13 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdI believe I have 'The Great Divorce" but don't think I have ever gotten
This reminds me of Luther’s doctrine of the “two kingdoms” (as I remember it anyway).
These things might be just, given the human condition we live in. But we also use both the death penalty (which I am generally opposed to, largely because one cannot rectify any errors) and life-imprisonment for the protection of society. God, I wouldn’t think, has tha ...[text shortened]... cases) that it is not eternal.
BTW, have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce?
around to reading it. I'll pick it up soon.
Kelly
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdWhat is real I think is more important than a forced action before
[b]If God revealed Himself clearly as we see the morning Sun, the reality of choices would then be in question, we would than be forced to choose.
And is that not what is supposed to happen when we no longer see through a glass darkly?
And let’s put it this way, drawing from 1st Corinthians 13—does not God then have all eternity to wait for us to c ...[text shortened]... in? And to continue to try to draw us? (Again, have you read Lewis’ The Great Divorce?)[/b]
God, and I believe (my opinion only) that before God in this life what
we are will truthfully come out. That didn't appear to be true of the
devil and his angels in that they saw God for who God is and still
rebelled and with that will be judged. Hell was not made for man at
first, but the devil, the people who end up there do not have to go
there, but will nonetheless. So why this universe is setup the way it
is, I believe it more than likely a truth filter for our choices, we cannot
on our own do what is required, but God took care of that in Christ.
Kelly
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdGlad to be back (sort of 😕).
First—glad to see you back! 🙂
Second, this is not a blame shifting exercise: it is an exploration and critique of certain views of soterias, under which it is fair to ask whether God ultimately (1) chooses not to save (at least some); (2) fails to save; or (3) saves. [I am arguing for (3), BTW, so no blame is involved.]
Third, even God’s f ...[text shortened]... ead (in fact, it may have once been the majority view among orthodox Christians, east and west).
I'll respond to your post in detail later; as also look at the sources you and no1 provided. As a quick note, however, the existence and eternity of Hell were taught by not a few Apostolic and Church Fathers -- Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem and others:
http://www.catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp
Also, as has probably already been noted elsewhere in this thread (I haven't read all of it yet), apokatastasis was condemned at the 6th century Council of Constantinople (which is very much part of the Eastern Orthodox dogmatic set-up). Even St. Gregory himself describes the suffering of the lost as 'eternal' (aionia) in at least one of his writings ("Contra Usurarios", XLVI, col. 436):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by lucifershammerJust a quick note, and I’ll look at your references when I get the chance...
Glad to be back (sort of 😕).
I'll respond to your post in detail later; as also look at the sources you and no1 provided. As a quick note, however, the existence and eternity of Hell were taught by not a few Apostolic and Church Fathers -- Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem a ...[text shortened]... itings ("Contra Usurarios", XLVI, col. 436):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
According to what I have read (including Jaroslav Pelikan’s The Christian Tradition: A History of the Development of Doctrine), the (or at least an) Origenist view of apokatastasis was condemned, but not St. Gregory of Nyssa’s view. On the other hand it has never been made church dogma. In fact, it seems that we are not talking about dogma at all here.
Fathers I have seen listed in support include Clement of Alexandria, Basil the Great, Gregory Nanzianzen, Ambrose of Milan, Athanasius and John Chrysostom. Also, Maximus Confessor (http://www.theandros.com/restoration.html).
Re the second article you cited, I’m wondering who is translating aionias as “eternal”? I am a bit suspicious of the charge that Gregory’s works were tampered with; but even if the one work was, Gregory also spoke of the apokatastasis in his Life of Moses.
There is a book on my wish list (currently prohibitively expensive): Universal Salvation: Eschatology in the Thought of Gregory of Nyssa and Karl Rahner (Morwenna Ludlow, Oxford). A brief excerpt from the book can be found here: http://www.sirreadalot.org/christianity/christianity/theologyR.htm
13 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJay...and I believe (my opinion only) that before God in this life what we are will truthfully come out.
What is real I think is more important than a forced action before
God, and I believe (my opinion only) that before God in this life what
we are will truthfully come out. That didn't appear to be true of the
devil and his angels in that they saw God for who God is and still
rebelled and with that will be judged. Hell was not made for man at
first, but ...[text shortened]... choices, we cannot
on our own do what is required, but God took care of that in Christ.
Kelly
And (my opinion only) I find it doubtful that we in this life can necessarily know God truly enough to confess God truly; and even those who make such confession are acting as much on hope as on knowledge—in fact, I wouldn’t doubt that there are those whose confession of faith, while honest, is a matter of luck and circumstance (not dismissing grace, just wondering a bit out loud).
I didn’t like Lewis’s Mere Christianity a lot, but I did like his The Great Divorce (I have read his The Problem of Pain, a long time ago, and need yet to read his The Four Loves). He examines, in a kind of story-form, the possibilities we are discussing here—without offering a “final” opinion. I think you’ll like it.
13 Apr 07
4 edits
Originally posted by lucifershammerRe: http://www.catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp
Glad to be back (sort of 😕).
I'll respond to your post in detail later; as also look at the sources you and no1 provided. As a quick note, however, the existence and eternity of Hell were taught by not a few Apostolic and Church Fathers -- Ignatius of Antioch, Justin Martyr, Polycarp, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Cyprian of Carthage, Cyril of Jerusalem a itings ("Contra Usurarios", XLVI, col. 436):
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
Yikes, that’s a terror invoking essay! 😲 Certainly not how the East (necessarily, or even predominantly I think) reads those texts. (For one thing, caution has to be used in translating aionias as “eternal” ).
There is almost a salivating over those souls whose torment some want to make sure is both extreme and eternal. (EDIT: Okay, that's probably over-reaction on my part; the objective certainly does seem to be terror, though.)
Also, the use of Mark 9:47-48 is at best incredibly careless, wrenched out of a context in which Jesus was fairly dripping irony (unless, of course, he really thought that a hand could by itself cause one to offend, and that chopping it off could solve the problem). Matthew 7:13-14 is only applicable if one first presumes that “destruction” means eternal torment.
Revelation 14:11, besides being—well, Revelation: a highly metaphorical and symbolic text—translates aionias aionon as “forever and ever,” rather than “ages and ages”; that is, this translation renders it so (as do many; Young’s Literal Translation, however, renders it as “to ages of ages” ).* The same translation question is in Matthew 25:46. (Translating the Greek fathers, at least, runs into the same issue.)
I sure hope my fathers can beat up your fathers! 😉
* My Greek-English version of The Divine Liturgy of Saint John Chrysostom, for example, translates aionias tou aionon as “ages to ages.” See also the translation of aionon in Ephesians 3:9, Colossians 1:26. aion can meaning anything from a definite time to an epoch or era to a lifetime to a generation to, yes, forever.
14 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdMy wife and I are reading a series of books together, once done I'll
[b]...and I believe (my opinion only) that before God in this life what we are will truthfully come out.
And (my opinion only) I find it doubtful that we in this life can necessarily know God truly enough to confess God truly; and even those who make such confession are acting as much on hope as on knowledge—in fact, I wouldn’t doubt that there are t ...[text shortened]... ossibilities we are discussing here—without offering a “final” opinion. I think you’ll like it.[/b]
pick it up, and Lord willing we will talk about it if that is okay with you.
Kelly
14 Apr 07
Originally posted by KellyJayOf course; give me a "heads up" so I can re-read it (I think I still have it).
My wife and I are reading a series of books together, once done I'll
pick it up, and Lord willing we will talk about it if that is okay with you.
Kelly
My wife and I have read books together like that, too. It's a neat part of the relationship.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdI've got that joy, joy, joy down in my heart...That essay reminds me strongly of the section on hell in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
Re: http://www.catholic.com/library/Hell_There_Is.asp
Yikes, that’s a terror invoking essay! 😲 Certainly not how the East (necessarily, or even predominantly I think) reads those texts. (For one thing, caution has to be used in translating aionias as “eternal” ).
There is almost a salivating over those souls whose torment some want to make ...[text shortened]... nything from a definite time to an epoch or era to a lifetime to a generation to, yes, forever.
I've been doing some reading on Augustine's influence on the development of the grimmer aspects of mediaeval Christianity. Now I can see how an entrenched notion of hell served its purpose while the Church was getting on its feet in the Dark Ages.
There's a dialectical quality to Church history that I haven't been too aware of before. It's amazing to consider that Albert Magnus and Thomas Aquinas paved the way for the scientific revolution, seeding the destruction of the mediaeval worldview even as they so brilliantly endeavoured to justify it.
16 Apr 07
2 edits
Originally posted by Bosse de NageStill one of the most disturbing things I've ever read in a novel. And I'm an atheist.
That essay reminds me strongly of the section on hell in Joyce's Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man.
You have often seen the sand on the seashore...
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by no1marauderIt would be impossible for any significant piece of literature to be totally useless; significant expressions of any kind always have at least a few applications... even if not for the purpose originally intended.
I find this interesting. Whodey and others seem to take the position that Scripture is basically useless unless you have already established your "personal relationship" with God (he said that prior to God "lifting the scales from his eyes" the Bible made no sense to him). Do you agree with that?
I found this in the Upanishads:
Th ...[text shortened]... orrowed some of their ideas from a religion that predates Christianity by about 3000 years.
However, there exists a distinction between knowledge which is academic and that which provides a spiritual benefit. Making the mental ascension to particular points of doctrine is one thing; submitting one's self to the doctrine and the authority of the Giver of doctrine is the only path for spiritual maturity.
In as much as a complex point of doctrine relies on other more simple points of doctrine, the more developed doctrine will be lost on anyone who has not made the required growth. Unlike the idea that the worn-out phrase "secret decoder ring," infers, spiritual growth is only possible for a believer, yet not for the reason implied by the phrase. Instead, epignosis doctrine can only be metabolized by someone with a spirit... those without a spirit are stuck 'soulishly' stabbing in the dark, perhaps even more equipped with gnosis doctrine than ignorant believers.
A distinction between the quoted information about Atman and true spiritual growth is that spiritual growth never relies upon the earnestness of the seeker. The only thing a believer brings is humility; never is the believer mandated to conquer himself. Such victory is a life-long prospect and incidental to the true goal: worship of the Lord Jesus Christ. For the believer, this life is about Him, not about self, whether in battle against the self of any other self-absorption.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by vistesdHere's one part of it:
NRS Hosea 6:6 For I [b]desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.
NRS Malachi 2:15 Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth.
NRS Colossians 1:9 F ...[text shortened]... __________________________
If that’s as “in your face” as you get, I can take it. 😉[/b]
A. There is one all-inclusive will or purpose of God concerning all that ever was or will be from the beginning of human history until its termination on the last day of the Millennium. God has known every thought, decision, and action that has ever occurred or will occur; all these things come into being through the divine decree. In the computer analogy, many things are printed out by the computer of the divine decree, but they were all in the computer.
This is not referring to God’s will in the sense of divine guidance for the believer’s life. “Will of God” means His sovereign decision as to what would come into existence, or the divine decree.
B. This will and purpose of God originated within Himself long before any creature of any kind existed. His will is always consistent with His perfect essence.
C. The will and purpose of God--- the divine decree--- was objectively designed for His own glory, pleasure, and satisfaction.
16 Apr 07
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt’s coming back to me...
Here's one part of it:
A. There is one all-inclusive will or purpose of God concerning all that ever was or will be from the beginning of human history until its termination on the last day of the Millennium. God has known every thought, decision, and action that has ever occurred or will occur; all these things come into being through the divine decree ...[text shortened]... -- the divine decree--- was objectively designed for His own glory, pleasure, and satisfaction.
B & C combined imply to me rejection of agape as God’s “perfect essence” (contra the 1st letter of John, where I think it is clear that is what he is saying; nevertheless this gets once again to the question of which verses one takes to con-textualize other verses).
C of itself seems to imply that, of the so-called “3 Os,” omni-benevolence (or any essential benevolence at all, for that matter) is the one that you would drop in the face of the “problem of evil.” Further, C of itself seems to remove any notion of God’s agape, insofar as it implies that the lover loves the beloved only for (and by reason of) the pleasure (and glory and satisfaction) that the lover derives, without regard to, or real concern for, the beloved.
Now, I have argued, following the Greeks, that agape is not strictly distinct from, but includes, eros. You seem to be going to the other extreme: that God’s love is strictly a limited and self-interested eros, nothing more.
In return, the only “love” that one would be capable of vis-à-vis such a God is also a self-serving eros—if even that is possible, which I doubt. Terror, yes; love, no. We are simply “toys” for God’s pleasure, and if we are obedient toys, he may bestow upon us an everlasting reward.
In fact, far from removing emotion from the equation, I think it simply replaces the possibility of agape with a subservient terror (or a terror that is only removed by absolute subservience).
Despite the systematic nature of your theology, I think it is both un-Biblical (particularly in the face of the NT), and at odds with longstanding Christian tradition. You end up with a strictly ego-centric God (which I think you have acknowledged before) who requires from us a similar ego-centric, selfish response in the hopes of personal salvation.
Am I way off the mark with this?