20 Aug 15
2 edits
Hi vistesd,
I have just come across this thread and eagerly read all nine pages of it.
First of all, I really want to thank you, and congratulate you, for addressing this topic, it makes a welcome change from Noah and evolution!
Secondly, it is a pleasure to read your posts. Your clear thinking and erudite language is pure joy. Your patient responses to all posters is exemplary.
Because I fundamentally agree with everything you say, in particular your clear summaries, (as you did on the previous page and on page nine) it has helped me to organize my own thinking.
Not coming from Anglican but from Baptist and Pentacostal roots, I was encouraged to learn that Anglicans actually use the three pillars for understanding the scriptures. Fundamentalistic sola scriptura can be so destructive.
If there is one comment that I would like to add it is this: Somebody said once that God is not only bigger than we think, but bigger than we can think. For one thing, it must be obvious that God must be bigger than Christianity, because everything discussed in this thread so far relates to how Christians relate to, and interpret, their own sacred texts. But that is only a fraction of the humanity that God created. Maybe this refers to the "other sheep have I that are not of this fold" that Jesus spoke about?
Another thing: if God is love (agape), which we could write as God = Love, then it would be mathematically correct to say that wherever love is demonstrated or practiced, there is a bit of God in that interaction.
I really look forward to your study on Christian Universalism.
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdWhat you are doing is trying to assign a word/term/phrase/expression to God and to fit all that the bible says about God, into that one word. Then if it does not fit according to mans [yours in this case] logical thinking then discard or twist the meaning to fit or ignore it altogether.
I think this thread is already pretty done in terms of the original topic, but that’s okay. Just a couple of final notes on my end:
(1) A loving person can take revenge, but not against someone they love (without distorting any meaning of love that I am aware of).
(2) Love itself cannot be vengeful, as vengefulness is not itself love; so eve ...[text shortened]... ay around.
I think I understand your position (please correct me if I don't)—I just disagree.
The Bible describes God as many things, not just love [agape]. There is a God that hates, kills, destroys, torments, deceives, setup for a fall, capable of jealousy, and a whole lot more things which will ride against mans definition of agape love. God has a dual nature or rather a multifaceted nature. Here Paul says:
Rom 11:22 Behold therefore the goodness and severity of God: on them which fell, severity; but toward thee, goodness, if thou continue in his goodness: otherwise thou also shalt be cut off.
Goodness or love to those who pleased him and Severity to those who did not.
Many Christians cherry pick the Bible the same way. Christ saves and if you dont profess your belief in Christ you cannot be saved. They are adamant about that because they completely ignore the rest of the statements in the Bible that support the idea that many are brought into Gods Kingdom in many different ways. Caljust above quoted one of my favourite lines from Christ that he has other sheep not of this fold. John also said that if everything Christ did was recorded then the world itself would not be big enough to hold all the books written about him. So I am in favour of your idea that salvation is a far more all inclusive concept than what Christians typically preach.. I would hesitate to conclude that God is all about apage love though.
Of course like you keep saying we all have different views and we can at least understand another persons view. No need to convert anyone. 🙂
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdSt. Isaac the Syrian, where do I start? He speaks great wisdom. It sounds a lot like the book of Ecclesiastes.
I neither know nor assume that not everyone is saved—in the final act. (Nor do I know or assume to contrary—which would be to accept 3.)
There is a choice here: Either God’s agape is understood as subject to God’s righteousness, or God’s righteousness is understood as subject to God’s agape. Since I read John (in 1st John) as stating cl ...[text shortened]... n (613-700C.E.):
https://katachriston.wordpress.com/2011/12/14/st-isaac-the-syrian-homily-60/
But who is he speaking of when God shows great Mercy and Grace?
Surely he can't mean those who do not receive, or want Grace.
I understand your line of thinking, I think, then again maybe not.
Is God's grace and mercy to all men? Yes, I agree.
But is it not to those who reach out and take it?
I heard a story of a Preacher at a boys camp, who held up a dollar bill in his hand and told the boys, "The first one who takes it, gets the dollar bill."
Many of the boys jumped onto the stage and tried to grab the dollar from his hand but couldn't reach it as the Preacher held it high with his arm raised.
Then, the boy who is telling this story (now grown) said after watching all these boys jumping and trying to force his arm down, a light went off in his head.
He ran on stage, climbed up the Preacher like he would a tree, and reached and grabbed the dollar.
The Preacher proclaimed, "that boy was willing to take it".
My point being, that those who seek God, must make an effort.
I never understood this verse until recently...
Matt 11:12-15
And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it by force. 13 For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John. 14 And if you are willing to receive it, he is Elijah who is to come. 15 He who has ears to hear, let him hear!
NKJV
Those who diligently seek find, those who knock, enter.
Prov 2:1-9
My son, if you receive my words,
And treasure my commands within you,
2 So that you incline your ear to wisdom,
And apply your heart to understanding;
3 Yes, if you cry out for discernment,
And lift up your voice for understanding,
4 If you seek her as silver,
And search for her as for hidden treasures;
5 Then you will understand the fear of the Lord,
And find the knowledge of God.
6 For the Lord gives wisdom;
From His mouth come knowledge and understanding;
7 He stores up sound wisdom for the upright;
He is a shield to those who walk uprightly;
8 He guards the paths of justice,
And preserves the way of His saints.
9 Then you will understand righteousness and justice,
Equity and every good path.
NKJV
This is what it takes to come into union with the Creator. People have to "want" to.
You say, you are not a sola scripturist, I suppose I am, so we would be at an impasse.
I agree that we differ in many area's, but having said that, I highly respect what you say, and take it seriously and ponder it. It is indeed a challenge.
Where I differ from some Christians here (not all) is in the area of a new creation.
Most Christians do not understand who we have become when we became "born again".
They still have a "sin conscience" and look at sin in all of their thinking. I.E., how to avoid it.
This is something that should now come naturally. The Scriptures declare that we are a "new creature" with power and much else, which I will refrain from right here because of space...
I am sorry if your OP got sidetracked, but I will close here.
20 Aug 15
Originally posted by checkbaiterYou’re right that there has been scant mention of Christ in this thread, though I did quote John 12:32. Christology has to be central to Christian soteriology.
[quote]
There is another issue: Justice versus mercy and grace. If unsaved sinners are punished, but saved sinners are pardoned (forgiven)—then only those who are punished receive justice. If faith is accounted as justice for the saved, then the definition of justice is already changed. I commend the following homily by St. Isaac the Syrian (613-700C.E. ...[text shortened]... as laid on Jesus Christ. He took our sins.
I will read your link in a bit, and get back later.
20 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by Rajk999Well, we’ve said it all for now probably. I only want to stress that the reason I put such heavy emphasis on God as agape is largely because of the grammatical construction of John’s statements. And perhaps that’s a heavy weight to bear. But a couple of other statements that have the same construction are:
What you are doing is trying to assign a word/term/phrase/expression to God and to fit all that the bible says about God, into that one word. Then if it does not fit according to mans [yours in this case] logical thinking then discard or twist the meaning to fit or ignore it altogether.
The Bible describes God as many things, not just love [agape]. There ...[text shortened]... fferent views and we can at least understand another persons view. No need to convert anyone. 🙂
John 4:24—“God is spirit . . .”, and
Hebrews 12:29—“Our God is consuming fire . . .”.
As you doubtless suspect, I take that consuming fire to be the fire of God’s agape. 😉
20 Aug 15
2 edits
Originally posted by CalJustThanks, CalJust (and for your additional insights). It will take some time, but I don’t want to rush it. There are strong counters on the other side—as we can see in this thread—and I want to make sure that I account for them, both as they have been raised and further questions they point to. I have some reading that I have not finished, but I might recommend this book for starters: The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. I don’t quite agree with everything that he says, but it is a strong book, and he examines at least most of the scriptural texts that are usually in play.
Hi vistesd,
I have just come across this thread and eagerly read all nine pages of it.
First of all, I really want to thank you, and congratulate you, for addressing this topic, it makes a welcome change from Noah and evolution!
Secondly, it is a pleasure to read your posts. Your clear thinking and erudite language is pure joy. Your patient respons ...[text shortened]... t of God in that interaction.
I really look forward to your study on Christian Universalism.
20 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by vistesdIt is always a pleasure to comment in your threads if I possibly can. As for the consuming fire business, Paul is quoting from the OT about God burning with fire several evil people. Here is the actual quote :
This thread seems to have reached a natural endpoint. I want to thank all the respondents—especially, Rajk, whodey and checkbaiter—for their insights and arguments, all of which were both challenging and on point.
Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, which the LORD thy God hath forbidden thee. For the LORD thy God is a consuming fire, even a jealous God. When thou shalt beget children, and children's children, and ye shall have remained long in the land, and shall corrupt yourselves, and make a graven image, or the likeness of any thing, and shall do evil in the sight of the LORD thy God, to provoke him to anger: I call heaven and earth to witness against you this day, that ye shall soon utterly perish from off the land whereunto ye go over Jordan to possess it; ye shall not prolong your days upon it, but shall utterly be destroyed. And the LORD shall scatter you among the nations, and ye shall be left few in number among the heathen, whither the LORD shall lead you.
(Deu 4:23-27)
Dire warnings about being utterly destroyed for idol worship etc.
If that is agape ... well well ! Anyway, I want to stay on Gods good side.. 😀
21 Aug 15
Originally posted by vistesdThanks, I will get a copy.
. I have some reading that I have not finished, but I might recommend this book for starters: The Inescapable Love of God by Thomas Talbott. I don’t quite agree with everything that he says, but it is a strong book, and he examines at least most of the scriptural texts that are usually in play.
Two books that have influenced my thinking are Love wins by Rob Bell and Adventures chasing the Divine by Huston Smith (I don't think the title is quite correct, but HS should find it.)
21 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999If sin brings pain and destruction then such sin should be destroyed.
It is always a pleasure to comment in your threads if I possibly can. As for the consuming fire business, Paul is quoting from the OT about God burning with fire several evil people. Here is the actual quote :
[i]Take heed unto yourselves, lest ye forget the covenant of the LORD your God, which he made with you, and make you a graven image, or the likenes ...[text shortened]... l worship etc.
If that is agape ... well well ! Anyway, I want to stay on Gods good side.. 😀
Would not a loving God do as much? I see no contradiction here.
The problem I think that people have is, why is sin not dealt with immediately? Why let there be continued suffering? And most important of all, can such suffering be eternal? It certainly feels eternal living here in this present day reality.
21 Aug 15
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyThese are separate issues .. Sinners - God will destroy the sinners, who in his estimation cannot be forgiven or who do not care for forgiveness.
If sin brings pain and destruction then such sin should be destroyed.
Would not a loving God do as much? I see no contradiction here.
The problem I think that people have is, why is sin not dealt with immediately? Why let there be continued suffering? And most important of all, can such suffering be eternal? It certainly feels eternal living here in this present day reality.
Sin - God will destroy sin during the reign of Christ.
I am not a believer in eternal suffering except for 3 entities described in Revelation.
Maybe I am missing your point.. 🙂