|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: Universalism: The case against
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
By the way,
Given the recent discussion of what it means to be a fool on this thread, why hasn't anyone brought up the Gospel being "foolishness to the world" or being a "fool for Christ," etc.? This is the Ship of Fools after all. I'm just engaging in rhetoric since I don't claim to fully understand what holy foolishness means (maybe Erasmus understood it better - maybe - and Erasmus would certainly think that I am full of excrement!) but still I think it is worth discussing on this thread.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
If the rather retro Romanism that IngoB describes here were true, where its not faith or a Christian profession that God uses to save you, but rather contriving not to have committed an unconfessed mortal sin just before your death, then the Cross would hardly be needed.
No cross, no salvation, no sacraments. No faith, no sacramental confession. No sacramental confession, little chance of perseverance. The only thing contrived here is your critique.
I've got to admit to the Ship's Roundhead that this exchange confirms for me that -- despite my affection for incense and chasubles, and my belief in the intercession of saints ![[Ultra confused]](graemlins/confused2.gif) -- I am fundamentally and quite happily a PROTESTANT!
The choice is stark: Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do. But who wants to worship a God who is indebted to his creations?
I've got an ear-worm now, and I'd like others to have it too: "To God Be the Glory!"
As a universalist, I agree with every single word of Miss Crosby's masterpiece.
I think I'd better leave further "debate" with IngoB to universalists who identify with his tradition, since it seems to me that a more fundamental issue is involved: not how many people will be saved, but how anyone will be saved. We're down to the fundamental difference between Protestant Christianity and Classic Papism. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
That said, I'd like to look at your idea that belief in a supernatural entity that doles out eternal punishment or something like it is pretty inherent to the human condition unless our moral and spiritual development is corrupted by the comforts/distractions/perversions/etc. of modern, relatively affluent society.
Makes no sense at all to me. Seems to be assigning human feelings of revenge (which not even all humans feel) to God. But God is without body, parts , or passions. God doesn't need to hurt people who do bad things. God doesn't need anything.
If someone does or says something I don't like, or if sopmeone hurtsts someone else, or if someone tells lies, or accuses me of telling lies, or otherwise says something hurtful or untrue about me, I feel a flash of anger - the human "passion" that God doesn't have. If they do something very bad I might feel a lot of anger. I might imagine wanting to hurt them. But when the anger passes (as it always has so far) I stop wanting to hurt them. What would be the good of it? I want them to go away and not bother me any more. I want them to unable to hurt other people. But I don't have any wish to kill them or cause them pain. I just want them to stop it and go away.
God doesn't even have that first flush of anger, because God is God, not an animal like us.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
You may think it is the "usual universalist argument" I don't really think it matters at all.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Actually, I said: needs no help other than that universal salvation. And that is plainly true. The sinner for example does not need any particular grace to overcome sin in this life. What for? He will go to heaven anyway.
You aren't thinking this through clearly.
If universalism is false, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life. If universalism is true, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life.
What you say there is just as true whether universalism is true or not. So it cannot be used as an argument for or against universalism.
It very much seems to me as if you are underestimating both the seriousness of sin and the omnipotence of God.
[ 26. March 2014, 15:39: Message edited by: ken ]
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
DubiousThomas:
quote:
The choice is stark: Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do.
It's clear that there are things that we must do.
Some people think it sounds holy to say they can do nothing. Not Paul: who "fought the fine fight" and "kept the faith" which is why "God the righteous Judge" (not the merciful worm-lover - though he is no doubt that as well) will give him the crown of life.
It is not reformed to eliminate humanity as a genuine agent in God's plan. We are saved unto good works, and I understand work as something I do, and frequently don't want to.
Trying to argue from that, that God's owes us is fatuous. No doubt he is pleased, just as a doctor would be on seeing a patient doing the exercses he (not the Doctor) needs to do if he is to get well.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
DubiousThomas:
quote:
The choice is stark: Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do.
It's clear that there are things that we must do.
Some people think it sounds holy to say they can do nothing. Not Paul: who "fought the fine fight" and "kept the faith" which is why "God the righteous Judge" (not the merciful worm-lover - though he is no doubt that as well) will give him the crown of life.
It is not reformed to eliminate humanity as a genuine agent in God's plan. We are saved unto good works, and I understand work as something I do, and frequently don't want to.
Trying to argue from that, that God's owes us is fatuous. No doubt he is pleased, just as a doctor would be on seeing a patient doing the exercses he (not the Doctor) needs to do if he is to get well.
Sorry, anteater, but there's nothing in my statement that isn't classic "reformed" theology (apart from my universalist extension of it). Your reply attributes ideas and beliefs to me that are simply not there, with the result that you're arguing right past me.
I'm talking about salvation, pure and simple. There is nothing we can do ("work") in order to gain salvation. Nothing. And when we have a relationship with God through Christ, nothing comes from us: "for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
I'm not saying this to sound holy. I could think of better ways to be fake-holy! I'm asserting it because it's true.
If what I wrote had anything "fatuous" in it, then so did the arguments of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster divines, at al. This is "meat and potatoes" "reformed" doctrine.
Westminster Confession, Article XVI: Of Good Works
The Thirty-Nine Articles, Articles XI through XIV
The Augsburg Confession, Article XX, Of Good Works
Again, we seem to have a case of a damnationist/annihilationist prepared to reject standard Christian doctrines (in this case, "reformed" doctrines) in an effort to refute universalism.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
We are saved unto good works, and I understand work as something I do, and frequently don't want to.
We are saved unto good works, not because of good works. The salvation part comes first.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The finite matters. Things happening now matter, and things happening then (in the future) will too. Consequences don't have to be eternal to count.
The finite matter in my system, indeed, by virtue of determining the eternal. The finite doesn't matter in the slightest in your system, by virtue of being decoupled from the eternal. The eternal simply matters infinitely more than the temporal as such, since the temporal is infinitesimal in comparison. (In fact, it is not even infinitesimal, since eternity is more than an infinite length of time. But there are no other words available in the language to describe just how nothing this something is in comparison, as such.)
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
I mean, if all that ultimately counts is what happens in eternity, then why should (according to your belief system) acts in this life determine peoples' eternal fate? In that system, the finite is the thing that defines everything else - like there are four fingers pointing back at you when you make this criticism.
The finite in my system indeed determines everything, just as it determines nothing in your system. And why do I think this is reasonable? Because in our own power we can only act finitely and temporally. As far as we can participate in infinity and eternity at all, it is only with and through God. And a free choice for or against God must occur where we can exercise our powers fully. The beatific vision is a reward, not a means. It is where we have decided to go, it is not that by which we go.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The comfort is in the hope that the suffering will end, not in that in the end our infinite bliss will mean that our current suffering is inconsequential simply because it is finite. In "One day this will be over, and things will be well", the focus has very little to do with whether "well" will be finite or infinite, so far as I see it, and much more about the simple fact that "it is over", and there will be wellness in general.
The infinity is in the "duration", not in the intensity. Anyway, this is all perfectly fine, as discussion of purgatory. It seems somewhat tedious to weigh infinities, when the question can be rephrased like this: why do we need hell, why is purgatory plus heaven not enough?
Let me answer with a question: Why earthly life? Is God incapable of creating us fit for heaven? And even if so, why doesn't he simply drop is into purgatory directly? Clearly God can at least create a process by which we are made fit for heaven. So what's the point of this earthly life? Why are we here? Is your God getting a kick out of seeing us squirm in this life, like some child torturing a fly?
In my scheme this life has a clear and simple purpose. It sorts people that will ultimately be with God from those that won't. It does so in a setting appropriate to their powers: finite and temporal. In doing so, it provides an opportunity to exercise human freedom on the one and only question that ultimately matters. It is pretty much like an exam: you have a certain time allotted to work on the problems, then your work will be marked, and you pass or fail. Straightforward.
So let's hear it. Why are we living this life in your scheme? Why is this world necessary?
quote:
Originally posted by stonespring:
That said, though, could you explain why the traditional belief in supernatural forces that mete out punishment of neverending suffering is better than modern approaches to spirituality, some claiming to be religious (even Christian), others claiming to be secular, that do not have such forms of supernatural eternal punishment?
It's better because it's true. Of course, there is no compelling evidence for that. There's no compelling evidence for any particular opinion about what happens after death, that's why faith is required. But I do not believe that "heaven and hell" is true because that somehow is psychologically most attractive to me. I believe that Christianity is true, for reasons largely unrelated to this question, and Christianity proposes "heaven and hell". Therefore I believe it.
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Either God did it all for us, which means we owe him everything and he owes us zilch, or we have things to do, in which case God will owe us in return for what we do. But who wants to worship a God who is indebted to his creations?
Catholicism states most clearly that we owe God all, and God owes us nothing. This does not stop God from providing opportunity for us to merit. If I tell my son that he will get five pounds if he mows the law, how does that establish that I was indebted to my son? I could have mowed the lawn myself, I could have simply ordered him to mow the lawn, and my son certainly has no case to demand this job and/or the payment from me. My lawn, my money. But if I tell my son that he will get five pounds if he mows the lawn, then I have provided him with the opportunity to get richer over something that I could have obliged him to do. It is basically an indulgence on my part. And if I am honest in my dealings with my son, then having offered this job I have put an obligation on myself to pay him if he does mow the lawn.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
You aren't thinking this through clearly. If universalism is false, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life. If universalism is true, sinners need particular grace from God to overcome sin in this life.
Sure. But if universalism is true, then there is no particular reason why sinners would have to overcome sin in this life. At worst, they get to pay off their debts in purgatory. But that's all finite and temporal stuff, hence fundamentally irrelevant as compared to one's eternal fate.
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What you say there is just as true whether universalism is true or not. So it cannot be used as an argument for or against universalism. It very much seems to me as if you are underestimating both the seriousness of sin and the omnipotence of God.
There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
And what Ken just said! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
In my post, I forgot the reference for the scriptural quotation: Philippians 2:13.
I'll add....
John 15:5: "I am the vine, you are the branches. Those who abide in me and I in them bear much fruit, because apart from me you can do nothing."
Ephesians 2:8-10: "For by grace you have been saved through faith, and this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God--not the result of works, so that no one may boast. For we are what he has made us, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand to be our way of life."
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
You appear to be arguing that the Cross, on its own, isn't a sufficient sign of how "serious" sin is and what "significant consequences" it has. The Cross is insufficient relative to that roasting human being. Compared to him, the Creator of the Universe dying is a mere trifle.
It's pretty clear to me that THIS is what you think universalists believe about the Cross.
I won't and can't speak for all universalists, but I can assure you that THIS is what I believe about the Cross.
quote:
"And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people [some manuscripts = all things] to myself." He said this to indicate the kind of death he was to die. (John 12:32-33)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
There is no seriousness to sin in universalism. It has no significant consequence at all. And I'm not sure in what way you think I'm underestimating the omnipotence of God.
Sin should be serious for what it is, not just because of its consequences for one's personal salvation. If someone were to sell you a 'get of of Hell (or even Purgatory) free' card, would it then be OK for you to hurt and abuse others? No. Universalism does not imply that there will be no judgement process. Clearly, there has to be a reckoning of some kind. But how ugly does a sin have to be before eternal torment is a just punishment?
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jolly Jape
Shipmate
# 3296
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
Would it not have been better if God had either not created human beings at all - or had made us all perfect, like Jesus? After all Jesus, they say, was perfect and had free will.
Say, rather, Jesus had free will because he was perfect. We are not perfect, so our will is not free, as Paul argues persuasively, in Romans 7
--------------------
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
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Do the omnipotence or grace or love of God mean anything if mere human beings can force God to abandon them to death and hell, after he has already chosen not to?
I've always thought that human free will is overrated in discussions on how God governs His cosmos. In Matt 19, when the exasperated disciples ask Jesus, "Who then can be saved" he replies that for man it's impossible, but with God all things are possible. He is clearly saying that salvation is God's business, not ours. But if we add in the hard teachings of Matt 25, in which a separation between the just and the unjust will be made, the logical outcome of that is Calvinist double predestination. The problem I have with that is that I have no wish to worship a God who creates sentient beings only for the purpose of torturing them eternally.
Some are born to sweet delight
Some are born to endless night
(from Auguries of Innocence by William Blake)
I have the same problem with any scheme which includes eternal damnation. Why does an omniscient God, who sees all, before the foundation of the world, create anything in the knowledge that it's to suffer eternally? This is why I can accept the Calvinist principle of irresistable grace, but only if it's for everyone.
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Its a vile anti-Christian idea that makes out God to be the most foul and evil thing imaginable.
Ken's strong condemnation of anihilationism doesn't seem to take into account that a God who causes, or permits eternal suffering is far more foul and evil than One who simply lets us die! The way to see anihilationism, IMO, is to acknowledge that we're simply mortal creatures, and that God MAY resurrect us as a reward for a life of righteousness, or faith counted as righteousness. That way, He isn't setting us up to fail, as when He lets us suffer eternally.
I have little doubt that many human beings will die in a hellish state, but perhaps that is part of God's irresistable grace, and we're seeing it from a truncated perspective. With Christ preaching to the captives, the intercessions of the BVM and the saints, and even of those of us still alive on earth who pray for the dead, let us hope that even the most recalcitrant sinner will experience a light on the path, which can lead them to the warm embrace of God's love. In the words of the Russian Orthodox vespers for Pentecost;
"Who on this all-perfect and saving Feast hast vouchsafed to accept the supplicatory prayers of forgiveness for them that are held in Hades; Who grantest us great hope that unto the departed held in the bondage of grief, there be sent from Thee rest and refreshment..."
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
Sorry, anteater, but there's nothing in my statement that isn't classic "reformed" theology (apart from my universalist extension of it). Your reply attributes ideas and beliefs to me that are simply not there, with the result that you're arguing right past me.
I'm talking about salvation, pure and simple. There is nothing we can do ("work") in order to gain salvation. Nothing. And when we have a relationship with God through Christ, nothing comes from us: "for it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
I'm not saying this to sound holy. I could think of better ways to be fake-holy! I'm asserting it because it's true.
If what I wrote had anything "fatuous" in it, then so did the arguments of Augustine, Luther, Calvin, the Westminster divines, at al. This is "meat and potatoes" "reformed" doctrine.
Westminster Confession, Article XVI: Of Good Works
The Thirty-Nine Articles, Articles XI through XIV
The Augsburg Confession, Article XX, Of Good Works
Again, we seem to have a case of a damnationist/annihilationist prepared to reject standard Christian doctrines (in this case, "reformed" doctrines) in an effort to refute universalism.
Since I think that human choice/will has something to do with salvation (that God isn't doing all the work without our choice to accept/work with God's grace), I am open to accusations of Pelagianism or Semi-Pelagianism. Especially because, with my universalistic tendencies (even with Purgatory), my ideas must mean that even Adam and Eve's sin did not bring eternal damnation (interpreted to mean an afterlife of unending inescapable suffering) upon them prior to Christ's redemption of them. Granted, the just of the Old Testament are often believed to have existed in some kind of gloomy but not hellish Underworld prior to Christ's Harrowing of Sheol/Hades - but if Christ had not Incarnated, suffered, died, and risen again for us, the traditional belief (I think) is that Adam, Eve, and all humanity would have eventually (after the final judgment) spent an eternal afterlife in Hell. This is perhaps an impossible counterfactual because you can't really separate the Creation and Fall from the Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection of Christ - it's all one act by God. That said, though, I think that IngoB raises a valid point in asking those universalist-esque people like me who believe that works/free will matter(s) vis-a-vis salvation have to then answer the question "What was Christ saving us from? What was His Incarnation, Passion, and Resurrection for?"
I would answer that Christ Incarnated, died, and rose again to save humankind from sin and spiritual death. I'm not so sure that there ever was a literal Adam and Eve, or that humankind ever existed in a pre-fallen state (the Fall could perhaps be an allegory for the acquisition of a selfish, sinful tendency that came about with the development of self-consciousness in human brains over the course of evolution - animals have always been pretty brutish in a lot of their behavior, but with the advent of self-conscious humans we finally had animals who were responsible for their brutish behavior). But maybe there was some very brief moment when Homo sapiens sapiens (or some predecessor species) was self-aware but sinless and then someone went and did something bad and the whole ball got rolling (obviously, self-awareness didn't just "happen" at one moment and I am over-simplifying things).
For just about as long as there have been humans, people have thought, said, and/or done selfish and harmful things. People have also done altruistic things since the beginning of humanity, which suggests to me that the grace offered by Christ's redemption that allows faith (which is not always explicitly Christian) and good works perhaps worked retroactively in history. Christ's saving work not only gives people the chance to believe the truth and do good, but it also allows the possibility to overcome sin and its consequences. What are those consequences? Well in this life we see that sin often brings about bad things. Even when people appear to sin with impunity, their psychology is often damaged by the sinning - I would not characterize an amoral psychopath who kills without remorse as "happy." But even if there are people who sin with no apparent negative consequences, even psychologically, I would argue that that sin brings about, or indeed is fundamentally linked to, a deadening of their spiritual being. People can be spiritually sick even if they appear to be physically, emotionally, and cognitively healthy. Perhaps that is the malady that psychopaths and other people with personality disorders (or behavioral disorders like food and sex addiction) suffer from. Personality and behavioral disorders almost frequently do involve emotional turmoil - but perhaps psychopaths are a special case because they seem to be emotionally dead in many ways and not bothered by it. I would not call psychopaths healthy, though. I propose that Christ is the cure for this kind of affliction of humankind - along with all others. Psychopaths have very little hope of acquiring empathy in this lifetime, but since "no man is an island" the process that produces psychopaths involved much more than genetics and so Christ's healing can be seen as ending the cycles of abuse that cause such distortions in the development of human personalities from occurring in the first place.
So individual and social sin causes quite a bit of suffering in this life (and if you want to add demonic influence, that's a form of evil that causes suffering, too). In the afterlife, people face negative consequences for the sins they committed in their lives. This might be flat out punishment from God but it might also be a continuation of the suffering and turmoil that we experience in our minds/souls in this life. I would propose that any punishment from God would be temporary but suffering/sadness, etc. would still exist in this life and the afterlife even if people stopped doing bad things. The "fallenness" that makes us generally dissatisfied, selfish, combative, etc., exists even in the absence of any actions, and is tantamount to a spiritual death. Christ is what makes counteracting and eliminating this possible.
This is a clumsy and lengthy way to say that Christ came, died, and rose again so that there could be good and love in human hearts and actions - and so that evil could defeated forever. The "forgiveness of sin" therefore does not mean salvation from eternal punishment, but rescuing from the brokenness that leads us to Sin and suffer in the first place. I would suggest (as I perhaps already have), though, that you can't separate the Fall from Salvation. Asking, "Why did we need to be saved?" is strange question because free will, fallenness, sin and salvation were all wrapped up in our creation the way I see it. God didn't cause us to sin, but in making us in His image He basically laid the seeds of our salvation in us. The Cross is an event that has always been happening and always will be happening, even when all is perfect and blissful and triumphant. So talk of Sin and punishment without Christ and salvation seems meaningless.
These ideas are all jumbled and I'd appreciate if you'd ask questions to help me clarify them to you and myself.
[ 26. March 2014, 22:19: Message edited by: stonespring ]
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me answer with a question: Why earthly life? Is God incapable of creating us fit for heaven? And even if so, why doesn't he simply drop is into purgatory directly? Clearly God can at least create a process by which we are made fit for heaven. So what's the point of this earthly life? Why are we here? Is your God getting a kick out of seeing us squirm in this life, like some child torturing a fly?
In my scheme this life has a clear and simple purpose. It sorts people that will ultimately be with God from those that won't. It does so in a setting appropriate to their powers: finite and temporal. In doing so, it provides an opportunity to exercise human freedom on the one and only question that ultimately matters. It is pretty much like an exam: you have a certain time allotted to work on the problems, then your work will be marked, and you pass or fail. Straightforward.
So let's hear it. Why are we living this life in your scheme? Why is this world necessary?
God created humankind to love and serve Him. I know that you already know that. As for the rest of Creation - I would imagine that God created it to have Himself something else to love and care for, to give humankind something to love and care for, and as an outpouring of the creative love that is already eternally present in the Trinity. Granted, God didn't need anything that Creation could provide, as He was already perfect. So that's an explanation of why the world and humankind were made that makes no mention of a test or trial.
But in order for humans to truly love and serve Him, we would need to have free will - forced love is not real love. And human history has shown countless examples of humans who have not appeared to love or serve God. So I would say that God created humans to love and serve Him, knowing that we would Sin and have all kinds of ways of not loving and serving Him (or loving or serving each other). So God created and saved us. He made us and became one of us to die with us and rise again with us. So I repeat that creation and salvation kind of seem all wrapped up together for me. In my explanation I don't see any big test with eternal life as one consequence and eternal suffering as the other. God made us to freely choose to love and serve Him, so He not only will Incarnate, suffer, die, and rise again so that we are capable of loving and serving Him, but He will also patiently wait until every single one of us eventually comes round to freely choosing to accept His offer to love and serve Him, no matter how stubborn we may be. How does this negate free will? God doesn't force anyone to love and serve him - and people still face all kinds of sucky consequences until they do. And how does this make the act of Creation and the existence of the world pointless?
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ken:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
You may think it is the "usual universalist argument" I don't really think it matters at all.
Ken,
To be fair to IngoB, I did raise this argument. I'm genuinely interested in your reasons for rejecting its validity (that's what I take you to be doing here, but I may be misunderstanding).
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dave W.:
So you were a fool, but now you're not?
Well, I'm not as foolish as I was about this sort of thing.
Since it was your (presumably) considered opinion that God did not exist, it seems you would have to have been a fool - and a pretty complete one, if his existence is so obviously inescapable.
quote:
I cannot become an atheist again, since I accept at least one (probably several) of the philosophical arguments for the existence of (the metaphysical) God as true.
Anyone not persuaded by these arguments is a fool?
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dave W.
Shipmate
# 8765
|
Posted
On second thought (more than two minutes late, alas) please disregard my previous post, IngoB. I withdraw my comments and question.
Posts: 2059 | From: the hub of the solar system | Registered: Nov 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ken: quote:
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
Well we just have our separate ways of interpreting reformed theology. I think it likely that you've read Jim Packer's books. A point he makes again and again is that saying God works in us does not contradict the fact that we work also.
I have little doubt that you also believe this so maybe it's more a style of expression. I think to say "God does it all" in our lives is unhelpful. I think there is a real danger of denying genuine human agency.
And I don't find this emphasis in the NT. True there are many texts about God working in us, but these are also balanced by texts which, to take just one example, has Paul recommending that it is better not to crib (I paraphrase!) the work of others so that we can take pride in our own work.
But like I said, I doubt either DubiousThomas or Ken denies human agency, it's more a question of what we major on.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
Second, there is a real difference between punishment and purification, even though they both respond to a failure. I ought to have brushed my teeth regularly, but I didn't, so now I have to visit the dentist and suffer some pain. I ought to not murder people, but I did, so now the judge throws me in jail for life. In both cases it serves me right. But nevertheless, only the latter case "crossed a line", whereupon I have to face the wrath of my community, and face their retribution. (Yes, in my examples on one hand I only damage myself, on the other hand I damage others, but that's not quite it. People are willing to take some damage from each other before they insist on evening the score, its just that the limits there are fluid.) Now, I believe that it is abundantly clear from scripture that revenge is the Lord's, and that God in fact punishes certain behaviours. There are lines to cross with the Lord, and if you cross them, then you will encounter His wrath. But if so, then given the first stage of the argument God will punish eternally, for everything else would just be purification / correction.
Can I argue that God must actually punish, rather than only purify / correct? Well, there's scripture, but then everybody reads scripture as they want. However, a visit to the dentist is not really a matter of justice. It may serve me right, but it does not really follow from a judgement. The health of my teeth may have been compromised, but I have not really crossed a line. I have made bad choices about brushing my teeth, but I wasn't really evil. There is a lack there of meeting with an external standard, of being faced by demands other than my own interests. Or to put it differently, correction is me-centred, retribution is other-centred. And I do not believe that ultimate justice can be me-centred, I think it is Other-centred. And there are some real lines drawn around the holy of holies, and if you cross them impure, you will drop (spiritually) dead. The afterlife is not really about me being turned into the best I can be, it is about me being good enough to live with God in eternity. Or not.
(Since somebody is bound to wheel out "nobody is worthy to live with God in eternity": Yes. But I believe - and I think in line with tradition - that Christ basically puts us in the situation of Adam, if in a more somber mode. Christ has opened the gates of heaven for us, but we can step in or go away, and that is how we are good enough to be with God or not. And practically speaking, this differs not in the judgement of our deeds, but in how we attribute them.)
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
You appear to be arguing that the Cross, on its own, isn't a sufficient sign of how "serious" sin is and what "significant consequences" it has. The Cross is insufficient relative to that roasting human being. Compared to him, the Creator of the Universe dying is a mere trifle. It's pretty clear to me that THIS is what you think universalists believe about the Cross.I won't and can't speak for all universalists, but I can assure you that THIS is what I believe about the Cross.
I'm not really doubting what you believe about the Cross. People believe all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons. My point is about the appropriateness of the sign. Let me put it like this. If there was an ad on TV trying to encourage people to brush their teeth regularly, and it was styled like that second video you linked to, what would you think? I bet you would think that this is totally over the top, and quite possibly would be enraged enough about that to write to the TV station.
Now, for you the seriousness of sin is being established by the Cross. For me this is like you watching a brutal crucifixion video about brushing your teeth and then concluding that it is vitally important to brush one's teeth. It's not wrong to be concerned with one's teeth, and one should brush them, but this is just not an appropriate level of dealing with this. Whereas for me, sin actually is the potentially most devastating thing ever, it can lead to eternal torture. So this sign is appropriate for my take on sin. The utter horror of sin in my scheme exists prior to the Cross, and is appropriately symbolised by it, it is not being established by the Cross. That's the difference I'm getting at.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
goperryrevs
Shipmtae
# 13504
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
Let me answer with a question: Why earthly life? Is God incapable of creating us fit for heaven? And even if so, why doesn't he simply drop is into purgatory directly? Clearly God can at least create a process by which we are made fit for heaven. So what's the point of this earthly life? Why are we here? Is your God getting a kick out of seeing us squirm in this life, like some child torturing a fly?
My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
So, I don't see salvation as a binary saved/damned, but as a more holistic, ongoing process. It helps me make sense of the different ways the word salvation is used in Scripture (in the past, present and future tenses).
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
In my scheme this life has a clear and simple purpose. It sorts people that will ultimately be with God from those that won't. It does so in a setting appropriate to their powers: finite and temporal. In doing so, it provides an opportunity to exercise human freedom on the one and only question that ultimately matters. It is pretty much like an exam: you have a certain time allotted to work on the problems, then your work will be marked, and you pass or fail. Straightforward.
Straightforward, yes. But, I believe, incredibly flawed.
Firstly, it has no concept of the corporate. It is an entirely individualistic exercise. We can learn together, but the exam is mine to pass or fail. Yet, the focus of so many things in God's kingdom is how we relate to each other. That's what the vast majority of the Decalogue is about, and that's the challenge we will face in Heaven, living perfectly together, not in isolation.
Secondly, it has the opposite spirit of the Jesus paradigm, that the last shall be first, that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom. That God is the God of the broken and the weak and the failures (even those who fail the 'exam').
Thirdly, it gives no satisfactory answers to the "but what about?" questions (the type of questions Rob Bell asks in the "what about the flat tyre?" chapter of Love Wins). For example, to the question "what about babies that die? Will they go to Hell?", there is usually one of three answers given:
- Yes. They were born into sin, so tough.
- No. They will be saved.
- God knows how they would have lived their lives, and will judge accordingly.
The first answer reveals God as a total asshole and is inconsistent with Jesus teaching (stumbling children / millstones).
The second answer opens itself to all the criticisms that you can give to universalism, and has the consequence that it would be a kindness to murder every single baby alive, so that they can go straight to heaven.
The third answer results in this life becoming ultimately meaningless. If God knew anyhow, then why the charade of this life? The assertion that this life is important because it determines eternity turns out to be a smokescreen. And if God knew anyhow, then there would have been no need for the suffering in this life. So the four fingers of "god seeing us squirm" in this life point straight back again.
Fourthly, it gives no satisfactory answer to the 'how' question - how do we become fit for heaven? None of us die perfect, even if we die free of sin (because we've managed to confess them all). All that happens is that the process by which we become christlike enough for an eternity together where we don't end up all falling out, pissing each other off, sinning (and so on) gets lumped into some unknown called 'purgatory'. The goal is only passing the grade. It's not about real growth, maturity, humility, the fruits of the spirit, and so on. They don't really matter - all that stuff will get sorted for you, so long as you get in.
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
... the flip side of the usual universalist argument why God cannot possibly punish eternally. Namely because such "infinite punishment" is not justified for any "finite sin".
As an aside, it is my belief that God does not punish at all. He only disciplines. But that's another story.
--------------------
"Keep your eye on the donut, not on the hole." - David Lynch
Posts: 2098 | From: Midlands | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
That's like saying every single crime should be punished with a life sentence, because if the criminal is ever allowed out of jail they're not really being punished, just purified/corrected.
And what's so bloody wrong with purification and correction anyway?
Besides which, if an eternity of bliss makes finite punishment nothing in comparison then it also makes the pain that your sin has caused to others nothing in comparison which, it could be said, makes the sin itself nothing. So what are they being punished for, exactly?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
[QUOTE]
Ken's strong condemnation of anihilationism doesn't seem to take into account that a God who causes, or permits eternal suffering is far more foul and evil than One who simply lets us die!
No, because existence itself is a good. As in St Athanasius's argument for why God created the Devil - God loves everybody, so God wants to do them good, existence is good, so God creates every being who could logically exist. Or so said Athanasius.
Also because even hell cannot be beyond reach of the mercy of God who is omnipotent, eternal, and all-loving.
Also its worse because, from an eternal point of view, those who die and remain dead in the finite created world in effect don't exist. Never did. Have no effect or impact on anything. So annihilationism divides everyone into two groups, like lead actors and spear-carriers, or player-characters and non-player characters. The ones who count and the ones who don't. It allows the saved to merely ignore the sinners, because after all they don't really exist, just cardboard cutouts, street furniture, no more worth worrying about than hordes of CGI orcs in a fantasy film. Does that sound like the sort of people God thought it worth becoming incarnate and dying on the cross for?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ken: A couple of points.
Do you endorse Athanasius' arguments? It's always tricky when people quote revered authorities without actually saying whether they agree. If you do I'd argue with you. If you don't I'd agree.
Second, annihilationism as opposed to a hell from where there is still a route to heaven, is hard to defend. I don't get the impression that you accept the traditional belief that Hell is a place with no possibility of escape. But this is what Christians have historically believed, and probably most do today, although probably not in the liberal West. If you can put yourself into the mind of someone who believes that, would you still believe annihilation to be worse that immutable eternal punishment?
[ 27. March 2014, 13:30: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken: quote:
What Dubious Thomas just said.
God does it all.
Well we just have our separate ways of interpreting reformed theology. I think it likely that you've read Jim Packer's books. A point he makes again and again is that saying God works in us does not contradict the fact that we work also.
[I guess you were directed this all at Ken. I hope you won't object if I jump back in.]
I certainly agree that we have separate ways of interpreting reformed theology. But it is pretty clear that you (on the one hand) and Ken and I (on the other) hold that one interpretation is correct and the other is wrong. There comes a time when people do have to just "agree to disagree" and move on; but I'm not sure we've reached that point yet.
I'll admit that I haven't read any Packer in years -- and I've never been a "fan" of him, even in my brief days as a fairly "fundamentalist Calvinist." But, knowing Packer's theology, I really doubt that he is asserting what you seem to think he is asserting. He cannot mean that human works have any decisive role in the achievement or maintenance of salvation. If he were asserting that, he would be denying the doctrinal positions set out in those confessional documents I linked in my earlier post -- and I know that Packer asserts his full agreement with those doctrinal positions: he's a very conservative evangelical Anglican, essentially a Calvinist who thinks it's okay for the church to be led by bishops.
quote:
I have little doubt that you also believe this so maybe it's more a style of expression. I think to say "God does it all" in our lives is unhelpful. I think there is a real danger of denying genuine human agency.
What is the "danger" than you see in "denying genuine human agency"? And, what is "genuine human agency"?
What is your view on this statement? -- "Their [true Christians'] ability to do good works is not at all of themselves, but wholly from the Spirit of Christ."
I think these issues need to be clarified if we're to sort out our disagreements. Maybe, as you suggest, we're really not saying anything different after all -- although it appears to me that we are, quite radically.
In your arguments, I'm hearing echoes of Jacobus Arminius.
quote:
And I don't find this emphasis in the NT.
Clearly, I do (and Ken seems to as well).
What do you make of Philippians 2:13? -- "For it is God who is at work in you, enabling you both to will and to work for his good pleasure."
quote:
True there are many texts about God working in us, but these are also balanced by texts which, to take just one example, has Paul recommending that it is better not to crib (I paraphrase!) the work of others so that we can take pride in our own work.
You have identified a tension within the biblical witness. Now, since I'm not an inerrantist, the existence of differing ideas and perspectives within the Bible doesn't really bother me -- but let's not get off track on this issue (which is a dead horse, anyway, as I recall).
Anyway, if I can resolve a tension, I'm happy to do so, and this is a fairly easy one to resolve: Paul is talking about the good works of the regenerated, which God certainly does reward and punish, within the framework of his prior and sustaining work. This is all set out short-and-sweet in Chapter XVI of the Westminster Confession, especially subsections V and VI: "We cannot by our best works merit pardon of sin, or eternal life at the hand of God.... Notwithstanding, the persons of believers being accepted through Christ, their good works also are accepted in Him; not as though they were in this life wholly unblamable and unreproveable in God's sight; but that He, looking upon them in His Son, is pleased to accept and reward that which is sincere, although accompanied with many weaknesses and imperfections."
Yes, I do good works that God rewards (and sins that God punishes). But I couldn't do those good works if God had not first worked in me. And those good works aren't earning me heaven -- nor do my sins in any way endanger my salvation. [I'm writing here as if I were an "orthodox" Calvinist; the only substantial difference between "orthodox" Calvinism and my universalism is over how many human beings belong to the Elect -- the "orthodox" say, "some"; we heretical universalists say, "all".]
quote:
But like I said, I doubt either DubiousThomas or Ken denies human agency, it's more a question of what we major on.
You're right, I certainly don't deny human agency. I'm not claiming that human beings are "robots."
But the problem I see in your "majoring" on human agency is that you appear to make such free human agency an element in salvation -- which represents a major departure from "reformed" doctrine. If you wish to argue for Arminianism, that's fine. But then we're no longer really debating damnationism/annihilationism versus universalism, but Arminianism versus classic "Reformed" doctrine.
As the Canons of Dort put it:
quote:
This is a novel idea and an error and has the effect of elevating the power of free choice, contrary to the words of Jeremiah the prophet: The heart itself is deceitful above all things and wicked (Jer. 17:9); and of the words of the apostle: All of us also lived among them (the sons of disobedience) at one time in the passions of our flesh, following the will of our flesh and thoughts (Eph. 2:3).
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
IngoB,
This is just a quick note to express my appreciation for the change in the "tone" of your arguments. I thank you for "turning down the heat." I want to give your carefully and cogently presented argument the response it deserves, but it may take me a while to get to it. So I wanted just to let you know that I'm not ignoring or brushing you off.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
Ken: A couple of points.
Do you endorse Athanasius' arguments?
I don't know for sure. It sounds very persuasive.
quote:
Second, annihilationism as opposed to a hell from where there is still a route to heaven, is hard to defend.
I guess the idea of the omnipotence of God trumps it in my feelings. Same sort of thing that leads to Augustinism/Calvinism, and away from Pelagianism. (Though the first well-known Christian writer to teach it was perhaps Origen, who is of course a heretic...)
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
If you can put yourself into the mind of someone who believes that, would you still believe annihilation to be worse that immutable eternal punishment?
Yes, I think so.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
DubiousThomas: Like you I believe we have free-will, but in a limited sense. I reject philosophical determinism, but do not believe we can choose anything.
As much as (all) christians believe in the primacy of God's working, most think it right to emphasize that there is a genuine human co-operating, except for the prevenient grace of God who is (as all - not just Reformed believe) the initiator of salvation. Dead people do not resurrect themselves.
I also think all christians accept that human co-operation is not illusory. Some people feel we are too self-aggrandising, and the message need to hear is God does EVERYTHING, whereas others feel we like to lull ourselves into thinking we are on the escalator to heaven and need reminding that without works faith is irrelevant, as Paul and James teach. And you I suspect.
For instance a friend of mine in relation to some bad habits he knew he should break, genuinely believed that it would happen when God did it. I know this is not standard and probably you would not support this attitude. But why, if EVERYTHING is done by God?
Whether it's worth pursuing I doubt, because no basic issue is at stake, and I am probably over-focussed on this because I am giving a lot of thought to Buddhist notions of the self (to the extent that it is real).
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
Ken: OK so we have different reactions to the possibility of non-existence.
With your perspective I wouldn't consider annihilationism either.
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
CL
Shipmate
# 16145
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Surely, in England it was the other way round - the working class gave up on religion, while the middle class hung on, and this was happening in 1800.
If true, then that's rather interesting.
It is. With the Jacobite/Tory defeat in the War of the Three Kingdoms, the Church of England in the 18th Century went into a "deep freezer of latitudinarian moralism" that put popular religion in a coma. The Enlightenment turned off life support. From the records less than 10 people turned up in St Paul's Cathedral for the service on Christmas Day 1800.
Posts: 647 | From: Ireland | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
stonespring
Shipmate
# 15530
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
IngoB, as best I can tell, you believes that there can only be "seriousness" to sin if the "significant consequences" for it actually apply to humankind: some sinner (just one is probably enough?) has to roast for all eternity for sin to be "serious."
I make an argument at two stages here. First, the eternity of bliss with God makes any finite and temporal punishment as nothing by comparison. Consequently, the people in purgatory are not really being punished even though they suffer. Given the assurance of heaven in the near future, it is more like a visit to the dentist. Since in your scheme hell is being replaced by purgatory, nobody really gets punished. Everybody simply gets purified / corrected, has their "bad teeth" fixed.
Second, there is a real difference between punishment and purification, even though they both respond to a failure. I ought to have brushed my teeth regularly, but I didn't, so now I have to visit the dentist and suffer some pain. I ought to not murder people, but I did, so now the judge throws me in jail for life. In both cases it serves me right. But nevertheless, only the latter case "crossed a line", whereupon I have to face the wrath of my community, and face their retribution. (Yes, in my examples on one hand I only damage myself, on the other hand I damage others, but that's not quite it. People are willing to take some damage from each other before they insist on evening the score, its just that the limits there are fluid.) Now, I believe that it is abundantly clear from scripture that revenge is the Lord's, and that God in fact punishes certain behaviours. There are lines to cross with the Lord, and if you cross them, then you will encounter His wrath. But if so, then given the first stage of the argument God will punish eternally, for everything else would just be purification / correction.
Can I argue that God must actually punish, rather than only purify / correct? Well, there's scripture, but then everybody reads scripture as they want. However, a visit to the dentist is not really a matter of justice. It may serve me right, but it does not really follow from a judgement. The health of my teeth may have been compromised, but I have not really crossed a line. I have made bad choices about brushing my teeth, but I wasn't really evil. There is a lack there of meeting with an external standard, of being faced by demands other than my own interests. Or to put it differently, correction is me-centred, retribution is other-centred. And I do not believe that ultimate justice can be me-centred, I think it is Other-centred. And there are some real lines drawn around the holy of holies, and if you cross them impure, you will drop (spiritually) dead. The afterlife is not really about me being turned into the best I can be, it is about me being good enough to live with God in eternity. Or not.
Why is there any value to punishment for punishment's sake? Punishment can have the purposes of deterrence, rehabilitation/lesson-teaching, and restitution of damage done. The last purpose is irrelevant since no one can damage God. You are proposing punishment as an end in itself. What is the point in that? I am not asking where in Scripture punishment for punishment's sake is mentioned, but rather for an explanation of why there is any value to punishment as an end in itself.
Posts: 1537 | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Ken:
Also because even hell cannot be beyond reach of the mercy of God who is omnipotent, eternal, and all-loving
I agree fully with this. I'm not a believer in anihilationism, but unlike Ken, I find it preferable to eternal torment in which there is no hope for any amelioration of the torment . This is why I, as a universalist at least in principle, believe it right to pray for the dead, and seek the intercession of the saints on their behalf. But as anteater said, this isn't mainstream Christianity, though it's reared it's head on many occasions in the two thousand years of Christian history.
While I mean no personal offence, the Christianity of IngoB, in which a good living, loving person can spend eternity in hell, without hope, for a single offence against God's law, is the vilest, most odious religion on this planet. Though IngoB is a Catholic and therefore sees salvation in sacramental terms, the starkness of this bleak future, reminds me of the fundamentalist Protestant Christians among whom I grew up. I had a serious problem with it as a teenager 45 years ago and it endures to this day.
I told some people all those years ago, to take the hell of their own little minds, and shove it where the sun doesn't shine, and to let me make my own peace with God, who I believe to be pure love.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by PaulTH*:
While I mean no personal offence, the Christianity of IngoB, in which a good living, loving person can spend eternity in hell, without hope, for a single offence against God's law, is the vilest, most odious religion on this planet. Though IngoB is a Catholic and therefore sees salvation in sacramental terms, the starkness of this bleak future, reminds me of the fundamentalist Protestant Christians among whom I grew up. I had a serious problem with it as a teenager 45 years ago and it endures to this day.
PaulTH*, also meaning no personal offense, especially since I am pleased you lean toward universalism, your difficulty, as IngoB would surely point out, is that "the Christianity of IngoB" is the traditional, authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, presented without any PR sugar-coating. As a Catholic, you're supposed to submit to this Magisterium. You're supposed to believe in a Hell packed full of sinners who will never, ever get out, because the Church says such a place exists. It's not up to you to decide on this for yourself.
I'm really grateful to IngoB for setting things out so starkly. He's reinforced me in my Protestant identity, in which I have but two earthly masters [with regard to religious truth], Scripture and conscience (see Luther). I'm sure IngoB is pleased to have served as an evangelist for the reformed faith.
You're welcome back to the Protestant C of E (see the Queen's Coronation Oath) anytime!
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
PaulTH*
Shipmate
# 320
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
PaulTH*, also meaning no personal offense, especially since I am pleased you lean toward universalism, your difficulty, as IngoB would surely point out, is that "the Christianity of IngoB" is the traditional, authentic teaching of the Catholic Church, presented without any PR sugar-coating. As a Catholic, you're supposed to submit to this Magisterium. You're supposed to believe in a Hell packed full of sinners who will never, ever get out, because the Church says such a place exists. It's not up to you to decide on this for yourself.
You are right, and my reaction to Christianity as a teenager, was that it's an odious religion. IngoB in all things, supports the time honoured traditions of the Church. But there have always been dissenters. Hans Urs von Balthasar, my favourite 20th century theologian was made a cardinal by Blessed Pope John Paul II just before his death. He advocated the hope, and we can do nothing more, as we aren't God, for the salvation of all. Pope JPII himself said, "Hell remains a possibility, but we aren't given to know, without special insight, whether anyone is there." The former Cardinal Archbishop of Westminster Cormac Murphy O'Connor said in a 2005 interview, "We aren't bound to believe that anyone is there (in hell)." So rebel or not, I'm in company with several prominent Catholics of good standing, because I would endorse those sentiments.
My return to Christianity after 25 years of revulsion was via the Church of England, because though it too has an official doctrine of eternal damnation, it's hardly emphasised in the liberal church of today. The Harrowing of Hell was a major theme in the early Church and opinion then was divided as to whether He freed all the captives, or only those who would listen. In any event, many believed that the dead would still have chances. Martin Luther said that his most influential book after the Bible, was the 13th century anonymous work later known as the Theologica Germanica. It puts it like this:
"In hell everyone wants to have a self-will. Therefore all is misery there and wretchedness...Supposing a denizen of hell surrendered his self-will and were released from his desire to call something his own. he would then come out of hell into the kingdom of heaven"
This accords with Ken's comment that God's eternal love can even reach into hell, and is what I believe.
--------------------
Yours in Christ
Paul
Posts: 6387 | From: White Cliffs Country | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
So, I don't see salvation as a binary saved/damned, but as a more holistic, ongoing process. It helps me make sense of the different ways the word salvation is used in Scripture (in the past, present and future tenses).
... <snip> ...
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
That's a great way to put it. We're already participating in a process that will continue forever.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by W Hyatt:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
My view is that God's desire for humanity is not to sort people, or even make them fit for heaven. (as in your view), so even the discussion about hell/purgatory is a bit too mechanistic for my liking. God's desire for humanity, both individually, and corporately, is to mature. It's the story I see in Scripture from Genesis right through to Revelation. A process of growing up, from immaturity to becoming more and more Christlike. Therefore, I primarily see God as parent, raising his children.
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
So, I don't see salvation as a binary saved/damned, but as a more holistic, ongoing process. It helps me make sense of the different ways the word salvation is used in Scripture (in the past, present and future tenses).
... <snip> ...
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
That's a great way to put it. We're already participating in a process that will continue forever.
I really like this, too, especially the last quoted paragraph. Thanks! ![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
W Hyatt
Shipmate
# 14250
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
DubiousThomas: Like you I believe we have free-will, but in a limited sense. I reject philosophical determinism, but do not believe we can choose anything.
As much as (all) christians believe in the primacy of God's working, most think it right to emphasize that there is a genuine human co-operating, except for the prevenient grace of God who is (as all - not just Reformed believe) the initiator of salvation. Dead people do not resurrect themselves.
I also think all christians accept that human co-operation is not illusory. Some people feel we are too self-aggrandising, and the message need to hear is God does EVERYTHING, whereas others feel we like to lull ourselves into thinking we are on the escalator to heaven and need reminding that without works faith is irrelevant, as Paul and James teach. And you I suspect.
For instance a friend of mine in relation to some bad habits he knew he should break, genuinely believed that it would happen when God did it. I know this is not standard and probably you would not support this attitude. But why, if EVERYTHING is done by God?
In case anyone is interested in a different perspective on this issue, let me just quickly describe one key idea from Swedenborg that we in the New Church refer to as the "as of self" concept, which is that we ought to refrain from doing what is evil and do what is good - compelling ourselves as necessary - and that we ought to do this as though we are doing so from ourself, but we should believe that it is really from the Lord Jesus Christ acting in us and through us.
One way I have paraphrased the idea in the past is that we have to make the effort because otherwise nothing will change, but we should recognize that our ability to succeed is from God (since everything good is from Him alone) and warrants zero merit for us. The effort is necessary as a way to exercise our free will and to fully commit ourself to our choice, but any success comes only from the fact that we are giving God our permission to begin changing us. Ego and guilt can be left completely out of the whole process; it's simply a question of how much we're willing to commit ourselves to allowing God to change us.
As far as I know, this idea is unique to Swedenborg, but I'd be very interesting in hearing of any other sources for similar ideas.
--------------------
A new church and a new earth, with Spiritual Insights for Everyday Life.
Posts: 1565 | From: U.S.A. | Registered: Nov 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
As a relevant aside . .
Are there any scholarly types who know what, if anything, can be safely said about the Jewish beliefs surrounding Gehenna?
These is a reasonable case for saying that this could be relevant.
The 19th century Christian convert, Edersheim, claims that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both had a conception close to the traditional Christian one. But he may be out of date. Others stress a more flexible view with rabbis allowing for temporary punishment, and for repentance leading to escape.
Has anyone got the relevant expertise on this?
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
As a relevant aside . .
Are there any scholarly types who know what, if anything, can be safely said about the Jewish beliefs surrounding Gehenna?
....
Has anyone got the relevant expertise on this?
I guess I can claim "relevant expertise," in that my doctorate is in Jewish Studies, specializing in ancient Judaism. But I must confess to having less knowledge about the intricacies of ancient Jewish eschatology than I really should.
One thing I will note is that Jews have generally tended to be far more concerned about "orthopraxy" than "orthodoxy." So, it is really impossible to identify any definitive doctrinal statement on most "theological" ideas, especially in antiquity. So, we should expect to find diverse and contradictory ideas, even within a single tradition in Judaism.
In rabbinic Judaism (the Judaism of the Mishnah, Talmud, etc.) the dominant notion seems to be that Gehenna is a "purgatory," in which people spend a set amount of time -- and there is a viewpoint, which became almost, but not quite, "official," that no Jew spends more than 365 days in Gehenna -- which gets linked to the observances on the one-year anniversary of a person's death.
Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 is an important text in rabbinic Judaism, which says that all Jews have "a place in the world to come." This is a doctrine of unmerited election. There's nothing to do to "earn" a place, except to be born a Jew (or to convert to Judaism). However, the text goes on to say that the place can be lost through certain specified violations, the worst of which is to deny that Torah teaches resurrection of the dead: as I explain to my students, this one makes sense: deny resurrection, and you don't get to be part of it.
I get the sense that the standard view of the "eternal" fate of the wicked in rabbinic Judaism is imagined to be annihilation. So, mainstream, traditional rabbinic Judaism would be "annihilationist." Gehenna, in this scheme, purges the righteous and burns up the wicked.
All bets are off when it comes to Judaism in the time of Jesus, which was all over the place! The Pharisees believed in an afterlife, reward and punishment, etc. The Sadducees denied it all.
I think it is difficult to sort out, from a historical point-of-view, just which Gehenna belief Jesus was assuming when he talked about the "place" (if he, in fact, meant a "place").
I don't know if this is any help! But I think sometimes it is helpful to clarify that we don't know nearly as much as we would like to know!
Here is a not-bad online resource about
Olam Haba ("World to Come") beliefs in rabbinic Judaism.
And this book, Jewish Views of the Afterlife, is one that I have been meaning to read.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
The 19th century Christian convert, Edersheim, claims that the schools of Hillel and Shammai both had a conception close to the traditional Christian one. But he may be out of date. Others stress a more flexible view with rabbis allowing for temporary punishment, and for repentance leading to escape.
A "P.S." on this point. I've never heard of this fellow and his claims. They sound distinctly odd to me. The "House of Hillel" and the "House of Shammai" were legal schools of thought in early rabbinic Judaism, based on the teachings of the older contemporaries of Jesus, Hillel and Shammai. They majored in debates about things like how to recite the Shema ("Hear, O Israel") and the grounds for divorce, not in doctrinal matters. I'm hard-pressed to think of a rabbinic discussion of theological matters that refers specifically to the "houses." I suspect they "agreed" about Gehenna only insofar as any rabbis agreed about such theological issues.
To illustrate: A work called the Tosefta contains a sort of "follow-up" discussion on Mishnah Sanhedrin 10:1 in which one rabbi asserts that no non-Jew at all has a "place in the world to come," and he cites a psalm to support his claim. Another rabbi comes along and uses the very same psalm to prove that some gentiles do have a place in the world to come. The discussion then continues by setting out just what a gentile has to do to earn a place in the world to come. The issue is never really resolved. This is how such theological discussions generally go. They are treated speculatively, with multiple positions, all set out, without any position really being identified as the "right" one. Later Jewish interpreters make decisions about who was "right," but the Mishnah, Tosefta, and Talmud don't really support making such decisions.
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
anteater
Ship's pest-controller
# 11435
|
Posted
I may not have quoted Edersheim properly. He may have referred to Hillel the individual.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
[ 28. March 2014, 14:39: Message edited by: anteater ]
--------------------
Schnuffle schnuffle.
Posts: 2538 | From: UK | Registered: May 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dubious Thomas
Shipmate
# 10144
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by anteater:
I may not have quoted Edersheim properly. He may have referred to Hillel the individual.
I don't know how his scholarship is viewed. His famous work was "The life and times of Jesus the Messiah", much quoted by evangelicals.
I doubt that the scholars I know who work on the times of Jesus would see this book as anything more than a curiosity, if they know of it at all. He's not a "name" I have ever encountered in the field of "historical Jesus" scholarship, even in the works of evangelical scholars like N. T. Wright.
I'm genuinely curious: If you could access the book and provide a reference for what he says about Hillel's views, I'd be happy to pursue the question. As I wrote in my previous note, I really should know more about afterlife beliefs in ancient Judaism than I actually do know.
[ 28. March 2014, 15:10: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]
--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6
Posts: 979 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
IngoB
Sentire cum Ecclesia
# 8700
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Firstly, it has no concept of the corporate. It is an entirely individualistic exercise. We can learn together, but the exam is mine to pass or fail.
This is false, and a somewhat strange claim to make - given that I have just defended at length on this thread against the opposite accusation, namely that my way is too corporate. Once more, traditionally the corporate dominates over the individual, from the universal "standing in" for humanity of Adam and Christ, respectively, to the ability of parents to gamble with the salvation of their children, to the necessity of missionaries for bringing salvation to the heathens. Nevertheless, the individual is the "fundamental unit" of salvation, so to speak.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Secondly, it has the opposite spirit of the Jesus paradigm, that the last shall be first, that the poor in spirit inherit the kingdom. That God is the God of the broken and the weak and the failures (even those who fail the 'exam').
This is an arbitrary assertion, which has nothing to do with anything I have said here, and which remains entirely unsupported by any argument. Nothing stops the poor in spirit, broken and weak from attaining heaven in my scheme, and nowhere have I confused the "Divine exam" with the evaluations of the world. There is no doubt in my mind that my life will be judged differently by God from that of somebody living in the slums of Calcutta, as far as external circumstances and their internal impact go. That does not mean that the motions of my heart relative to my framework will be judged differently to those of the slum dweller relative to his framework. Our scopes for evil and good may be very different, but how we work what we have been given can be judged the same.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Thirdly, it gives no satisfactory answers to the "but what about?" questions (the type of questions Rob Bell asks in the "what about the flat tyre?" chapter of Love Wins). For example, to the question "what about babies that die? Will they go to Hell?", there is usually one of three answers given:
- Yes. They were born into sin, so tough.
- No. They will be saved.
- God knows how they would have lived their lives, and will judge accordingly.
I've also discussed the question of what happens to babies (baptised & unbaptised) in this very thread. And I find my answer quite satisfactory. (Baptised babies go to heaven. Unbaptised babies may go to an eternal state of natural happiness called limbo, though we can hope that they go to heaven.)
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The first answer reveals God as a total asshole and is inconsistent with Jesus teaching (stumbling children / millstones).
Nope, that's false. Rather it takes serious the corporate nature of salvation via Adam. (Remember that you were so keen on that?)
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The second answer opens itself to all the criticisms that you can give to universalism, and has the consequence that it would be a kindness to murder every single baby alive, so that they can go straight to heaven.
That would indeed send those babies to heaven, assuming they were baptised, but their murderers to hell. One may not do evil to achieve good. And the act of baptising of course once more invokes the corporate nature of salvation, which you were so keen on. Yes, your parents / the Church can procure God's mercy for you, it is not exactly the individual alone that is Divinely examined. Finally, the traditional "natural happiness" limbo is a good answer to the claim that this is "universalism for babies only". No, babies do not get the saint deal, unless by corporate Church activity. (Hence I'm sceptical about modern enthusiasm for the hope that all babies go to heaven. That really needs more of a defence against claims of injustice.)
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
The third answer results in this life becoming ultimately meaningless. If God knew anyhow, then why the charade of this life? The assertion that this life is important because it determines eternity turns out to be a smokescreen. And if God knew anyhow, then there would have been no need for the suffering in this life. So the four fingers of "god seeing us squirm" in this life point straight back again.
First, that God sees all our past, present and future actions in all possible worlds does not make these actions any less ours or any less free, and does not change their evaluation as good, neutral or evil. Second, the idea is usually more something like this: If God can foresee that a particular human being in all possible worlds would rebel against him, then it would be a mercy of God to realise the particular world in which this person dies as a baby (thereby realising the least possible penalty compatible with justice). Third, I'm not convinced that "God is just" means "every human being gets the 'numerically equal' chance for salvation". This is a difficult thing to think about, involving the nature of God and justice, but the traditional shortcut is of course to say that in Adam we are deserve to be doomed.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Fourthly, it gives no satisfactory answer to the 'how' question - how do we become fit for heaven? None of us die perfect, even if we die free of sin (because we've managed to confess them all). All that happens is that the process by which we become christlike enough for an eternity together where we don't end up all falling out, pissing each other off, sinning (and so on) gets lumped into some unknown called 'purgatory'. The goal is only passing the grade. It's not about real growth, maturity, humility, the fruits of the spirit, and so on. They don't really matter - all that stuff will get sorted for you, so long as you get in.
The disconnect between "making the grade" and "real growth" that you posit is artificial. You are there simply parroting what tradition considers important for "making the grade" as definition of your "real growth". Of course, it is true that God is merciful, and that people get into heaven who seem not particularly fit for it. But that the passing grade is low does not mean that people should stop improving once they reach it. The ideal is of course to aim for "high grades", and indeed, at some point to see that these grades are just a proxy for a higher goal that goes far beyond measures of success. People who get there in this life we call saints (the heroic variety that tends to get canonised). But God does not put the cut at that level. Lucky us.
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
For me, this entirely misses where the true battle is. The true battle isn't getting into heaven. That's easy. God can let anyone in. The true battle is being Christlike, so that we won't ruin heaven. And, for me, that's where it gets tough. It's easy to repent and ask for forgiveness. The hard part is not sinning again. The ONLY way I can get to that point is by becoming mature and Christlike. That's why, in my system, maturity/christlikeness/salvation/sanctification is the focus. Because it's the solution to the real problems that we face as humans, not the faux problem of getting in to heaven or not.
If you believe that it is easy to repent and ask for forgiveness, then I doubt that you have ever really done so. And the idea that one can mature beyond "sinning" is basically Pelagian. However, ignoring that, it seems to me that you are simply arguing my case. If indeed some people would "ruin heaven" by not being Christlike enough, then that sounds like a rather good reason for keeping them out of heaven. And far from being "faux", the problem of getting into heaven then just is the problem of becoming Christlike enough.
--------------------
They’ll have me whipp’d for speaking true; thou’lt have me whipp’d for lying; and sometimes I am whipp’d for holding my peace. - The Fool in King Lear
Posts: 12010 | From: Gone fishing | Registered: Oct 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
QLib
Bad Example
# 43
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
But those texts seem to work on the assumption that Adam and Eve originally possessed bodies that were not mortal. This simply cannot be - if they were on this earth, then they were mortal. So the only explanation for that would be God foreknowing that they were going to sin, and so giving them mortal bodies to start with.
Would jesus's earthy body have proved to be immortal if he hadn't been crucified? My guess is that the answer to that question is no - he had to go through a resurrection process.
--------------------
Tradition is the handing down of the flame, not the worship of the ashes Gustav Mahler.
Posts: 8913 | From: Page 28 | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by QLib:
quote:
Originally posted by IngoB:
quote:
Originally posted by goperryrevs:
In terms of this life, my conclusion is that there is something special about being mortal, about living and facing death, that it vital for this process of maturing. It changes us, grows us. As a baby has to go through the trauma of being born in order to grow, so do we have to live and die in order to grow into our ultimate full potential.
That's not what scripture says though, which clearly identifies death as punishment for Adam's sins, both in the OT and the NT.
But those texts seem to work on the assumption that Adam and Eve originally possessed bodies that were not mortal. This simply cannot be - if they were on this earth, then they were mortal. So the only explanation for that would be God foreknowing that they were going to sin, and so giving them mortal bodies to start with.
My theory is that mortality is a sign of a process that was interrupted. The tree of knowledge was growing, our bodies were evolving into something immortal. The removal of fruit from the tree (metaphorically) aborted something in progress- and that's why things are fucked up.
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
ExclamationMark
Shipmate
# 14715
|
Posted
If universalism is correct - you realise that all the homophobes in this life will be in heaven too?
Posts: 3845 | From: A new Jerusalem | Registered: Apr 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kelly Alves
Bunny with an axe
# 2522
|
Posted
Well, somebody's gotta keep Hitler company.
Jinx, Amos!
[ 29. March 2014, 07:36: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]
--------------------
I cannot expect people to believe “
Jesus loves me, this I know” of they don’t believe “Kelly loves me, this I know.”
Kelly Alves, somewhere around 2003.
Posts: 35076 | From: Pura Californiana | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amos
Shipmate
# 44
|
Posted
Sure. Along with Hitler, Stalin, Myra Hindley, and all the torturers, murderers, & violators of innocence. And me. Why do you ask that question?
Edited to add--to the Bunny with an Axe--SNAP!
[ 29. March 2014, 07:37: Message edited by: Amos ]
--------------------
At the end of the day we face our Maker alongside Jesus--ken
Posts: 7667 | From: Summerisle | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Good for Nothing
Apprentice
# 17722
|
Posted
On the day that I was born I thought - "This will be the death of me."
Posts: 20 | From: Lancashire | Registered: Jun 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
