|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Rob Bell and Universalism
|
Edward Green
Review Editor
# 46
|
Posted
I like Rob. He is a nice guy.
Reading between the lines of his work for some time a soft universalist position would not suprise me. Indeed I already assumed it.
How he fits within orthodoxy depends on your understanding of orthodoxy ...
--------------------
blog//twitter//
linkedin
Posts: 4893 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Perfectly orthodox Mr. Green. Soft universalism, I like that.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Mudfrog, you have missed the point. As far as justice is concerned it matters not a jot whether Christ "volunteered" to die for our sins (which He did), or whether He was the Father's helpless fall-guy. If, on the cross, God was dealing with sin by punishment (which is not, I believe, what was happening), and if Jesus was innocent of wrongdoing, then how could the cross be an act of justice. It would be the innocent being punished for sins that are not His own, which is an act of injustice whether the sinbearer was willing or not. It would be an act of sacrifice, a noble act, an act of love, but it would not be a just act, according to your criteria. So your argument that I am not taking into account God's justice, but you are, is stood on its head.
This is why Christus victor is a better image for what mudfrog was trying to emphasize than the more transactionary substituionary atonement.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
Back in time to the world as it was twenty-four hours ago.
Kaplan Corday: "OK mousethief, mea culpa, your inexorable logic convinces me that I engaged in a wild and unjustifiable generalization."
mousethief: "It was nothing".
Ummm, actually I was being sarcastic.
Go on, say it, so you were you!
Thanks for the laugh, but I've learned my lesson, and won't try that again, at least not without an emoticon.
Let me use another issue to explain my language.
I have heard leftists criticize evangelicalism on the grounds that it is anti-Semitic, presumably on the basis of the syllogism:-
All evangelicals are right-wing.
Right-wingers are anti-Semitic.
Ergo, evangelicals are anti-Semitic.
(Of course the reality , oddly enough, is that if there is a problem within evangelicalism in this area it is rabid Zionism).
I have never met, read of, or heard of, any evangelical anti-Semites, and would therefore have no hesitation in stating the generalization that evangelicals are not anti-Semitic.
At the same time, I don't have the slightest doubt that amongst all the millions of evangelicals, there must be a few anti-Semites, but if anyone cited them I would not see them as a threat to the general statement.
Anomalies and aberrations do not normally vitiate a general rule.
It is like telling a child that all dogs have four legs, only to have them tell you that they have seen one with three, accompanied by an indignant,"But you said..."
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
At that point I was being sarcastic, yes. But I was not pressing the point out of sarcasm but out of dislike of untruth.
Logically, if you say "evangelicals are not anti-Semitic" you are saying "all evangelicals are not anti-Semitic." Why not just qualify your statement so it's not overstating what you want to say? If you want to say "anti-semitism is not a characteristic evangelical trait" why would you say "there are no evangelical anti-semites"? Why not say what you mean?
By the way I really doubt that the syllogism you gave is why most people who think evangelicals are anti-semitic think evangelicals are anti-semitic. Probably most people who think "evangelicals are anti-semitic" (which is of course an overgeneralization on their part but they're not here so I can't castigate them) think so because they have heard evangelicals say anti-semitic things.
Casting my memory back to my days as a benighted (jk!) evangelical, I don't ever remember having any discussions with fellow evangelicals that made me think they were anti-Semitic. So I certainly wouldn't make that generalization. And I agree that there are more than one or two rabidly Zionist evangelicals out there.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Jolly Jape:
Now Rob's a big boy, and I suspect he can hold his own in any theological debate, but I don't think it's fair to dismiss his ideas when all you have to go on is a 3 minute promo video.
I was trying to be fair to him. I deliberately did not comment on his views on universalism earlier on the thread because the book has not been published yet. Until Evensong posted that link we didn't really have anything to discuss.
Well, the video was on the page I linked to in the OP, I even mentioned it in the OP too. And I think there was still plenty else to discuss, but hey ho.
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
So let's just twiddle our thumbs until the book comes out then.
(Or watch paint dry as KC and MT deconstruct exactly what a generalisation is.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
![[brick wall]](graemlins/brick_wall.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I doubt there's any 3min promo video out there that will satisfy your desire for content. That's not what they're about. They're primarily about hooking an audience in so that they'll want to investigate further.
So let's just twiddle our thumbs until the book comes out then.
(Or watch paint dry as KC and MT deconstruct exactly what a generalisation is.)
If it is about critiquing what Rob Bell actually believes or teaches, then yes we should wait to see what he actually says in his book. It astounds me the number of people who know exactly what he is going to say before they had read it.
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Watching KC and MT or paint drying is far less interesting.
--------------------
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
|
|
testbear
Shipmate
# 4602
|
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".
FWIW, this, ISTM, is all that Rob Bell has ever said. About anything. It's his message, and it's his audience.
--------------------
"If you really believe what you say you believe / you wouldn't be so damn reckless with the words you speak"
Posts: 127 | From: a town where you can't smell a thing | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
fletcher christian
Mutinous Seadog
# 13919
|
Posted
ISTM, FWIW, that the 'FWIW' and the 'ISTM' was completely superfluous to the construction of your sentence.....FWIW, or so ISTM.
[sorry, but I just had to get that out of my system]
--------------------
'God is love insaturable, love impossible to describe'
Staretz Silouan
Posts: 5235 | From: a prefecture | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the OP.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by Schroedinger's cat:
Critiquing the Rob Bell Marketing machine, which is what is being done, is perfectly reasonable. Personally, I think he is very clever, using his usual style to make people question and think.
Fair enough, but that has nothing to do with the OP.
I think it does. This is honestly what I find strange. All he does in the promo is ask questions. I don't remember him actually giving any opinions or conclusions. And yet this video is the very thing that people are riled against. So what is so wrong with asking questions? I guess people see them as leading questions, but still, questions are there to make people think. It seems like the people objecting to Rob Bell, before the book is even out, are objecting to independent thought. To me this is a worrying thing.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
All he does in the promo is ask questions. I don't remember him actually giving any opinions or conclusions. And yet this video is the very thing that people are riled against. So what is so wrong with asking questions? I guess people see them as leading questions, but still, questions are there to make people think.
Yes, and as JJ (hardly a conevo) put it, Rob Bell is suggesting here that the conservative gospel is inauthentic. The use of the graffiti about Gandhi at the beginning is clear - he takes the ramblings of an anonymous nutter as representing a popularist view of the gospel and then uses questions to deconstruct it. The fact that he uses questions actually makes the caricature even worse.
Are you really surprised that people get riled when someone accuses them of believing in an inauthentic gospel?
The use of questions just adds to the likelihood to annoy. Anybody watching it is made certain that he is attacking a view of the gospel. Only he doesn't make it clear exactly what view he is attacking. It's a common enough technique, it means that you will almost certainly respond to the clip depending on whether you are positively or negatively inclined to him already. And surprise, surprise, the marketing machine has obviously worked. Those at The Gospel Coalition will cause his book sales to soar as his support base grows from those already inclined to his views and keen to defend him from them. It is very calculated marketing. And it is working.
Oh dear, I think I'll leave this thread now. The more I think about it the lower Rob Bell drops in my estimation. (And none of it has anything to do with his views on universalism, because I don't know what they are.)
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Schroedinger's cat
Ship's cool cat
# 64
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
The use of questions just adds to the likelihood to annoy. Anybody watching it is made certain that he is attacking a view of the gospel. Only he doesn't make it clear exactly what view he is attacking. It's a common enough technique, it means that you will almost certainly respond to the clip depending on whether you are positively or negatively inclined to him already.
But what you have to understand also is that this is his normal style. If he was usually a typical preacher, normally providing arguments and conclusions, and started doing this it would be odd, but the truth is that this is his style. He throws open all of the questions, and then helps you to explore them. But he doesn't give answers - he explores answers. It is a style that I prefer, but I understand that other may not.
To have a clip like this is clever - using his style to tease and challenge. And, whether you like it or not, it is working.
--------------------
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
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Are you really surprised that people get riled when someone accuses them of believing in an inauthentic gospel?
Well, usually it's the liberals and universalists that are accused of having an inauthentic gospel, so it's quite refreshing to see the conservatives have that particular criticism labelled at them (and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.) It can only help the conservatives to analyse and understand their own position.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.)
Have you heard of a guy called Jesus?
Were the questions Jesus asked confrontational?
{ETA - for clarity]
[ 05. March 2011, 11:02: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Ship's Stowaway
Shipmate
# 16237
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dafyd:
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
Of the six theological schools known to exist during the first five centuries, four of them clearly taught the final salvation of all souls: Alexandria, Antioch, Caesarea, and Edessa or Nisibis. Ephesus taught conditional immortality or annihilation of the wicked and only one, Carthage (under Rome's influence) taught endless punishments.
Could you quote a source for this please?
I'm not PaulTH, but have been reading up on universalism lately, not having been exposed to it in my youth. Here are resources:
1. The Ancient History of Universalism by Hosea Ballou II, pub. 1829 -- available as free PDF download from Google books -- this may be one source for PaulTH's quote -- has a ton of historical documentation
2. Modern History of Universalism by Thomas Whittemore, pub. 1860 -- available as free PDF download from Google Books
3. A founder of American Universalism:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Hosea-Ballou.php
4. Original Universalist Church in America:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universalist_Church_of_America#cite_note-11
5. The Christian Universalist Association -- group rebuilding Universalism with a Christian focus --
http://www.christianuniversalist.org/
6. Preterist Universalism --
http://www.preteristarchive.com/Preterism/Universalist/index.html
7. Brief Outline of Universalist Thought in Church History --
http://www.tentmaker.org/tracts/Universalists.html
8. A founder of American Universalism:
http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/universalists/Hosea-Ballou.php
[ 05. March 2011, 11:07: Message edited by: Ship's Stowaway ]
Posts: 119 | From: East Coast, USA | Registered: Feb 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
He's certainly right when he says that our views of heaven and hell expose what we believe God's character to be.
But I reckon his book will be a disappointment and give the answer to one of his first questions 'How do we become one of the few?'
Ho hum.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(and by asking questions he's at least doing it in a non-confrontational way.)
Have you heard of a guy called Jesus?
Were the questions Jesus asked confrontational?
No, I haven't, do enlighten me! ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
What I meant was, compared to the phrases like 'wolf in sheep's clothing', 'heretic' and 'false teacher' that have been chucked at Bell for his views, his critique of theology he disagrees with has been slightly more restrained.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Interesting blog post from one of my fav theologicans who actually has read Love Wins:
Greg Boyd weighs in
--------------------
"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
|
|
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Interesting blog post from one of my fav theologicans who actually has read Love Wins:
Greg Boyd weighs in
He says just what I said on another thread -
"What does truth have to fear? (I sometimes wonder if the animosity some express toward Universalists [or toward those some assume are Universalists] is motivated by the fear that the case for Universalism might turn out to be more compelling than they can handle."
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Quote from Greg Boyd:
, Rob’s book really isn’t about the population or duration of heaven or hell. It’s mainly about the unfathomably beautiful character of God revealed in Jesus Christ and therefore about the unfathomably good nature of the Good News
I often wonder how those firm believers in eternal damnation can ever call their message "good news." I think its pretty bad news that God stuck us here amid all this pain and corruption, and then damns us eternally if we don't make the right choices. If there is any unfathomably good nature of the Good News, it must be that Love keeps no tally of wrongs(1 Cor 13.5). If to know all is to forgive all, our omniscient Creator must deal with us mercifully.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
I see that Mudfrog has gone silent, as he has in the past, when I ask him to prove, from Scripture, as he is a Sola Scriptura Protestant, that anyone will be damned eternally for unbelief. If we analyse the various strands in Scripture we have 3 different interpretations. That we are eternally damned for lack of good deeds. That we are condemned to anihilation for not accepting Christ, or that we are all saved as a result of Christ's conquest of death.
The Johanine and Pauline traditions say that death ie anihilation is the result of sin. This is quite logical if we are a mortal species, for whom God can grant eternity in certain circumstances, such as righteousness, faith imputed as righteousness or belief in Christ's resurrection. Both the Pauline and Johanine traditions also give, at the very least, the hint of universal salvation in that Christ conquered sin, death and the devil.
The Matthew tradition has the hard sayings about eternal damnation. But they are always works related. This is consistent with some of the sects of Judaism in Jesus' time. There is never any mention of faith or belief in the threats of eternal damnation in Matthew. To come up with a belief that we are eternally damned because we don't believe in Jesus or accept Him as personal saviour, we must take His sayings out of context, put them in a blender, and come out with our own mix. The Church has done this over the ages as a power tool with which to control the masses. There is enough room, in Scripture, and in the teachings and traditions of the Church, to allow for at least the soft universalism of Hans Urs von Balthasar or Bishop Kallistos Ware. This is my view and I still challenge anyone to disprove it from Scripture.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
But there are also the people we did it to. There is innocent suffering in this life are you saying that these injustices must be overlooked. It sounds like a bullies charter.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Vengeance is a natural human instinct. When we're hurt and damaged, we want to hurt back. But this is what Jesus, in the Sermon on the Mount, told us to renounce. Pray for those who spitefully use you. Forgive seventy times seven. That God makes the sun to shine on the good and the wicked. If you seriously hope that everyone who did you an injustice is going to eternal damnation, you haven't read your Bible.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Except that we are those very 'guys' who did it, are we not?
But there are also the people we did it to. There is innocent suffering in this life are you saying that these injustices must be overlooked. It sounds like a bullies charter.
Not overlooked - the pain of suffering should never be overlooked. We should be constantly working against injustice imo.
We naturally want to hit back - but Jesus taught us a better (and incredibly tough) way. An eye for an eye just ends up with everybody blind.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
Jengie
That criticism applies to the mainstream view too. Victim and perpetrator will live alongside in heaven in that understanding as well. The numbers might not be as high, but the principle's the same.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Conidering I agree with everything in your first paragraph, I think the problem, then, is in your question, and your understanding of what universalism necessarily says. The idea of a 'free pass' might be in some universalist theology, but it's not in mine.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
To come up with a belief that we are eternally damned because we don't believe in Jesus or accept Him as personal saviour, we must take His sayings out of context, put them in a blender, and come out with our own mix. The Church has done this over the ages as a power tool with which to control the masses.
While we're waiting for Mudfrog to prove his assertions from Scripture, I wonder if you'd like to furnish some proof for that last assertion of yours?
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jengie jon
Semper Reformanda
# 273
|
Posted
It depends what mainstream you are talking about, the RC stance on Purgatory would not imply a free input into heaven.
Then you have to take the fact that judgement was part and parcel of story, that everyone has to face up to their sins. I would say everyone has to feel the pain they have caused. We cannot say that the penalties don't exist unless we are willing to give up the justice of God.
I suspect that full repentance and therefore full conversion is only possible at that point but that is me. In this life we are only practising.
Jengie
--------------------
"To violate a persons ability to distinguish fact from fantasy is the epistemological equivalent of rape." Noretta Koertge
Back to my blog
Posts: 20894 | From: city of steel, butterflies and rainbows | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
Yes but justice demands that something is done, human retribution yes is wrong, but divine where God knows the true ins and outs of everything is that wrong? Should God not hold the bully and the tyrant to account? If we know to work for justice, shouldn't we also expect God to?
Should he allow them a free pass because that is what Universalism does.
Jengie
Part of me can't help but bring in the debate in criminology between restorative and retributive models of justice. Here in Canada, in some quarters, we are looking at the restorative justice model as opposed to the traditional retributive model.
Restorative justice focuses on repairing relationships between offender and victim. Part of the model includes truth-telling, the victim and those affected by the crime voicing their hurts and wounds honestly. The offender, hopefully can understand the full emotional and physical consequences of their action. It has nothing to do with "letting the criminal off the hook." The offender is called to account and face the victims of his or her crime.
From listening to the truth-telling of the victim, the offender hopefully will come to full repentance of their actions, and seek to make restitition. With this admittence of guilt and profound repentance, the victim may start to forgive.
In contrast, retributive justice seeks primarily to "punish" the offender in the name of the State. But punishment can only go so far. You can lock someone up in jail, but for most crimes short of murder, the offender will eventually be released into society. There is no guarantee that the offender's hearts will be changed.
Universalism isn't exactly the right word, the more appropriate term is "universal reconciliation." The hope for the salvation of all means the hope that all will come to repentance. It has nothing to do with the wicked saying "screw that, I want to keep on stomping on the poor and screwing over the weak, let me into heaven."
Perhaps that is why even though I hope for universal reconciliation, I also acknowledge the possibility of hell. Not because God is a tyrant who enjoys sending people to perdition, but rather that some people are simply unwilling to go to heaven. They are unwilling to repent, unwilling to stop hurting others, unwilling to love. Because of this, they have deliberately excluded themselves from heaven, because the joy of heaven lies precisely in loving. If you are unwilling to love, it is impossible to experience heaven even if your soul is floating in the clouds.
[ 05. March 2011, 21:13: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Isaac David:
While we're waiting for Mudfrog to prove his assertions from Scripture, I wonder if you'd like to furnish some proof for that last assertion of yours?
I base this on that age old teaching of the Church, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus . If there is no salvation outside the Church, and the Church has the right to dogmatise and anathematise, and to excommunicate, then the Church is setting itself up as arbiter of who is saved and who is damned. I still believe that when God told Moses "I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." (Ex33.9) He was telling us that salvation and mercy are his call and not ours.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jengie Jon:
I don't know
Try telling someone who has suffered multiple injustices in life that the guys who did it are finally going to be let off because that too is implied by universalism.
To me, that only points me toward a "soft" universalism subsumed under Christ's Lordship.
If we start with what "I" (or I presume, most of "Us") would do if "I" were in charge of the pearly gates, I'm gonna guess most of us are gonna let Gandhi in, and most of us are gonna keep Saddam Hussein out. As Jengie indicates, if any of us have suffered a serious abuse, we're probably not gonna wanna see our abuser in the next life. If any of us have had our child suffer at the hands of another, we're probably gonna wanna usher that despicable abuser to the nether regions personally.
So, by instinct, most of us have more grace than what a very conservative reading of Scripture would suggest, yet most of us, by human inclination, would fall short of a more generous universalism.
All of which we see reflected in the gospels, and the many parables that point us to:
1. When we finally do find out "who gets in" and "who doesn't" there are going to be a LOT of surprises on both sides of the equation
2. Jesus always seems to be surprising us by demonstrating more grace than anyone else would expect
3. Jesus makes the final call
Given all of the above, #3 seems only right and just.
--------------------
"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
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Sublime as ever Cliffdweller.
Jengie John: when the NAZIs rise in the resurrection with the Jews even Satan might be moved to repent. Or should God burn the NAZIs alive forever despite the Jews' forgiveness of them? And if Satan repents, should we demand justice regardless?
The former things will be past. Death cancels ALL debts. Well one does.
And if we took your search for justice to its conclusion, we should demand God's surrender and damn Him. He allows all injustice. I thought He was supposed to be omnipotent?
If God were just above loving He'd have blinked and the Sun would have gone out permanently at the murder of His Son.
Well He would if we were Him.
And no, I haven't suffered enough loss yet to be lost in understandable hatred. If I do, I pray the resurrection would redeem me. By the salvation of my persecutors.
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
What I meant was, compared to the phrases like 'wolf in sheep's clothing', 'heretic' and 'false teacher' that have been chucked at Bell for his views, his critique of theology he disagrees with has been slightly more restrained.
Since your title is 'Rob Bell and Univeralism' it seems we have two separate things to discuss now - 1. Rob Bell. 2. Universalism.
If you want to talk about Rob Bell specifically then I'm not sure that his technique is more restrained.
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational. Personally I like enquiring minds who are open to discussion, but I tend to find those who only ask questions more closed than those who simply state their position.
The NT is full of warnings against false teachers - the warning runs right through the teaching of Jesus, Paul, John and Peter like a stick of Brighton rock. The later NT letters are especially replete.
I draw two conclusions from this:
1. Simply claiming someone is a false teacher doesn't mean anything. I, like you, am rather sick and tired of the self-appointed evangelical gatekeepers of truth. Those, for example, who attack Rob Bell here without even reading his book. You can't just throw accusations around like this without talking it through and giving the other person the chance to fairly respond and engage. Innocent until proven guilty should be the maxim. Questioning things is normal, simply asking questions does not make one a 'false teacher'.
2. It is equally the height of arrogance to shrug off such accusations. The NT warns us so frequently that it is crazy not to take it seriously. If someone calls me a false teacher then I have to at least consider the possibility. Having done so I may then dismiss the claim for the fruitlube theory it is, but I can't just shrug it off automatically. And hiding behind 'I was just asking questions' is the biggest cop out of them all. When considering faith as a destination or a journey the pendulum has now swung too far towards journey - we are now stuck on a roundabout where there is no longer any attempt to go anywhere at all.
[Wow - Rob Bell really does push my buttons! ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif) ]
[ 06. March 2011, 02:14: Message edited by: Johnny S ]
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational.
I listened again to Rob Bell's questions - I don't find them any of these things.
Challenging, yes.
His first question is a great one 'Is Ghandi really burning in hell for all eternity?'
If he is, then what does that say about God's character?
All Christians should be asking similar questions imo - and if these questions go 'viral' then all the better.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
Since your title is 'Rob Bell and Univeralism' it seems we have two separate things to discuss now - 1. Rob Bell. 2. Universalism.
Or there is 3 (which was my main question in the OP), which was regarding the relatively extreme response to Bell and his I'll.
Otherwise, I take your points, but do note that one man's false teacher is another man's true teacher.
Oh and AB, ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
(stupid iPhone autocorrect - ilk not I'll)
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Trudy Scrumptious
BBE Shieldmaiden
# 5647
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
(stupid iPhone autocorrect - ilk not I'll)
If everyone was using iPhones, we'd be having this discussion about whether Gandhi and other nonChristians were going to burn forever in he'll.
--------------------
Books and things.
I lied. There are no things. Just books.
Posts: 7428 | From: Closer to Paris than I am to Vancouver | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Isaac David
Accidental Awkwardox
# 4671
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
I base this on that age old teaching of the Church, extra ecclesiam, nulla salus.
Apart from being a rather simplistic reading of history, that doesn't provide any evidence for motivation - your "power tool with which to control the masses."
--------------------
Isaac the Idiot
Forget philosophy. Read Borges.
Posts: 1280 | From: Middle Exile | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
As my last post illustrated, questions can be very sarcastic, patronising, and confrontational.
I listened again to Rob Bell's questions - I don't find them any of these things.
I didn't say that Rob Bell was being sarcastic, I was challenging the assumptions that by definition using questions was not confrontational.
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
His first question is a great one 'Is Ghandi really burning in hell for all eternity?'
If he is, then what does that say about God's character?
Both of those are closed questions. When you add that to the fact the first question is taken from an anonymous nuttier who graffitied a picture, I'd say that that they were closed and leading questions. Questions like these do not provoke discussion, they close it down - for the 'obvious' answers are implied.
My response to the first question would be - 'but if I was going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here.'
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Johnny S
Shipmate
# 12581
|
Posted
I'm confused.
Why is it so hard to get from ...
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
one man's false teacher is another man's true teacher.
to this ... ?
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
the relatively extreme response to Bell and his ilk.
Surely you've answered your own question.
Posts: 6834 | From: London | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Johnny S:
My response to the first question would be - 'but if I was going to Dublin I wouldn't start from here.'
You mean that you wouldn't ask the question in the first place?
If that's the case, fair enough - but that doesn't make it less of a question worth asking. It clarifies very well the fact that some Christians believe people of other faiths are hell bound, and must be converted.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
LutheranChik
Shipmate
# 9826
|
Posted
How does regarding any new or non-majority idea as a potentially dangerous "false teaching" square not only with the academic process of discussing and evaluating ideas on their own merits but also the relatively free and easy way in which the rabbinical tradition discusses/argues Scripture?
I'm sorry, but I don't want to be a part of a Christianity with that crabbed and paranoid a theological school of thought. Honestly, my encounters with neo-Calvinists and other exciteable heresy-hunters -- combined with my own childhood background in a branch of Lutheranism that tended to find heresy under every rock and behind every curtain -- often make me want to declare myself post -Christian and be done with it.
Once I found myself in what had begun as a fairly lightheared online discussion about the souls of animals, of all things, and the Usual Suspects were practically offering themselves to the martyr's stake in their conviction that such an idea was a dangerous, damnedable heresy that must not stand...to which my reaction was, "Oh, for Christ's sake, get over it." And frankly I'd rather spend eternity with dogs and cats than with hysterical conservative theologians.
--------------------
Simul iustus et peccator
http://www.lutheranchiklworddiary.blogspot.com
Posts: 6462 | From: rural Michigan, USA | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
