Christian Theological/Philosophical Book Club discussion
This topic is about
On First Principles
The Table - Group Book Reads
>
Origen - On First Princples - Discussion Schedule
Like Origen, I tend towards universalism for a couple reasons. 1). I still cannot reconcile the concept of everlasting torment with an omnibenevolent God, regardless of whether or not humans "choose" to go there. What loving parent would let their child jump into a box of knives just because the child chooses it?
2). The concept of forcing humans to choose their eternal destiny while on earth is problematic to me. It seems wildly unfair to ask people to make a decision on their eternal destiny when they don't have all the information to make a truly informed choice, nor when so many don't even know the choice they are making. You can say that we all have enough information to choose, and I agree that for most practical purposes and manners on earth that we do. But I just cannot imagine someone knowing all there is to know about God and choosing not to be with Him, choosing eternal suffering instead. Asking deeply limited, semi-ignorant beings to make a choice about something as eternal and other-worldly as whether to be in Heaven or Hell FOREVER seems quite unjust and incompatible with the Christian God.
3). If someone has all Truth and still chooses Hell, then that person sounds deeply irrational, if not non-rational. Sending him/her to Hell then would be more like a punishment for having a broken or sick mind than honoring a rational decision. If God can heal anything, then He would heal that broken mind and that person would choose Heaven.
4). All that being said, if universalism is true, then I'm with Genni in that I still haven't figured out what earth would be for. What would be the point of earth at all if we're all going to end up in Heaven anyway? Especially since earth kind of sucks sometimes. Also, the concept of free will gets a little more complicated (though not negated by any means).
5). Though I'm not Catholic, I find the idea of Purgatory compelling. Also, if I weren't leaning towards universalism, I would believe in the idea of annihilation. (I love the way C.S. Lewis's presents Heaven and "Hell" in The Great Divorce).
6). Side note - I approach these issues more from a philosophical theology perspective than a biblical theology perspective, so I appreciate the biblical references some of you have included. It's given me things to think about.
Erick, I think we agree for the most part. Though I guess I am a hopeful universalist - I hope it is true though I am not convinced.I do not get the "what would earth be for" question. Maybe I am just reacting against my upbringing where earth was basically just a place to pass the the time prior to the afterlife. To me, earth is the place to become virtuous.
I bake cookies with my four year old. She could ask, "if Daddy is going to ensure the cookies are perfect, what's the point of me helping?" The benefit is, I am helping her learn to make cookies too. And we are spending time together. Perhaps not a good analogy, but that is how I see God. Its cliched, but maybe life is about the journey and not the destination.
Earth is where we begin our journey of sanctification, a journey that continues forever. If someone concluded that since universalism is true, they can pursue sin now that just reveals a darkness in their heart. I mean, if the only thing stopping us from vile living is a fear of hell then our faith is entirely self-serving anyway. But if I can begin knowing God now and avoid the coming painful purgation, if I can begin living the fullness of joy now, why wouldn't I? Because I'd rather sin for a while?
I like your comments,the purpose of earth?
as an artist I can only bring an image to life with light and shade.
I see earth a bit like that, an environment where light and shade can play out to demonstrate God's goodness.
As for universalism I don't consider salvation to equate with attaining to the resurrection. As Paul was assured of his salvation yet strived to attain to the resurrection.
Jana L. wrote: "1). I still cannot reconcile the concept of everlasting torment with an omnibenevolent God, regardless of whether or not humans "choose" to go there. What loving parent would let their child jump into a box of knives just because the child chooses it?"I think it is important to keep in mind something Paul says in 1 Corinthians:
"For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure..."
If one supposes that we are to remain children without ever having the weight of adult responsibilities, then indeed, it is problematic. God isn't raising up infants. He is attempting to raise up mature spiritual beings. There is responsibilities, costs and consequences that come with that calling. Not all will take that responsibility seriously. Some will deny the calling. It's as fruitless to ask why as it is to ask why people do any of the evils they do.
Jana L. wrote: "It seems wildly unfair to ask people to make a decision on their eternal destiny when they don't have all the information to make a truly informed choice, nor when so many don't even know the choice they are making."
It's speculation to say that they are uninformed about doing evil. Sort of like the insanity plea. People should know what right and wrong actions are. Universalism requires God to force them to choose Him eventually... who says they will be any more ready to accept Him then? Assuming things about human nature as a whole based on how you feel and what you would do, is a mistake because it assumes all people think like you do. I can provide many examples of people doing things that I would never do and cannot conceive of someone willingly doing, but they do it. So we can't base everyone's state of mind on our own state. Some people do evil with full knowledge that it is such.
Jana L. wrote: "3). If someone has all Truth and still chooses Hell, then that person sounds deeply irrational, if not non-rational. Sending him/her to Hell then would be more like a punishment for having a broken or sick mind than honoring a rational decision. If God can heal anything, then He would heal that broken mind and that person would choose Heaven. "
Like I said above, I think this assumes too much about what human beings should think and do based on your own personal motives and rationale.
Jana L. wrote: "4). All that being said, if universalism is true, then I'm with Genni in that I still haven't figured out what earth would be for."
It would be rather pointless. Put all people in purgatory and refine them all immediately. I think this life is spiritually paradigmatic and ultimately formative in what takes place in the hereafter. I think universalism: 1) does away with it's importance; 2) assumes human beings can do an unlimited amount of evil without ever becoming really evil, and 3) assumes God will force them to do something they didn't want to do in life.
Jana L. wrote: "5). Though I'm not Catholic, I find the idea of Purgatory compelling."
I support the doctrine. The only thing I change from the Catholic perspective is that I believe it is true refining, not a paying for sins. Jesus did that at the cross.
Jana L. wrote: "6). Side note - I approach these issues more from a philosophical theology perspective than a biblical theology perspective, so I appreciate the biblical references some of you have included. It's given me things to think about. "
I approach it from all of the above. And what I believe God has revealed to me personally.
David wrote: "Earth is where we begin our journey of sanctification, a journey that continues forever. If someone concluded that since universalism is true, they can pursue sin now that just reveals a darkness in their heart. I mean, if the only thing stopping us from vile living is a fear of hell then our faith is entirely self-serving anyway. But if I can begin knowing God now and avoid the coming painful purgation, if I can begin living the fullness of joy now, why wouldn't I? Because I'd rather sin for a while? "I maintain what I said above to Jana: we cannot use ourselves as the measure for what the motivations of others are. You cannot put yourself in the place of someone who has allied himself, or herself, wholeheartedly to evil. You would have to share in that nature to know it, I believe. When I say they haven't experienced what they are trying to theologize on, that is not an arrogant statement. If I tell someone something about computers who is ignorant on that subject, that isn't arrogance, given that I am a technician, I am qualified to speak on this subject. When it comes to spiritual evil, I have some qualifications on that subject as well. I don't need to go into detail. If you reject that claim that is fine, but it still stands that I think I am more qualified to speak on it than the average Christian who has not experienced the demonic and what it looks like and what it looks like when someone has wholeheartedly given themselves over to the same.
David, I like the analogy, but it doesn't hold up for me in the face of evil. Maybe this is my own Hangup right now. Just journeying on Earth? Great. Journeying on earth and experiencing deep and painful suffering or watching my children suffer deeply because of evil? I cannot get around it.
You cannot put yourself in the place of someone who has allied himself, or herself, whole heartedly to evil. You would have to share in that nature to know it, I belithat's a good point, it's amazing what atrocities people are capable of. Still I had heard of a violent jihadi who had beheaded many people. He converted to Christianity after a near death experience where he was assaulted by the gins (demons).
Lets get into the scriptural problems of universalism. Even aside from the ambiguity of the term aion aionios in regards to hell (gehenna), there is strict dualistic language that the New Testament uses when dealing with the saved and the lost. Some initial examples:John 8:44-45:
"You are from your father the devil, and you choose to do your father’s desires. He was a murderer from the beginning and does not stand in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks according to his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies. But because I tell the truth, you do not believe me."
One can try to fool with this verse and impart meanings that aren't there, but it seems pretty obvious to me that Jesus is speaking on the very nature of some people. He doesn't ever tell them eventually they will be of His Father; quite far from it, He says they are children of the devil and do what he commands. They are children of the devil and choose to do his will.
John 10:25-28
"Jesus answered, “I have told you, and you do not believe. The works that I do in my Father’s name testify to me; but you do not believe, because you do not belong to my sheep. My sheep hear my voice. I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they will never perish. No one will snatch them out of my hand."
Once again, Jesus tells them they are not of His sheep. He doesn't say eventually they will believe. He tells them that if they were of His sheep they would hear His voice then and at that moment. To say that eventually they are going to hear His voice and become His sheep is simply a misuse of the verse. It imparts to it exactly the opposite meaning of what he is saying here.
These verses are a problem for universalism for sure. I think it is interesting that Origen doesn't discuss these, or indeed anything other than universalism (that I remember). It doesn't seem like it was unanimously approved in the church or he wouldn't feel the need to lay it out?? Or was it so common that people didn't raise objections to universalism so he didn't feel the need to cover it further?
Following up the above. Let's look at Matthew chapter 13 verses 37-42He answered, “The one who sowed the good seed is the Son of Man. The field is the world, and the good seed stands for the people of the kingdom. The weeds are the people of the evil one, and the enemy who sows them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age, and the harvesters are angels.
“As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. They will throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."
Once again, some people are recognized as belonging to the devil. No where in the New Testament does it say that this group will be redeemed and become something else. They becomes manifest as children of the devil. This brings in the harvest. If one looks at other verses one can see that hell will be eternal for some:
Mark 9:47-50
And if thine eye cause thee to fall, pluck it out. It is better for thee to enter into the Kingdom of God with one eye than, having two eyes, to be cast into hell fire,
where ‘their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.’
The ambiguous term aion aionios is not used here. It simply says that the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die. It repeats this over a number of verses. This suggests that gehenna will be eternal in some cases.
Genni wrote: "These verses are a problem for universalism for sure. I think it is interesting that Origen doesn't discuss these, or indeed anything other than universalism (that I remember). It doesn't seem like it was unanimously approved in the church or he wouldn't feel the need to lay it out?? Or was it so common that people didn't raise objections to universalism so he didn't feel the need to cover it further? "I think he was partially inspired by the Apocalypse of Peter and by Platonism. Many Platonists believed in hell but they believed it was temporary. This view influenced the reading of the New Testament with some of the early church fathers. I just don't think it holds water. I think Origen was sincere in his beliefs, although misguided. What he said about the above verses I am not aware. I've read quite a bit of him but I don't recall him discoursing on them, but he may very well have. There were Christians who were universalists and some that weren't. Augustine was the first one to really go against that doctrine vehemently.
Joshua wrote: "that's a good point, it's amazing what atrocities people are capable of. Still I had heard of a violent jihadi who had beheaded many people. He converted to Christianity after a near death experience where he was assaulted by the gins (demons)."I can relate. I became a Christian after a revelation. And I, too, have had my run ins with the demonic. Those entities are absolutely irredeemable. If anyone says otherwise they have not experienced them. My biggest issue with universalism is that it opens the door for satanic justification. I have investigated the history of the occult and satanism to a degree. Most brands of satanism started out as universalism. I am not joking. It started with the doctrine that Satan would be redeemed. From that sprang the idea that he must be doing God's will now, since he must ultimately be redeemed. This eventually became modern satanism. Elements of this is seen in the Yezidis, but even in more modern forms of satanism like the Process church.
If dualistic thinking were correct I would tend to agree with the statements here regarding universalism' problems.However dualism is not correct, the devil is not the opposite of God.
Universalism is a problematic term since it is based on the premises that salvation is about not going to hell. Jesus didn't say he came to save anyone from hell. He simply offered us life, an opportunity to be reconciled to God.
Outside of this opportunity is judgement according to works which is described in Luke as the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.
Regarding the quote in Mark, people are always leaving out the last bit where Jesus says"for all will be salted by fire"
in the greek that word for all actually means all.
He echoes Isaiahs theme that ALL will bow the knee, a theme repeated by Paul.
Matthew is stunningly dualistic, granted, but it seems to be the exception to most of the new testament and all of the old testament. It would be very difficult indeed to make a case for dualism from the scriptures Jesus taught from (the old testament that is)
I tend to view the "kingdom of darkness" as an inferior kingdom, not the opposite kingdom.
In regards to the question of what is the point of existence on earth if universalism is true - this would be a question for any Christian, really. I think it is a bigger question for those who believe in eternal conscious torment. If eventually God is going to divide (or if we divide ourselves, however you put it) into two groups, one to eternal heaven and one to hell, why not do it now? In the face of eternal conscious suffering, NOTHING else matters. Getting married, creating art, helping the poor, ending injustice is all irrelevant aside from getting people to choose to go to heaven. Why not just skip over life and get to the choice?
So I still don't get why this is an issue with universalism. We just read Pilgrim's Progress in another group (we being Genni and I) and look at all Christian learned in his pilgrimage.
Genni, if you are hung up on pain and suffering, what are we going to do about it? I think Jesus' call is for us to join God in bringing healing to the nations. So the journey of life on a personal, individual level is that we grow in being like Christ. And a HUGE part of this growth is doing things that Jesus did - freeing people from spiritual bondage, feeding and helping the poor and sick. If anything, the hope that all people will eventually come into relationship with God relativizes pain and suffering more than any other view.
What I mean is I can be free to love people without strings attached. I can be confident that this person will one day turn to God and I do not have to pull the used-car-salesman routine to convince them now (because they might die tonight). I can love them in the name of Jesus, work to ease their suffering, knowing that in the long run this little grace from me and a myriad of others will, whether tomorrow or in a million years, help turn them to God.
I better be careful or I'll convince myself and become a universalist.
These verses are a problem for universalism for sure. I think it is interesting that Origen doesn't discuss these, or indeed anything other than universalism (that I remember). It doesn't seem like it was unanimously approved in the church or he wouldn't feel the need to lay it out?? Or was it so common that people didn't raise objections to universalism so he didn't feel the need to cover it further? I think the way Origen interpreted scripture is different then how Erick, and all of us, do today. His allegorical method would probably point him to a deeper, spiritual truth. Or, he was not as concerned with being consistent as he does talk about hell later (I think I mentioned that in the thread for part 2).
As for the church, the Church did not include a specific view in the creeds of the day. The creeds focused on the Trinity, but did not answer questions about things like atonement theories, universalism, inclusivism, etc. Origen was not sainted, but it was not for this reason, after all Gregory of Nyssa is more clear in universalism and is a saint.
I do also wonder how much of our discussion is different then his. When we discuss universalism, we bring to mind thoughts of those who never heard, people in Muslim dominated countries, and things like that. We view the world differently then Origen which certainly influences what we mean.
Erick wrote: I think it is important to keep in mind something Paul says in 1 Corinthians: "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure..."
If one supposes that we are to remain children without ever having the weight of adult responsibilities, then indeed, it is problematic. God isn't raising up infants. He is attempting to raise up mature spiritual beings. There is responsibilities, costs and consequences that come with that calling. Not all will take that responsibility seriously. Some will deny the calling. It's as fruitless to ask why as it is to ask why people do any of the evils they do.
** I find it very hard to consider child abuse, rape, genocide, torture and the like "light momentary affliction." Perhaps in Heaven they will be seen as such, but can we really call them that on earth? What a horrendous disservice that would do to victims. I think this verse is talking about other afflictions, whereas what I am confused about are the true horrors of this world, the ones that do not produce "mature spiritual beings" but rather break minds. I am being realistic about what the physical human being can withstand and there are some things we were not made to withstand and push through.
It's speculation to say that they are uninformed about doing evil. Sort of like the insanity plea. People should know what right and wrong actions are. Universalism requires God to force them to choose Him eventually... who says they will be any more ready to accept Him then? Assuming things about human nature as a whole based on how you feel and what you would do, is a mistake because it assumes all people think like you do. I can provide many examples of people doing things that I would never do and cannot conceive of someone willingly doing, but they do it. So we can't base everyone's state of mind on our own state. Some people do evil with full knowledge that it is such.
** Do you mean to imply that the insanity plea is never appropriate, or merely that it can be misused? I would agree that it is often used falsely, but surely you admit that there are times when someone is not of sound mind and commit wrongful acts from a broken, defective mind. I don't think anyone knows the "right" thing to do in every situation. I certainly don't. I also don't think Universalism requires God to force some to choose Him. I think that with all the information and with fully functioning rational capacities, all people would choose Him freely. I think all sin has a large element of ignorance winding through it (though certainly not excused by it). Truth sets us free. I believe that knowing the Truth and having our barriers to understanding Truth removed will lead to everyone freely choosing God.
Erick wrote: Like I said above, I think this assumes too much about what human beings should think and do based on your own personal motives and rationale.
** I do agree that I (as well as most people) tend to assume people are more like us than not. If there are people who would never choose God, and because we are assuming God is omniscient and knows all outcomes, why create these people at all? Why create them so they can end up in endless torment? (If you are also arguing for the existence of this kind of Hell - maybe you have a different view.) That seems absolutely cruel. Plus, then the non-evil people on earth would be spared from suffering at the hands of someone who has become purely evil (though, as I say below, I am not sold that people can become purely evil).
Erick wrote: It would be rather pointless. Put all people in purgatory and refine them all immediately. I think this life is spiritually paradigmatic and ultimately formative in what takes place in the hereafter. I think universalism: 1) does away with it's importance; 2) assumes human beings can do an unlimited amount of evil without ever becoming really evil, and 3) assumes God will force them to do something they didn't want to do in life.
** At the moment (I'm have not found a compelling argument either way quite yet), I don't think that human beings can become truly evil. Anything made of God cannot be wholly evil. We are too limited to have that kind of capacity, anyway, and made of too good of stuff.
Erick wrote: I support the doctrine [of Purgatory]. The only thing I change from the Catholic perspective is that I believe it is true refining, not a paying for sins. Jesus did that at the cross.
** I, too, view Purgatory as a refining. On this we agree!
Erick wrote: I approach it from all of the above. And what I believe God has revealed to me personally.
** I take the Bible seriously, but not always literally. I find it most instructive to look at doctrines logically first and then see what the Bible says in more depth. However, I used to be all Bible, now I'm more philosophical, so it could be time to blend the two a little more. We'll see. :-)
Jana L. wrote: "Erick wrote: I think it is important to keep in mind something Paul says in 1 Corinthians: "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory beyond all measure...."
Wow, format fail. I can't seem to italicize sections without italicizing everything! Curses. My n00b is showing.
Erick wrote: "Genni wrote: "Yes, he mentions some of these verses as references. Since yo u do not believe this restoration will occur, what sense do you make of these verses? Also, what thoughts/experiences led..."Thanks for detailing your thoughts here. I think I understand what you are saying, that everything will reconciled in the sense of everything will be put in it's place, whetherheaven or hell,etc. And in that sense, creation as a whole will be restored. Did I get it right? :-)
Joshua wrote: "The other day I had to discipline my son. He lost his playstation, indefinitely.He sorely need it, his tantrums was unbelievable and it wasn't the first.
He may have more trouble with his emotio..."
I understand and love illustrations like this Josh, but I still cannot reconcile any of these points of view into a total theology that brings me peace yet. But I do desperately hope that you are right, :-)
David wrote: ".It seems, though I will let you explain, that the assumption behind your questions/objections is that being saved from eternal hell is the main point of Christianity. It is there that I think the fault lies. I think the point of following Jesus is to grow into Christlikeness, to grow in virtue, to be sanctified. Even if there were no heaven, I think the Christian life would be worth living because I think living by JEsus' teaching, is objectively the best way to live."
This is a great point for me personally, David, and I thank you for sharing it. I think I have mentioned that my grandfather was a hell, firee, and brimstone preacher, so fear has been a major driving factor in my relationship with God, not as much now as in my childhood. Anyway, It is good for me to be aware of this assumption.
David wrote: "In regards to the question of what is the point of existence on earth if universalism is true - this would be a question for any Christian, really. I think it is a bigger question for those who believe in eternal conscious torment. If eventually God is going to divide (or if we divide ourselves, however you put it) into two groups, one to eternal heaven and one to hell, why not do it now? ."
Another great point. It is a question for all Christians.
David wrote: ""Genni, if you are hung up on pain and suffering, what are we going to do about it? I think Jesus' call is for us to join God in bringing healing to the nations. So the journey of life on a personal, individual level is that we grow in being like Christ. And a HUGE part of this growth is doing things that Jesus did - freeing people from spiritual bondage, feeding and helping the poor and sick. If anything, the hope that all people will eventually come into relationship with God relativizes pain and suffering more than any other view.
N T Wright, right? :-) to answer your question without going into details or letting my right hand know what my left is doing: everything I can. I promise that I am not sitting at home every night bemoaning the reality of evil and doing nothing.
Jana L. wrote: "Jana L. wrote: "Erick wrote: I think it is important to keep in mind something Paul says in 1 Corinthians: "For this slight momentary affliction is preparing us for an eternal weight of glory bey..."
I haven't figured it out eithe, Jana. I mostly respond on my ipad and I find it all cumbersome anyway, lol. In the meantime, I make separate posts for everything and sorry to everyone for that. Let me know if you figure out and easy way to do it. :-)
Jana L. wrote: ".** I find it very hard to consider child abuse, rape, genocide, torture and the like "light momentary affliction." Perhaps in Heaven they will be seen as such, but can we really call them that on earth? What a horrendous disservice that would do to victims. I think this verse is talking about other afflictions, whereas what I am confused about are the true horrors of this world, the ones that do not produce "mature spiritual beings" but rather break minds. I am being realistic about what the physical human being can withstand and there are some things we were not made to withstand and push through. "
Yes, yes, yes. This is my hangup. Let me know if you find an answer.
Genni wrote: "Yes, yes, yes. This is my hangup. Let me know if you find an answer."Likewise, please! I think it's a problem that is beyond my weak brain to figure out. But I still struggle with it mightily.
I have spent some time thinking about Erick's comments regarding universalism and the claim it leads to Satanism.Firstly it seems to me poorly founded.
The two examples you cite are the Yazidi's and the process church
The Yazidi's are an ancient Iranian religion, it certainly wasn't an offshoot of Christianity.
As I was pondering these things last night it occurred to me that in the context of dualism I could see how a shift to Satanism may occur. I have looked into the Process church since and discovered this to be precisely the case. The theology of the Process Church is based heavily on the dualism presented in the gospel of Matthew.
http://www.gnosticliberationfront.com...
No surprise to me.
In a proper God-centred view Satan can never receive undue glory as he is simply another of God's creatures.
However even in Matthew the case for eternal torment is not put forward. A proper understanding of eternal fire is that given in Isaiah. According to Isaiah "eternal" is a reference to God himself.
What case Erick would you put forward for eternal (timewise) torment? Is it only what is written in Revelation?
I think the best example of the spiritual torment the bible is talking about that I can put forward is the martyrdom of Stephen.When his persecutors say him they saw the face of an angel and they marvelled. For Stephen it was glorious.
However for those who hated him it made them so filled with rage they killed him.
I think it interesting that it was noted on this thread that universalism was not really refuted until Augustine in the Nicene era. It was quite common in the early church. Even the apostle Paul taught it"For in Him (Christ) was all the fullness of God please to dwell, and through Him to reconcile ALL things to himself"
It's really not too complicated in Paul's theology. It's all about Jesus
I am not sitting at home every night bemoaning the reality of evil and doing nothing. Don't worry, I do not presume that of anyone. Though I know it is so easy to want to just sit and read and talk to people about what I am reading. On that note, this forum is sometimes the only outlet I have to discuss these sorts of heady ideas, I mean I spend my days with my kids! So I appreciate this discussion. And Jana, Genni, Josh and Erick, you are making this a really great discussion. Thanks.
I do not know if I got that from Wright. Actually, I have been thinking a lot about David Bentley Hart as I read Origen. His book Beauty of the Infinite is in my top five of all time. He is Eastern Orthodox and spends a lot of time discussing Gregory of Nyssa (whose Life of Moses I just read). But I am sure Wright has influenced me even here:)
Joshua wrote: "However dualism is not correct, the devil is not the opposite of God."Wrong application and sense of dualism. It's a righteous humanity and wicked humanity dualism. I never used it in the sense of theistic dualism. Misuse of terminology there.
Joshua wrote: "Regarding the quote in Mark, people are always leaving out the last bit where Jesus says
"for all will be salted by fire"
in the greek that word for all actually means all."
Once again you are misusing context. He also follows the verse you quoted with this:
"Salt is good, but if the salt has lost its saltiness, how will you make it salty again? Have salt in yourselves, and be at peace with one another.”
Matthew makes plain what is meant:
"You are the salt of the earth. But if the salt loses its saltiness, how can it be made salty again? It is no longer good for anything, except to be thrown out and trampled underfoot."
Salt that has lost it's potency is worthless. That is used as a reference for people. People who are condemned have lost all of the image of God. Just as I said above.
Oh, and the italics thing is:<> with an "i" in the middle (I can't actually write it or it will put things in italics!)
that starts it
To finish it you add a backslash before the i - /i between the < and >
David wrote: " I think it is a bigger question for those who believe in eternal conscious torment. If eventually God is going to divide (or if we divide ourselves, however you put it) into two groups, one to eternal heaven and one to hell, why not do it now?"Why not ask God that question? I didn't decide how things are. I did provide verses and other points that you did not respond to, however. Nyssa is far from being clear in universalism. I don't see anything else in your post I feel compelled to address.
Erick quoted Matthew again.With regards to dualism, I'm not convinced you can separate dualism in humanity to theistic dualism. One begets the other.
So does Matthew explain the meaning of Mark? He certainly does not. In fact he seems to contradict Mark.
In Mark EVERYONE is salted by fire.
In Matthew those who have lost saltiness are a lost cause.
How can Paul's words be so easily put aside that in Christ ALL things will be reconciled to God?
Jana L. wrote: "** I find it very hard to consider child abuse, rape, genocide, torture and the like "light momentary affliction." Perhaps in Heaven they will be seen as such, but can we really call them that on earth? What a horrendous disservice that would do to victims. "First off, you are emphasizing a portion I did not and misusing it to apply to something else. If you believe that is what Paul meant then your issue is with him, not me I think. The portion I was emphasizing was "weight". The notion of weight indicates pressure. The text in Romans further elaborates this as the futility that creation has been subjected to. It was subjected to this weight for a purpose. The New Testament never comes out and says that creation was made for some speculative universal purgative samsara. It's a doctrine that isn't supported in scripture.
Jana L. wrote: "Do you mean to imply that the insanity plea is never appropriate, or merely that it can be misused? I would agree that it is often used falsely, "
That was indeed my point. Now stop and reflect. You are positing that everyone is going to be saved. I am saying that not all people are going to be. For your argument to work you must validate the eventual salvation of everyone. You are actually just confirming the fact that not all people who do evil do it under extenuating circumstances. You are proving my point.
Jana L. wrote: "I don't think that human beings can become truly evil. "
But you have not provided anything in the form of extenuating circumstance for their evil. Above you intimated that not all people who do evil are insane. Your very words work against your claim that they are simply mentally ill.
Jana L. wrote: "I take the Bible seriously, but not always literally. "
I gave verses above that are pretty hard to refute and are pretty plain. It's a misuse to try to glean from them something other than what is intended.
Jana L. wrote: "I used to be all Bible, now I'm more philosophical, so it could be time to blend the two a little more. "
I am fairly well versed in both. But as a Christian I use the Bible as an inspired text. I don't read Plato and Novalis that way.
David wrote: "Oh, and the italics thing is:with an "i" in the middle (I can't actually write it or it will put things in italics!)
that starts it
To finish it you add a backslash before the i - /i between the "
Ah, there it is! Thanks for the tip, David. Let me try it out...
This is why I didn't major in computer science.
Let's hope that worked. :-) Now back to all your provocative comments.
ETA: WOO HOO!
Genni wrote: "I think I understand what you are saying, that everything will reconciled in the sense of everything will be put in it's place, whetherheaven or hell,etc. And in that sense, creation as a whole will be restored. Did I get it right? :-) "Yes. :-) It has the benefit of staying true to the greater bulk of verses in the Bible; while not being given over to a speculation that is never supported clearly in scripture. And as I laid out above (some of those points have yet to be addressed) universal salvation doesn't follow logically either.
Joshua wrote: "Firstly it seems to me poorly founded."To someone who has done very little research on it if he were to be completely honest.
Joshua wrote: "The Yazidi's are an ancient Iranian religion, it certainly wasn't an offshoot of Christianity."
So what? What difference does that make at all?
All the rest of your post is due to your original decontextualized misuse of my point.
Erick wrote: "Genni wrote: "I think I understand what you are saying, that everything will reconciled in the sense of everything will be put in it's place, whetherheaven or hell,etc. And in that sense, creation ..."Erick, can you expand on what you think the nature of Hell is, then? Just so I can understand all the implications of your argument.
Jana L. wrote: "Genni wrote: "Yes, yes, yes. This is my hangup. Let me know if you find an answer."Likewise, please! I think it's a problem that is beyond my weak brain to figure out. But I still struggle with i..."
I don't know if anyone will find "the" answer, but I truly appreciate the journeys of those who have struggled with these questions and come to a place of peace. Can't wait to find that place myself. :-)
Jana L. wrote: "Erick, can you expand on what you think the nature of Hell is, then? Just so I can understand all the implications of your argument. "I really laid this out above. The fire of gehenna is purgative, yes, indeed. But the material is not all the same. Purgation means the same thing as purifying; both are rooted etymologically in the Greek word Pyros, which means fire. Purification can only happen in a vessel that still retains some material value. If the vessel becomes all dross it cannot be purified. If it is an eternal vessel it cannot be destroyed either. Like an oil well set on fire, the evil that spews forth from evil men and angels will continue to burn forever. Pretty simple.
Erick wrote: "Genni wrote: "I think I understand what you are saying, that everything will reconciled in the sense of everything will be put in it's place, whetherheaven or hell,etc. And in that sense, creation ..."Thanks, Erick. Will definitely keep this point in mind.
Joshua wrote: "With regards to dualism, I'm not convinced you can separate dualism in humanity to theistic dualism. One begets the other."Ridiculous. That is indeed unfounded. Josh, if you don't start reading my posts critically and with honest intent, I will have to second guess again engaging you in discussion.
Erick wroteRidiculous. That is indeed unfounded. Josh, if you don't start reading my posts critically and with honest intent, I will have to second guess again engaging you in discussion.
It's not ridiculous and there's no need for that. Did you not begin by posting from John's gospel
"you are of your father the devil"
as a premise for your dualistic viewpoint?
One thing needs to be maintained here. The church fathers first and foremost interpreted scripture. Their views must be read in that light, and in no other. Cherry picking verses that one likes and throwing out what one doesn't, is an incredibly disingenuous and puerile use of scripture; it stems from a capricious disenchantment with scripture as it is; it tries to force meanings that are not there and ignore ones that are, because they make someone uncomfortable. The church fathers are only authoritative when they are consistent in their use of scripture. Please (everyone), if you are going to defend this doctrine of universalism, use scripture first and then appeal to Origen and the fathers. That is the only hermeneutically correct approach. I have provided some verses that call universalism into question, ignoring those verses and appealing to ambiguous ones that are misused to bear the weight of something found no where else, is a disingenuous use of scripture. Interpret both verses used for and against, don't muddy the waters by citing verses that are decontextualized in order to support something that is not clear in scripture elsewhere.
In the end, it matters not one iota whether you think anything is just or not, because, quite simply, you don't call the shots, God does. As a Christian, you simply hear and obey. It doesn't matter how you feel about eternal hell. The only thing that matters is if God revealed this as true. Nothing will come of endless unauthoritative banter about what we feel is right. Use scripture.
David wrote: "I am not sitting at home every night bemoaning the reality of evil and doing nothing. Don't worry, I do not presume that of anyone. Though I know it is so easy to want to just sit and read and t..."
I can understand that. I am a teacher! And then of course I come home with/to my own little ones. And then, for some reason, people around me don't struggle with these things or read compulsively like I do (that I'm aware of). So I appreciate this group as well.
Erick wrotePlease (everyone), if you are going to defend this doctrine of universalism, use scripture first
quite right
"God our saviour, who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" 1 Tim 2:4
"and I, when I am lifted up from the earth will draw ALL men unto me" John 12:32
"to him shall come and be ashamed all who were incensed against him" Isaiah 45:24
"that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow, both in heaven and on earth and under the earth" Phil 2:10
so do you have some scriptures justifying eternal torment?
Erick wrote: "Jana L. wrote: "Erick, can you expand on what you think the nature of Hell is, then? Just so I can understand all the implications of your argument. "I really laid this out above. The fire of geh..."
Oh, sorry - I knew I should have checked above before asking! I see what you are saying; at least, I think I do. Is the fire in this sense purely symbolic? i.e., not indicative of eternal suffering, but a more poetic way to say that everything will return to its original, intended state?
If I'm understanding this correctly, then this seems to presuppose and require that God created evil beings as evil (essentially, for the purpose of them being evil), rather than saying He created beings who were originally good but then chose to be eternally evil. I'm not sure I like this consequence of that line of thinking.
Erick wrote: "One thing needs to be maintained here. The church fathers first and foremost interpreted scripture. Their views must be read in that light, and in no other. Cherry picking verses that one likes and..."This assumes that we all believe the entire Bible is literally true. Some of us do not, and therefore a philosophical approach is best (starting with certain Christian doctrinal assumptions, of course). I think that approach has just as much of a place here as a Bible-first position. I do agree that whatever is true is true, regardless of what we all want to believe. However, since I believe the Truth is rational, I believe we can get there through analytic thought and rational argument just as well as through scripture. Sometimes better, based on how we misuse scripture. (That is not at all to denigrate scripture, but only to emphasize our limited ability to understand and interpret truth correctly at all times. This is also why our rationality is often faulty, as well.)
"God is not the God of the dead but the living, for all live to God."
Interesting he spoke of the resurrection here in the present tense.