Thread: The Universalist Pontiff? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.


To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=025432
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
I was intrigued yesterday to see this article from Huffington Post entitled "Pope Francis says atheists who do good are redeemed not just Catholics". Now I don't think the headline has glossed what he's said correctly, though I would be interested to see a full text of his sermon. However, the text quoted does seem to have affirmed the salvation of all through the blood of Christ:
quote:
The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
I don't think this needs to be read in a universalist way although that is how it comes across to me at first glance. In many ways it's not hugely far away from Charles Wesley who writes:
quote:
The world he suffered to redeem;
For all he has the atonement made;
For those that will not come to him
The ransom of his life was paid.
I'd be interested in others' views on what the Pope said and any further information on the context. I don't think he was saying anything beyond the fairly standard teaching that salvation through Christ is a possibility for all people. I think it may well be frequently cited as if he were though.
 
Posted by Demas (# 24) on :
 
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship. On other (mainly atheistically and agnostically inclined) media that I come across it has been a received and/or misunderstood with an enormous level of enthusiasm and interest. The HuffPo article linked is a good example.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship. On other (mainly atheistically and agnostically inclined) media that I come across it has been a received and/or misunderstood with an enormous level of enthusiasm and interest. The HuffPo article linked is a good example.
That would be because most people here have at least a basic knowledge of the Catholic Church and what she teaches, and as such recognise clumsy decontextualisation of off the cuff remarks when they see them.
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
I don't see the Pope as making a statement about salvation. He is simply reiterating something that Catholic theology has always taught, that all human beings are imbued with a sense of right and wrong (natural law). So of course an atheist can be moral and do good things, because the natural inclination to do good is imparted by God to all human beings.
 
Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :
 
Similarly, even the most conservative Protestants I know would agree that Christ died for all. They would just continue, as I suspect Pope Francis would, by saying that it is our job to accept that salvation by being a good Christian (which means being baptized etc etc.)
 
Posted by BulldogSacristan (# 11239) on :
 
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
The Roman Catholic Church teaches that non-Catholics can have eternal life if they seek what is good and right in all things (ie, if they seek God even if they do not know they are doing so) and if circumstances make that they never have the chance to have Catholic teaching explained to them clearly without influences in their lives that might distort how they receive this teaching. If a non-Catholic does come to a clear understanding of the Church's teaching and then rejects it, then they are in the same boat as Catholics who turn away from the faith (ie, not headed for eternal life). But, the Church adds, it is not the Church's place to say which of the dead are in He'll and which are not, and "salvation is limited to the Sacraments, but God is not limited by the Sacraments."

Just because a homily at daily Mass has a few words here or there that seem to contradict that teaching does not mean that the Pope disagrees with that teaching. He is engaged in a very deliberate campaign to improve the Church's image and tha means highlighting aspects of the Churh's teachings that seem inclusive and optimistic and downplaying the more controversial aspects (while not denying them ordaining to enforce them when required). I am not saying that I agre with the Pope's strategy or even with the teaching I explained above (I am leaning a bit more towards apocastasis at the moment), but that is how the whole thing appears to me.
 
Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
 
Posted by no prophet (# 15560) on :
 
I would tend to focus on this part of the article, and quotation from the sermon:

quote:
Pope Francis
“They complain,” the Pope said in his homily, because they say, “If he is not one of us, he cannot do good. If he is not of our party, he cannot do good.” And Jesus corrects them: “Do not hinder him, he says, let him do good.” The disciples, Pope Francis explains, “were a little intolerant,” closed off by the idea of ​​possessing the truth, convinced that “those who do not have the truth, cannot do good.” “This was wrong . . . Jesus broadens the horizon.” Pope Francis said, “The root of this possibility of doing good – that we all have – is in creation”
He is specifically *not* being doctrinal or legalistic here. He's preaching in a learned, accepting, and tolerant way. Of course there's a universalist aspect to what he posted. We are truly all one within Christ, and it's fully possible to emphasize that while adhering to a crisp identity as RC. The things that are opposite brought together is precisely what we need much more of. Such a pastoral message is what our floundering, post-modern, post-Christian world needs. Behaving like Christians is what he's encouraging.
 
Posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras (# 11274) on :
 
The Pope's statement is clearly a pastoral one primarily, and not meant as a theological explication. It, of course, involves theology, but isn't by any means a complete pronouncement of doctrine or even of a proposed theological POV. I'm encouraged by Francis' statement, but I think it is apt to be misunderstood by many, and unfortunately I also expect that it will incite the ire and scorn of a particular segment of protestantism (perhaps unavoidable when salvation is attributed to anything apart from grace received by faith, but a fuller or more thought-out explication might have avoided the bile that Pope Francis will likely get over this from certain protestant quarters).
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
Meta-comment: it is interesting that this is the first mention of this on the ship.
I saw this yesterday, and knew it would make it to the Ship--because I was going to put it here if no one else did it first. I didn't have time to do it yesterday, so I thank seasick for putting it up before I had to.

I would agree that the headline is completely overstated, but I'm not certain "move along, nothing to see" is quite the right response either. I'd really like to know a little more about what he said and how a native speaker of the language in which he said it would hear it (I haven't heard for certain, but I doubt it was said in English, which means we are already hearing it through a translator).

At any rate, this pontiff seem much more willing to reach out and engage non-Catholics than the last pope. I happen to think that is a good thing for someone whom millions consider The Vicar of Christ (I'm not one of those millions, but still...).

He is a Jesuit. Jesuits are extremely well-educated, and I doubt these were unintentional, unfortunate phrases spouted off the cuff. I think he meant what he said, and I think he will stand by it. I'm just not completely certain what he meant by it.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Same old, same old, as far as the responses go.


quote:
Originally posted by Lietuvos Sv. Kazimieras:
but a fuller or more thought-out explication might have avoided the bile that Pope Francis will likely get over this from certain protestant quarters).
Protestants?! I'd wager many a traditionalist Catholic clenched so quickly they are picking splinters out of their trousers.
 
Posted by CL (# 16145) on :
 
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved. He expressed himself badly but there really is nothing to see here.

[ 23. May 2013, 17:59: Message edited by: CL ]
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
He expressed himself badly...
I'm not willing to believe this...yet. I'd be more inclined to believe he'd been translated badly. I've no doubt more is being read into it in some quarters than he intended, but that doesn't mean there is 'nothing to see'.

It seems fair to suggest he does not mind ruffling a few of the traditionalist's feathers. I'm not yet willing to make a final judgment as to what he was trying to say here, but any explanation will carry a lot more weight if it is coming from him or someone close to him. So far, all the explanations--such as they are--have been from much lower sources.

It's going to be a fascinating pontificate to watch.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
Jesuits are very well educated but they are also known for being imrovisational at Mass and for making doctrine bend over backwards to make it seem accessible to the modern world. They are very obedient to the Pope but use tha obedience as a license to get away with all sorts of other things. As a radical liberal heretic I think the are a great gift to the Church but I also know that they can be quite eccentric and reading their true thoughts and intentions is often quite hard. With all priests it hard to get in their head but Jesuits are so smart, so trained, and so...confident? that it is a particular challenge. The previous pastor of my RC Church, quite a liberal fellow, once joked, "Why are you attending and giving money to that Jesuit Church? You should come to our parish. Those Jesuits aren't to be trusted."
 
Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :
 
...and yet, the Cardinals have made one a Pope. One wonders if they are surprised with how it is turning out, or if they elected him because they knew it would be a bit of a shake-up.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Francis is EASY to love. WHAT a guy.
 
Posted by stonespring (# 15530) on :
 
I do get the feeling part of Pope Francis' shenanigans are his own beliefs and personality and a very large part is a carefully managed PR campaign. Granted, the Benedict XVI papacy never really got public relations, but the endeared him greatly to me. If I were Pope, I would want to go Bulworth all the time.
 
Posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg (# 17687) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
I was intrigued yesterday to see this article from Huffington Post entitled "Pope Francis says atheists who do good are redeemed not just Catholics".
He's saying "doing good" is the point.

Jesus taught "doing good" and furthermore, Jesus exemplified, simplified and clarified what "doing good" consists of.

In His Father's Law Code, what was pointed out was effects and outcomes of NOT DOING GOOD.

So, Jesus flipped it over and showed that DOING MERCY IS BETTER THAN DOING SELF-SERVICE, which the Law simply had not clarified. It was a cookbook approach.

Jesus' approach was more along the lines of operating by the principle of Justice: what you want to happen or promote is a win/win situation where everybody gets something they can use out of an experience. That's definitely not a cookbook approach.

But as things occurred, Christianity threw the Law in the Trash and declared that civil behavior was no longer even a goal; they threw the baby out with the bathwater.

So now we have Christians who slave without a sabbath; live without simple effective sanitation and hygiene; never see their debts forgiven; witness to corporate cruelty and exploitation in silence as if they didn't know it was wrong.

We have forgotten God's Laws ENTIRELY--not just the first Ten.

So Universalism can be applied because the Jacobian-Davidic Covenant of YHVH, the Kingdom of God itself and its CIVIC PRACTICE, doesn't really matter anymore.

But at least this Universalist Pontiff is saying something very apt: the answer to today's suffering is in behavior, and not in ideology(ies).

Em [Smile]
 
Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
How can a person be redeemed but not saved? Serious question. I have understood the words as synonyms.
 
Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :
 
Keeps the club private?
 
Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
Francis was talking in the context of redemption, not strictly salvation. All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
How can a person be redeemed but not saved? Serious question. I have understood the words as synonyms.
Redemption is corporate, salvation is personal.

Ancient Israel corporately entered the Promised Land, but only Joshua and Caleb of their generation actually made it in.

The redemption of humanity was accomplished in Jesus Christ 2000 years ago, that doesn't mean that every single human being is saved.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Sheep get into the fold, goats get roasted. Some sheep are really wolves, who get treated like goats. Some sheep get your goat because they are really goatlike. Some goats are sheep but really don't know it. And the sheep are not very good at spotting either goats or wolves, either inside or outside the pen. And as for those goats, well they may be a law unto themselves, but they're not all just into head-butting sheep. They can be really nice to their kids and nasty to Big Bad Trolls. None of us like those Big Bad Trolls.

Just an aspect of normal Christian theology I should say.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
It is getting really tiresome that the Vatican does not report the full text of these short sermons of the pope. Either they should report them in their entirety, or report nothing. The further reduction to soundbite format by an unknown third party (some hack in the Vatican's news agency probably) does not help at all.

It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Pope Francis believes in some form of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" and/or van Balthasar's "need to hope that hell is empty". Both are (in my opinion) highly questionable theologies that certainly have gained great currency since Vatican II. And Rahner, after all, was also a Jesuit...

However, we cannot really judge this from the snippets provided to us. Maybe we could not even judge this if we had the full text. We really need to wait for Pope Francis to act in a more significant teaching manner (his short sermons are certainly to be taken seriously, but do not really have the weight of the ordinary magisterium, as an encyclical would).

I would enjoy it if he then chose to teach on the devil, since he seems to have a refreshingly "literal" perspective on Lucifer's activity. But I'm betting Pope Francis will first teach on the poor, and I expect that while then he will be very challenging indeed, that challenge will not be focused on traditional quarters...
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
One man's 'tiresome' is another man's breath of fresh air.

Yeah, me need more on Satan and Hell. I mean, look at what it's done for Evangelicalism.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
Grace is good, Martin. Can't have too much of that. In so far as we may try to be obedient channels of God's Grace, it does seem best that we splash it around, rather than dole out meagre dollops with a small spoon. That comes across as mean. I think we should do "generous", like the Macedonians in 2 Cor 8:1-8. And in my understanding, that isn't just limited to money. It's the heart of kindness.

A generous orthodoxy may not always be a Traditional Orthodoxy, but on that issue I'm for being Traditionally heterodox.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not? I've noticed on some forums, people arguing about this statement by the Pope, on the grounds that they are the same; so I guess they are rejecting Catholic theology.
 
Posted by South Coast Kevin (# 16130) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not?
I've always thought that 'redemption' and 'salvation' mean roughly the same thing, at least in terms of what people usually mean by the latter.

The Greek word we translate 'salvation' (sozo, isn't it?) apparently has a wider meaning than simply being on the correct side of the sheep / goats division. But we usually use 'salvation' in this narrower sense, and that's pretty much identical to what 'redemption' means, is it not? 'Redemption' - paying the price to set someone free from slavery, yes?
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
Strictly speaking yes, although there is a theological position which is closer to classical Lutheranism which could be described as Unlimited Limited Atonement. Essentially, this position holds that Christ died for anyone who will believe, but recognises the reality that many do not and will not in fact believe. Atonement, therefore, is effectual to those who believe, but can be preached as effectual to those who do not yet believe if it is accompanied by the call to faith. The atonement of Christ becomes effectual for the individual at the point of belief and hence is limited to those who have faith. The atonement is unlimited in potential scope, but limited in actual effect.
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by South Coast Kevin:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not?
I've always thought that 'redemption' and 'salvation' mean roughly the same thing, at least in terms of what people usually mean by the latter.

The Greek word we translate 'salvation' (sozo, isn't it?) apparently has a wider meaning than simply being on the correct side of the sheep / goats division. But we usually use 'salvation' in this narrower sense, and that's pretty much identical to what 'redemption' means, is it not? 'Redemption' - paying the price to set someone free from slavery, yes?
Well, that just sounds very Protestant to me! My point is that Catholic theology distinguishes them, therefore the Pope is not saying anything new. But maybe I am wrong about this.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
One man's 'tiresome' is another man's breath of fresh air.
You consider it to be a "breath of fresh air" that some journalist of the Vatican news agency turns the pope's sermons into sound bites for the press, with no source for the original available?

quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Yeah, me need more on Satan and Hell. I mean, look at what it's done for Evangelicalism.
I don't know (and do not particularly care) what this has done for Evangelicalism. I do know that the existence of Satan and hell has been downplayed far too much in Catholicism.

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is it correct that Catholic theology distinguishes redemption from salvation, (as someone said earlier, corporate and individual), whereas many Protestants do not? I've noticed on some forums, people arguing about this statement by the Pope, on the grounds that they are the same; so I guess they are rejecting Catholic theology.
There is an ambiguity in the word "redemption", as it can be either the act of redeeming (Christ) or the state of being redeemed (us). There's a further ambiguity insofar as redemption here comes as an offer that requires acceptance, hence the state of being redeemed can be potential or actual for us. The actual state of being redeemed will result in eternal salvation, so those are effectively "the same" for us. But that does not mean that one can consider "redemption" and "salvation" as simple synonyms.
 
Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :
 
I agree with IngoB re redemption and salvation meanings; just looked at a Greek-English NT dictionary and a few usages; together, these seem to me to confirm his clear view.

[ 24. May 2013, 11:45: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Hmmm. The Heilsgeschichte would blur that distinction. Jesus is salvation is redemption.

Not to be overstated of course! We need more damnation apparently. Hmmm, proseltyes being twice the sons of hell comes to mind. I wonder why?
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
I could just make the comment that, whether you like him or loathe him, the old Pope (Benedict XVI) would never have left people in confusion like this - he was always very clear about what he said and meant.
 
Posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard (# 368) on :
 
Now that IS confusing.
 
Posted by sebby (# 15147) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
 
Posted by Mark Betts (# 17074) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
...Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
In a VERY different way, I'd say - in all fairness to Calvinists. [Roll Eyes]
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by CL:
All mankind is redeemed through Christ's death and resurrection, not all will be saved.
This is something you have no way of knowing as you aren't God. But Pope Francis said nothing amiss. Christ died for all, but whether all attain to that salvation is something we can never know.

quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
It is entirely possible, perhaps even likely, that Pope Francis believes in some form of Rahner's "anonymous Christian" and/or van Balthasar's "need to hope that hell is empty". Both are (in my opinion) highly questionable theologies that certainly have gained great currency since Vatican II.
I couldn't disagree more! There's nothing questionable about hoping that hell is empty, only in claiming to know it is. Thank God for this aspect of post Vatican II theology.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by sebby:
quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:
quote:
Originally posted by BulldogSacristan:
Wouldn't a Calvinist, however, say that Christ did not, in fact, die for all? He only died for the Elect?
How many true Calvinists are there around these days? Arminianism seems to have won the day in Protestantism.
Thankfully yes. 'The elect' is a horrid notion beloved by certain personality types - including Hitler, in a slightly different way,
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
 
Posted by cliffdweller (# 13338) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
Couldn't disagree more.

Re: Jesus and the elect, while the phrase "gathering the elect" does occur in Matt. 24, Jesus is using the term in a very different way then Calvinism uses it. The context sounds a lot more Arminian than Calvinist, with the emphasis on being faithful and persevering to the end.

re: Hitler, it is clear that a warped concept of "election" was central to his version of "German Christianity" that allowed him to manipulate religious concepts for his own purposes. It is a very warped version, of course, and one might rightly argue that any theological concept/theme can be manipulated for evil purposes by a clever sociopath. But the fact that "election" is key to Hitler's agenda is pretty clear.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
Jesus didn't have a problem with the notion of the elect (cf. Matt 24), so it seems a bit off to suggest acceptance of the notion as evidence of a "certain personality type". And even more strange to offer Hitler as a working example of that type! Doesn't make sense to me.
Couldn't disagree more.

Re: Jesus and the elect, while the phrase "gathering the elect" does occur in Matt. 24, Jesus is using the term in a very different way then Calvinism uses it. The context sounds a lot more Arminian than Calvinist, with the emphasis on being faithful and persevering to the end.
Well, that would certainly fit with the "P" of TULIP, which isn't Arminian in the slightest. But I guess it depends on whether you believe that he's unloving enough to sit back and watch his children struggle and ultimately fail when he has all the power and grace necessary to see us through to the end.
 
Posted by seasick (# 48) on :
 
Once you make that argument, don't you have to be a universalist? Can God let anyone continue to lack salvation when he has the power and grace to see them through as you put it? It seems to me that to assert limited atonement in that kind of way gets you very near to the old Arminian jibe that "Calvinism makes God the author of sin."
 
Posted by teddybear (# 7842) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
Jesuits are very well educated but they are also known for being imrovisational at Mass and for making doctrine bend over backwards to make it seem accessible to the modern world. They are very obedient to the Pope but use tha obedience as a license to get away with all sorts of other things. As a radical liberal heretic I think the are a great gift to the Church but I also know that they can be quite eccentric and reading their true thoughts and intentions is often quite hard. With all priests it hard to get in their head but Jesuits are so smart, so trained, and so...confident? that it is a particular challenge. The previous pastor of my RC Church, quite a liberal fellow, once joked, "Why are you attending and giving money to that Jesuit Church? You should come to our parish. Those Jesuits aren't to be trusted."
As they say, there are three things God doesn't know. What a Jesuit thinks, how many nuns there are in Rome and where the Franciscans get all their money.
 
Posted by WearyPilgrim (# 14593) on :
 
I didn't hear the Pope saying anything that the New Testament hasn't already said --- cf. Romans 2:7-11.
Paul certainly indicates an at-least-somewhat universalist view of salvation here.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
This article clearly shows that Pope Francis is only saying here something that originates in the NT, is contained in the Catechism of the Catholic Church , and has been included in numerous important church documents. That is that Christ died for all, so therefore all are saved, at least in potential, even if some aren't saved in practice.

"The Church prays that no one should be lost" (CCC1058) so it's wrong to call the hope that hell is empty "dubious theology" because there is no difference between praying that no one should be lost, and praying that hell is empty. There are some Christians who seem to almost gloat over the idea that many, usually people who disagree with them, should be in eternal hell. They would do better to save their judgements for themselves, lest such gloating is their own damnation.

I would stick my neck out that bit further, and say that I believe that every knee shall bow and every tounge confess(Phil 2.10-11), and that God gives sufficient grace to all to enable their salvation. But I don't proclaim that this is so, that would be heresy. I simly pray, every day, along with the Church, that no one should be lost. I feel confident that Pope Francis feels that very deeply.
 
Posted by IngoB (# 8700) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
"The Church prays that no one should be lost" (CCC1058) so it's wrong to call the hope that hell is empty "dubious theology" because there is no difference between praying that no one should be lost, and praying that hell is empty. There are some Christians who seem to almost gloat over the idea that many, usually people who disagree with them, should be in eternal hell. They would do better to save their judgements for themselves, lest such gloating is their own damnation.
I can hope (and pray) that no one should be sick. For each and every person you can point to, I may sincerely hope that they also should not be sick. It still does not follow that I must hope that nobody is sick, in the sense that every single living person is healthy now and henceforth. I know a lot of things about this world and about people, and one thing that follows from this knowledge is that somebody is bound to be sick among a large enough group of people. And it is neither reasonable nor necessary to hope for the impossible. There is hence no contradiction between hoping for every person to be healthy individually and not hoping that all people are healthy globally, because of the knowledge that some sickness is unavoidable.

Likewise, I believe that both bible and tradition are unequivocally clear that some people will be doomed to hell. So it is neither reasonable nor necessary to hope that hell is empty, because this is impossible by Divine revelation. Theology pretending otherwise is dubious. That does not mean however that I cannot hope for every person you can point to that they may be saved. There is no contradiction between a comprehensive individual hope and the rejection of a global hope, because of the revelation that some damnation is unavoidable.

You can hold these matters as you wish. But you should be aware that you cannot conclude from the statement "hell is not empty" to the assumption that the person in question wishes for any individual to go to hell.

Furthermore, even just considering the hope for individual salvation, matters are not that simple. For example, I may hope sincerely that no individual goes to prison. That does not however preclude that I hope that a rapist be caught and thrown into prison. My hope that no individual should go to prison is actually an expression of my hope that no individual should commit a serious crime worthy of prison. If I had met the rapist prior to the rape, I could have viably said to him "I hope you never go to prison." If I then see him after the rape I could say "I've called the police, I hope they catch you and throw you into prison," and yet I would not have contradicted myself. Because my original hope was an expression of a deeper hope, it was conditional on the person remaining free of crime.

Now, salvation according to Christ is conditional on repenting and following Him. When we say that we hope that somebody will be saved we actually express this hope that he shall repent of his sins and follow Christ. (To what extent this needs to be explicit is a different question, this is not a statement that all Hindus are doomed or any such thing.) Where this is not the case, we are certainly under no requirement to hope that this person shall be saved as they are. We are merely under the requirement to hope that they shall change their ways, repent and follow Christ. If that hope is there, at least potentially, then it can be licit to hope that somebody does go to hell as they are. That can be a matter of justice, just like hoping that a criminal be caught and thrown into prisons is a matter of justice. The rape victim shouting at the rapist "I hope you burn in hell" is hence not necessarily being "un-Christian", as long as there is some place in her for accepting that sincere repentance on the side of the rapist may still gain him heaven and that this would be better.

Finally, one should make some allowance for human weakness. In particular, I would say that victims should be afforded some "gloating". It is all nice and well for the armchair Christian moralist to construct appropriate norms of behaviour, but if your parents and siblings were "ethnically cleansed", if your child was tortured, raped and murdered, if your career was ended by rumours and false accusations, if your house was burned to the ground - then you may not express yourself in such "fully appropriate" ways about the salvation prospects of the perpetrators.

Oh, and you should read more psalms.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick:
Once you make that argument, don't you have to be a universalist?
That, or acknowledge the doctrine of particular redemption.
quote:
Can God let anyone continue to lack salvation when he has the power and grace to see them through as you put it?
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ.
quote:
It seems to me that to assert limited atonement in that kind of way gets you very near to the old Arminian jibe that "Calvinism makes God the author of sin."
Following that logic, the Wright Brothers should be blamed for air disasters.
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ.
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
God has no particular obligation, nor has he promised, to save anyone but those who trust in Christ.
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
Yes.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by seasick
...the text quoted does seem to have affirmed the salvation of all through the blood of Christ:
quote:
The Lord created us in His image and likeness, and we are the image of the Lord, and He does good and all of us have this commandment at heart: do good and do not do evil. All of us. ‘But, Father, this is not Catholic! He cannot do good.’ Yes, he can... "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone!".. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.
I don't think this needs to be read in a universalist way although that is how it comes across to me at first glance.
I certainly believe that it is true that "The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics.." (or even just Christians). This is the logical implication* of the penal substitutionary / legal understanding of the atonement, which I certainly accept as part of the meaning of the work of Christ on the cross. If Christ paid the penalty for the sins of all, then from a legal point of view all are saved. Therefore I am a "legal universalist".

But while I am a "legal universalist", I also believe in a real hell, to which some people will, tragically, go. So, in another sense, I am not a universalist. Is this a contradiction? Not at all. The legal aspect is only one part of salvation. It doesn't follow that everyone whose sins are forgiven, will actually appreciate that fact! It doesn't follow that the everlasting experience of the absolute love of God will be a pleasurable experience for all people. For some people the presence and life of God will be hell - hence Hebrews 12:29: "Our God is a consuming fire." (God does not create the consuming fire of judgement. He IS that fire.)

I have made this point before quite a number of times here on the Ship, and a frequent response is that no one would reject the love of God; everyone would embrace it willingly and joyously. I strongly disagree with that view. The love of God has a moral content, which utterly obliterates conceit and arrogance. Someone who is, at heart, proud and self-obsessed (by the grace of God go I!), and whose entire agenda in life is to control, dominate and oppress others would find such love a living hell. The entire dynamic of this love completely jars with the dynamic of pride and self-exaltation. "No one shall glory in my presence" are nightmarish words to those who derive their entire raison d'être from desiring to exercise power over others.

Therefore, it doesn't matter how much Jesus has paid the price for the sins of every member of the human race, that love still has to be willingly embraced. So it is not a question of agonisingly poring over "the small print" to work out whether God will save an atheist. The atheist is already 'saved' legally, because Jesus paid the price for his / her sin. The question is: does that atheist say a wholehearted 'yes' to the love of God? The onus is on the atheist, not on God.

The idea that God could condemn someone simply on account of the organisation of information in that person's mind at the point at which the physical body ceases to function, is utterly absurd, in my view. God's looks at a person's heart, and it is perfectly possible that someone may profess to be an atheist, but actually may live in such a way as to suggest that s/he does believe that there is an objective reality of love, which does require a moral response - even though that person, when challenged, may 'explain' that love in purely biological terms. Only God knows whether that response is a true response of the heart to Him, despite the outward denials.


* (There is another logical implication of PSA: limited atonement. It is superficially logical, but the presupposition behind it is not. This would require God deliberately creating some people who, on account of entering a fallen world, and thereby being infected with so called "original sin", could not escape everlasting damnation. This is tantamount to God creating some people for no other reason than to damn them. Infralapsarianism is just supralapsarianism dressed up in language which makes predestination appear less harsh, but it actually amounts to the same thing. This, of course, impugns God's justice. The whole point of PSA is that it upholds and affirms God's justice. The necessity of it reveals a God who respects legality, and therefore is willing to suffer rather than act arbitrarily. This is contrary to the presupposition behind limited atonement. Therefore limited atonement is illogical.)
 
Posted by GreyFace (# 4682) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
Yes.
How do you worship a being who creates humans for no purpose other than to send them to Hell? Do you go through the motions out of fear? Or do you somehow manage to block out the part of you that thinks about loved ones who because of God's deliberate choice have no faith and are damned?
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
There's an old chestnut about celebrating, because God has sent your mother to hell. Well, you are celebrating God's justice really.

It doesn't work really, I suppose, since no-one could know that their mother had been sent to hell, although they might sincerely wish it.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
quote:
Originally posted by GreyFace:
But according to you Calvinists, he decides in advance who will trust in Christ and who will not. Therefore according to your soteriology, if any are lost it is because God decided (before the world was made) not to save them.
Yes.
How do you worship a being who creates humans for no purpose other than to send them to Hell? Do you go through the motions out of fear? Or do you somehow manage to block out the part of you that thinks about loved ones who because of God's deliberate choice have no faith and are damned?
IMO, human beings exist because human beings pro-create, not because God creates each and every person ex-nihilo. We inherit our spirit from our parents, and ultimately our first parents. I do not believe that each human spirit is created by God and 'sent' into the foetus at some point. Every human being bears the image of God via their heredity.

I treat everyone I meet as potentially elect and never as reprobate. My 'job' is to preach the gospel, the response either positive or negative is in God's hands.
 
Posted by Anselmina (# 3032) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, human beings exist because human beings pro-create, not because God creates each and every person ex-nihilo. We inherit our spirit from our parents, and ultimately our first parents. I do not believe that each human spirit is created by God and 'sent' into the foetus at some point. Every human being bears the image of God via their heredity.

Must admit, I've never come across this line of teaching before. So what's the difference between someone bearing the image of God because his parents bore the image of God, and someone bearing the image of God because he - individually - bears the image of God in his own right?
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
quote:
Originally posted by Greyface
How do you worship a being who creates humans for no purpose other than to send them to Hell? Do you go through the motions out of fear? Or do you somehow manage to block out the part of you that thinks about loved ones who because of God's deliberate choice have no faith and are damned?
IMO, human beings exist because human beings pro-create, not because God creates each and every person ex-nihilo. We inherit our spirit from our parents, and ultimately our first parents. I do not believe that each human spirit is created by God and 'sent' into the foetus at some point. Every human being bears the image of God via their heredity.

I treat everyone I meet as potentially elect and never as reprobate. My 'job' is to preach the gospel, the response either positive or negative is in God's hands.
You haven't really answered Greyface's questions.

Your view is just another version of infralapsarianism, which is merely a rewriting of supralapsarianism in order to make predestination look less unjust. It makes not a shred of difference whether God deliberately and consciously creates each person, or whether he allows nature to take its course. The fact is that he (according to your theology) does deliberately choose who are saved and who are damned, and he certainly foreknows who is going to come into existence. So for the poor soul whom God decrees is not elect, it makes no difference whether he or she has been created directly by God or whether through the process of nature. That person is marked for everlasting torture from conception onwards.

This theory is one of the most depraved ideas ever to enter the human mind. To say that "I don't know who is elect, and so therefore I just assume that everyone is potentially elect" is missing the point. To suggest that it really doesn't matter how God relates to other people, as long as "I'm all right Jack" is, of course, deeply self-centred. The truth is that your 'God' (who is not my God, by the way) acts in a completely capricious and arbitrary manner, and therefore he cannot be trusted. After all, given that he has flagrantly lied in the Bible by saying that he desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), we cannot be sure that his other utterances are truth. Therefore who's to say that he may not actually damn Christians? You could be going to hell, because your God is capricious and might turn on you on the last day. You will have no appeal, because "who are you to question the Almighty?" According to your theology, you deserve to go to hell, and so God would be perfectly entitled to cast you away into the eternal nightmare, despite whatever beliefs you may have had during your life on earth.

The Calvinists think that their theology gives them security and assurance. But the price of this fake assurance is the damnation of certain others (through no fault of their own, because they never chose to be born into a fallen world and be infected with original sin), and this immediately creates a 'God' who cannot be trusted, because he is capricious. That undermines any hope of personal assurance.
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway:
IMO, human beings exist because human beings pro-create, not because God creates each and every person ex-nihilo. We inherit our spirit from our parents, and ultimately our first parents. I do not believe that each human spirit is created by God and 'sent' into the foetus at some point. Every human being bears the image of God via their heredity.

Must admit, I've never come across this line of teaching before. So what's the difference between someone bearing the image of God because his parents bore the image of God, and someone bearing the image of God because he - individually - bears the image of God in his own right?
The difference, it seems to me, is that my view (AKA Traducianism) upholds a more federal and corporate view of the human identity, whereas the second view (AKA Creationism) gives rise to moral questions, such as God's direct involvement in conceptions via rape and other transgressive expressions of human sexuality.

FWIW, I do think that each individual human being bears the image of God via their parents, grandparents and so on. I don't believe that the imago dei is watered down through the generations for example. I believe that the original image of God, marred by our first parents' sin, is the image that each person inherits through their heredity. Otherwise, it would require God to create sinful human spirits and send them into each individual foetus as it is conceived. I do not believe that God creates sinful human beings. I believe that human beings are sinful because we inherit our sinful nature through our heredity by virtue of God's command to our first parents to "go forth and multiply".

My children struggle with sin because they have inherited the sinful nature of their parents (me and my wife). I struggle with sin because I have inherited the sinful nature of my parents, and so on back to the original transgression of our first parents. The image of God which we inherit is marred and therefore needs restoration and healing.

However, the restoration and healing of God's image cannot be passed on generationally, it is a work of grace which must be appropriated by faith in Christ by each individual person and will not be completed until we are glorified in the presence of Almighty God.

[ 30. May 2013, 10:39: Message edited by: daronmedway ]
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
quote:
Originally posted by Greyface
How do you worship a being who creates humans for no purpose other than to send them to Hell? Do you go through the motions out of fear? Or do you somehow manage to block out the part of you that thinks about loved ones who because of God's deliberate choice have no faith and are damned?
IMO, human beings exist because human beings pro-create, not because God creates each and every person ex-nihilo. We inherit our spirit from our parents, and ultimately our first parents. I do not believe that each human spirit is created by God and 'sent' into the foetus at some point. Every human being bears the image of God via their heredity.

I treat everyone I meet as potentially elect and never as reprobate. My 'job' is to preach the gospel, the response either positive or negative is in God's hands.
You haven't really answered Greyface's questions.

Your view is just another version of infralapsarianism, which is merely a rewriting of supralapsarianism in order to make predestination look less unjust. It makes not a shred of difference whether God deliberately and consciously creates each person, or whether he allows nature to take its course. The fact is that he (according to your theology) does deliberately choose who are saved and who are damned, and he certainly foreknows who is going to come into existence. So for the poor soul whom God decrees is not elect, it makes no difference whether he or she has been created directly by God or whether through the process of nature. That person is marked for everlasting torture from conception onwards.

This theory is one of the most depraved ideas ever to enter the human mind. To say that "I don't know who is elect, and so therefore I just assume that everyone is potentially elect" is missing the point. To suggest that it really doesn't matter how God relates to other people, as long as "I'm all right Jack" is, of course, deeply self-centred. The truth is that your 'God' (who is not my God, by the way) acts in a completely capricious and arbitrary manner, and therefore he cannot be trusted. After all, given that he has flagrantly lied in the Bible by saying that he desires all people to be saved (1 Timothy 2:4), we cannot be sure that his other utterances are truth.
I hold the view of Charles Simeon concerning verses which challenge my theology. I am duty bound to accept them and teach them as God's truth. Therefore, I have to agree with you that God does indeed desire the salvation of all people. However, I am also duty bound to accept and teach the verses which assert God's sovereignty in election. The truth must be that both are somehow true, otherwise the accusation that I must consider 1 Timothy 2:4 as a lie could be levelled at you regarding Romans 9:18 and other texts which affirm election.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by daronmedway
The truth must be that both are somehow true, otherwise the accusation that I must consider 1 Timothy 2:4 as a lie could be levelled at you regarding Romans 9:18 and other texts which affirm election.
What, you mean that a passage about the specific election of Jacob over Esau, and the way God can use someone who is wilfully evil (remember Pharaoh hardened his own heart the first time - Exodus 5), is evidence of the doctrine of double predestination? We know that God did not 'hate' Esau in the absolute sense of damnation, otherwise how come God engineered the reconciliation between Jacob and Esau (Genesis 33:4)?

So Romans 9 is irrelevant to the discussion about absolute election and reprobation.

Therefore, no contradiction.

(I notice that you didn't address the question of how we can trust in a capricious God).
 
Posted by daronmedway (# 3012) on :
 
That's because I don't think I need to defend your straw man.
 
Posted by EtymologicalEvangelical (# 15091) on :
 
Which it is not, of course.

There does seem to me to be an obvious difference between a God who is "no respecter of persons", as the Bible says, and which a common sense and sane understanding of justice demands, and one who decides to create some people (or allow some people to come into being) for absolutely no other reason than to torture them mercilessly in everlasting fire.

I can trust the first kind of God. How anyone can trust the other one is quite beyond me. But I suppose it's a bit like the delusional trust a woman might have in her lover, who divorces his wife in order to marry her "because you are really the one for me", not realising the obvious fact that if this bloke was willing to cheat on his wife, then there is no assurance that he will not then cheat on her!

That's lovely Calvinism for you.

Do carry on...
 
Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :
 
It also reminds me of the wife who is regularly beaten up, but who keeps going back, because after all, 'he does love me deep down'. I suppose conventional wisdom says that you need two sides here - the sadist, who inflicts the punishment, and the masochist, who actually (partly) desires it, and/or thinks she deserves it. But this is highly controversial of course!
 
Posted by chris stiles (# 12641) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
It doesn't follow that the everlasting experience of the absolute love of God will be a pleasurable experience for all people. For some people the presence and life of God will be hell - hence Hebrews 12:29: "Our God is a consuming fire." (God does not create the consuming fire of judgement. He IS that fire.)
I don't think you solve the problem this way - it just moves one step back (and casts itself slightly differently) namely, why would a loving God create the world knowing that some beings would experience this terrible torment.
 
Posted by PaulTH* (# 320) on :
 
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Oh, and you should read more psalms.
I've been reading the psalms in an almost unbroken monthly cycle for the last 18 years. In spite of my crossing the Tiber two years ago, I retain a great love of the Coverdale Psalter in the Book of Common Prayer, and have seen no reason to abandon its monthly roll. The psalmist expressing anger at God is certainlt there, if that's what you're trying to say, but I don't see any trace of a belief in eternal hell. Am I missing something?
 


© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0