|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Rob Bell and Universalism
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
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"?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!)
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
It was nothing.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Evensong
Shipmate
# 14696
|
Posted
p.s. I think "Love wins" is an excellent description of Christos Victor atonement theory!. What a clever boy.
--------------------
a theological scrapbook
Posts: 9481 | From: Australia | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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......
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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".
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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. ![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leprechaun
Ship's Poison Elf
# 5408
|
Posted
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)
--------------------
He hath loved us, He hath loved us, because he would love
Posts: 3097 | From: England - far from home... | Registered: Jan 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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?
![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif)
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wood
The Milkman of Human Kindness
# 7
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Narcissism.
Posts: 7842 | From: Wood Towers | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mudfrog
Shipmate
# 8116
|
Posted
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!
--------------------
"The point of having an open mind, like having an open mouth, is to close it on something solid."
G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 8237 | From: North Yorkshire, UK | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
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 ]
--------------------
To those who have never seen the flow and ebb of God's grace in their lives, it means nothing. To those who have seen it, even fleetingly, even only once - it is life itself. (Adeodatus)
Posts: 3011 | From: A village of gardens | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
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'.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
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?
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
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.
--------------------
Blog
Music for your enjoyment
Lord may all my hard times be healing times
take out this broken heart and renew my mind.
Posts: 18859 | From: At the bottom of a deep dark well. | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
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?
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
iGeek
Number of the Feast
# 777
|
Posted
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)
Posts: 2150 | From: West End, Gulfopolis | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
