The idea that we all deserve hell

General posts on Evangelical Universalism.

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Wed Feb 15, 2017 9:03 pm

Steve,

Thanks for your reply. I apologize that excerpting your comment on the Sabbath commandment sounded like I meant to misrepresent you. For me, breaking just one among the Decalogue means one claims that the Decalogue (often understood as a unity) need not apply to you, though of course, I recognize that we only see the one on Sabbath violated.

More salient, I don't see Jesus as simply teaching that this commandment does not apply to him, yet does to us. My impression is that he is presented as the ultimate interpreter of the Law, and that his examples of David breaking the law to meet a need, and his statement that we must understand this commandment as "made for (benefitting) man," are rational arguments that Sabbath work that meets an important need can justify violating the literal meaning that seemed clear and certain to the Pharisees. Thus, as on many other violations of the law, such as embracing unclean sinners, he is teaching us to follow him in doing the same, as we too learn to be lead by His Spirit. Indeed, that's why I too am rather cavalier about Saturday work, and the Bible's Sabbath law. It's because Jesus has convinced me that a legal following of it can be misguided.

You appear to counter what I pose as Jesus' clear teaching and practice on such things, that he said every verse of Scripture "guides" us. I don't quite see the temptation story or Jesus' wonderful citations of Scripture putting it that way. All of the Scripture profitably can nourish us (and for me the Sabbath commandment especially is full of deep insight), but I precisely see Jesus use Scripture in wonderfully selective ways, and sometimes cite it, only to explain how he counters it with another principle from Scripture. In short, my perception of how Jesus treats the Old Testament is based on a broad survey at his use of it, and as I said above, in the next week, I'll post a more detailed account of examples that I think support my conclusion.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby LLC » Thu Feb 16, 2017 12:00 am

Sorry Eaglesway, but I don't see this great progression of man that you and others speak of. In looking at mankind as a whole,I don't consider the people of the Old Testament as primordial man, nor do I think that we are more mature today as compared to those of old. God's Laws do not change. He still deals with man in the same ways as He did from the beginning. We rise and we fall; we are lost and are found. I think that the people of future generations will most likely be doing the same.
LLC
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby steve7150 » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:23 am

ore salient, I don't see Jesus as simply teaching that this commandment does not apply to him, yet does to us. My impression is that he is presented as the ultimate interpreter of the Law, and that his examples of David breaking the law to meet a need, and his statement that we must understand this commandment as "made for (benefitting) man,"







Thanks for your response Bob. I can see your take on Jesus responses about the Sabbath benefiting man but i also see in John 5.17 and other verses that his Father and himself were always working which meant to them the Sabbath was like any other day. Also i don't see the Sabbath command repeated in the New Covenant but actually replaced by the rest in Christ. But i am looking forward to your response.
steve7150
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Thu Feb 16, 2017 5:34 am

Bob Wilson wrote:Many dear brothers here have asserted that all views expressed by the Biblical writers must be consistent with each other ('non-contradictory'). And I can see that if a whole volume shared the Qu'ran or Book of Mormon's claim to be directly inscribed by God (and I was persuaded I could be sure of That), then such an expectation of absolute harmony would be plausible. But if the profitable Biblical witness involves writers moved by the Spirit, yet able to retain the varying vantage points and human character of their own personality and time, we might expect it to include the diversity of views that appear so manifest in it. We may even expect it to reflect a progression of understanding of what God reveals (which also seems manifest). And by definition, insisting such a progressive revelation must all assert the same views would seem to me unjustified.

With my upbringing, I sympathize with this concern that we must have a perfect or inerrant book in order to claim certainty for our beliefs. And I honestly don't have a solution for the feeling that we require a faith that can claim certainty about its' doctrines (though I now doubt God puts a premium on this version of valid faith or epistemology).

In candor, I don't see how believers in varying faiths have the faculties to even know with certainty that they can start by knowing their book actually has such perfect certitude (much less that we can assure that our reading of it can claim certainty). What I do see is that it's unconvincing to keep emphasizing an apparently circular argument: that everything in the Bible must be correct because otherwise we can't know what is correct. Jesus argued we are to love God with our mind, and wishing the Bible is that kind of book is insufficient to make it that kind of book.


We can look at reconciling Genesis with modern science (i.e. big bang, old earth, evolution, etc.), on threads here. Then we can see that modern science, doesn't always fit comfortably into Genesis.

I have seen Baptist scholars, go to great lengths - to reconcile Biblical stuff, pointed out as contradictions. And they do a pretty good job of it. But the scholars then, need to come up with the convoluted explanations. And we then, need to buy into it.

We still see holy scripture, through a lens. It could be conventional one, such as a Baptist, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Eastern Orthodox, etc. Or an unconventional lens, like we see here sometimes. But it's a lens - nonetheless. Or in the words of Paul - "it's through a glass darkly". Or in the poetic terms, of Six Blind Men and an Elephant poem - it's seeing part, of the big picture.

"I see, said the blind man, to his deaf dog, and he picked up his hammer and saw"


Image
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Geoffrey » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:20 am

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:We can look at reconciling Genesis with modern science (i.e. big bang, old earth, evolution, etc.), on threads here. Then we can see that modern science, doesn't always fit comfortably into Genesis.


The only thing in the contemporary scientific paradigm that does not fit comfortably with Genesis is the idea that human beings biologically evolved from animals. Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 give a different account of human origins.

But everything else (big bang, biological evolution of plants and animals, a universe and earth billions of years old, no global flood, etc.) are all easily compatible with the Bible, even when regarded as infallible and inerrant.

This position was shared by The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915, from which we get the term "fundamentalist". The idea that contemporary science and the Bible are at serious odds is a curious notion that didn't start getting traction until the 1960s.
Nicean Universalism
http://niceanuniversalism.freeforums.net/
a new message board discussing Christian universalism
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:30 am

Image

Geoffrey wrote:
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:We can look at reconciling Genesis with modern science (i.e. big bang, old earth, evolution, etc.), on threads here. Then we can see that modern science, doesn't always fit comfortably into Genesis.


The only thing in the contemporary scientific paradigm that does not fit comfortably with Genesis is the idea that human beings biologically evolved from animals. Genesis 2:7 and 2:21-22 give a different account of human origins.

But everything else (big bang, biological evolution of plants and animals, a universe and earth billions of years old, no global flood, etc.) are all easily compatible with the Bible, even when regarded as infallible and inerrant.

This position was shared by The Fundamentals, published from 1910 to 1915, from which we get the term "fundamentalist". The idea that contemporary science and the Bible are at serious odds is a curious notion that didn't start getting traction until the 1960s.


Geoffrey: Do you have an author, publisher or link to the The Fundamentals :?: I like to research it a bit and see what it says. And also, how it is viewed today...by Christians, who also embrace the discovers of modern science - and not in an official "creationist", pseudo-science capacity.

Image
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Geoffrey » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:55 am

This page gives a brief overview of The Fundamentals, as well as links to the text thereof. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals
Nicean Universalism
http://niceanuniversalism.freeforums.net/
a new message board discussing Christian universalism
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:01 am

Geoffrey wrote:This page gives a brief overview of The Fundamentals, as well as links to the text thereof. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals


Well, if some of the essays were good at reconciling, modern science and Genesis...Their message got lost, in this day and age. :lol:
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Geoffrey » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:23 am

Holy-Fool-P-Zombie wrote:
Geoffrey wrote:This page gives a brief overview of The Fundamentals, as well as links to the text thereof. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fundamentals


Well, if some of the essays were good at reconciling, modern science and Genesis...Their message got lost, in this day and age. :lol:


If I recall correctly, the essays did not put forward elaborate "reconciliations" betwixt the two. Rather, they briefly mentioned that the compatibility betwixt the two was obvious.

When one studies the conflict between U. S. fundamentalism and evolution in the early 20th century, he will notice that the big beef was human evolution. Pretty much none of the fundamentalists cared if salamanders and hawthorn evolved or not. :)

A fascinating book is L. Sprague de Camp's The Great Monkey Trial.
Nicean Universalism
http://niceanuniversalism.freeforums.net/
a new message board discussing Christian universalism
Geoffrey
 
Posts: 925
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2008 12:15 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Thu Feb 16, 2017 8:38 am

steve7150 wrote:ore salient, I don't see Jesus as simply teaching that this commandment does not apply to him, yet does to us. My impression is that he is presented as the ultimate interpreter of the Law, and that his examples of David breaking the law to meet a need, and his statement that we must understand this commandment as "made for (benefitting) man,"







Thanks for your response Bob. I can see your take on Jesus responses about the Sabbath benefiting man but i also see in John 5.17 and other verses that his Father and himself were always working which meant to them the Sabbath was like any other day. Also i don't see the Sabbath command repeated in the New Covenant but actually replaced by the rest in Christ. But i am looking forward to your response.


I'm not seeing what response you look forward to. After my words you cited, I again conclude that Jesus teaches us to follow his approach to the law. And I don't see your observations offers any challenge to that. My papers on this actually also cite John 5:17 as support that we are to imitate Jesus in his imitation of his Father's ways. I don't see him challenge the idea that God rests on the Sabbath, and then say this justification of meeting needs on the Sabbath is irrelevant to those who follow him (or only applies to him and God). Indeed, I assume it was Jesus' advocacy of not classically observing the Sabbath that led to your observation that "I don't see the Sabbath command repeated" (and also to Paul's observation that some believers esteemed one day as special, but others saw no need for that).

I.e. I think the genius behind the apostles' conclusion that we are not under the law was the pioneer of our faith, Jesus himself.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby qaz » Thu Feb 16, 2017 4:53 pm

Bob, I look forward to reading your paper on how Jesus used OT verses during his ministry.
qaz
 
Posts: 1140
Joined: Sat Oct 17, 2015 10:51 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Paidion » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:22 pm

Justin Martyr spent days discussing OT scripture with a group of Jews (Trypho was the chief spokesman of the Jews) trying to show that those scriptures spoke of Jesus. I think I posted the part of his dialogue with Trypho in another thread, but perhaps it bears repeating since the Sabbath question came up. The headings are mine:

Justin Martyr’s Explanation of the Sabbath to the Jews (Justin lived from 110 – 165 A.D.)

Righteous Men of Old Kept No Sabbaths
... all those righteous men already mentioned [Abel, Enoch, Noah,] , though they kept no Sabbaths, were pleasing to God; and after them Abraham with all his descendants until Moses... Chapter 19

..For if there was no need of circumcision before
Abraham, or of the observance of Sabbaths, of feasts and sacrifices, before Moses; no more need is there of them now,...(Chapter 23)


Nature Does Not Observe Sabbath Days
Do you see that the elements are not idle, and keep no Sabbaths? Chapter 23
.

God Himself Does Not Observe the Sabbath Day
Think it not strange that we drink hot water on the Sabbaths, since God directs the government of the universe on this day equally as on all others.. (Chapter 29)


The True Israelites Are Those Who Come to God Through Christ
For the true spiritual Israel, and descendants of Judah, Jacob, Isaac, and Abraham (who in uncircumcision was approved of and blessed by God on account of his faith, and called the father of many nations), are we who have been led to God through this crucified Christ, as shall be demonstrated while we proceed. (Chapter 11 near the end)


We Are Now Required To Keep Sabbath Daily By Resting From Sin and Working Righteousness
The new law requires you to keep perpetual sabbath, and you, because you are idle for one day, suppose you are pious, not discerning why this has been commanded you: and if you eat unleavened bread, you say the will of God has been fulfilled. The Lord our God does not take pleasure in such observances: if there is any perjured person or a thief among you, let him cease to be so; if any adulterer, let him repent; then he has kept the sweet and true sabbaths of God. If any one has impure hands, let him wash and be pure. (Chapter 12 at the end)
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby DaveB » Thu Feb 16, 2017 6:47 pm

That was very interesting.
I really have lived in books. Books are friends. They are some of the friends that make you who you are.
stanley hauerwas
DaveB
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Thu Feb 16, 2017 7:26 pm

qaz wrote:Bob, I look forward to reading your paper on how Jesus used OT verses during his ministry.


Thanks qaz. I've now posted it as "Jesus Most Vital Ideas." It must be a theme of mine since some of my earlier papers also embellish on this: Reading the Bible Like Jesus Did, How Jesus Changes Some Traditional Beliefs, and Is All Scripture Equally Valid for Us?
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Fri Feb 17, 2017 7:24 am

Image

I was thinking of a hypothetical scenario. And it's probably one, that makes Muslims happy. Suppose Christ did lead some military fights (i.e. he grew up in a military career, instead of learning the carpenter trade), like Mohammad did. But he was also, a man of peace. And tried to resolve things peacefully - wherever possible. But while he led some military battles, he didn't resist his capture and crucifixion. Would that change:

    How you view the Old Testament and the resulting violence?
    How you view the New Testament?
    How we, as Christians, should act in the world?

Image
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Eaglesway » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:05 pm

LLC wrote:Sorry Eaglesway, but I don't see this great progression of man that you and others speak of. In looking at mankind as a whole,I don't consider the people of the Old Testament as primordial man, nor do I think that we are more mature today as compared to those of old. God's Laws do not change. He still deals with man in the same ways as He did from the beginning. We rise and we fall; we are lost and are found. I think that the people of future generations will most likely be doing the same.


I understand why you feel that way, and it is not a point I want to go to far in arguing the point, and we can look at the things that are coming in the ages as series of great events and travails, or a gradual churning of the soil and planting of seed. Eventually we know God will pour out His spirit on all flesh and the glory of the Lord will cover the earth as the water covers the sea. Eventually there will be a new heaven and a new earth in which dwells righteousness, and the pathway to that point in time is obscure, but certainly the scriptures prophecy in many places that there will be enlightenment coming to all men, and that enlightenment will be the light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ,

And on this mountain He will swallow up the covering which is over all peoples,
Even the veil which is stretched over all nations.
8 He will swallow up death for all time,
And the Lord God will wipe tears away from all faces,
And He will remove the reproach of His people from all the earth;
For the Lord has spoken.
9 And it will be said in that day,
“Behold, this is our God for whom we have waited that He might save us.
This is the Lord for whom we have waited;
Let us rejoice and be glad in His salvation.” Is 25

And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing, 4 in whose case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelieving so that they might not see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. 5 For we do not preach ourselves but Christ Jesus as Lord, and ourselves as your bond-servants for Jesus’ sake. 6 For God, who said, “Light shall shine out of darkness,” is the One who has shone in our hearts to give the Light of the knowledge of the glory of God in the face of Christ.2 Cor 4

But do not let this one fact escape your notice, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years like one day. 9 The Lord is not slow about His promise, as some count slowness, but is patient toward you, not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance.

10 But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elementary principles will be dissolved with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be exposed.

11 Since all these things are to be dissolved in this way, what sort of people ought you to be in holy conduct and godliness, 12 looking for and hastening the coming of the day of God, because of which the heavens will be dissolved by intense fire, and the elemenary principles will melt with intense heat! 13 So according to His promise we are looking for new heavens and a new earth, in which righteousness dwells. 3 Pet 3

18For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory that is to be revealed to us. 19For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. 20For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope 21that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. Romans 8
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Eaglesway » Fri Feb 17, 2017 10:11 pm

steve7150 wrote:I often hear the argument that a different morality applies to us than for Jesus or God. But how often does the Bible explicitly urge us not to follow Jesus, or not to be like God, compared to how many times it urges that imitating them is foundational for our life? I'll soon post a new essay arguing that Jesus' life and teaching was guided precisely by his perception of God and His ways. So I am reluctant to endorse a gulf here.


Jesus was also guided by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God when Satan tried to tempt him. At that time that was the OT alone and that was a great opportunity for Jesus to make a distinction if there was one like by saying "every legitimate word that proceeds out of the mouth of God!



The different morality that apllies to us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, is that we do what we do becuase we love God, and love our neighbor. We are not fearing the commandment. We are in the perfect law of liberty, in that we want to please Him and help others because Christ is in us, and has taken possesion of our hearts.

That is the differnece, imo, between the OT and the NT. A better motivation, a better Spirit. A New and Living Way.
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby maintenanceman » Sat Feb 18, 2017 4:57 pm

Bob Wilson said:
More salient, I don't see Jesus as simply teaching that this commandment does not apply to him, yet does to us. My impression is that he is presented as the ultimate interpreter of the Law, and that his examples of David breaking the law to meet a need, and his statement that we must understand this commandment as "made for (benefitting) man," are rational arguments that Sabbath work that meets an important need can justify violating the literal meaning that seemed clear and certain to the Pharisees. Thus, as on many other violations of the law, such as embracing unclean sinners, he is teaching us to follow him in doing the same, as we too learn to be lead by His Spirit. Indeed, that's why I too am rather cavalier about Saturday work, and the Bible's Sabbath law. It's because Jesus has convinced me that a legal following of it can be misguided.




Richard Beck writes:
The Sermon on the Mount in 30 minutes!

Obviously, you can't survey the whole thing. So you pick a topic or a question raised by the Sermon and talk about that.

The question I picked was this: Are we supposed to obey the Sermon on the Mount?

That might seem like a really weird question. Of course we're supposed to follow the Sermon on the Mount. Why else would Jesus have preached it?

But there's actually a great deal of debate on this point. For my class I highlighted three places where Christians have balked at obeying the Sermon.

1. Morally Impossible
Some within the Christian tradition have argued that the Sermon is so severe and lofty in its demands that it can't possibly be obeyed. Then why was the Sermon given? To expose and humble us. By setting the bar so high the Sermon shows us that we can't be righteous through moral performance.

2. Theologically Problematic
On a related note, the Sermon equates righteousness with moral performance: "Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven."

You want forgiveness? It's not about grace: You have to forgive. You don't want God to judge you? It's not about grace: You must not judge others. When it comes to getting into heaven, the measure you use to judge others will be the measure that you'll be judged by (Matthew 7.1-2). Not much atonement theology here.

There's also a legalistic strain that runs through the Sermon. For example:

Therefore whoever relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches others to do the same will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever does them and teaches them will be called great in the kingdom of heaven. For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. (Matthew 5.19-20)
Moral perfection is also assumed in places: "Be perfect as your Heavenly Father is perfect."

And finally, beyond righteousness being the result of moral performance, damnation for moral failure lurks everywhere in the Sermon:

"But I tell you that anyone who is angry with a brother or sister will be subject to judgment. Again, anyone who says to a brother or sister, ‘Raca,’ is answerable to the court. And anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire of hell."

“Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it."

"Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire."
3. Politically Irresponsible
Perhaps the biggest argument that the Sermon shouldn't be fully obeyed is the opinion that the Sermon is politically impractical.

"Do not resist an evil person," "love your enemies," and "turn the other cheek" are taken to be immoral stances in the face of evil. And if not immoral, than morally irresponsible.


So these are the reasons you hear for not obeying the Sermon on the Mount. And yet, in his final comparison in the Sermon about the wise and foolish builders, Jesus cuts across all these objections:

Therefore everyone who hears these words of mine and puts them into practice is like a wise man who built his house on the rock. The rain came down, the streams rose, and the winds blew and beat against that house; yet it did not fall, because it had its foundation on the rock. But everyone who hears these words of mine and does not put them into practice is like a foolish man who built his house on sand.


Interesting
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby davo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 5:35 pm

Well *the command* has always been… “Six days shall ye work…” — how many so-called ‘Sabbath keepers’ break this straight off in having 2 day weekends!? 8-)
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby maintenanceman » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:21 pm

davo wrote:Well *the command* has always been… “Six days shall ye work…” — how many so-called ‘Sabbath keepers’ break this straight off in having 2 day weekends!? 8-)


I don't know any Sabbath keepers that have a two day Sabbath here in America... Though they (the Sabbath keepers) have to deal with the Sunday traditions of our culture. But I would ask how that would be breaking the command. One can work while the community is at rest aye?
User avatar
maintenanceman
 
Posts: 965
Joined: Fri Mar 20, 2015 4:22 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Paidion » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:33 pm

Jesus ends the "sermon" [I don't know why people call it that; Paul called it "the law of Christ" (1 Cor 9:21, Gal 6:2)] with these important words:

Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock. And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it. (Matt 7:24-27 ESV)

Jesus said "EVERYONE" (not just His disciples whom He was addressing). That "EVERYONE" includes you and me.

Paul's reference to the law of Christ also makes clear that he himself was under the law of Christ, which he equates with "the law of God" while calling the Mosaic law simply "the law." Also, in his letter to the Galatians, he was urging the Galatian Christians to fulfill the law of Christ.

1 Corinthians 9:21 To those outside the law I became as one outside the law (not being outside the law of God but under the law of Christ) that I might win those outside the law.
Galatians 6:2 Bear one another’s burdens, and so fulfill the law of Christ.


It was Christ in giving His law, who expressed the true law of God, and the apostle John wrote that if we truly love God we will keep His commandments and that to do so is not burdensome.

1 John 5:3 For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.

Jesus Himself said:
(Matthew 11: 29,30) Take my yoke upon you, and learn from me, for I am gentle and lowly in heart, and you will find rest for your souls. For my yoke is easy, and my burden is light.

So what's the problem in obeying Jesus' instructions as He expressed them in "the Sermon on the Mount"?
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Sat Feb 18, 2017 6:56 pm

I share Paidion's perception that we are under the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses, and that Beck is thus correct that the Sermon on the Mount should guide our obedience.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby davo » Sat Feb 18, 2017 8:06 pm

maintenanceman wrote:
davo wrote:Well *the command* has always been… “Six days shall ye work…” — how many so-called ‘Sabbath keepers’ break this straight off in having 2 day weekends!? 8-)


I don't know any Sabbath keepers that have a two day Sabbath here in America... Though they (the Sabbath keepers) have to deal with the Sunday traditions of our culture. But I would ask how that would be breaking the command. One can work while the community is at rest aye?

I was being cheekily factious… so much is made (by some) of the unrighteousness of failing to observe the Sabbath (Saturday) but in fact ignore the first part of the command re working six days. There is no such thing as a “two day Sabbath” that I’m aware of anywhere. Not only that but we pretty much live in a 24/7 world these days… I say they should fulfil the FULL commandment and work a whole SIX days! :lol:
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1386
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby steve7150 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 7:48 am

I share Paidion's perception that we are under the law of Christ rather than the law of Moses, and that Beck is thus correct that the Sermon on the Mount should guide our obedience.







I couldn't even imagine why a follower of Jesus would think we are under the Law of Moses? But it's not just the Sermon on the Mount that guides us between Jesus and the Apostles there are over 50 commands/principals. Not for salvation but as the fruit of the Spirit. BTW the "Law of Christ" has several other names like "The Royal Law", "The Law of God" and several others.
steve7150
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:10 am

Steve, I agree that the Sermon on the Mount is not the only part of the New Testament that should guide our obedience.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:32 am

The sermon on the mount (SotM) appears to me quite complex and not so obviously a direct set of commandments for Christians. It was given pre-resurrection and pre-Pentecost for a start. And what about the 'plain' variation in Luke?

For those who think the SotM is the 'key', what makes you think so more than, say, the Pauline epistles, or John, etc?
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:36 am

Yes; because it came directly from Christ.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:39 am

Which leads to three points:

1) it didn't come directly from Christ - it came via the author of Matthew.
2) why is the SotM held as more an interpretive key than all other of the red words?
3) why does the Christ words matter more than the apostolic words if both are inspired by God?
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:19 am

Pog, If authority just lies for us in the total Biblical document, then perhaps none of it would matter more to us that another part and (we may convince our self that we have escaped subjectivism). If on the other hand, we judge Biblical content through other filters, including what seems written on our hearts, and what the Spirit seems to confirm to us, then frankly, Christ may especially matter to us because his words seem to have an especially brilliant ring of truth.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby steve7150 » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:21 am

Which leads to three points:

1) it didn't come directly from Christ - it came via the author of Matthew.
2) why is the SotM held as more an interpretive key than all other of the red words?
3) why does the Christ words matter more than the apostolic words if both are inspired by God?





I take Matthew as quoting Jesus. For myself there is no difference between Jesus words or his Apostles words. What makes an Apostle an Apostle is that he was sent by Jesus and authorized to speak for Jesus.
As for being inspired by God, that is another subject. I don't think the bible specifically makes that claim, at least not for the NT. But what matters is that it's true.
steve7150
 
Posts: 826
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 6:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:08 am

Bob:

Sure. But then we enter the murky realm of total subjectivity - the SotM might resonate with your heart, but maybe some other part of scripture resonates with mine. How then could truth be established between us when we disagree?

Steve:
Do you think the SotM is a key to unlocking other scriptures?
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:19 am

pog wrote:Bob:

Sure. But then we enter the murky realm of total subjectivity - the SotM might resonate with your heart, but maybe some other part of scripture resonates with mine. How then could truth be established between us when we disagree?

Steve:
Do you think the SotM is a key to unlocking other scriptures?


As a 'fool of the Court", I'm sharing this video - on subjectivity vs objectivity. :)

EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:22 am

Do you fancy giving us a précis of the video? :)
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:24 am

pog wrote:Do you fancy giving us a précis of the video? :)


Sure. If you wish. Be my guest But if I gave one, how would you know - if it's objective or subjective? Unless you watched the video:!: :lol:
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:26 am

I don't watch linked vids as a rule.
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:27 am

pog wrote:I don't watch linked vids as a rule.


Actually, It's technically not a linked vids. It's an embedded YouTube vids. Between the Google safety standards with YouTube... and the PHPBB rules for embedding...It's as safe, as one can get. ;)
Last edited by Holy-Fool-P-Zombie on Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:29 am, edited 1 time in total.
EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:29 am

Lol.
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:43 am

[quote="pog"]Bob:

Sure. But then we enter the murky realm of total subjectivity - the SotM might resonate with your heart, but maybe some other part of scripture resonates with mine. How then could truth be established between us when we disagree?

Pog, Do you have a way to establish it? I've never seen a method that settles "the truth when we disagree." As I said, you may imagine that you avoid the realm of subjectivity. But I can't see that you have established how to do that. The spate of "Four Evangelical Views" books, from those who ascribe to inerrancy suggests to me that subjectivism is universal, and epistemology will always remain in debate.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:58 am

Bob:
No. There is no sure fire method that will resolve all disagreements.

However, there are things that can reduce the subjective element and increase the chances at getting at the truth by reducing the number of alternative readings. For example, the agreed acceptance of certain foundational truths will enable people from very different paradigms to accept other derived truths - maths, logic, science and even to lesser extents history and quite possibly biblical hermenutics.

Consider: can a text mean potentially anything at all, or are there certain limits drawn by the words, grammar, genre, context etc?

You only offered a couple of interpretive keys - ones which are very subjective and prone to trouble. It strikes me that by using other less troublesome keys we can narrow down the range of disagreements.

Or, to avoid talking past each other: Why do you think the SotM is a central filter for reading the rest of scripture? Is it just a feeling, or do you have other reasons that you think might sway the opinion of another?

Edit: my bad - I'm not sure you do think the SotM is a central filter :).
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Sun Feb 19, 2017 1:29 pm

Here's an interesting article I found:

EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Eaglesway » Sun Feb 19, 2017 3:49 pm

Yea, good article. I wonder what those rules hve yielded for them in terms of their beliefs. I gues I will have to read further :)
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 915
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Paidion » Sun Feb 19, 2017 5:54 pm

Hi Bob, you wrote:In "Four Views on God and the Canaanite Genocide," three esteemed evangelical O.T. profs offered ways to affirm it as representing God's approach. Only Pt. Loma Nazarene's C.S. Cowles argued that its' approach was contrary to Jesus'. But I found his view alone resonated with my deep sense that Jesus was radical and onto a better sense of God, and God's ways. I assume Love never calls for the extermination of infants.


Thank you, Bob, for mentioning this book. I had never heard of it before. So I bought it both in the physical format, and for my kindle reader. I have finished reading the first article—Cowles' article, and was highly impressed. He mentioned some points that I hadn't previously considered.

Looking at the other threes' reactions to Cowles, I can well understand why you said "I found his view alone resonated with my deep sense that Jesus was radical and onto a better sense of God, and God's ways." I am sure that I will find the same to be the case myself.

Thanks again for mentioning the book.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 76 years. I am now in my 80th year of life.
User avatar
Paidion
 
Posts: 3605
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Bob Wilson » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:41 pm

Pog,

You are correct that I never argued the SotM is the filter for reading the rest of Scripture (though I think it is helpful in grasping Jesus' own approach). I specified to Steve that it is hardly the only Scripture that should guide our obedience (and FWIW I find Paul enormously helpful in finding the mind of Christ since I think he deeply gets Jesus).

More on point, I think your contention that folk are more likely to agree on conclusions if they are already agreed on foundational assumptions is indisputable (as one trained in the historico-grammatical exegesis, I'm even deeply committed to evaluating "words, grammar, genre, and context").

So yes, of course, if people already agree on many things, it's easier for them to agree again. The catch for me is that agreeing on the many foundational presuppositions (that increase differing views coming to agreement) itself involves assumptions that involve subjectivity. Indeed, I doubt that "other vital keys" for reaching consensus here really are "less troublesome," or escape subjectivity in arriving at these.

For example, our own discussion here appeared to begin with your suggestion that all of the Bible's words are inspired, such that they deserve equal weight (and opposing the classic view that the approach of Jesus, the Living Word, may carry more weight than other Biblical viewpoints). And no surprise, our (subjective?) differing perceptions of this issue alone may make it hard to even agree on this foundational question.

My own perception is that the Biblical writers show some progression of thought, and clearly display a diversity of views and vantage points, and that trying to homogenize and harmonize them indeed often requires doing violence to grammatical-historical exegesis. As reflected in my recently posted paper, and in my earlier one asking, "Is all Scripture Equally Valid for us?" I argue that the Bible itself and Jesus especially answer "No." This conclusion inevitably leads to my sense that we cannot escape choosing which ideas are most applicable to our lives and questions. And down that path and its' related principles, as you have surmised, the reality of subjectivism that I think is involved all along the way, can't be missed.

Thus, as I've suggested, it's no wonder that on assorted basic questions, Bible believers write "Five Views" books, graphically revealing that their commitment to many shared assumptions still leaves room for subjectivism that exposes how impossible "certainty" really is. Shucks, most of my Bible believing friends are "certain" that the Bible proves that universal reconciliation of mankind cannot be possible. But LOL I actually know a few, accused of great subjectivism, who perceive that every tongue will confess Christ.
Bob Wilson
 
Posts: 1193
Joined: Tue Sep 16, 2008 10:10 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Gabe Grinstead » Sun Feb 19, 2017 8:45 pm

pog wrote:Bob:
No. There is no sure fire method that will resolve all disagreements.

However,


Stop right there. Your however is subjective.
Gabe Grinstead
 
Posts: 608
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2014 4:55 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby DaveB » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:18 pm

Bob Wilson wrote:This conclusion inevitably leads to my sense that we cannot escape choosing which ideas are most applicable to our lives and questions. And down that path and its' related principles, as you have surmised, the reality of subjectivism that I think is involved all along the way, can't be missed.


I believe you are correct there, Bob.
The process goes:
1. Human beings have 'interests' (concerns, needs, curiosity)
2. To satisfy those interests, knowledge must be gotten. Where can I get food/sex/deep fellowship - and finally my Ultimate Concern: what does it all mean? Does God exist/care/get involved/seek us/wait for us/love us/hate us?....on and on..
3. As post-Enlightenment people, we look for a Method that will give us those Truths.
4. But....And we are talking about Scripture...it just is not possible to choose (subjectivity again!) a Method that does not also necessitate our making judgments, being wise or at least listening to those that are, weighing evidence, trying to see 'deeper', being alert to the fact that our method is not perhaps the best method....etc.

As George MacD's dad told him: "All a man can do is Choose WHAT to believe." We can make that choice as informed as we can, but I don't think we can get to the level of mathematical certainty, let alone universal agreement, on any question having to do with our Ultimate Concerns. What we can do is get closer to the Truth by helping one another.

$.01 Yeah just the 1 cent this time. :-)
I really have lived in books. Books are friends. They are some of the friends that make you who you are.
stanley hauerwas
DaveB
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Sun Feb 19, 2017 10:39 pm

One problem appears to me that people jump too far ahead :)

Perhaps if folks disagree upon something the best approach might be to go back to the first principle they disagree upon and see if they can reach agreement there before moving step by step forward towards the point of disagreement.

Again, my contention here is only that there can be interpretative approaches more likely to yield agreed-upon results beyond Bob's stated filters of (I paraphrase) the inner witness of the Holy Spirit.

Regarding are certain presuppositions less troublesome than others I find it hard to accept that all foundational beliefs are equally subjective. For example, I struggle to see 'Jesus existed' as subjective as 'God tells me what this passage of scripture means to me.' Or that the logical law of non-contradiction is as dependant upon my personal inner circumstances as deciding the moral character of Christ is somewhat lacking. Surely not everything is equally subjective? Can we not agree, for example, that reason rightly applied to established external facts is less subjective than intuition? Almost everything can be doubted, but this doesn't undermine degrees of objectivity, merely highlight that there are also degrees of rationality.
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby LLC » Sun Feb 19, 2017 11:35 pm

Eaglesway wrote:
steve7150 wrote:I often hear the argument that a different morality applies to us than for Jesus or God. But how often does the Bible explicitly urge us not to follow Jesus, or not to be like God, compared to how many times it urges that imitating them is foundational for our life? I'll soon post a new essay arguing that Jesus' life and teaching was guided precisely by his perception of God and His ways. So I am reluctant to endorse a gulf here.


Jesus was also guided by every word that proceeded out of the mouth of God when Satan tried to tempt him. At that time that was the OT alone and that was a great opportunity for Jesus to make a distinction if there was one like by saying "every legitimate word that proceeds out of the mouth of God!



The different morality that apllies to us, as disciples of Jesus Christ, is that we do what we do becuase we love God, and love our neighbor. We are not fearing the commandment. We are in the perfect law of liberty, in that we want to please Him and help others because Christ is in us, and has taken possesion of our hearts.

That is the differnece, imo, between the OT and the NT. A better motivation, a better Spirit. A New and Living Way.


Everything in the creation, including man, operates according to a Law. These "Laws of God" that apply to man have been in existence since man was created. So I don't see how the people of he Old Testament are any different than the people of the New Testament or the people of today.
LLC
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby DaveB » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:12 am

Pog - I didn't express my thought very clearly (thus the $.01 remark :oops: ).

I was not using 'subjective' in an epistemological sense - certainly we are not solipsists - but in the sense that our interests do mightily affect the kind of knowledge we seek and the way we go about it.

And once again good ol' Aristotle - we used to call him 'Ari' behind his back at the public baths, a story for another time - anyway he used to say that we cannot demand of any area of knowledge more 'accuracy' than that area can possibly deliver. I think of mathematics at one pole and occult mysticism at another, with hermeneutics somewhere in the middle.

And in Biblical hermeneutics, I think we all differ as to the degree of certainty we think we can achieve, depending on our interests. For some, textual certainty is a priority, for some the historical aspects, for some the over-all arc of the whole Biblical story, etc. etc. My feeling is that, as long as we put aside our oh-so-human desire for dead certainty, and instead seek for wisdom along with our methodology, and humbly open ourselves, once study is done, to the insights the Holy Spirit can give - well we cannot go too far astray.
I really have lived in books. Books are friends. They are some of the friends that make you who you are.
stanley hauerwas
DaveB
 
Posts: 3488
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby pog » Mon Feb 20, 2017 4:47 am

I totally agree - until the final paragraph :)

And in Biblical hermeneutics, I think we all differ as to the degree of certainty we think we can achieve, depending on our interests. For some, textual certainty is a priority, for some the historical aspects, for some the over-all arc of the whole Biblical story, etc. etc. My feeling is that, as long as we put aside our oh-so-human desire for dead certainty, and instead seek for wisdom along with our methodology, and humbly open ourselves, once study is done, to the insights the Holy Spirit can give - well we cannot go too far astray


Here, I'd raise a few points:

a) 'we all differ as to the degree of certainty we think we can achieve' - true, we probably differ as to what we think we can achieve, but there is, perhaps, a degree of certainty we can achieve or should achieve. There is, maybe, a best outcome/limit available to humans if they were perfectly rational, totally intelligent, holiness, experience, had access to all the facts etc. Thus there is also, perhaps, a lesser degree of surety available to persons proportional to the degree they have/achieve rationality, intelligence, spirituality, information etc. There is, probably then, a maximum amount of certainty available to me and you - and I suspect that to reach that maximum more will be required than 'subjective' leadings. Of course, the trick is figuring out what ... :)

b) 'textual certainty is a priority, for some the historical aspects, for some the over-all arc of the whole Biblical story' - surely all of these are required for the most accurate interpretation? I don't see them in any form of true competition, rather they must cohere for us to get closer and closer the goal.

c) 'our oh-so-human desire for dead certainty' - I'm not sure why certainty is viewed negatively. Surely God exemplifies knowledge and truth and it is a godly desire to know the truth and not be deceived or hurt others unwittingly by our ignorance? The search for knowledge, and thus the search the certainty, is a good thing. Ignorance is an evil to be eradicated, is it not?

d) 'we cannot go too far astray' - I have no confidence in this at all :) *looks across human history* Nope. Not much confidence in that at all!

So, maybe we should start at the beginning - what is the farthest point back we can go where we start to diverge in our opinions - why do we diverge - let us see if it is a failure in reason, intelligence, information etc - and see how far we can go before it really just does break down.
User avatar
pog
 
Posts: 612
Joined: Sat Nov 17, 2012 5:49 am

Re: The idea that we all deserve hell

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Feb 20, 2017 5:09 am

I like the word framework.

"a basic structure underlying a system, concept, or text."

And we all adopt them - whether we admit it or now. For example, Geoffrey and I would usually answer, from an Eastern Orthodox framework. Although I reserve the right to introduce another answer, if someone can explain a biblical puzzle better.

Someone else has what I call a "Twilight Zone" theology. It appears to be Twilight Zone, when you compare it to conventional frameworks - like Baptist, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, etc. But they derive their theology from A.E. Knoch, who is a bible translator, scholar and theologian. No matter how far out it appears, it comes from a solid source.

While another here might answer, from either a partial or a full Pretertist viewpoint.

And some might derive a Biblical exegesis, from their own experience. Like Mary Baker Eddy did, in her Christian Science presentation. Now she sees decease, death and sin, as illusions to overcome and all is mind and ideas - in the mind of God.

Weill, Mary Baker Eddy is a big far out - from my perspective. Even though her healing method, commends serious study. Providing you can combine it, with traditional and ancient medical traditions.

And I admire what A.E. Knoch has done. But I still think things like no free will, are a bit far out - when compared to conventional theological and philosophical ideas of free will.

Most of us have a framework. And we won't break out of that framework. Mine is Eastern Orthodox, academic and wisdom tradition (i.e. to honor centuries of Native American spiritual and Eastern wisdom).

Another would be Full Preterist.

Another is A.E. Knoch.

Each of us has a framework. Even if it's one, we developed ourselves. The problem is that we need to communicate that framework - to others.

And most of the time, I'm, singing this song - trying to pin down another's framework. :lol:

EO and RC (Richard Rohr / Thomas Merton) Mystical/ Anglican, Holy Fool Theology; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Yoga, Zen); Healing (Native, Homeopathy, Ayurveda / TCM, Spiritual); Nerd; Joel Osteen fan; Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2298
Joined: Mon Oct 20, 2014 3:30 pm
Location: Near Chicago or hanging out with Holy Fools, P-Zombies, Guardian Angels and Devil's Advocates

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion on Evangelical Universalism

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Baidu [Spider], Majestic-12 [Bot] and 7 guests