God Fails At Salvation?

Originally posted by vistesd
(1) Yes, I am not a sola scripturist (that as never doctrine before Luther). So I draw as well as I am able on early church tradition, mostly as it has been preserved and developed in the Eastern Orthodox churches.

(2) You are correct: that assumption was not made by the ancient church—nor was the counter assumption.

Origen’s view of unive ...[text shortened]... I recently have. Wearily, I accept whatever impasse I come to vis-à-vis the thinking of others.

Here's a brief outline of Christian Universalism, esp. in the RCC, with appropriate references to those who argued in its favor and relevant Scripture. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universal_salvation_roman_catholic.html

EDIT: Here's a cite that argues for the Universalist position. Here's a bit of argument from passages of the Fundie's favorite, Paul:

2. Some Universalist Passages
Contrary to what many would suppose, universalism, understood as above, receives strong scriptural support in the New Testament. Indeed, I judge the support strong enough that if I had to choose between universalism and anti-universalism as the "position of Scripture," I'd pick universalism as the fairly clear winner. But more on that later. For now, here's three passages which support universalism.
I Corinthians 15:22. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive.

Comments. Note the "all." I guess there can be some question about what it means to be made alive in Christ. A cynic might suggest that some might be made alive in order to stand judgment and be tortured forever. But that's very strained, especially after one's read the surrounding context of this passage and has also discovered what's usually meant by such phrases. It's very clear, I think, that those who are "made alive" in Christ are, as it's often put, "saved." The question is, To whom will this happen? This passage's answer: All! A point of grammar, which holds for the Greek as well as our English translations: The grammatical function of "in Christ" here is not to modify or limit the "all." The passage doesn't say, "...so also shall all who are in Christ be made alive." If it said that, I wouldn't be so cheered by the passage. Rather, "in Christ" is an adverbial phrase that modifies the verb "shall be made" or perhaps the whole clause, "shall all be made alive." Thus, this passage says that all shall be made alive. How? In Christ. This last point -- that it's through Christ that all will be saved -- will be important in section 6, below.

Colossians 1:20.19For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, 20and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

Comments. Note again the "all." Show me someone burning in hell, and I'll show you someone who's not yet been reconciled to God. So, show me someone who's under divine punishment forever, or who is simply annihilated, and I'll show you someone who's never reconciled to God through Christ, and thus someone who gives the lie to this passage.

Romans 5:18: 18Then as one man's trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one man's act of righteousness leads to acquittal and life for all men. 19For as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, so by one man's obedience many will be made righteous.

Comments. It's verse 18 that I'm mainly appealing to. For whom will Christ's act of righteousness lead to acquittal and life? Answer: "all men." (So at least we guys will be OK!) Show me someone who never enjoys acquittal and life, and I'll show someone for whom Christ's act of righteousness didn't lead to acquittal and life, and thus someone who gives the lie to this verse.

http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#1.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Here's a brief outline of Christian Universalism, esp. in the RCC, with appropriate references to those who argued in its favor and relevant Scripture. http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/universal_salvation_roman_catholic.html

Thank you. I've saved it. Origen, it seems, is also being "revived."

EDIT:

Just saw your edit with the pantheon.yale.edu article by Keith DeRose. Excellent. Here are a few more snippets from it:

______________________________

But some would urge me to interpret these passages in the light of other scripture. (Many of these people seem never to even recognize the possibility of interpreting the other scripture in light of these universalist passages.)

______________________________

The more pressing point here is that this practice of doctoring a translation to protect the theological positions that the translators happen to hold on controversial issues is deplorable. [Referring to the NIV translation of 1st Peter 4:6]

_______________________________

In fact, I think no other doctrine can even compete with "no further chances" in terms of the following three factors. No doctrine even comes close to a) being so strongly believed by so many evangelicals despite b) being so utterly disastrous in its consequences and c) having so little by way of Scriptural support.
________________________________

To be honest, the real reason I never thought of the Philippians passage [2:11] as having universalist implications in conjunction with the Romans passage is that I thought that such a confession would be "too late" and so wouldn't count. Why did I think that? Romans 10:9 includes no fine print to the effect that the confession must take place prior to death to be effective, and, as we've seen, there's next to no good Scriptural reason to deny further chances. Well, there are many reasons one might think this confession is too late, but, unfortunately, in my case, the line of thought was roughly as follows: "Of course they'll confess then. It'll be so obvious that Jesus is Lord at that point. There's no merit to confessing at that point."

Yikes! I had always been taught, and had always thought I believed, that salvation came through God's grace alone, and not at all through the merit of the one being saved. One just had to accept this grace, by confessing, etc. But the above line of thought shows that the tendency to understand rewards in term of merit was so strong in me that I had taken the confession and acceptance part of the above story and turned them into matters of merit -- to the point that I wouldn't let them count if they didn't strike me as sufficiently meritorious. This is surely a dangerous line of thought.
___________________________

The Greek adjective (and its cognates) that our English Bibles translate as "eternal" or "everlasting" (and their cognates), literally means "age-enduring" or "pertaining to an age", and can be used in such a way that it does not imply endless duration. This opens up a way around our collision: If the "eternal" in the "eternal" punishment passages is understood as not implying an endless duration, there's no conflict between these passages and the universalist passages.

What makes this a very comfortable, and not a strained or desperate, way around the collision is that, not only can the Greek word mean something that doesn't imply endless duration, but it often does get used with such a meaning -- including in the Bible itself, and even in the Pauline corpus. Consider Romans 16:25-26, which, as our translations have it, speaks of "the mystery that was kept secret for long ages but is now disclosed." Here, the Greek that gets translated as "for long ages" includes the very Greek work that is translated as "eternal" or "everlasting" elsewhere, including the "eternal" punishment passages. But in this Romans passage, Paul seems not to mean "eternal" by this word, for he immediately goes on to say the secret "is now disclosed", so of course it wasn't kept secret eternally. That's why our translations don't translate it as "eternally" here.

Originally posted by whodey
Another perspective in this debate is to say that if God's creation had not fallen, then God would have failed in offering us free will. In a sinless universe, how could God claim that his creation had free will to begin with? Where would be the evidence for such free will?

Who would care? Your "Love Me or I'll Eternally Punish You" Wacko God? It's not normally considered a free choice when someone puts a gun to your head and says do something. You seem to be presenting a God who acts like Julia Roberts' husband in "Sleeping with the Enemy".

Originally posted by vistesd
when does God cease to seek the benefit of the beloved? At death? If the soul is immortal, why?

That's an extremely interesting and important question, which raises others - e.g. does the soul continue to learn and develop (morally, for example) after death.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Who would care? Your "Love Me or I'll Eternally Punish You" Wacko God? It's not normally considered a free choice when someone puts a gun to your head and says do something. You seem to be presenting a God who acts like Julia Roberts' husband in "Sleeping with the Enemy".

But it seems you have a choice.

Originally posted by whodey
But it seems you have a choice.

So does the person with the gun to his head. Are you saying in such conditions, the person is exercising "free will"? More importantly for your theology, are you saying that the person holding the gun is trying to maximize the possibility of the other person exercising his "free will"?

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, my real opinion is that this dilemma is the result of erroneous and inconsistent claims about God. And that is what it is aimed at.

I agree that love cannot be compelled or coerced. But, if God is love—that is, that is God’s very essence—then when does God cease to seek the benefit of the beloved? At death? If the soul is immortal, why? Especia ...[text shortened]... even though it is not mine), the dilemma is insurmountable. But it is for some concepts of God.

Can God act unjustly too, if you have God boxed so that He cannot
do anything outside of an "unloving way" must justice suffer for that?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Can God act unjustly too, if you have God boxed so that He cannot
do anything outside of an "unloving way" must justice suffer for that?
Kelly

It’s a possibility, I suppose—but I’m not the one doing the “boxing.” John did that in his epistle when he declared that God is agape (is love, not loving or love-able or some other adjective). He says twice: ho theos agape estin. Literally: The/this God love is (the “the” may be for emphasis, or to identify the subject in a copulative phrase: both theos and agape are in the nominative case).

There seem to be three theories of salvation (at least that I have found thus far):

(1) The eternal pardon/condemnation model. Though popular, it is both scripturally suspect (as the DeRose article cited above argues closely) and appears not to have been the prominent understanding of the early church. I have difficulty seeing this model as either loving or just.

(2) The pardon/correction model, in which “hell” represents a non-eternal stage of “just punishment,” of sentencing that fits the crime and/or disciplinary requirements. Clement of Alexandria (2nd century) seems to have held this view.

(3) The model of salvation as healing, based as I have said, at least in part on the fact that the root meaning of soterias (salvation) is to make well, to make whole, to cure, to heal. Gregory of Nyssa (4th century) and Isaac of Syria (7th century) are two patristic saints who held this view. For Isaac it is the “fire of agape” itself that is the curative agent, rather like radiation therapy...

This last model is prominent in the Eastern churches. In it, God is the healer who does not refuse to heal, and acts until all are healed. Sin reflects spiritual illness rather than wickedness, per se. Judging is not so much a “judicial” concept as it is to decide, select, determine (all meanings of the Greek krino) the best treatment, as a medical doctor does.

Also, as Olivier Clement noted, this model reflects that the “wheat and tares,” and the “sheep and goats” are metaphors for characteristics of the individual human being—and that the former parable, at least, cannot reasonably be read otherwise.

There’s a lot more to it of course: how it all meshes with Christology, for example; the doctrine of sanctification, etc.

Both models (2) and (3) affirm that God does, in fact save; and neither one assumes that death is the bar beyond which God cannot act. In model (1), God either (a) chooses not to save, or (b) fails to save, at least some.

Originally posted by dottewell
That's an extremely interesting and important question, which raises others - e.g. does the soul continue to learn and develop (morally, for example) after death.

Well, all of this discussion presumes the immorality of the soul in a continuing individual “afterlife.” And about that I can answer no questions...

In systems that posit a transmigration of souls, it seems more common that actual development takes place during incarnations, not between them—but I don’t know a lot about that either...

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s a possibility, I suppose—but I’m not the one doing the “boxing.” John did that in his epistle when he declared that God is agape (is love, not loving or love-able or some other adjective). He says twice: ho theos agape estin. Literally: The/this God love is (the “the” may be for emphasis, or to identify the subjec ...[text shortened]... not act. In model (1), God either (a) chooses not to save, or (b) fails to save, at least some.

so what would be the ramifications of "possibility 1" being the case with the idea that god has no intention of "saving" EVERYbody? what if god only really wants to save a select few?

Originally posted by vistesd
Well, all of this discussion presumes the immorality of the soul in a continuing individual “afterlife.” And about that I can answer no questions...

In systems that posit a transmigration of souls, it seems more common that actual development takes place during incarnations, not between them—but I don’t know a lot about that either...

It's interesting (to me) because it throws the concept of the soul (or rather, the obscurity of the concept in Christian theology) into relief. Very roughly, it seems to me that ideas of development, change, etc. - whether intellectual, emotional or physical, whether actual or potential - are central to our idea of what it means to be a human being.

Now if we imagine the soul to be something that persists unchanging through this world and the next, it becomes very difficult to relate it to our own "human-ness" - it starts to feel like something we carry, but which isn't in any sense us.

But if the soul can develop, why should that development end at death; why should that be the point at which it is ripe for judgement? Perhaps the Christian wants to say something like: because the concept of "time" ceases to apply when we are dead. Then we run up against the real issue: what sense can it make to talk of anything persisting outside of time?

Originally posted by vistesd
It’s a possibility, I suppose—but I’m not the one doing the “boxing.” John did that in his epistle when he declared that God is agape (is love, not loving or love-able or some other adjective). He says twice: ho theos agape estin. Literally: The/this God love is (the “the” may be for emphasis, or to identify the subjec ...[text shortened]... not act. In model (1), God either (a) chooses not to save, or (b) fails to save, at least some.

Well the devil and his angels were not given a chance at being saved,
they have made their bed and will made to lay in it. If we know that
God has done this to them, why do you think it is going to be different
else where with us? God unlike man will not act out of His nature, but
the thing I have come to believe about God, it is never with a mixed
message that He acts. With mercy it is complete, with judgment it is
also complete, I don't see being Love as making the judgment some
how less than honest or truthful, it will be just to the very end! Can or
would Love force itself on those that deny it, and reject it, would it be
just too?
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Well the devil and his angels were not given a chance at being saved,
they have made their bed and will made to lay in it. If we know that
God has done this to them, why do you think it is going to be different
else where with us? God unlike man will not act out of His nature, but
the thing I have come to believe about God, it is never with a mixed
mes or
would Love force itself on those that deny it, and reject it, would it be
just too?
Kelly

Well the devil and his angels were not given a chance at being saved...

If you’re referring to Matthew 25:41, I simply refer you back to the quote by Olivier Clement on page 2 of this thread (he is certainly not the only theologian I have come across who interprets such parables this way), with the additional comment that I would not turn angels and satan into personal, anthropomorphic beings either. I would say the same for the symbolism in Revelation, especially here Rev. 20:10. (I am not a Biblical literalist; and insistence on literalism seems a relatively modern phenomenon in church history.)

You are also insisting without saying it that the juridical model of salvation—more specifically the pardon/condemnation model—is the only one.

God unlike man will not act out of His nature, but the thing I have come to believe about God, it is never with a mixed message that He acts.

In the face of 1st John, you seem to be arguing that, even if God is agape, that God does not act according to his own nature. If that’s the case, then not only is love off the table, but so is justice—and none of the Biblical statements about the nature of God (whether essential nature, such as agape, or attributes and characteristics), or salvation, necessarily hold. In that case, you are faced with the distinct possibility of a random and capricious God. And it becomes clear, then, that the Biblical messages are indeed mixed.

You are also dismissing or relativizing all of the “all” passages quoted in the DeRose essay cited by No.1 (who also quoted some of the Pauline references above). I am now convinced that (some version of) ultimate universal salvation is not only a reasonable possibility allowed by traditional exegesis of the church, but is also the most scripturally sound.

I offer again: http://pantheon.yale.edu/%7Ekd47/univ.htm#1.

Also, the wiki article on “universal salvation” can lead you elsewhere. I have found several other pieces, but I am researching it mainly within Eastern Orthodoxy.

Can or would Love force itself on those that deny it, and reject it, would it be just too?

Here, once again, I think you are assuming that death draws a line beyond which God (for some reason) is either unwilling or unable to act. Is it unjust to heal someone who hates you, even pushing you away, if you are a physician? Did the Good Samaritan violate the Judean’s “free will” by caring for him? Are you saying that humanity’s “free will” is the only thing that is not distorted by the “fall”—that we in fact do not see “through a glass darkly” in this existence? Do you ever act with compulsion vis-à-vis your children (e.g., "You will not play in the street!" ) until they reach the age of reason? Do you consider this non-loving behavior?

More to the point is not compulsion/coercion versus giving up on someone you love—but caring for them whether they love you or not, and, in God’s case, ceaselessly “drawing all humanity toward” himself. Is any attempt by God to influence human behavior “coercion”? Is not the threat of eternal condemnation coercive?

In the end, KJ, it seems as if, while saying that God, though he is love, need not act in a loving way, you are also saying that God must nevertheless act in a just way? Biblical texts on love do not hold, but those on justice do? When someone (in the juridical model that I do not hold) throws themselves on the mercy of the court, can granting pardon (mercy) in the face crimes ever be just? Is simply granting pardon (again in that model that I do not hold) always loving? Perhaps, God is neither loving nor just...

Originally posted by Big Mac
so what would be the ramifications of "possibility 1" being the case with the idea that god has no intention of "saving" EVERYbody? what if god only really wants to save a select few?

Then I think you are at the Calvinist model of double-predestination.

Originally posted by dottewell
It's interesting (to me) because it throws the concept of the soul (or rather, the obscurity of the concept in Christian theology) into relief. Very roughly, it seems to me that ideas of development, change, etc. - whether intellectual, emotional or physical, whether actual or potential - are central to our idea of what it means to be a human being.

No ...[text shortened]... real issue: what sense can it make to talk of anything persisting outside of time?

Ah, I get you now.

Yes, if the nature of the psuche is growth, change, development, etc., then—in a model of individual “psychic” immortality—it seems to make no sense that such would cease. And, in terms of the salvific questions explored in this thread, would imply the continued possibility of salvation (especially under a soteriological model of “psychic” healing) after death. Now I see why you raised it in regard to my question about when does the (omni-?) lover cease to behave lovingly toward the beloved...

Is the psuche ever complete, so as to arrive at a kind of psychic stasis? Can the same question be leveled vis-à-vis God, and notions of God’s immutability (again, within a western theological construct) in the face of God being “personal” (hypostasis is the Greek term that got “translated” as person in the west).

In monistic models, where the “wave” ultimately (after one or more lives) returns to final one-ness with the “ocean” from which it arises, I don’t see the same problem.