namely that there is punishment but that it is not eternal. I can't see how you can call that universalism.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I imagine damnationists back then despised it as much as damnationists now despise Bell. Small wonder it wasn't catapulted into the mainstream.
I was talking about academic work. I hardly think that the 'damnationists' ruled sway in all the top universities of the western world during the last century.
For example, just pulled from my shelf, neither Henry Chadwick nor Diarmaid MacCulloch seem to mention him. They are hardly rabid 'damnationists'.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
So you're saying he's obscure and you're wondering why, on the theory that anybody who is a universalist must perforce be famous, at least in the rarified world of professional theologians, back before mass communication made it easy to spray your theology across the planet. Okay.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
No.
I'm saying that he's making some pretty big claims and generalisations about the early schools.
If he is right it is pretty reasonable to expect to see other people quoting him (to agree with him) and / or other scholars coming to this conclusion for themselves.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
Well, what you actually said was, "I've never heard it of it before, which does make me a tad suspicious - i.e. it was written over 100 years ago, so if it's historical analysis is spot on then it should be both well known and regularly cited in current historical work today."
Why should it be well known? Was this guy famous? He could have been writing in a tiny corner somewhere. Or the respectable theologians read his title page and thought he was a crank. "Johnny S never heard of him therefore he must be wrong" -- what a bizarre argument.
Posted by Alfred E. Neuman (# 6855) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
...back before mass communication made it easy to spray your theology across the planet. Okay.
*eeeewwww*
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
This seems to be a spectacular waste of time so I'll try one more time and then let this thread die.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Why should it be well known? Was this guy famous? He could have been writing in a tiny corner somewhere. Or the respectable theologians read his title page and thought he was a crank.
All of that is possible, but the bottom line is that he is claiming something that run counter to most church history of the time.
The possibilities are:
1. He spotted something that everyone else has missed both before and since.
2. Academics have not taken his view point seriously.
Although option 1 is possible I don't think it is that odd to to plump for option 2 unless someone can point to compelling primary sources.
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
"Johnny S never heard of him therefore he must be wrong" -- what a bizarre argument.
You are making this personal when it is not, and I made that clear. When I said I'd never heard of him I went on to explain that meant that no respected church historian that I've read quotes him. Hence we return to the two points above.
Posted by goperryrevs (# 13504) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed many of them point to a position like that of John Stott - namely that there is punishment but that it is not eternal. I can't see how you can call that universalism.
If, at the end of that punishment, there is the a belief (or at least a hope) in reconciliation for all, I don't see how you can call it anything but universalism. If not then it's annihilation, or some kind if post-punishment limbo state, which I've not heard of as a common belief.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprachaun:
I don't usually like proof texts, but seeing as you asked:
2 Thessalonians 1:9
I was specifically looking for something that equates eternal damnation with lack of belief. This doesn't. In verses 6-8, we read:
6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus.
This is about persecution of the early church, Paul's millennial belief in Christ's imminent return, and how God will punish those who "deserve" it for their wicked deeds against the early Christians. Obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ is about feeding and clothing the hungry, and caring for the widow and fatherless. That the anger felt by persecuted people should lead them to hope for the damnation of their tormentors is not surprising, but again, it says nothing about eternal damnation for unbelief or for not having a "born again2 experience. Please try again!
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed many of them point to a position like that of John Stott - namely that there is punishment but that it is not eternal. I can't see how you can call that universalism.
Universalism, or restoration of all things (Apokatastasis), which I prefer, is about the end of time when God creates a new heaven and a new earth. It doesn't preclude the liklihood that those who die in a state of separation from God caused by unrepented sin, will find themselves in a hellish state. The only question is whether that suffering is remedial, and there is further room for spiritual growth beyond the grave, or whether one's eternity is sealed at the moment of death, with no possible hope of amelioration of the suffering.
To believe that eventually, all will come to be reconciled with God, is what apokatastasis is all about. It still recognises the existence of some form of hell. This is closest to my own position. It is my hope and my prayer, that the Blood of Christ, the mercy of the Father and the intercession of the BVM and the saints will lighten the darkness of even the most recalcitrant of sinners. But I don't pretend to know the definitive answer.
It seems that some form of universalism or ultimate reconciliation, was a belief held much more commonly in the early church than in medieval Christianity. It has never necessarily been a majority view, but it has a long and respecable pedigree.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed many of them point to a position like that of John Stott - namely that there is punishment but that it is not eternal. I can't see how you can call that universalism.
If, at the end of that punishment, there is the a belief (or at least a hope) in reconciliation for all, I don't see how you can call it anything but universalism. If not then it's annihilation, or some kind if post-punishment limbo state, which I've not heard of as a common belief.
IIRC, Stott came out for annihilationism - which would preclude any form of post-mortem reconciliation.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
If, at the end of that punishment, there is the a belief (or at least a hope) in reconciliation for all, I don't see how you can call it anything but universalism. If not then it's annihilation, or some kind if post-punishment limbo state, which I've not heard of as a common belief.
Yes, I was talking about annihilation.
For example, this is the first quote from one of the websites Paul quotes from:
quote:
The mass of men (Christians) say there is to be an end to punishment and to those who are punished.—St. Basil the Great
The quote is ambiguous and really needs context - however, the fact that there is an end to those who are punished strongly leads toward annihilationism rather than universalism.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
That the anger felt by persecuted people should lead them to hope for the damnation of their tormentors is not surprising, but again, it says nothing about eternal damnation for unbelief or for not having a "born again2 experience. Please try again!
You've mentioned this before and I don't understand your point. (Similarly when you refer to Matthew 25.)
You can start another thread arguing over the criteria which God uses to decide who goes to heaven and hell if you want to, but I fail to see how that affects universalism per se.
Surely whatever grounds God uses, if some are sent to hell (either forever or until they are destroyed) then universalism fails?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
The only question is whether that suffering is remedial, and there is further room for spiritual growth beyond the grave, or whether one's eternity is sealed at the moment of death, with no possible hope of amelioration of the suffering.
Yes, that is the question.
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
It seems that some form of universalism or ultimate reconciliation, was a belief held much more commonly in the early church than in medieval Christianity. It has never necessarily been a majority view, but it has a long and respecable pedigree.
Couldn't you say the same about Arianism?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Haven't been following this thread so apologies if this has been raised before but it was an issue raised for me today IRL so:
Johnny,
From memory, you believe in penal substitution. Does not such an idea encourage universalism in a sense?
If sin has been paid through punishing Jesus instead of us, are we all not going to heaven because we are no longer in sin?
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From memory, you believe in penal substitution. Does not such an idea encourage universalism in a sense?
If sin has been paid through punishing Jesus instead of us, are we all not going to heaven because we are no longer in sin?
Some people, like Moltmann IIRC, have pushed in this direction but that logic would only really work if you took predestination to a further extreme than hyper-calvinists do.
Most advocates of PSA see Christ's death as sufficient for the whole world but only efficient for those who believe.
Posted by ken (# 2460) on
:
Moltmann? Barth!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
From memory, you believe in penal substitution. Does not such an idea encourage universalism in a sense?
If sin has been paid through punishing Jesus instead of us, are we all not going to heaven because we are no longer in sin?
Some people, like Moltmann IIRC, have pushed in this direction but that logic would only really work if you took predestination to a further extreme than hyper-calvinists do.
Most advocates of PSA see Christ's death as sufficient for the whole world but only efficient for those who believe.
Interesting. Thanks.
So "sin" in a universal sense is not extinguished. It's a personal/individual thing dependent on if you believe.
A conditional removal of sin if you like.
That be right?
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Obeying the gospel of Jesus Christ is about feeding and clothing the hungry, and caring for the widow and fatherless. That the anger felt by persecuted people should lead them to hope for the damnation of their tormentors is not surprising, but again, it says nothing about eternal damnation for unbelief or for not having a "born again2 experience. Please try again!
Conveniently, you left out the bit that contradicts your view (and you'll struggle to fit your eisegesis of "obeying the Gospel" with the rest of 2 Thess, but anyhoo) - but Paul specifically says that those who do not "know God" will be punished.
And I'm not sure about what you mean by a "born again2" experience - but my evangelical beliefs only accept what it says here - destruction, that is in some sense eternal, for those who do not know God.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
Moltmann? Barth!
AFAIK Both!
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So "sin" in a universal sense is not extinguished. It's a personal/individual thing dependent on if you believe.
A conditional removal of sin if you like.
Sort of.
Sin will be unconditionally removed at the Last Judgment.
However, those who think that sin has already been universally extinguished have the teeny-weeny problem of RL - it hasn't.
In fact this is one of the major reasons why universalism and post-mortem conversion are rejected as wishful thinking. It seems fanciful to speculate a universal turning away from sin based on our experience in this life. And if God is going to have to change everything after death (e.g. transform our human nature) that poses the question of why he can't / doesn't do it now.
Like others, I long that everyone turns to God's love in Christ. I just don't have any convincing reasons to think they will.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
quote:
And I'm not sure about what you mean by a "born again2" experience - but my evangelical beliefs only accept what it says here - destruction, that is in some sense eternal, for those who do not know God.
That doesn't sound like a God I much want to believe in.
Or, more accurately, I don't want to believe in a theology that assumes a Godlike ability to determine who does and doesn't "know" God.
[ 27. March 2011, 21:54: Message edited by: LutheranChik ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
So "sin" in a universal sense is not extinguished. It's a personal/individual thing dependent on if you believe.
A conditional removal of sin if you like.
Sort of.
Sin will be unconditionally removed at the Last Judgment.
But only unconditionally removed for those that have done x,y,z? (or believed or whatever the condition is?). Not really unconditional then.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Evensong:
[qb]
However, those who think that sin has already been universally extinguished have the teeny-weeny problem of RL - it hasn't.
In fact this is one of the major reasons why universalism and post-mortem conversion are rejected as wishful thinking. It seems fanciful to speculate a universal turning away from sin based on our experience in this life. And if God is going to have to change everything after death (e.g. transform our human nature) that poses the question of why he can't / doesn't do it now.
This conversation is odd.
The shortcomings you mention above are always the ones I associated with a penal substitutionary theory of atonement.
It doesn't make sense because sin most certainly still exists.....hence...cant really see the point.
If God is going to remove all sin at the last judgment, why can't she just do it now?
[ 28. March 2011, 00:47: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
This is probably a bit of a tangent and I don't really want to get into an atonement debate so just leave it if you like Johnny.
The similarities in some of the assumptions are just rather startling.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Yeah, I'll leave the PSA for another thread since it is a tangent.
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
But only unconditionally removed for those that have done x,y,z? (or believed or whatever the condition is?). Not really unconditional then.
It is removed for everybody - everyone is either redeemed from it or destroyed by it - but it is removed for all.
Posted by LutheranChik (# 9826) on
:
A sidebar discussion of why Lutherans aren't going all medieval on Rob Bell.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
Or, more accurately, I don't want to believe in a theology that assumes a Godlike ability to determine who does and doesn't "know" God.
I don't think that is fair to what Lep said.
He did not say that he knows who God knows (if you see what I mean ) but simply that this category (known only to God) will be cast out from his presence.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
And I'm not sure about what you mean by a "born again2" experience - but my evangelical beliefs only accept what it says here - destruction, that is in some sense eternal, for those who do not know God.
That doesn't sound like a God I much want to believe in.
That's your call. Paul BC asked for a Bible passage that shows lack of faith being linked to eternal punishment. I referred to one. What you make of it is up to you.
Posted by la vie en rouge (# 10688) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by LutheranChik:
quote:
And I'm not sure about what you mean by a "born again2" experience - but my evangelical beliefs only accept what it says here - destruction, that is in some sense eternal, for those who do not know God.
That doesn't sound like a God I much want to believe in.
Or, more accurately, I don't want to believe in a theology that assumes a Godlike ability to determine who does and doesn't "know" God.
I think that's begging the question. It's a viewpoint that says some will be lost, it doesn't say that we can know who they are.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprachaun:
And I'm not sure about what you mean by a "born again2" experience - but my evangelical beliefs only accept what it says here - destruction, that is in some sense eternal, for those who do not know God.
The number 2 was a typo, I just meant a born again experience. We don't all share your evangelical belief, however. Terms like destruction and perishing, as used in 2 Thessalonians, are as likely to mean anihilation as they are damnation. We've argued before about the meaning of the Greek word usually translated as eternal, which can mean age-enduring. I'm no Greek scholar, so I rely on Young's Literal Translation for these things. To muddy the waters further, many scholars believe that 2 Thessalonians is pseudonymical. As I'm neither a Biblical literalist, nor a believer in Sola Scriptura, it doesn't bother me.
So my view is that you are making your own interpretation of what "knowing God" means. Likewise with "eternal destruction." from a writing which may not be authentic. This is the usual evengelical way of seeing Scripture. There are many quotes from Scripture which throw a different light on things, which are conveniently ignored in certain Christian circles.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Surely whatever grounds God uses, if some are sent to hell (either forever or until they are destroyed) then universalism fails?
Certainly, but my point is that the Bible itself is open to interpretation on this matter because it is, in places, contradictory. Until recently I was an Anglican, whose teaching is based on Scripture, Tradition and Reason. In Scripture and tradition, there is an equivocal voice between damnation, anihilation and restoration.
So, based on reason, I could only accept anihilation or restoration, because I don't believe that God will allow a dualism of good and evil to persist into eternity. Based on love, and that God "hatest nothing that thou hast made" (BCP collect for Lent), I believe the Scriptural passages and reasonings of the Church Fathers who saw that Jesus' victory over sin, death and the devil will embrace all that God has created.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So, based on reason, I could only accept anihilation or restoration, because I don't believe that God will allow a dualism of good and evil to persist into eternity.
Did you really mean to say, "So, based on reason ... because I don't believe" ?
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong on a closed thread:
The Good News according to Rob Bell is that God hasn't given up on the world. (Comes in at approx 9 minutes).
I rather like it. Makes sense. Most especially in the Roman context where Caesar is Lord and the son of God.
What do you think?
I guess it depends how radical, how root-seeking, we want to be. This seems to be about keeping a broadly orthodox-sounding form of Christian message and making it a vaguely-practical proposition, a movement to change the world that has God on its side.
For me it still retains too many elements of evangelical-flavoured religion that I think are more wrong than useful, a sort of hippy-commune approach to church that I can't see having much interest for people in the UK not already committed to that sort of thing.
But at least now I know who this Rob Bell character is.
Posted by Leprechaun (# 5408) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
So my view is that you are making your own interpretation of what "knowing God" means. Likewise with "eternal destruction." from a writing which may not be authentic. This is the usual evengelical way of seeing Scripture. There are many quotes from Scripture which throw a different light on things, which are conveniently ignored in certain Christian circles.
Ok, so you didn't want any quote from Scripture which backs the position that eternal punishment is linked to faith. Fine. Just don't say that is what you want.
It's not just evangelical circles where awkward passages are reasoned away - as you have just demonstrated.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong on a closed thread:
The Good News according to Rob Bell is that God hasn't given up on the world. (Comes in at approx 9 minutes).
I rather like it. Makes sense. Most especially in the Roman context where Caesar is Lord and the son of God.
What do you think?
I guess it depends how radical, how root-seeking, we want to be. This seems to be about keeping a broadly orthodox-sounding form of Christian message and making it a vaguely-practical proposition, a movement to change the world that has God on its side.
Not a bad summary IMO.
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
For me it still retains too many elements of evangelical-flavoured religion that I think are more wrong than useful,
Which bits are too evangelical flavoured? Is the hippy commune thing evangelical?
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
But at least now I know who this Rob Bell character is.
I live to serve.
(p.s. What's your definition of the Good News Davo? I'm a sucker for the question. That's why i liked the vid. - Besides the history bit - that was cool too.)
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
OK, I have read the book, and Rob Bell is not teaching universalism. In fact, I like what he is teaching, because what he is arguing for is heaven and hell on earth, not after death. He is arguing like NT Wright in Surprised by Love that the here and now is as important as the future.
Which I reckon is very cool, very right, and seems to be coming up quite often. Tom Sine teaches it too. This is the third person teaching the improtance of the here and now in terms of heaven and hell.
And the other thing he teaches is that getting out and enjoying ourselves is important. Celebrating heaven - the good and the fun in life - is part of our christian duty.
And, interestingly, if Rob Bell is right, all of the arguments over universalism, naughty and nice, PSA etc disappear.
Interestingly, he rejects PSA as the sole interpretation of the atonement. Now that should REALLY annoy the fundamentalists.
Posted by Jessie Phillips (# 13048) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
OK, I have read the book, and Rob Bell is not teaching universalism. In fact, I like what he is teaching, because what he is arguing for is heaven and hell on earth, not after death. He is arguing like NT Wright in Surprised by Love that the here and now is as important as the future.
Perhaps I'm muddling NT Wright up with someone else - but I thought that his point in Surprised by Hope was that the rationale for believing that the here and now is important, is that the future is a consequence of it.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Indeed many of them point to a position like that of John Stott - namely that there is punishment but that it is not eternal. I can't see how you can call that universalism.
If, at the end of that punishment, there is the a belief (or at least a hope) in reconciliation for all, I don't see how you can call it anything but universalism. If not then it's annihilation, or some kind if post-punishment limbo state, which I've not heard of as a common belief.
Define "all". Do you mean all humans? Or all sentient beings? Or something in between?
If "all" does not necessarily mean all living beings, then it's not unreasonable to suppose that it does not mean all humans either.
Will our pets share in the resurrection? If so, then will our predators share in it too?
On the other hand, will saints and other human exemplars share in the resurrection with us? If so, then does that include war heroes? If so, then what about animal exemplars - such as those commemorated in the "Animals in War" memorial in Hyde Park London? Do they share in the resurrection too? If not, then why are we commemorating creatures that won't share in the resurrection with us? Doesn't that undermine the idea that heroes, saints and martyrs will share in the resurrection too?
What exactly do we think it means to be human anyway? Are we really so sure that we can tell the difference between men and beasts?
What happens when people have sex with animals? What if people have sex with primates? It's all very well to describe such sexual acts as "disgusting" and "immoral", in the hope that this will somehow stop it from happening - but that doesn't solve the problem of the unanswered question of whether the fruit of such unions share in the resurrection or not.
I find that it's not until you start asking questions about what people think it means to be human, that "universalism" suddenly starts to look like it's not quite so universal after all.
But then - perhaps that's the point. I don't know.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
OK, I have read the book, and Rob Bell is not teaching universalism. In fact, I like what he is teaching, because what he is arguing for is heaven and hell on earth, not after death. He is arguing like NT Wright in Surprised by Love that the here and now is as important as the future.
Perhaps I'm muddling NT Wright up with someone else - but I thought that his point in Surprised by Hope was that the rationale for believing that the here and now is important, is that the future is a consequence of it.
Well, it's not what I got out of it.
The here and now is important because the Kingdom is Here and Now, not There and In the Future.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
Which bits are too evangelical flavoured?
It's hard to be specific without stepping back through it. The presentation resonated with my experience of evangelicism, I guess, with its God to the rescue of sinners thing at the end. It's probably all there in the small print of traditional catholic orthodoxy, but he made no mention of sacraments.
quote:
Is the hippy commune thing evangelical?
Probably not, but again the alternative-community, church-as-a-lifeboat mentality seemed more typically evangelical than the sacramental model I think of as catholic.
quote:
What's your definition of the Good News
I don't think I have one. It's another of those terms that belongs with theology I no longer use. Why do we want to tell anyone what to make of what we have to offer? I'd prefer to do what I can, hope it's useful in some way, then leave it for others to label it "good" or "news" if that's how they find it.
[ 29. March 2011, 00:13: Message edited by: Dave Marshall ]
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What's your definition of the Good News
I don't think I have one. It's another of those terms that belongs with theology I no longer use. Why do we want to tell anyone what to make of what we have to offer? I'd prefer to do what I can, hope it's useful in some way, then leave it for others to label it "good" or "news" if that's how they find it.
Let me rephrase. What do you think Christianity offers the world? What is it you "do" when you "do what you can"?
Not for converting others (let the reader understand) but in articulating it for yourself.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jessie Phillips:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
OK, I have read the book, and Rob Bell is not teaching universalism. In fact, I like what he is teaching, because what he is arguing for is heaven and hell on earth, not after death. He is arguing like NT Wright in Surprised by Love that the here and now is as important as the future.
Perhaps I'm muddling NT Wright up with someone else - but I thought that his point in Surprised by Hope was that the rationale for believing that the here and now is important, is that the future is a consequence of it.
It might depend where you are starting from, but I see Wright as arguing the same sort of thing as Bell, that if we cannot work towards heaven on earth - and against hell on earth - then our message is meaningless. Theological arguments about post-mortem heaven and hell are as irrelevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Which is, IMO, a good counter to the distinctly gnostic route that some of the fundamentalist right take, that this world is irrelevant, the spiritual world to come is the important one.
The truth lies, I suspect, in a tension between these two, but I think both Wright and Bell argue that the future is built on what we do here and now, however you want to interpret "the future".
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
It might depend where you are starting from, but I see Wright as arguing the same sort of thing as Bell, that if we cannot work towards heaven on earth - and against hell on earth - then our message is meaningless. Theological arguments about post-mortem heaven and hell are as irrelevant as how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.
Sounds good to me.
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Which is, IMO, a good counter to the distinctly gnostic route that some of the fundamentalist right take, that this world is irrelevant, the spiritual world to come is the important one.
Wasn't that Augustine's vale of tears?
[ 29. March 2011, 07:30: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What do you think Christianity offers the world?
Resources for making sense of human experience. It's accumulated wisdom articulated through its history and tries to make that available for this and future generations. Science has pretty much taken over how the universe works, so religions like Christianity are left with the less tangible stuff, the social, the spiritual, the what might lie beyond this life. It's struggling, though, because it's lost touch with the physical foundation that would have underpinned the worldviews of past generations.
quote:
What is it you "do" when you "do what you can"?
What I'm interested in. God's nature seems to be to create. With our capacity to self-consciously reflect on our existence, we've acquired the potential to rise above the survival instincts that got humanity this far and also create. I like to think Christianity is about enabling co-operative creativity, held together by our shared interests. So as far as I think much about it that's probably what I'm trying to do.
In practice, of course, it's mostly just muddling through the day.
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Leprechaun:
It's not just evangelical circles where awkward passages are reasoned away - as you have just demonstrated.
I agree. In fact I've yet to meet a Christian who doesn't gloss over difficult passages and interpret the Bible as they see fit, either as an individual, or from within their own faith tradition. My own view is perfectly compatible with the post Vatican II teaching of the Catholic Church on this matter, as you see here. I disagree with the main point of this website which is criticising the modern Catholic Church for being too liberal.
I hope and I pray for the salvation of all. Knowing that God desires that all be saved, and that with God all things are possible gives me much confidence in His mercy. Like Pope John Paul II and Pope Benedict XVI, Hans Urs Von Balthasar is my favourite theologian.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave Marshall:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
What do you think Christianity offers the world?
Resources for making sense of human experience. It's accumulated wisdom articulated through its history and tries to make that available for this and future generations. Science has pretty much taken over how the universe works, so religions like Christianity are left with the less tangible stuff, the social, the spiritual, the what might lie beyond this life. It's struggling, though, because it's lost touch with the physical foundation that would have underpinned the worldviews of past generations.
quote:
What is it you "do" when you "do what you can"?
What I'm interested in. God's nature seems to be to create. With our capacity to self-consciously reflect on our existence, we've acquired the potential to rise above the survival instincts that got humanity this far and also create. I like to think Christianity is about enabling co-operative creativity, held together by our shared interests. So as far as I think much about it that's probably what I'm trying to do.
In practice, of course, it's mostly just muddling through the day.
A different way to hear the Good News. Thank you.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
<bump>
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Snags on a new thread:
Is it just me, or was the article in the current issue of Christianity (if anyone else here actually reads it ) thin in the extreme?
Given the somewhat prejudicial strapline - "Our resident theologian looks at what the Bible really says about salvation" - I'd hoped to get at least a reasonable critique of some of Bell's points from t'other side. Even accepting that a couple of thousand word article can't say as much as a whole book (albeit one with lots of white space), AFAICS the author spends half his space outlining different types of Universalism, a quarter specualating on which one Bell might be, and then just makes some axiomatic statements with no real reference or support as to why Universalism is utter tosh whichever way you cut it.
The main thrust of his argument doesn't even appear to be Biblical (it undermines the imperative to evangalise, which is a highly moot point). Other than that, and a few snidey digs, there's no actual sensible "Where Bell says X, actually that's a bit naughty" stuff.
I carry no torch for either "side" but it would have been nice to actually see some reasoned frigging argument :/
So, can anyone here do better, to help an interested, largely theologically uneducated observer?
Just linking this post to the earlier discussion for any further comments.
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on
:
quote:
Also posted by Doc Tor on the closed thread
quote:
Originally posted by Snags:
So, can anyone here do better, to help an interested, largely theologically uneducated observer?
The Third Way review (May) sounds like it does a much better job at weighing the pros and cons. Chief of the complaints is that Bell doesn't show his working - no footnotes at all. But overall, the reviewer (copy's in a different room, sorry) approved.
Doc Tor crossposted with my closure announcement so here is his contribution.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
Thanks!
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
Thanks Barnabas.
Posted by Snags (# 15351) on
:
quote:
Chief of the complaints is that Bell doesn't show his working
Yes, that I can understand. It's a very 'interesting' style of writing - lots of questions and observations that lead one in certain directions/to certain conclusions, but very little in the way of actual assertion or statements that can be picked up and examined.
I'll see if I can find a copy of the review in Third Way.
Interestingly, the review in the previous month's [u]Christianity[/u] was largely complimentary, and simply ended with a (paraphrase) "Although I disagree with his conclusions, Bell raises some interesting issues and thoughts which aren't easily dismissed". Then they get a chap in to do the 'critique' who simply easily dismisses them, without actually engaging with them.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
FWIW, I am going to hear Rob Bell tonight, to see what he is like in the flesh. I gather that the format includes a question session ( or at least, it does in Cambridge, I presume the format is the same ), which should be interesting.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I was again impressed with Rob Bell last night. He is a really good and clear speaker. And he answers questions well, and professionally. I think the two things that came over were:
1. God loves people immensely. He loves you, me, and everyone. That is good news - for everyone.
2. We do not know what happens after death. Stop worrying about it, and see Heaven and hell here on earth. Our calling is to work towards promoting heaven here on earth, and against hell. That is good news.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
Thanks for the report, Schroedinger's cat. That does indeed sound like good news. I guess some would say that we must not dilute what the Bible says about eternal judgement / condemnation but even if one believes in a literal eternal hell, does it benefit people to warn them of the peril they're in? Does preaching fire and brimstone actually convert people?
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
Thanks for the report, Schroedinger's cat. That does indeed sound like good news. I guess some would say that we must not dilute what the Bible says about eternal judgement / condemnation but even if one believes in a literal eternal hell, does it benefit people to warn them of the peril they're in? Does preaching fire and brimstone actually convert people?
It's not a question of whether Hell "works" in getting people to believe; it's a question of whether Hell is real - is that what the Bible actually teaches, or not?
The heart of the Good News is God's grace and love to us, and love for God should be our primary motive - that's not in question. If Hell is real, then fear of punishment should be very much a secondary motive for accepting the Christian message.
But if the Bible teaches Hell, then we've got to be honest and up-front about that. If those who reject God are in danger of Hell, we need to warn people about it, whether or not it makes people more or less likely to convert.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
It's not a question of whether Hell "works" in getting people to believe; it's a question of whether Hell is real
I agree that is a question. I'm just not sure how many people are seriously asking it these days.
quote:
- is that what the Bible actually teaches, or not?
That, however, is not a useful approach to choosing an answer. It seems Rob Bell has got past making silly claims for the Bible. To connect with an audience not familiar with evangelical cultural assumptions I think he needs go much further. Maybe showing his working would do that.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But if the Bible teaches Hell, then we've got to be honest and up-front about that. If those who reject God are in danger of Hell, we need to warn people about it, whether or not it makes people more or less likely to convert.
I don't understand... Assume that we believe the Bible does indeed teach a literal, actual hell. I'd agree that we would then have to be honest about it but if warning people that rejecting God puts them in danger of hell makes them less likely to convert then shouldn't we be pretty cautious about giving such warnings? Why do we need to warn people about hell if it switches them off from following Jesus?
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was again impressed with Rob Bell last night. He is a really good and clear speaker. And he answers questions well, and professionally. I think the two things that came over were:
1. God loves people immensely. He loves you, me, and everyone. That is good news - for everyone.
2. We do not know what happens after death. Stop worrying about it, and see Heaven and hell here on earth. Our calling is to work towards promoting heaven here on earth, and against hell. That is good news.
Thanks for that Snoopy. Nice to hear a first hand experience (even tho they can vary tremendously).
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
But if the Bible teaches Hell, then we've got to be honest and up-front about that. If those who reject God are in danger of Hell, we need to warn people about it, whether or not it makes people more or less likely to convert.
I don't understand... Assume that we believe the Bible does indeed teach a literal, actual hell. I'd agree that we would then have to be honest about it but if warning people that rejecting God puts them in danger of hell makes them less likely to convert then shouldn't we be pretty cautious about giving such warnings? Why do we need to warn people about hell if it switches them off from following Jesus?
Honesty and integrity. We need to tell people what we actually believe, rather than sugar-coating our beliefs by selecting what we think people want to hear. Of course we should try to explain the reasons for our beliefs sympathetically, but we don't have the right to decide which bits of Christianity someone gets to hear about. To make a rational decision about whether to accept the Christian faith or not, they need to have the full picture.
Also, people are at least as likely to be put off by any attempt to market our beliefs or perform any kind of bait and switch. Being honest and consistent in our beliefs is the best policy, whatever you believe about the existence or otherwise of Hell.
Posted by Dave Marshall (# 7533) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
We need to tell people what we actually believe
What makes you think this? It's possible you might be wrong.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
I was again impressed with Rob Bell last night. He is a really good and clear speaker. And he answers questions well, and professionally.
Thanks for this SC - it helps to have a first hand account.
Out of interest, who do you think the audience was? I mean, was it full of people who were not Christians and unchurched? (Obviously only as far you can tell ... I don't mean I expected you to do a survey or anything.)
I ask the question because my hunch (confirmed by the hugely wide-ranging datum of one - i.e. you) is that it was mostly Christians who went.
I listened to a Q&A with Tim Keller about this the other day. Keller's review went something like this:
He didn't comment on the content of the book because he didn't think Bell was clear enough about what his content actually was. So he didn't want to give him a hard time over that.
However, he was saddened by the tone of the introduction. Keller argued that gracious engagement means demonstrating that you have really heard the side of that you disagree with. Keller felt that Bell caricatured the traditional position to such an extent that it was bound to wind up traditionalists.
In other words, in his opinion, Bell's target audience is not the unchurched but rather Christians disaffected with conservative Christianity.
My guess (but I'm willing to be put right on this) is that we have two conversations going on here:
1. People show their non Christian friends a nooma video or talk to them about its content and their friends respond warmly to it. something like, "If I were interested in Christianity, this is the kind of Christianity I'd be interested in."
2. However, if we were to follow up that up with the question, "are you now interested in Christianity then?" their response would be - No.
[ 19. April 2011, 13:50: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
quote:
originally posted by Johnny S
My guess (but I'm willing to be put right on this) is that we have two conversations going on here:
1. People show their non Christian friends a nooma video or talk to them about its content and their friends respond warmly to it. something like, "If I were interested in Christianity, this is the kind of Christianity I'd be interested in."
2. However, if we were to follow up that up with the question, "are you now interested in Christianity then?" their response would be - No.
Fair point, Johnny, but then that's pretty much the majority response to any flavour of gospel presentation. Apart from issues of what the whole message of scripture actually is (something which, I guess, we would both think the absolutely key issue, even if we disagree as to what that message is), the "utilitarian" question should rather be, "as a component part of a larger work of the Holy Spirit in bringing a person to Christ, does Bell's sort of presentation push more "truth buttons" amongst the average non-churchgoer, than the modernist approach favoured by more conservative apologists. My hunch is that, yes, most non-churchgoers are suspicious of the black-or-white simplicity of traditional evangelical thinking, and that it does no harm whatsoever to get people to think outside the box of received evangelical wisdom.
Anyway, I'm going to Liverpool to see RB tomorrow night, so maybe I'll have some further insights after I've actually heard him - I was one of the thousand or so people who could not get into the venue at last year's Greenbelt.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
The audience was Christian yes - and he was talking to Christians. We may have been disaffected, but they were all there to listen to what he had to say, and he talked to us as people who had heard about the book, and may have read it.
The question of "if there is a real hell, we should preach about it", I think the response would be that we do not know what happens after death - and the bible does not actually tell us much about post-mortem existence. According to the book, most of the references are better interpreted in terms of the here and now, not the future - and I think he has a point there. The reflection of it as representing post-mortem judgement and damnation is more an interpretation.
So I think we know far less than some people think about what happens after death, and our focus should be on making heaven here and now, and opposing hell here and now. As he says, those who focus heavily on the hell hereafter tend to not focus on making heaven now.
My view - which I think RB is reflecting - is that we should focus our attention on making things better in the here and now. If we preach that heaven is available here and now, then we have a positive message to people who don't care about the future after death. It is about being good news now, not just then.
Posted by PaulBC (# 13712) on
:
But to focus soley on the here & now loses sight of the need for holiness and right living. Thus univerralism is heresey.
Posted by Doc Tor (# 9748) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
But to focus soley on the here & now loses sight of the need for holiness and right living. Thus univerralism is heresey.
You have three things here that don't add up. In fact, I'd argue that focussing on the present means a much stronger orthopraxis: your behaviour now has immediate, not postponed consequences.
And your third is a non sequitur - it simply doesn't follow from the first two, even if you were correct.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
But to focus soley on the here & now loses sight of the need for holiness and right living.
No it doesn't. It just loses sight of the need for eternal retribution for lack of holiness and right living. Or, what is more common among Christians of every stripe, for lack of believing exactly the right things.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Anyway, I'm going to Liverpool to see RB tomorrow night, so maybe I'll have some further insights after I've actually heard him - I was one of the thousand or so people who could not get into the venue at last year's Greenbelt.
Great. Please post your thoughts on this thread afterwards - I'd appreciate that.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
We need to tell people what we actually believe, rather than sugar-coating our beliefs by selecting what we think people want to hear...
Also, people are at least as likely to be put off by any attempt to market our beliefs or perform any kind of bait and switch. Being honest and consistent in our beliefs is the best policy, whatever you believe about the existence or otherwise of Hell.
Sorry, I think I got the wrong end of the stick a bit. I'm 100% with you both on the need to tell people what we actually believe and on the unhelpfulness of marketing. Thanks for explaining.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulBC:
But to focus soley on the here & now loses sight of the need for holiness and right living.
No it doesn't. It just loses sight of the need for eternal retribution for lack of holiness and right living. Or, what is more common among Christians of every stripe, for lack of believing exactly the right things.
Indeed I'd say "holiness" motivated by fear of punishment (hell) or in hopes of getting a reward (heaven) isn't holiness at all; it's merely enlightened self-interest.
[ 20. April 2011, 02:06: Message edited by: mousethief ]
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed I'd say "holiness" motivated by fear of punishment (hell) or in hopes of getting a reward (heaven) isn't holiness at all; it's merely enlightened self-interest.
But might not such self-interest be a possible first step in the right direction, one that motivates us to learn so that we can later come to love? I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherently a good thing or that it is something that should be taught, but neither would I denigrate anyone for holding it. I know very little about theosis, so I'd be interested in hearing about how the attitude you describe does or does not fit into it.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Indeed I'd say "holiness" motivated by fear of punishment (hell) or in hopes of getting a reward (heaven) isn't holiness at all; it's merely enlightened self-interest.
But might not such self-interest be a possible first step in the right direction, one that motivates us to learn so that we can later come to love? I'm not saying that such an attitude is inherently a good thing or that it is something that should be taught, but neither would I denigrate anyone for holding it. I know very little about theosis, so I'd be interested in hearing about how the attitude you describe does or does not fit into it.
I think we should believe or disbelieve things based on truth, not utilitarianism. So maybe belief in Hell leads people to eventually develop a right relation with God. Trying and killing an innocent scapegoat can potentially deter people from murder. That doesn't make it right. If there is no eternal punishment in Hell, then using it to scare people into heaven is wrong, even if it sometimes works. I don't think this dog hunts.
I've never heard theosis tied into fear of Hell, but I'll admit my reading in that area is far from exhaustive.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
I agree with what you say, but because I agree, I'm not wondering about the problems that inevitably come with teaching or advocating the fear of hell. I'm wondering instead about what we say to someone who already has a fear of hell or a desire for the reward of heaven. I wouldn't be able to tell them that they should not be afraid of hell or that they should not desire the benefits of heaven. I also would not tell them they're just being selfish. I would be able to tell them that I think it's possible to move beyond fear and reward to a more mature spiritual attitude and my guess is that you might do something similar. Or do you think someone who already has that attitude needs to unlearn it before they can learn something better?
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
The idea that we all need to 'tell people what we believe' seems to be fraught with two main problems.
1) Even a cursory glance at these boards shows vast disagreement of even basic belief.
2) Lots of people have an inbuilt loathing of being told what to do, let alone what to think ( normalspeak for what to believe)
While we continue to hope that we can tell people what to believe...as over against learning how to have conversations about this...Bell et all will never really communicate easily with the more dogmatic sections of Christendom.
( and no i'm not calling anyone here dogmatic)
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Just heard via FB Rob Bell is in Liverpool.
You lucky bastards.
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
While we continue to hope that we can tell people what to believe...as over against learning how to have conversations about this...Bell et all will never really communicate easily with the more dogmatic sections of Christendom.
Yes. But hopefully we can tell people what we believe (and why), without then going on to say 'And you should / must believe it too'. I think it's so important to have conversations about faith and belief without getting into angry criticisms of each other's positions or pressurising people into believing the 'right' things.
Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on
:
quote:
Schroedinger's cat: 1. God loves people immensely. He loves you, me, and everyone. That is good news - for everyone.
2. We do not know what happens after death. Stop worrying about it, and see Heaven and hell here on earth. Our calling is to work towards promoting heaven here on earth, and against hell. That is good news.
I can certainly live with that!
TBH, I don't care very much if this attracts new believers or not. If our religion needs the threat of Hell to attract new believers, it isn't much of a religion IMO.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
Telling anyone anything though does require a desire on the Others part to have that knowledge imparted to them!
Sadly all too often the desire to Tell our truth, is greater than our desire for another to Receive it. Leading to an "I've done my bit" attitude.
Many people think that Bell et al are merely trying to maximize the chances of this Telling being received. At all.
Let me give an example: When I cross our city centre, I am often harangued by a zealous public preacher. I am told that I am going to hell unless I repent and that my evil deeds separate me from God. The assumption is that I ( and the rest of the evil masses) are filthy sinners and we need telling.
All too often i fear our Telling ( unless it is surrounded by relationship) ends up being just as badly received when we persist in majoring on hell.
Posted by The Revolutionist (# 4578) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
I agree with what you say, but because I agree, I'm not wondering about the problems that inevitably come with teaching or advocating the fear of hell. I'm wondering instead about what we say to someone who already has a fear of hell or a desire for the reward of heaven. I wouldn't be able to tell them that they should not be afraid of hell or that they should not desire the benefits of heaven. I also would not tell them they're just being selfish. I would be able to tell them that I think it's possible to move beyond fear and reward to a more mature spiritual attitude and my guess is that you might do something similar. Or do you think someone who already has that attitude needs to unlearn it before they can learn something better?
That's a good question - I think there is a need to move from a fear and reward understanding to an attitude of love.
I think one important thing is to teach grace - that God accepts us freely; there's nothing we do to deserve God's acceptance - it's a gift.
The second key is to help people understand that the gift that God gives us is Himself. We don't become Christians to get forgiveness or whatever - that's just using God, that's not really worshipiing him. Being a Christian is not about getting from God, but getting God, starting now. It means knowing him, loving him and becoming like him. The real reward is to be turned out from our selfishness, and to delight in loving God and loving other people.
Posted by mousethief (# 953) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Ethne Alba:
Let me give an example: When I cross our city centre, I am often harangued by a zealous public preacher. I am told that I am going to hell unless I repent and that my evil deeds separate me from God. The assumption is that I ( and the rest of the evil masses) are filthy sinners and we need telling.
When I was an undagrad, there was a haranguer on campus the students called Holy Hubert. (I have no idea if Hubert was his name.) His schtick was to point at specific students walking by (or standing watching him, goading him as often as not) and tell them they are guilty of some sin -- usually fornication but not always. Eg, "You are a fornicator! You are going to hell unless you turn from your evil ways" and so forth.
Nobody but nobody took him seriously. He was an object of universal ridicule. I suppose there may have been some ultra fundamentalists who supported (in thought) what he was doing, but you never saw them speak up. If he pointed at some student and accused him/her of being a fornicator or whatever, they would as often as not either keep walking, or give that "whatever" brush-off hand wave.
In short, he wasn't convicting anyone of sin.
As I noted above, students would often gather around him to see what he would say next, and to heckle. I suppose this made it easier for him to point at people since they were already paying attention, but that was just part of the fun for the students.
The kingdom was not advanced, and I daresay it was hindered/set back for a lot of people.
In contrast there was a jug band that would also play on the Hub lawn (in front of the student center). (I forget the name of the group.) They were pretty good. They each had a stage name -- the one who played the spoons and the forks and a lot of other interesting percussion instruments was called the Master Gadget Gadget Master. (That's the only one I remember.)
They sang pretty good songs that we all took to be self-written, among which were some that had a reasonably subtle religious (moral even) message. At least they made me and my friends, MOR evangelicals, go "Hmm." Dunno what effect they had on non-religious types. They certainly drew a pretty good crowd, and no heckling.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
I think the message and challenge I got from RB was just what others have said - that the Good News is a positive message - Rob Bell was relevant, explaining his theological points using contemporary references, which was excellent. He was prepared to engage with contemporary culture, and within that, say that Christianity was good news. The condemnatory attitude that many churches have had ( from the Westboro people down - many churches tend to be condemning or excluding ) is not relevant or Christian. The Westboro and Terry Jones incidents highlight this - the problem with them is their condemnatory hatred.
And yet God loves people. And that simple message is at the core of the bible message, and the core of what we should say. Bell may not be the best at saying it, he may get it confused with other ideas, he may push it a little too far, but FFS it is about time someone started saying it.
Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by The Revolutionist:
I think one important thing is to teach grace - that God accepts us freely; there's nothing we do to deserve God's acceptance - it's a gift.
The second key is to help people understand that the gift that God gives us is Himself. We don't become Christians to get forgiveness or whatever - that's just using God, that's not really worshipiing him. Being a Christian is not about getting from God, but getting God, starting now. It means knowing him, loving him and becoming like him. The real reward is to be turned out from our selfishness, and to delight in loving God and loving other people.
Thank you for those suggestions. After rereading my posts, I realize that I left out an important part of the context of my questions: I help respond to people who contact our church through the church's website.
Many of the messages that we receive are to tell us that we're going to hell for our beliefs and are leading others to hell by advertising them. I find that with a little patience and a few well-worn proof texts, these are not particularly difficult to respond to, although it does take a little more thought to respond graciously and gently to the people who are clearly more concerned about our eternal welfare than about making sure we know that we deserve the punishment that God has in store for us.
However, more to the point of my questions, a fair number of people write to us asking for help because they are overwhelmed by their struggles with things like anger, promiscuity, and drug addiction. They are sure that they are going to be condemned by God to hell for their lack of success and because they know that they don't deserve the reward of heaven. These are some of the people I have in mind when I ask what we say to those who already fear hell and desire the reward of heaven. Others are trying to do as God wishes, but are afraid of making a mistake and being condemned to hell for it. Still others "know" that God is supposed to love everyone, but are more convinced that they are excluded from that love for one reason or another.
I very much agree with what Ethne Alba, South Coast Kevin, LeRoc, and mousethief have posted. I would not presume to tell people what I believe if they have not asked me, and I certainly would not try to teach anyone that hell is God's punishment for anyone (mostly because I don't believe it). But in this particular situation, these people have explicitly asked us for help. This is the situation I have in mind when I say that I cannot tell them not to be afraid of hell, or not to desire the benefits of heaven. I also cannot tell them that they are being selfish. I see them as having personal experience with hell and hungering after heaven as a result - I sincerely believe they are some of those who "hunger and thirst after righteousness."
So my question is whether these kinds of beliefs about punishment and reward can serve as a starting point for a more mature faith, or if they need to be unlearned first. My own view is that the former is a more productive approach to use, and not only for people afflicted by feelings of guilt and failure. I also think it's a more productive approach to use when responding to people who are not so much afflicted themselves as actively afflicting others. We can be very confident of ourselves when we tell them that they have no right to afflict others with their unsolicited views, but are we likely to meet with any more success than they do? We may be causing less damage than they are, but we may also be missing the opportunity to search for common ground first and then go from there. Unless, of course, there is no redeeming value to be found in these kinds of beliefs and they can only be replaced rather than grow to become more mature. Hence my questions.
Posted by pjkirk (# 10997) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
If there is no eternal punishment in Hell, then using it to scare people into heaven is wrong, even if it sometimes works. I don't think this dog hunts.
I quoted MT here for the animal reference.
Growing up on a farm, the best way to ensure an animal would never bond to you or love you was to use fear and threats of retribution. I have seen no reason to think that humans work any differently.
I'd call this a dangerous way to try and get converts. Very dangerous, shallow, and frankly inhuman (or perhaps all too human).
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
C.S. Lewis points out somewhere that one aspect of God's grace is that he accepts us even when we come to him for the dodgiest of motives - fear of hell, need for a crutch or a friend or a father figure, desire for the family ambience provided by a church, or whatever.
Let's face it, we can never be 100% sure of our motives, and we can be pretty sure that no-one ever became a Christian out of a pure, disinterested love of truth.
Posted by Kaplan Corday (# 16119) on
:
I should have added that a group of us were once sitting around laughing about some eccentrics (I think they're Exclusives) who shout the gospel at the passing traffic down at our local shopping centre, when someone piped up and said, "I got converted through them".
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
I'm getting a bit confused here between how the church communicates its message and what the content of that message is.
Throughout church history Christians have sought to enculturate the gospel. That's why churches look so different around the globe. Occasionally some groups get stuck in a cultural ghetto but the norm is working out how to communicate the gospel to the next generation and a new people group.
However, at the same time, there has always been a strong resistance to changing the message to suit the culture. Frequently in the gospel people turn away from Jesus because his teaching is too hard to take, and yet Jesus never wavered because of it. We find the same in the rest of the NT. Indeed 2 Timothy famously warns against gathering teachers around us who will say what we want them to say. This is not just from a few select proof-texts, I'm talking about a major theme of the gospels and letters. You don't have to believe in the inerrancy of scripture to see how wary the church has been of accommodating its message to the current culture. (Indeed one criticism of Rob Bell I heard was from a Korean who said that the culture of his non-Christian parents would not find Bell's message more attractive at all - i.e. that Bell may appeal to middle class anglo culture but he won't to the rest of the world.)
Now, none of this means that Rob Bell is a false teacher or that he is selling out the Christian gospel. However, it does mean that it is a question that Christians have always asked and therefore it is entirely legitimate to ask it of Rob:
1. How can we communicate the good news effectively as possible?
2. Is the way we communicate it changing the message at all?
3. If so, is that a change that brings us closer to the good news of Jesus, or is it simply accommodating to what our culture wants to hear?
I remember once a student telling me (seriously) that if churches had bars with topless barmaids at Christmas it would get him along. I know this is a ridiculous example (I still can't believe he said it) but it is pretty obvious that we must not simply change our evangelism to 'whatever brings people in'. (And yes, he was sober when he said it - before we went out for a few beers.)
Once more, I'm not saying that Rob Bell is doing this, just that it is only fair to ask the question of any new idea or approach. Christians have always done it. Just asking the question doesn't mean that Bell is guilty as charged, but neither does it mean that the person asking it is a monster either.
[ 21. April 2011, 07:59: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Western Christianity has been in a cultural ghetto since Augustine.
Posted by Jolly Jape (# 3296) on
:
As I said, I went to see Rob Bell last night. Funnily enough, his universalist (or not) views didn't feature much in his talk, though they were addressed at some length in the Q&A session afterwards. My feeling was that he was largely speaking to the converted, and that the more "contoversial" points (let the reader understand) were the ones most warmly received. His talk was peppered with allusions to American (ie US) culture, which did not always connect with his audience, but he was warm, funny, assured and honest. Because of the acoustic properties of Liverpool Anglican Cathedral, it was not always possible to hear some of his asides, despite the efforts of a very professional sound team.
I would say that, from both reading his book and his presentation last night, he would sit, in a UK context, well towards the less conservative end of the open evangelical spectrum, but not at the extreme. I think he would probably consider my views, had he known them, as being to the "left" of his, but that, of course, means very little.
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
1. How can we communicate the good news effectively as possible?
2. Is the way we communicate it changing the message at all?
3. If so, is that a change that brings us closer to the good news of Jesus, or is it simply accommodating to what our culture wants to hear?
I remember once a student telling me (seriously) that if churches had bars with topless barmaids at Christmas it would get him along. I know this is a ridiculous example (I still can't believe he said it) but it is pretty obvious that we must not simply change our evangelism to 'whatever brings people in'. (And yes, he was sober when he said it - before we went out for a few beers.)
Once more, I'm not saying that Rob Bell is doing this, just that it is only fair to ask the question of any new idea or approach. Christians have always done it. Just asking the question doesn't mean that Bell is guilty as charged, but neither does it mean that the person asking it is a monster either.
I wouldn't disagree with any of this, Johnny, but it does, of course, beg the question of whether, historically, there has been one universally held view of what the essential nature of the gospel is, in order that we can discern whether a new teaching is a step in the right or the wrong direction. Bell's argument is that his teaching is merely a reaffirmation and enculturation of a teaching which has been there ab initio; in other words, it is a radical (ie back to the root) message.
[ 21. April 2011, 10:29: Message edited by: Jolly Jape ]
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
Thanks for the review JJ. Interesting.
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Bell's argument is that his teaching is merely a reaffirmation and enculturation of a teaching which has been there ab initio; in other words, it is a radical (ie back to the root) message.
I've got no problems with that - it means, therefore, that Bell has to demonstrate that his message really is radical in it's original sense. And what is interesting is that even his supporters seem to think that where he attempts to do that are the weakest parts of his book.
Posted by Johnny S (# 12581) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Western Christianity has been in a cultural ghetto since Augustine.
The more times you say that the more complicated your argument becomes and therefore the more parsnips you have.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
(Indeed one criticism of Rob Bell I heard was from a Korean who said that the culture of his non-Christian parents would not find Bell's message more attractive at all - i.e. that Bell may appeal to middle class anglo culture but he won't to the rest of the world.)
Which is fine, because he can address some parts of anglo culture, but he cannot be expected to appeal to all people. The point is not that one person can appeal to everyone, but that reflecting it against the culture is a good way of communicating. He used a few expressions that were pretty theological, and would not have been grasped by anyone outside the church, but he then related these with contemporary references, which made his points clear.
The challenge between enculturing the message and redefining the message has been a constant issue. As Newbiggin said, it is almost impossible to interpret your understanding of your faith without it being related to your culture, without it being seen through your cultural glasses.
I think the truth is that Christianity is only valid when it is encultured, when it is expressed by people within their own groups. Which means that the idea of a "pure message", unencumbered by any cultural baggage, is a myth. That is one of the things that makes Christianity so strong, and so universal.
Posted by Ethne Alba (# 5804) on
:
I wonder, did anyone go to hear Rob Bell talk....and change their mind?
Either go feeling they would agree with him and now know they Just Don't?
Or has anyone gone under sufferance...and come away really glad they went and having changed their mind?
I only ask as I ( for many reasons and none of them valid) did not go to any of the venues and i've spent some time wondering if i Would have agreed with the dear man after all.....
Posted by Alogon (# 5513) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Evensong:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Why is there this vehement opposition to Universalism in some parts of the Church?
It makes people feel less special if God loves everyone.
It's an ego thing.
The ability to scare people to death and then promise that you can keep the worst from befalling them is also obviously a power thing. It is reminiscent of how the mob extorts money: "Nice little life you have there. We wouldn't want anything to happen to it, would we?" Hence the tendency of successive generations of preachers to outdo one another in depictions of hell, as documented in The Legend of Hell by Percy Dearmer. I'd be interested in seeing what Mr. Bell has to say that Dearmer didn't figure out some eighty years ago.
I had a chance this afternoon just to skim the recent cover story of Time occasioned by Rob Bell and the book. The loudest complaints were blatently self-serving, from clergy who saw themselves marginalized if they could no longer terrify the world into obedience. He's a heretic, because without hell there's <gasp> no reason for the church! The question of whose claims were more plausible or had more evidence behind them seemed to be a distant second in their concerns.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Love Wins today
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
NYT review here
This quote addresses the issue of exclusivity:
quote:
it offers them a way to hold on to Jesus’ particularity in a pluralist world, a world in which wondering about the eternal fate of, say, a Hindu is not an abstract question but a question about your college roommate.
But then I have my doubts about anyone who can say, to the point of condemning just about everyone else, that he/she has the only grasp of The Truth, so I would agree with that quote, wouldn't I?
quote:
So, too, Rob Bell is articulating the concerns of a generation of Christians schooled in toleration, whose neighbors and coworkers and siblings are Muslim or Buddhist or agnostic, a generation whose pluralist social commitments are at odds with theological commitments to limited salvation.
Kind of puts the Pope and Pastor Terry Jones in the same boat, doesn't it? "They" can't be saved because "I" said so just won't work in an age when we all know people of many faiths and none.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Kind of puts the Pope and Pastor Terry Jones in the same boat, doesn't it? "They" can't be saved because "I" said so just won't work in an age when we all know people of many faiths and none.
Getting to know real people of different faiths and none tends to put a spoke in the wheel of exclusivity.
Just like Jesus really.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
Kind of puts the Pope and Pastor Terry Jones in the same boat, doesn't it? "They" can't be saved because "I" said so just won't work in an age when we all know people of many faiths and none.
The Terry Jones/Westboro crowd who like to define who is in and who is out are precisely the types of people who Bell is standing in opposition to. And quite rightly.
The Pope would also be included if he would still hold onto the view that "outside the RC chuch there is no salvation". I don't know that he ( or more significantly the church as a whole ) would really stand by this.
Posted by Horseman Bree (# 5290) on
:
Unfortunately, i can think of quite a few adherents/members of otherwise-relaxed churches who are quite exclusive of their particular persons-to-exclude
Even when they bleat about how inclusive they are.
Try being a celibate gay in my province (or diocese, which has the same boundaries), for instance.
Try being a woman in the same space. The "official" church line is quite different from the practical one.
Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on
:
Horseman Bree - I think there is a difference between a church which preaches exclusion as a prime part of its doctrine, and churches which, by their actions tend to excluse people.
The difference is that the former are wrong in their doctrine according to Bell ( and me ), whereas the latter just need to put into practice what they claim to believe.
Bell is criticising the former, but challenging the latter. I think the challenge is to pretty much all churches, that we need to preach the good news nere and now, to everyone.
Posted by Gamaliel (# 812) on
:
Schroedinger's Cat, neither the Pope nor the RC Church as a whole has taught that for some years now. If anything, they're much more flexible about who is 'in' and who is 'out' than many Protestants.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Love Wins. The best book in 1900 years.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
Why Martin?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
It rolls back all of the dogma, all of the narrow, wooden, closed, 'distinctive', denominational, exclusive, esoteric, confusing, alienating, cultic, divisive, dark, complex fumbling of 2000 years. Calvin. Arminius. Aquinas. Anselm. Muhammad. Augustine. The lot.
It liberates the gospel from them AND liberal reaction.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
It rolls back all of the dogma, all of the narrow, wooden, closed, 'distinctive', denominational, exclusive, esoteric, confusing, alienating, cultic, divisive, dark, complex fumbling of 2000 years. Calvin. Arminius. Aquinas. Anselm. Muhammad. Augustine. The lot.
It liberates the gospel from them AND liberal reaction.
How does it liberate it from liberal reaction?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Love Wins. The best book in 1900 years.
Great post and recommendation!
The title alone has me. But I've put in a reservation for the book at the library.
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on
:
impatiently waiting for hubby to finish reading our copy so I can get my hands on it.
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Liberals declare love wins by being lawless, libertarian, insouciant, not fussed about sexual morality, purity and therefore about all depravity. Liberals deny evil. Deny hell. Sin. Deny Satan the Devil. Our murderous, insane, lying fear. The reality of our killers' hearts and the reality of God the Killer. Liberalism is utterly unreal. As psychotic as damnationism.
Love stares all of that in the face and ... beats it. Makes it blink. Tops it. Vaults in to heaven above it and takes us ALL with it. Wins.
I encountered yet another head and faith spinning unspeakable evil last week. I wasn't looking for it. Love will triumph, redeem ALL the humans concerned at least because it, He, has already. I had to tell the person who had to tell me the burden of it that.
Thank Love I could.
Love doesn't push us up the final rung of the evolutionary ladder just beyond our good reach. It drags us up from the infinite, rungless, deluded abyss of meaningless, unredeeming suffering.
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Liberals declare love wins by being lawless, libertarian, insouciant, not fussed about sexual morality, purity and therefore about all depravity. Liberals deny evil. Deny hell. Sin. Deny Satan the Devil. Our murderous, insane, lying fear. The reality of our killers' hearts and the reality of God the Killer. Liberalism is utterly unreal. As psychotic as damnationism.
Is that right?
I didn't realise that's what I believed. Must be a new revelation from Jesus I was unaware of. That's what happens if you don't keep up your reading I guess.
Glad you liked the book. One up on the psychoticness of damnationism huh?
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Hey Evensong, this is just provocative controversialist old me. Yeah I mean it and all, but after I chuck holy hand grenades about from my fox hole, I remember that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar. That I'd rather be for stuff than against. I just can't find the way all too often. Bell is superb, he really is. For the unadulterated, pure, good news.
At 57 my immaturity, my compulsiveness, my aggression, my fear shows. I'm horrified at damnationism all around me at church. And I'm so frustrated here, where damnationism DOESN'T, can't overtly abound but everything but neo-orthodoxy does.
The dominant voices here are liberal and (paradoxically) / or closed communions. Although there are a large number of reformed preaching it like Wesley and believing it like Calvin, like my Evangelical congregation.
Looping back again, with Rob Bell I can have my cake and eat it. I can have God the Killer (and how psychotic is that to the good liberal mind?), be 'true' to Alpha-Omega from Genesis-Revelation in the Spirit of pragmatism: the God who kills - including Himself - to save whom He kills by dying at their hand.
Rob doesn't dwell on, even touch on God the Killer (how liberal!), that's me. The psycho in me. Keeping it real.
Love wins, despite EVERYTHING.
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on
:
I just finished Rob Bell's book a few days ago. I loved it. His writing style is very engaging.
I came away with the sense that he's not a dogmatic universalist, but that he simply leaves the question open, based on some pretty tough, no-holds-barred observations that he makes --- things most evangelicals don't dare to voice, and for which he is getting roundly criticized.
I have loaned Love Wins to a parishioner who, after 45 years, is still deeply wounded by her rigid fundamentalist upbringing. I'll be very anxious to know her response.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by WearyPilgrim:
I just finished Rob Bell's book a few days ago. I loved it. His writing style is very engaging.
I came away with the sense that he's not a dogmatic universalist, but that he simply leaves the question open, based on some pretty tough, no-holds-barred observations that he makes --- things most evangelicals don't dare to voice, and for which he is getting roundly criticized.
Why don't they dare voice these things?
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Boogie--
Because if you say there's no hell and that Everything Will Be Truly All Right In The End (tm), you'll likely be told (at best!) that you're badly mistaken, and probably in danger of hell yourself.
If you're teaching EWBTARITE, you will be told that you're also leading other people to hell, making them twice the children of hell that you are, incurring a double portion of wrath yourself, and receiving the curse at the end of Revelation for people who ditch part of the teachings.
[ 14. July 2011, 06:27: Message edited by: Golden Key ]
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Golden Key:
Boogie--
Because if you say there's no hell and that Everything Will Be Truly All Right In The End (tm), you'll likely be told (at best!) that you're badly mistaken, and probably in danger of hell yourself.
If you're teaching EWBTARITE, you will be told that you're also leading other people to hell, making them twice the children of hell that you are, incurring a double portion of wrath yourself, and receiving the curse at the end of Revelation for people who ditch part of the teachings.
I do say such things to my con-evo minister. She doesn't threaten me at all, but I suspect she goes away and prays fervently for my poor soul!
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Boogie, they don't dare voice these things for the SAME reason that liberals reject: Augustineanism. That God is impotent and WORSE by ineffable choice. That His sovereignty, that justice trump love. That He is helplessly, sophomor(on)ically omniscient. Trapped by our free will, hard wired, hard spooled in fixed eternity. They don't believe Jesus can do what He says on His tin.
Liberals see that SAME narrative and reject it with unfounded rationalism: conservatives submit to it and call black white. The RCC-Orthodox do both and much in between.
Neo-orthodox McLeod Campbell, Barth, the Torrances, my former cult and Rob Bell have rediscovered the pre-Augustinean Cappadocian Fathers and what inspired them: the best case interpretation of the Bible.
Of the unavoidable realities of Hell and reprobation typified by Satan and his followers.
All conquering, pragamatic, all inclusive, post-mortem, omnipotent, effective, inexorable love is at work. That's why it hurts so much. For ALL. That's WHY Hell is real. That it may become empty of ALL, a museum.
Love wins.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Neo-orthodox McLeod Campbell, Barth, the Torrances, my former cult and Rob Bell have rediscovered the pre-Augustinean Cappadocian Fathers and what inspired them: the best case interpretation of the Bible.
Of the unavoidable realities of Hell and reprobation typified by Satan and his followers.
All conquering, pragamatic, all inclusive, post-mortem, omnipotent, effective, inexorable love is at work. That's why it hurts so much. For ALL. That's WHY Hell is real. That it may become empty of ALL, a museum.
Love wins.
I think I'd better read the book! I'll see if it's downloadable to Kindle.
Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on
:
It is - and I have ordered it.
The store also has books billed as Evangelical and 'Biblical' responses to Love Wins.
He's certainly caused a storm in paradise!
Posted by Evensong (# 14696) on
:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
He's certainly caused a storm in paradise!
He has caused a storm in certain circles. According to the link, nobody would have batted an eyelid if he'd been an Episcopalian.
[ 14. July 2011, 12:54: Message edited by: Evensong ]
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on
:
Aye, that's because they're high church liberal. He ain't. If there's such a thing as Evangelical Episcopalian - a US version of Evangelical Anglican - they WILL object.
Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on
:
Got it from the library, and am reading. (Though alternating with some other stuff--e.g., the most recent Nevada Barr mystery that I didn't know about!)
Good so far. This time through, it's pretty much a "preaching to the choir" reading for me, because I've been working on similar ideas for a long time. But, ohhhh, it's so nice to see such ideas in print! I may do a second reading to see if there's anything I need to dig into.
© Ship of Fools 2016
UBB.classicTM
6.5.0