The Evangelical Universalist Forum

What books are our members reading? Post updates freely! {g}

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51Wnw3QfPCL.SY344_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51%2BuXcPcN%2BL.BO2,204,203,200.jpg

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51rTOIhQBIL.BO2,204,203,200.jpg

Juggling reading all three depending on my mood at the moment, mostly the middle one. Just got to the part there where universalism is talked about for the first time – AN’s evaluation (certainly not universalistic) is that Rome’s doctrine of purgatory was too much like universalism and too closely connected to the arguments of ancient universalism patristics (including Nyssa) for the Byzantine Orthodox to accept when it started to become a topical problem in the middle of the middle ages.

Before then, he mentions nothing about universalism being an issue required by some popes for Eastern bishops to renounce for returning to Roman communion, though I know at least one or two of the Sources of Catholic Dogma feature this requirement.

The overall impression is that neither purgatory nor universalism was a reunion or schism issue until the 1200s, and that once Justinian jumped on universalism the Byzantines felt they had to follow suit in order to avoid being tarred with the other issues (mostly false in hindsight) attributed to Origen – but they followed suit rigorously (notable exceptions like Maximus Confessor excepted), much moreso than the early Eastern Fathers whom AN acknowledges tended to regard hell, purgatory and heaven as progressive versions of the same state of existence rather than discreetly different states of existence.

Let me know what you think about that Balthasar book, once you’ve given it some time. Thanks.

Derek Flood’s new book: Disarming Scripture. It’s excellent; highly recommended.

Just started reading TT2.0 yesterday. :slight_smile:

I am still trying to get through Elhanan Winchester’s stuff… Problem is, I don’t like the format. I wish it was in a pure PDF format instead of the scanned PDF format. Makes it a bit difficult to read. However, I did pickup a new tablet, which will make it easier to read.

^^ Some of his books aren’t even in scanned pdf, sort of – the print versions are clearly printing from scans (thus pdf), but the pdfs don’t seem to be available. Specifically, his books 3 and 4 of lectures on prophecies remaining to be fulfilled.

Going back through and flipping through this one again:

Here’s One More I’m Flipping Through:

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/51AJTDA94EL.SY344_BO1,204,203,200.jpg

HI [tag]Melchizedek[/tag] have you finished this book, and if so, does it mention the Passover?

I’m reading ‘The Inescapable Love of God’ Second Edition. So far it’s bloomin marvellous. :wink:

Now reading “The Resurrection of the Son of God” by NT Wright. Exhaustive, but not exhausting. :smiley:

I’ve got to buy that and go through it at some point. Anyone else read it who can vouch for it being a good book?

I am having a second go at Surprised by hope also by Tom Wright. He does have a fondness for big technical words which slows me up a bit as I keep running to the dictionary. Why use one word which few understand when three common words will do? Perhaps it’s all about keeping the word count low to get the script into print or acceptance by ones peers. His challenging of many accepted norms WRT to popular christian thought is eye opening particularly popular hymns and songs. ie: This world is not my home I’m just a passing through. He challenges this on the basis of it being Gnostic with respect to the world. Is Granny really looking down from heaven as I go about my daily grind? The book is mostly about resurrection.

Haha! I totally get you about the long technical words. I read most things on my Kindle, and you can just touch a word and hold down to get a definition. Most of those words come up with “no definition.” :unamused: I understand if you’re writing for a scholarly audience, but for me – sometimes I have to look them up over and over again because the definitions are hard to understand (and hence to remember), too. :blush:

Hey! I’m going to be starting “Surprised by Hope” when it arrives in about one week. I’m reeeeaaaalllly looking forward to it.

I’ve also just began reading “Galatians - A New Translation with Introduction and Commentary” by J.Louis Martyn for a group Bible study I’m doing with some peeps. Hopefully, I will gain a better understanding of what the Apostle Paul meant when he spoke about the “truth of the Gospel.”

Hi Chris - and Happy New Year.
I can understand his point about Granny (particularly if he believes in soul sleep) though the alternative is also an orthodox and scriptural viewpoint. But I am very surprised regarding his idea that ‘we are strangers in a strange land’ (which is straight from scripture) is in any way gnostic.
I wonder how he forms this conclusion in the light of 1 Peter 2 v 11-12:

Presumably he must regard Peter as a gnostic or the book 2 Peter as non Canonical??

I have finished it; I think it does mention something about that, at least in passing. I’m having trouble recalling specifically though.

I’m reading the second edition of “The Inescapable Love Of God” and I have to say that I’m quite disappointed. As a philosopher, Thomas Talbot should know that a paradox and contradiction aren’t the same thing. He equates paradox with a contradiction. A contradiction is a direct opposition between statements, conclusions, laws, or principles so that it remains impossible for the statements, conclusions, laws or principles being compared to be true at the same time, in the same location, and in the same context. A paradox on the other hand is something that seems contradictory but has at least the possibility of resolution when examined in all possibly existing time, space, and contextual frames of reference. As a Christian universalist I would recommend “Hope Beyond Hell”. It’s much better. Gerry Beauchemin in “Hope Beyond Hell” talks about the mysterious paradox of God integrating both mercy and justice. This fits well with the fire of God being a purifying fire and not only one that punishes. Indeed, God is driven by love for God is love and He will not turn back until He accomplishes His purposes - The salvation of all.

God works through BOTH mercy AND justice to accomplish His will and it is all driven by His love.

Yes, I haven’t gotten to that yet, Cole, but I’ve always thought of a paradox as a thing hard to understand but which is in fact not contradictory. I looked it up though, and apparently it can mean something that appears to be contradictory but MAY not be contradictory (implying that it also MAY turn out to be contradictory; we don’t yet know.) Just a second. I’m going to search Tom’s book and see if I can find it . . .

Okay, are you talking about this?

Because here it seems Talbott is talking about something that IS false and is calling it a paradox. Still, as I read the other incidences of “paradox” that my search turned up, he does treat this word as a thing that appears to be false but which may and often does turn out to be true. I can see your problem with the above, though. It seems to me that in this instance, he must be using the term “paradox” out of deference to the people whose ideas he’s talking about (because as I say, he uses it more in line with your definition, Cole, later in the text). In other words, perhaps he’s giving them the benefit of the doubt as a courtesy until he can further examine their arguments later in the book.

He’d know better than me. Perhaps we should tag him; maybe he’ll weigh in on this: [tag]tomtalbott[/tag]

Love, Cindy

Thanks for calling this to my attention, Cindy. I should perhaps point out that I did not merely use the term “paradox”; I used the term “logical paradox,” which is not the same thing, given my own usage, as an apparent contradiction. A logical paradox is, in the strictest sense, a set of propositions that entails a contradiction of the form p and not-p. But if someone prefers to use the same term in some other way, perhaps as synonymous with “an apparent contradiction,” that is fine with me. We are all free to define our own terms as we see fit, and a dispute over that is what most philosophers would call a verbal dispute rather than a real one. So if the only criticism I receive is that someone objects to how I define a given term for a given context, then I will be most fortunate indeed!

Thanks again,

-Tom