Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Good for Nothing:
But Gildas, history aside, had it happened as quoted, would it have been an act of generous love from which those infants would have benefited for eternity? I don't believe it, but that's because I can make no sense, logical or moral, of the afterlife beliefs on which it is based.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
Indeed. I suppose the term 'Christian Zionist' i misleading.

---

quote:

---

There are Jews [Christians?] who are Zionist because they support Israel's right to exist.

---

quote:

---

Then there are those who support Israel because it will usher in the various prophecies and the final return of Christ - in other words, they support the state of Israel for ulterior motives.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, reading the Wiki article, I see that he worked with some respectable people like Rabbi Epstein.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by leo:
However, reading the Wiki article, I see that he worked with some respectable people like Rabbi Epstein.

---

Well, of course he did! Danby was a notable figure in the development of positive relations between Jews and Christians in the UK. Given your many years of involvement in Jewish-Christian relations, I'm frankly quite surprised that you didn't seem to know much about Danby and his significance.

---

Posted                         

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.

---

This is closest to my own position as well. The passionate universalism of my youth is now tempered by that recognition of God's sovereignty.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by stonespring:
But central to the "hope in an empty Hell" belief is the belief that humankind, before Christ's saving incarnation, death, and resurrection, deserved eternal (inescapable) damnation. If God is so merciful that he would forgive even people who were a. originally deserving of eternal punishment and b. did not seem to accept an offer of salvation from this eternal punishment in their lifetime, then why would He have proclaimed Original Sin worthy of eternal punishment in the first place?

---

Answer #1 (with which I'm reasonably satisfied): Because, as God, God can do whatever He pleases. (Keeping in mind, of course, that what will "please" God is what is in accord with God's Nature.)

Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).

From my perspective as a universalist (and I won't dare to speak for other universalists, who are quite capable of speaking for themselves), the fact that every human being has rightly earned an eternity separated from God's love (Romans 6:23) is essential and foundational to my confidence that all will be redeemed. Christianity posits that there is a "problem" in need of a "solution." As a Christian universalist, I agree with the classic definitions of the "problem" (leaning toward the "Western" definitions, but not ignoring the "Eastern" ones). The only real difference I see between universalism and classic, "orthodox" Christianity concerns the extent of the solution: the classic models say that God either can't or God won't save everyone; universalism says that God can and will save everyone.

As I've noted before, my understanding of universalism will probably make most sense to TULIP Calvinists -- even if TULIP Calvinists will assert that I'm utterly wrong ... and probably also one of the reprobate! [If so, I look forward to bringing glory to God in my eternal damnation!]

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Aye mousethief, it's human sovereignty that's the theoretical problem. And nay, he'll ravish.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that believing in eternal damnation is a requirement for a Christian.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Dubious Thomas wrote:

Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

I'd be interested to know if anyone thinks that believing in eternal damnation is a requirement for a Christian.

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:

---

Originally posted by PaulTH*:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
I think that there is a tradition within Orthodoxy, Anglicanism and, I think, Catholicism which says something to the effect that we are not entitled to full on universalism because, ultimately, God is sovereign but that we are entitled to hope that all will be well, and all will be well and all manner of things will be well. That is not a million years from where I find myself but I note that implicit is the idea that to be orthodox involves the acceptance of the possibility of eternal damnation even if we hope that at the consummation of all things none shall be lost.

---

This is closest to my own position as well. The passionate universalism of my youth is now tempered by that recognition of God's sovereignty.

---

My understanding of the Orthodox position is that it's not so much God's sovereignty as man's sovereignty that prevents us from dogmatically saying "all will be saved." Some may hold out, and God will respect their freewill (otherwise, what's freewill for?). "He cannot ravish; He can only woo." --Screwtape.

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Gildas:
Well, yes, once you deny the possibility of the Sacraments of the Church, the Grace of God, and the possibility of Mystical Experience things do look pretty bleak.

Speaking for myself, I think I'm a pretty rubbish Christian. But on occasion I have (I hope!) touched the hem of His robe and that convinces me that it is worth persevering.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Karl: Liberal Backslider:
I'm unconvinced. His "wooing" is more of the nature of someone coming around and telling you there's this girl who really fancies you, but you can't actually meet her until you've corresponded online for a long while and really built up a relationship. And then other people tell you that you'll not actually meet until your wedding day, which is at an unspecified point in the future, and no-one who's ever gone off to got married has ever spoken to single people again to tell them it's real, except allegedly one two thousand years ago, but records are a bit sketchy and there are lots of different opinions about him.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Dubious Thomas wrote:

Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).

---

That's very eloquent, but I can't help hearing in my mind Fulke Greville's famous maxim: Created sick, and commanded to be well. Later this has been picked up by various atheists, as showing one absurdity in Christianity.

But I suppose many Christians would argue that that should read 'permitted to be sick', not 'created sick'.

---

Thanks for the observation on my eloquence.

I do see the point you are making. But, while I do take into respectful account atheist and other non-Christian evaluations of Christianity, I nevertheless don't take such judgments about apparent absurdity as proof that Christianity's teachings are untrue. Many things appear "absurd," which are nevertheless true.

As a Christian who accepts the overwhelming evidence for the dominant scientific understanding of the origins and development of life (including the theory of evolution), I have to concede that we were "created sick." Brokenness is built into the fabric of existence. The biblical stories are "myths" that offer a theological account of the brokenness and point to a solution. The mistake people make is trying to take the myths literally -- but myths aren't supposed to be taken literally ... precisely because they're myths; taking a myth literally is like taking "my love is a red, red rose" literally.

So, yes, "created sick" and told, "be well"! This is basically what Luther noted (following Paul). God commands us, "be well," even though we can't be. Then, when we recognize that we cannot heal ourselves, we turn to God and God's unmerited grace and we get healed.

Absurd? Yes! True? Yes!

"prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" ( "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd")(Tertullian, De Carne Christi)

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Dubious Thomas

Well, no, I don't think that the way you have portrayed it is absurd; it escapes the pointed nature of Fulke Greville's maxim.

Well, I suppose it depends on how you take 'created sick'. Christians who support evolution can presumably argue that because we are animals, descended from a long line of animals, we have partly an animal nature, for example, aggression, envy, greed, and so on. These are all perfectly healthy in moderation, (possibly).

But of course, being human, we go overboard with them, and we cannot mend ourselves, yes.

But this seems quite different from 'created sick, and commended to be well', doesn't it?

---

I'll need to give it a bit more thought (I think!)....

But, for the moment, I think this is where the biblical myths come in. They don't portray us as being "created sick," but as being created "very good," etc. We shouldn't take the myths literally, but we should take them seriously. Their message supports the immortal opening lines of the evangelistic tract, "Four Spiritual Laws": "God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life."

Now, maybe I'm completely missing the thrust of the aphorism you cited. It wouldn't be the first time I've missed the thrust of something! (Yeah, that sounds a lot more "rude" than I intended! )

Time for some further thinking....

[ 04. April 2014, 15:36: Message edited by: Dubious Thomas ]

--------------------
שפך חמתך אל־הגוים אשר לא־ידעוך
Psalm 79:6

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:

quote:

---

Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:

quote:

---

Dubious Thomas wrote:

Answer #2 (which is simply a weak and tentative attempt to explain why God was pleased to do things this particular way): We can start with Paul: "For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all" (Romans 11:32). It's all about God's mercy. If we weren't all of us, without exception, damned, then God couldn't be merciful to all of us. In which case, we'd never be able to know that God's mercy and love are God's supreme and definitive attributes. So, for me, this is all about God showing us the truth about ourselves (we're lost without God) and about Himself (God won't let us be lost, because He loves us perfectly and eternally).

---

That's very eloquent, but I can't help hearing in my mind Fulke Greville's famous maxim: Created sick, and commanded to be well. Later this has been picked up by various atheists, as showing one absurdity in Christianity.

But I suppose many Christians would argue that that should read 'permitted to be sick', not 'created sick'.

---

Thanks for the observation on my eloquence.

I do see the point you are making. But, while I do take into respectful account atheist and other non-Christian evaluations of Christianity, I nevertheless don't take such judgments about apparent absurdity as proof that Christianity's teachings are untrue. Many things appear "absurd," which are nevertheless true.

As a Christian who accepts the overwhelming evidence for the dominant scientific understanding of the origins and development of life (including the theory of evolution), I have to concede that we were "created sick." Brokenness is built into the fabric of existence. The biblical stories are "myths" that offer a theological account of the brokenness and point to a solution. The mistake people make is trying to take the myths literally -- but myths aren't supposed to be taken literally ... precisely because they're myths; taking a myth literally is like taking "my love is a red, red rose" literally.

So, yes, "created sick" and told, "be well"! This is basically what Luther noted (following Paul). God commands us, "be well," even though we can't be. Then, when we recognize that we cannot heal ourselves, we turn to God and God's unmerited grace and we get healed.

Absurd? Yes! True? Yes!

"prorsus credibile est, quia ineptum est" ( "it is by all means to be believed, because it is absurd")(Tertullian, De Carne Christi)

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
"Created sick commanded to be well"

If someone was able to create
a group of people that were unable to be happy without the help of that
person. For example: they need a drug that only He can provide.
No matter how hard they try they cannot prosper alone they need Him.
Nobody in their right mind would call that person good.
Why does God get a free pass?
And can anyone explain what is the point of sending people to the Earth
in Universalism? To the previously given examples of infants dying I can add mental illness for example.
Why send us here as "imperfect" as we are in the first place?
Of course damnationism would only make matters worse.

---

Posted                       

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:


1) You are demonstrating that there is no God.
2) You are demonstrating that, while God exists, God is not good, but actually evil.
3) You are demonstrating that, while God exists, we have misunderstood or misrepresented God's Nature.

Would you say that any of these options represents the position you are advocating?

---

Posted                      

quote:

---

Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
Ikkyu, it's terribly simple. It's OUR story, not His. He's trying to shine light in to it. Through the aperture of bloody, smoky, inner reptile, super-predator, social monkey, haunted brains. Why do we persist in saying that He told the story in ANY regard? How did He do that? Let alone ANY of the events attributed to Him in it?

How can one be 'orthodox' to these monkey ravings and at the same time be orthopractic to love? Including where they meet: in Jesus.

---

--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by Ikkyu:
I have been following this thread with interest.
I used to be Catholic,and finding that IngoB's
position about hell has been the orthodox
Christian position for many centuries was one of
the reasons I no longer consider myself a Christian.

---

quote:

---

I was and still am more attracted to the Universalist position.
But I again agree with IngoB that its hard to
claim that as the "traditional" Christian view.

---

quote:

---

Gregory of Nyssa, in his book Sermo Catecheticus Magnus, described: "The annihilation of evil, the restitution of all things, and the final restoration of evil men and evil spirits to the blessedness of union with God, so that He may be 'all in all,' embracing all things endowed with sense and reason."

---

quote:

---

I am always interested in seeing how less "traditionalist" Christians support their views.

---

I do a "crap" job of it most of the time! Of which this thread is a perfect example!

quote:

---

The story of salvation in the Bible does not make sense to me.
It seems to be a story about someone who throws you overboard into a raging storm and then hides.

---

quote:

---

Off topic: a comment you made earlier in the tread prompted me to visit the local Pure Land Buddhist temple which I enjoyed immensely thank you. (I usually do Zen).

---

Posted                          

quote:

---

Originally posted by Dubious Thomas:
I'm not claiming that universalism is the "traditional" Christian view. Clearly, it isn't.

---

Posted                   

quote:

---

Originally posted by goperryrevs:
Well, Jerome said "I know that most persons understand by the story of Nineveh and its King, the ultimate forgiveness of the devil and all rational creatures.", Augustine said "There are very many who, though not denying the Holy Scriptures, do not believe in endless torments." Basil the Great said "The mass of men say that there is to be an end of punishment to those who are punished.". And Origen was, at his time, the most influential theologian (and was incidentally never anathematised for his universalism).

So, at least for the first few hundred years of Christianity, there is a fair case to say that, whether or not it was the dominant view, it was a large part of the Christian tradition. And it has always continued to be a part of the stream of Orthodoxy.

But yes, of course it is not the traditional view now, though perhaps it is gradually becoming more prevalent.

---