Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puzzle

Discussions pertaining to scripture and theology from a philosophical approach.

Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puzzle

Postby Chrisguy90 » Sun Oct 11, 2015 6:48 am

I can well understand someone reading the word 'pre-existence' in this title and immediately passing this post by. 'Whatever problems Universalism may have,' so the thought would run 'the silly idea of pre-existence certainly can't make things more clear.'

This group, if there is any group alive today, knows that just because a view seems heterodox to mainline Christianity, doesn't mean it has a poor case going for it. I think there is good reason to believe that some form of pre-existence is true. I also think that pre-existence solves many of the recurrent philosophical problems of Universalism.

For instance, one such problem is this: if we have free will, how can God guarantee that all will be saved? If it takes a movement of will that God cannot necessitate, doesn't it follow that God cannot necessarily save all souls?

A second theological problems that pre-existence solves is this: if God is omnipotent, and if He can guarantee ultimate salvation, why is there any evil in the world now? Jerry Walls, probably the most prominent Arminian defender of Hell today, sees the only possible reason for God allowing evil to be creaturely freedom. But if that freedom is something that He can eventually necessitate when he saves all souls, why doesn't He just necessitate it now, before all the evil takes place? Why wait for the murderer to kill 20 or 30 people; why not compel him after his first murder; why not after his first murderous thought?

A third theological problem that pre-existence solves is the problem of reconciling God's foreknowledge and creaturely free will. This area of theology has seen a tremendous amount of diversity in the last 30 years. Speculations range from one end of the spectrum (God being completely ignorant of future free choices) to the other (God has determined all future free choices). The problem is, if we are truly free, how does God know what we will do before we do it? And if He doesn't know, how could He have made predictions about future events? Indeed how could He have guaranteed 'before the foundation of the world' that Christ would even be crucified?

These, then, are the three main problems that pre-existence solves: a) how God can guarantee that all are saved; b) why God allows evil; and c) the reconciliation of God's foreknowledge and creaturely freedom.

I'm going to post below an article that actually argues for the conclusion that pre-existence makes best sense from a philosophical, theological, and Scriptural point of view. And it answers b and c above. Point a I will address in a following post.
Attachments
II PRE.docx
(60.81 KiB) Downloaded 65 times
Last edited by Chrisguy90 on Sun Nov 22, 2015 11:29 am, edited 3 times in total.
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Sun Oct 11, 2015 8:57 am

Well, my interest is piqued! :)
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Sun Oct 11, 2015 9:25 am

DaveB wrote:Well, my interest is piqued! :)


It would help if I uploaded the file! :lol:

Should be there now.
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Elliot Swatto » Sun Oct 11, 2015 11:30 am

Very insightful thoughts, thank you Chris! :)

The way I think about total, libertarian free will and compatibility with the idea of eventual universal reconciliation is with the theological concept of molinism, which argues they are completely compatible without any limitation of free will. This is championed by William Lane Craig and Alvin Plantinga, and discussed in the Evangelical Universalist by Robin Parry (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Molinism ). It argues the following:

1) God has foreknowledge of our actions. Yet Him knowing what we will do doesn't equate to Him causing it, just as us knowing that the earth is rotating today doesn't imply we are the cause of said rotation. We were and continue to be free to act otherwise; God simple has an incredible degree of knowledge, even about our free actions.

2) More than just foreknowledge, He has 'middle knowledge'. This is the knowledge of what a given free creature would choose were they placed in a given situation. Again, this is not the same as us being determined to do something (it is a free choice that God has knowledge of) as knowledge is not the same as cause.

3) In relation to UR, this means God knows exactly what set of circumstances a given human being must be placed in, in order for him or her to freely choose life with Jesus Christ. Again, I emphasise this choice is free, not caused by God or any external factors. God's middle knowledge in (2) allows Him to be able to know what situation a given creature.

4) God could, in theory, create a world where every single free creature is placed in circumstances in which they will freely choose Him eventually, even if after death or post-judgement. This may be a long and complex process for some, but He can ensure it comes to be for every person by simply giving them the circumstances He knows they need.

5) Thus, without restricting our freedom, God in theory is able to create a universe where all creatures eventually choose Him, simply by being incredibly clever (as we know He is!) about circumstances to make them so favourable that He knows (via middle knowledge) that everyone will freely choose Him. They are not compelled, or coerced - they make free, informed choices.

I find this a powerful answer to the apparent contradiction, without restricting creaturely freedom or God's knowledge :) Thank you for your thoughts again!
My name's Elliot - I'm very excited by the beautiful message of Jesus' love for all! :)

"God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in them." 1 John 4:16b,c
"God is light; in Him there is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5b
User avatar
Elliot Swatto
 
Posts: 81
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 4:22 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Sun Oct 11, 2015 1:19 pm

Confident Christian,

Thanks for your post and encouragement! My view on pre-existence is functionally equivalent to Molinism. That is, I too believe God has middle knowledge, and think this enables Him to 'orchestrate' or 'guarantee' without 'determining'.

The reason I am not a Molinist, however, is because of the grounding objection. How can God know what we will do before we do it if we in no sense exist to be known? But - if pre-existence is true, we have an answer to this objection.

I deal, by the way, with Molinism in the article I posted (along with Open Theism and Calvinism). If you'd like you could download it and control F Molinism to see what I have to say in more detail.
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Michael H » Mon Oct 12, 2015 1:44 am

The point of the universe is the glorification of the grace of God ultimately in the expression in the suffering and death of Christ for sinners. These wonders of glory are the riches we inherit when the eyes of our hearts are opened to see His glory in it's fullness and then be transformed by it. The Bible says that all things were created for Him. This means that the whole universe serves to glorify Christ. The praise of the transforming glory of God's grace in the death for sinners is the ultimate goal of everything. Moreover, this glory has been there since the beginning. Christ was slain from the foundation of the world. All past, present, and future events are eternally "present" to God for He exists in a timeless eternal now. At the cross we see the worst evil in human history being permitted by God for good, justifiable reasons. Those in faith union with Christ are crucified with Christ and baptized with Christ and resurrected to new life. God's wrath is removed from their vision (along with their rebellion) so that they can see and feel the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. This is one way Christ has mercy on sinners but it isn't the only way. Because He died for all He will have mercy on all. Just not in the same way. Those in the lake of fire are punished and purified as they are baptized in the lake of fire. The die to the old self and are resurrected to new life. All sin and sinful desires are removed from their hearts. They will freely choose what they want but because all sin and sinful desires are remove from their hearts they will always want to love God and others. They will be like God in that it will be impossible for them to sin. Likewise for the bride (firstfruits) who are confirmed in grace. All sin and sinful desires will be gone from their hearts. The will still make choices and freely choose what they want. But they will always choose love of God and each other because sin is purified and washed away. This is the essence of true freedom.
The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing — to reach the Mountain, to find the place where all the beauty came from - C.S Lewis
User avatar
Michael H
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:32 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Holy-Fool-P-Zombie » Mon Oct 12, 2015 4:25 am

As you probably know, the Mormons do believe in preexistence. But they have their own take on Christianity.
Anglo-Orthodox/ Anglo-Catholic; Holy Fool Theologian; Satirist; Pragmatic Zenist; Inclusivist / Purgatorical Conditionalist;
Contemplation (i.e. Mindfulness, Red Road Healing, Yoga); Homeopathy, Ayurveda; Chinese Medicine; Prosperity (Joel Osteen) / Full Gospel
User avatar
Holy-Fool-P-Zombie
 
Posts: 2087
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: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:06 am

Hi Chris - that essay is a lot to take in and process all at once. May I ask for some clarity on a couple of things as I go along in my reading?
You wrote:
1. (quoting CSL) : "That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality."

2. "Here Lewis places our freedom – that is, our power of being, our actus purus analogous to God’s own actus purus – beyond time itself and in ‘eternal reality’."

As to (1) - I have not read every single thing CSL wrote, but I have read quite a bit of it, and that quote feels a bit off-key to me. I would think that we most resemble our Maker not by simply having freedom, but by exercising it in loving obedience; and I think CSL would agree, though I am not an expert. Could you or perhaps @JasonPratt chime in on that?

As a follow-up: why do you think CSL says above that Freedom is the gift..... whereby we are "parts of eternal reality?"
Perhaps this will clear up as I read further.

As to (2) - you are saying, if I understand you, that freedom is 'our power of being'. I think that freedom is a part of our being, but not THE power of our being. Doesn't our Maker sustain us in Being?

Thanks. I will continue reading your essay on this fascinating subject.
Last edited by DaveB on Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:41 am, edited 1 time in total.
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby JasonPratt » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:09 am

Lewis is referring to the distinction between intentional action and unintentional reaction, the former being the freedom to volunteer inputs into the system beyond what the system itself would naturally produce. His theistic argument from reason involved recognizing on one hand that we necessarily presume we have such freedom for rational action, and on the other hand that we do not derive this freedom from an ultimately reactive reality nor from ourselves: consequently we should conclude supernaturalistic theism is true and deny that naturalistic atheism is true. (He refined this argument somewhat in response to criticism from the Catholic philosopher Anscombe, and presented the refined version in the 2nd edition of Miracles: A Preliminary Study in 1960, many years after The Great Divorce; but he may already have the revision in mind for TGD since that happened at the Socratic Club soon after MaPS was first published. I'm somewhat oversimplifying his argument for convenience; the revised version of the argument runs on a logical formality that's hard to briefly explain, although I accept several versions of the argument. I also note that Lewis forgot to double-check the formal weakness the other way around, to see if it deducts theism out of the option list -- having deducted atheism out he concluded theism by dichotomy, but strictly speaking he should have tested both options.)

Lewis doesn't mean we exist prior to Nature, and his position does not necessarily imply this; he means our ability to rationally act is a direct spiritual gift from the father of spirits, Who is Himself eternal reality, the Most Real Reality, the independent ground of all reality. We act supernaturally in relation to Nature, although not in utter independence from Nature.

Lewis reconciles God's foreknowledge with creaturely freedom, not because rationally free creatures exist extratemporally, but because God exists extra-temporally, immediately knowing by directly active experience all instances of any created system of space-time. Whether any rationally free creatures exist extratemporally or to what extents an extratemporal creature could exist, is beside that point. (I agree with Lewis on this.)

Thus as Lewis famously argued, no one thinks a person is less free to act because God presently sees the action they are choosing 'now'; the same is true in regard to future actions.


Chrisguy90, original emphasis wrote:For instance, one such problem is this: if we have free will, how can God guarantee that all will be saved? If it takes a movement of will that God cannot necessitate, doesn't it follow that God cannot necessarily save all souls?


I have always argued that Christian universalism at minimum means God persistently acts toward saving all sinners from sin. (Or rather that's theistic universal salvation, but would be included in varieties of theistic universalism, including with uniquely Christian details if X-variety of Christianity is true.) That doesn't mean in itself that God necessarily succeeds; a never-ending stalemate could theoretically be possible. That was in fact what I originally expected to find.

That qualification is not the same as denying that God can guarantee successful universal salvation, though. It becomes a question of God's competency and/or a question of whether God reveals final success from an omniscient perspective. The latter is a question of publicly available (i.e. scriptural) revelation (not counting private assurances if any), and that's an exegetical argument. As to the former, I often quip (paraphrasing Lewis from The Problem of Pain on a similar topic the other way around!) that it doesn't take a specially robust faith to bet on God instead of the sinner being victorious. ;) People are free to play against the Chessmaster (reffing Lewis again); people are not free to play more competently than the Chessmaster. Take that bishop if you insist, but He moves here, and here, and it is mate in three moves.

So I hardly need pre-existence of souls to grant either or both types of assurance about God's persistence for all being ultimately victorious. I'm even doubtful pre-existence adds anything to the assurance -- my assurance that God will save pre-existent rebel angels is not even slightly based on them being pre-existent to our own natural system, for example -- but I would want to read Chris' article before commenting on particulars there. :)

If by pre-existence Chris isn't talking about temporal pre-existence of souls, but only about our ontological dependence on God in a relationship superior to our dependence upon the natural system we live in, then I might have no objections, arguing much the same thing myself. But such ontological intimacy is not something missing from my universalist puzzle. ;)
Cry of Justice -- 2008 Novel of the Year (CSPA retailer poll).
Sword To The Heart -- metaphysical argument to orthodox trinitarianism (and thence to universalism)
Trinitarian universalist exegetics, on internet radio, or here in forum posts.
User avatar
JasonPratt
Administrator
 
Posts: 9641
Joined: Thu Sep 25, 2008 5:08 pm
Location: Dyer, TN

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:45 am

DaveB wrote:Hi Chris - that essay is a lot to take in and process all at once. May I ask for some clarity on a couple of things as I go along in my reading?
You wrote:
1. (quoting CSL) : "That thing is Freedom: the gift whereby ye most resemble your Maker and are yourselves parts of eternal reality."

2. "Here Lewis places our freedom – that is, our power of being, our actus purus analogous to God’s own actus purus – beyond time itself and in ‘eternal reality’."

As to (1) - I have not read every single thing CSL wrote, but I have read quite a bit of it, and that quote feels a bit off-key to me. I would think that we most resemble our Maker not by simply having freedom, but by exercising it in loving obedience; and I think CSL would agree, though I am not an expert. Could you or perhaps @JasonPratt chime in on that?

As a follow-up: why do you think CSL says above that Freedom is the gift..... whereby we are "parts of eternal reality?"
Perhaps this will clear up as I read further.

As to (2) - you are saying, if I understand you, that freedom is 'our power of being'. I think that freedom is a part of our being, but not THE power of our being. Doesn't our Maker sustain us in Being?

Thanks. I will continue reading your essay on this fascinating subject.


Dave,

Thanks for the questions.

In response, I will say that a) I don't think Lewis is ultimately coherent when he says we exist 'in eternal reality'. You'll get to my reasons throughout the paper; and b) I think you're making a distinction here between the power that holds us in being (God), and an additional power, given by God, that allows us to 'give ourselves', so to speak, back to Him and others. Is that what you're trying to do? If so, I would agree with you. :D
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 11:49 am

JasonPratt wrote:Lewis reconciles God's foreknowledge with creaturely freedom, not because rationally free creatures exist extratemporally, but because God exists extra-temporally, immediately knowing by directly active experience all instances of any created system of space-time... Thus as Lewis famously argued, no one thinks a person is less free to act because God presently sees the action they are choosing 'now'; the same is true in regard to future actions.


Yeah - this is what I argue is ultimately incoherent on Lewis' system: i.e. to have an eternal 'now' composed of an infinite number of temporally present 'nows' is incoherent. See the article for further argument in this vein. :ugeek:

(A short argument would be, however, something like this: according to this dual picture of reality (an eternal present composed of the temporally past, present, and future) where does our freedom exist? If in both realities, which one has logical priority? If the eternal present, then our free choices are true before we make them. If the temporal reality is logically prior, then God cannot know our choices before we make them.)
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:25 pm

JasonPratt wrote:If by pre-existence Chris isn't talking about temporal pre-existence of souls, but only about our ontological dependence on God in a relationship superior to our dependence upon the natural system we live in, then I might have no objections, arguing much the same thing myself. But such ontological intimacy is not something missing from my universalist puzzle


Agreed. It's the concept of temporal pre-existence that is exercising me.

Chris - (I've typed 'Christ' instead of 'Chris' a few times now, I hope I've caught the typos in time :-)) - is it temporal pre-existence that you are advocating?
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 6:43 pm

DaveB wrote:Chris - (I've typed 'Christ' instead of 'Chris' a few times now, I hope I've caught the typos in time :-)) - is it temporal pre-existence that you are advocating?


Dave,

No. Technically speaking I don't think 'pre-temporal' existence is something possible for created beings. I do, a few times, use the phrase 'pre-temporal' or 'extra-'temporal' loosely. By these phrases I simply mean 'pre-mortal' or 'before the current time in which we inhabit our bodies.' (I define what I mean by pre-mortal early in the article.)

Great questions. Shows how much you are grappling with this topic. It took me a while to see the issue clearly myself, especially since I had been saturated in the popular incoherent idea of God existing in an eternal now AND of His creation simultaneously interacting with Him while being in time themselves.
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:44 pm

"At the heart of Christian teaching lie two apparently self-contradictory theses: a) all humans, without exception, have either committed moral wrong, or will once they reach a certain stage of moral development and b) no human is ever forced or determined to sin. In other words, it seems true both that all humans are free and that they will all certainly exercise their freedom in a sinful way."

Are you putting aside, for the sake of the argument, that Christian teaching known as 'TULIP'? I think that their question at this point would be: "Why do you say the 'heart' of Christian teaching is as you say? We believe that 'in Adams' fall, we sinned all" so that in fact we are not free; our wills are in bondage, and thus your argument presents a false dichotomy?"

Chris - I'm not a tulipian (I just made that up) but how would you answer them?
I'm not quibbling, btw, but just clarifying as I go along; I think your essay is worth some close reading. :D
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Mon Oct 12, 2015 7:57 pm

DaveB wrote:
Are you putting aside, for the sake of the argument, that Christian teaching known as 'TULIP'? I think that their question at this point would be: "Why do you say the 'heart' of Christian teaching is as you say? We believe that 'in Adams' fall, we sinned all" so that in fact we are not free; our wills are in bondage, and thus your argument presents a false dichotomy?"

Chris - I'm not a tulipian (I just made that up) but how would you answer them?
I'm not quibbling, btw, but just clarifying as I go along; I think your essay is worth some close reading. :D


Another great question.

Being quite aware of TULIP and Calvinism, I would respond by saying the concept that 'we all sinned in Adam' is meaningless without providing a means by which we could actually sin in him. I have never yet found an answer to this question on the Calvinist scheme: how could we "sin" in Adam if we did not even exist? Indeed I won't ever find an answer to that question, because their use of the word "sin" renders our self evident and normal understanding of it meaningless. It is a manifest contradiction to say another person "sinned" on behalf of someone else, for a sin is just that individual process of the will choosing wrongly. With no will, there is no sin. Pre-existence, however, provides a *rational* way to understand Romans 5 that does not destroy our God given moral intuitions.

By the way, Edward Beecher wrote a tome on this particular issue called The Conflict of the Ages which can be found online. But the response above is enough to answer the question you raise, I believe.

And I do not mind the questions at all! Ask away. :D
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Mon Oct 12, 2015 8:05 pm

With due respect to my Calvinist friends - I agree with your assessment re Original Sin as presented by them. I got here via Calvinism, btw.
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Eaglesway » Tue Oct 13, 2015 12:56 am

As salvation is described in 2 Cor 4 ....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.

This dawn is awakened through Christ crucified(Col. 1:16-20) in each and eventually all and is inevitable because all the paths of chaos lead to futility and no human is capable of eternal resistance, the love of God being so superior and demonstrated so clearly in this one great event from which all other events spring...this one act of wisdom and humility that breaks every heart- sooner or later.

In my opinion it is not an issue of Gods omnipotence versus man's freedom, so much as it is understanding the inevitable and overwhelming beauty of sacrificial love that will break through every veil- eventually.

"If I be lifted up from the earth I will drall all men unto me" and "Behold I am making all things new" are the Alpha and the Omega.

I think God saw this from the beginning and in order to bring us to Himself as friends in understanding and communion, He allowed us to suffer chaos, to chose it and revel in it, to be broken by the emptiness of it, and now is gathering each heart as it breaks and even the hardest will break eventually because of the inevitable superiority of love.

"I dwell in the high and holy place and with the one who has a broken and a contrite heart."

The breaking occurs in the LOF(imo) because there, as the heat of the refiner increases, and the light that shines out of darkness erupts, the secrets of the heart are revealed and each individual there will see themselves through the eyes that are as flames of fire, "for all things are open to the eyes of Him with which we have to do".

Aparently it is a painful process on some level, and I dont doubt it, as the refiner's fire has caused me some serious pain at times to break me and open me up, but I do not think the lake of fire forces people to become righteous. I think that God is Rock and Water and Wind and Light and Fire and all of these natural elements express facets of how He has so set the cosmos so that one aspect or another will win out over our rebellion.

He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, 27 that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’ 29 Being then the children of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, an image formed by the art and thought of man Acts 17

because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse Ro 1

For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart. 13 And there is no creature hidden from His sight, but all things are open and laid bare to the eyes of Him with whom we have to do. Heb 4

As far as pre-existence, the way I see it is God created Adam from the dust and breathed into it and then he became a living soul. Perhaps that breath is a sparkle of the diadem of the I AM in each soul, perhaps that part could be said to have pre-existed, but I don't think so, beyond the idea of an infinite God shaing a little piece of His own infinite being(I AM That I Am) with each soul, and thus our uniqueness is an expression of Him, but I dont see how pre-existence has a tremendous impact on the philosophical or theological conundrums of Universalists, because I believe, properly understood, the salvation of all, or UR, or UUR- is in itself the ultimate key to unlock the matrix of the scriptures and "bring it all home", Alpha to Omega.

To know that God always intended to save all, and to save them all from themselves through the glory of Christ crucified, gives a broad enough context for all the other parts to fall in place, leaving a few fuzzy places around the edges to keep us humble :)
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Michael H » Tue Oct 13, 2015 1:16 am

I should clarify. While God is timeless and can see all events equally vividly His experience of time is unique and very different than ours. He can exist in a timeless "now" and still be within time. This is because He's not merely timeless. He is Lord over time but immanent within time. It's the testimony of scripture that He is temporal but not merely temporal. He is in time but also transcends time in such a way to have existence outside it. He is BOTH inside and outside of the temporal box. He is neither confined by the box neither can it keep Him out. This may do away with libertarian free will but the Bible doesn't teach libertarian free will. In his book "Hope Beyond Hell" the Christian Universalist, Gerry Beauchmin, has a section that is completely true. He believes in the complete sovereignty of God and denies "free will". This is what I believe. God is completely sovereign but the paradox is that man is responsible. pp. 39-40


And the Lord your God will circumcise your heart and the heart of your offspring, so that you will love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul, that you may live. Deut. - 30:6

I know that you can do all things, and that no purpose of yours can be thwarted. - Job 42:2

Many are the plans in the mind of a man, but it is the purpose of the Lord that will stand. - Proverbs 19:21

A man's steps are from the Lord; how then can man understand his way? - Proverbs 20:24

The king's heart is a stream of water in the hand of the Lord; he turns it wherever he will. - Proverbs 21:1

declaring the end from the beginning and from ancient times things not yet done, saying, ‘My counsel shall stand, and I will accomplish all my purpose,’ calling a bird of prey from the east, the man of my counsel from a far country. I have spoken, and I will bring it to pass; I have purposed, and I will do it. - Isaiah 46:10-11

I will give them a heart to know that I am the Lord, and they shall be my people and I will be their God, for they shall return to me with their whole heart. - Jeremiah 24:7

all the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, and he does according to his will among the host of heaven and among the inhabitants of the earth; and none can stay his hand or say to him, “What have you done?” - Daniel 4:35

No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him. And I will raise him up on the last day. - John 6:44

So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. - Romans 9-16

You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” - Romans 9:19

for God has put it into their hearts to carry out his purpose by being of one mind and handing over their royal power to the beast, until the words of God are fulfilled. - Revelation 17:17
The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing — to reach the Mountain, to find the place where all the beauty came from - C.S Lewis
User avatar
Michael H
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:32 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Wed Oct 14, 2015 8:32 pm

Hi Chris - That was a good essay, that really needs to be longer to give you the space to expand some of the key ideas. I'm going to re-read it shortly. as per my usual irritating practice, I have a couple of questions.

1. In your view, are we fully human beings if our souls have not been incarnated? Are you espousing that idea?

2. If our pre-mortal (but not pre-existing??) state is a realm where our souls can love and rebel, it must follow that there are choices in that state, from which again it must follow that there is 'distance' between the presence of God and the soul, enough distance to allow for circumstances, for options, for temptations, and for fellowship. If those conjectures of mine are even close to being true, then we are building up a world before this world, a 'spiritual world' perhaps, but one where the eyes of our soul are opened and beholding situations and presences and choices.

I'm aware that this is not the only way to read your essay; just wanted your comments before I move on to another reading.
Thanks
Dave
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby davo » Wed Oct 14, 2015 9:25 pm

The most logical way to square “pre-existence” with “universalism” would be “reincarnation” – not exactly a foreign concept in 2T Judaism given certain implications raised by Jn 9:2.
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:29 am

davo wrote:The most logical way to square “pre-existence” with “universalism” would be “reincarnation” – not exactly a foreign concept in 2T Judaism given certain implications raised by Jn 9:2.


Nice find! Another verse I like that supports the idea that the Jews had some notion of pre-mortal existence is Psalm 139:15:

"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth."
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:44 am

DaveB wrote:Hi Chris - That was a good essay, that really needs to be longer to give you the space to expand some of the key ideas. I'm going to re-read it shortly. as per my usual irritating practice, I have a couple of questions.

1. In your view, are we fully human beings if our souls have not been incarnated? Are you espousing that idea?

2. If our pre-mortal (but not pre-existing??) state is a realm where our souls can love and rebel, it must follow that there are choices in that state, from which again it must follow that there is 'distance' between the presence of God and the soul, enough distance to allow for circumstances, for options, for temptations, and for fellowship. If those conjectures of mine are even close to being true, then we are building up a world before this world, a 'spiritual world' perhaps, but one where the eyes of our soul are opened and beholding situations and presences and choices.

I'm aware that this is not the only way to read your essay; just wanted your comments before I move on to another reading.
Thanks
Dave


I appreciate your careful engagement this subject Dave. Let's see what I can say about your questions.

1. I'm not sure about this! I do want to say that we are 'human', in the sense that we are still 'ourselves', but 'fully human' - I don't know. What does that mean, anyway? Are we fully human while in the womb? What about in the next life? I think I'd be content with simply saying that we existed somehow, though as to the type of body we had or exactly how we existed, I'm not sure.

2. What do you mean by putting 'but not pre-existing??' in parentheses? All I mean by 'pre-mortal' is 'pre-this earthly body'. Technically, 'pre-mortal existence' and 'pre-existence' do not have to mean different things.

I do think that what you say follows from a concept of pre-existence. Namely that we were created at an epistemic distance from God, enough that enables us to choose freely without being determined by what we saw as good. I'm fine with calling this a 'spiritual world'. We could even steal from Scripture and say that it exists 'before the foundations of the world'! 8-)
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:54 am

Thanks Chris.

Chrisguy90 wrote:What do you mean by putting 'but not pre-existing??' in parentheses? All I mean by 'pre-mortal' is 'pre-this earthly body'. Technically, 'pre-mortal existence' and 'pre-existence' do not have to mean different things.


I was thinking of this paragraph in your essay:

"As far as how this particular view of pre-mortal existence differs from Origenism, more on that will be said at the end. For now I will only say that Origen posited a state of ideal pre-existence, in which the soul communed with God in a heavenly realm and was, metaphysically speaking, ‘closer’ to Him than we are now. Hence his doctrine of a heavenly fall and subsequent restoration. On the contrary, the view I shall argue for is one where the initial existential situation is not one in which the soul itself is ‘communing’ with God. Instead, it is created in a primordial state which begins, and ultimately determines, its journey towards God."

In what way was Origen's doctrine of pre-existence different from yours of pre-mortal existence? I have read the end of the essay and, due to a mental condition with the technical name of 'fuzzyhead' the penny has not quite dropped. :lol:
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:21 pm

DaveB wrote:Thanks Chris.

Chrisguy90 wrote:What do you mean by putting 'but not pre-existing??' in parentheses? All I mean by 'pre-mortal' is 'pre-this earthly body'. Technically, 'pre-mortal existence' and 'pre-existence' do not have to mean different things.


I was thinking of this paragraph in your essay:

"As far as how this particular view of pre-mortal existence differs from Origenism, more on that will be said at the end. For now I will only say that Origen posited a state of ideal pre-existence, in which the soul communed with God in a heavenly realm and was, metaphysically speaking, ‘closer’ to Him than we are now. Hence his doctrine of a heavenly fall and subsequent restoration. On the contrary, the view I shall argue for is one where the initial existential situation is not one in which the soul itself is ‘communing’ with God. Instead, it is created in a primordial state which begins, and ultimately determines, its journey towards God."

In what way was Origen's doctrine of pre-existence different from yours of pre-mortal existence? I have read the end of the essay and, due to a mental condition with the technical name of 'fuzzyhead' the penny has not quite dropped. :lol:


Yeah! I didn't do a very good job of separating what I believe vs. what Origen believed. I mainly put the part in there about Origen simply to appeal more towards those who wish to maintain historic 'orthodoxy' and distance themselves from thinkers that have been labeled, in whatever degree, heretical.

But the view I espouse does differ from Origen's in that Origen seemed to posit a 'heavenly fall', whereas I'm positing more of a primordial point of spiritual origination. That is, Origen (who seems to follow Plato), seems to say that the pre-existent realm was a place in which we beheld God's glory and the eternal truths or forms, etc. But, due to the sins of lazziness and carelessness, we fell from that vantage point by not attending to what we should have been attending to. I, on the other hand, think it's much more reasonable to posit a 'beginning' point, in which we, rather than being closer to God and beholding Him, are at a distance and make an initial movement towards the Good. You could call this imperfect movement towards the good 'a fall', but only in the sense of someone falling as they try to climb up a set of stairs. It is not a fall from a 'higher' or 'more divine' state of being.

One positive of this view is that it's able to square better with Universalism. If we are simply regaining a status we've already had, what's to prevent us falling again? However, if we posit an initial movement of the will towards the Good, which itself conditions all our subsequent becoming, then we can say, since no act can ever be absolutely evil, all primordial acts in the pre-existent realm, however imperfect they were made, of necessity will result in the perfection of the one who made them. This happens through the particular process of temporal becoming that is appropriate given the initial, particular act that was made.

It is sort of like going into college. You make a decision, say, to be a doctor. Well, once that decision is made you're set out on a course that furnishes you with the necessary experiences in order to become a doctor. The difference is, of course, that there can be no such thing as a choice for evil as evil. There is only stunted choices for the good. So the 'final result' of the temporal process of becoming is a state of absolute goodness, by purifying and perfecting the initial 'stunted' choice towards the Good that the soul or spirit makes.

Does that make any sense at all? :oops:... :mrgreen:

By the way, for an amazing summary of Orien see Mark Scott's book: Journey Back to God: Origen on the Problem of Evil (http://www.amazon.com/dp/0190258837/ref ... eml_rv0_dp)
Last edited by Chrisguy90 on Thu Oct 15, 2015 6:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby DaveB » Thu Oct 15, 2015 1:46 pm

IMO you did a great job of writing that essay - writing clearly is hard work.

Various approaches to problems of divergence/paradox have always fascinated me - whether Kant postulating the nuomenal world in his transcendental critique, or astronomers 'saving the appearances' by postulating the epicycles, or even Plato theorizing on why people fall in love with certain 'types' (because they were in the presence of certain gods/goddesses in a pre-existence - actually a very lovely theory).

Whether your move accomplishes what it set out to do or not, I'm not sure yet, but it certainly has hooked me. And I admire anyone's effort that is put out into pubic view - it makes for a big target - especially with that provocative title! :D - and I've got to thank you for not being thin-skinned about it, Chris.
Thanks again.
Dave
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: 3241
Joined: Wed May 02, 2012 3:07 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby davo » Thu Oct 15, 2015 3:05 pm

Chrisguy90 wrote:
davo wrote:The most logical way to square “pre-existence” with “universalism” would be “reincarnation” – not exactly a foreign concept in 2T Judaism given certain implications raised by Jn 9:2.


Nice find! Another verse I like that supports the idea that the Jews had some notion of pre-mortal existence is Psalm 139:15:

"My frame was not hidden from you when I was made in the secret place, when I was woven together in the depths of the earth."

I might add… I don’t buy either pre-existence or reincarnation myself, but that these notions couldn’t have been in the hearts or minds of some in biblical times I should think a no-brainer, i.e., why like today wouldn’t some have pondered on these things?
“...the power and mercy of God’s grace is NOT limited to man’s ability to comprehend it...”
User avatar
davo
 
Posts: 1274
Joined: Tue Sep 25, 2012 6:10 am
Location: Brisbane Australia

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Eaglesway » Thu Oct 15, 2015 9:06 pm

God is infinite creativity, so it stands to reason that a spark of Himself placed into a chunk of clay would animate into a unique living soul illumined by His Spirit and that what it would become would be an individual reflection of His many faceted glory. The pre-existence I can see is that spirit, before it was given away as a piece of the Almighty into a mortal frame, to cause that soul to seek to return with that spirt to the One who gave it.

The God who made the world and all things in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands; nor is He served by human hands, as though He needed anything, since He Himself gives to all people life and breath and all things; and He made from one man every nation of mankind to live on all the face of the earth, having determined their appointed times and the boundaries of their habitation, that they would seek God, if perhaps they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and exist, as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.’
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Chrisguy90 » Fri Oct 16, 2015 5:38 am

Eaglesway wrote:God is infinite creativity, so it stands to reason that a spark of Himself placed into a chunk of clay would animate into a unique living soul illumined by His Spirit and that what it would become would be an individual reflection of His many faceted glory. The pre-existence I can see is that spirit, before it was given away as a piece of the Almighty into a mortal frame, to cause that soul to seek to return with that spirt to the One who gave it.


Thanks for your thought Eaglesway. You express yourself quite gracefully.

I wonder, have you thought about how, if the spirit does not pre-exist the body, we handle some of the tensions I mentioned in the opening post and in my essay?
Chrisguy90
 
Posts: 324
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2011 9:54 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Eaglesway » Fri Oct 16, 2015 9:06 am

I touch on this a little in something I posted yesterday called "another theory of everything."

Essentially, I believe God has provided freedom of choice in an environment with certain controls. We read in 2 Thess 2 about "He who restrains will restrain until He is taken out of the way" in relationship to the rise of the spirit of anti-christ which is already in the world, as John tells us, but at some point will increase in influence in the world towrd the end of the age preceding the ephiphanea/parousia/erchomai of the Lord Jesus. There is a lot of debate about that verse in detail but in principle it shows a precedent for God having a hand upon the mystery of iniquity to moderate it, and (I think)some of His restraint involves the "righteous acts of the saints".

I see "free will" as a stone cast into a spinning pot to keep the elements within from stratifying. Always churning up chaos in every generation and providing the necessity of "discernment in the moment", being aware and awake(watch and pray) in the "Now" of God (walking in the Spirit- Enoch walked with God) who says "I AM". For those who choose chaos, evil and self, futility will eventually consume their energy, their substance, their "life" until they are broken as a natural consequence within the parameters and working principles of the Creation Centrifuge ;)(Romans 8:12 and 20; Acts 17:26,27)

But the awe and reverence of God in His might and in His "eternal power and divine nature" is the beginning of wisdom. So the harder one kicks against the pricks the more forcefully one brings oneself agaisnt the superior cohesiveness of His love and truth, and eventually every rock will receive the Word that will crack it and allow water to come forth(Nmbers 20). God "speaks" to the rock- He does not strike it, and so we see Moses was corrected for "not believing"- and that unbelief is the reason for a spirit of anger and condemnation(hellism). God believes and knows the result of His speaking ("I believe therefore I have spoken")... "Let there be Light"----- transforming chaos into order, harmony, love and life.

So I don't see the tension between Calvinism and Arminianism(general reference to points of view) as being resolved in view of absolute conditions such as "How can God grant freedom if He thwarts that freedom and coerces it through inevitability to bend to His sovereign will.

I see it more like, "Come, let us reason together" from an intricately involved parent.

In the creation God has set in motion certain continuing foundational principles that cannot be mitigated, like.....

As a man sows so shall he reap

Sow the wind reap the whirlwind

He that exalts himself will be abased (and its inverse)

Forgive and you will be forgiven (and its inverse)

etc.... So you have freedom, discernment, correction and mercy all implanted operationally in the "theosphere" plus the continuing moment to moment personal involvement of the Creator who sees every sparrow fall and knows the hairs upon each head.

Along with this God reserves His freedom to choose and make exceptions and insert influencing factors..."I will harden whom I will harden and have mercy on whom I will have mercy"...."It is not to Him who runs or to Him who wills but upon whom God has mercy".

Everyone who calls upon the name of the Lord will be saved....but when from what? IMO from the result of the breaking of the fundamental principles of life and the tendency to do so because of choices driven by appetite..... in other words, conversion followed by progressive transformation(Christ in you the hope of glory). To me this is a process thatt is ongoing in the cosmos on an individual to individual basis and on a progressive time to generation to age basis and on a "corporate mankind as one" basis. (chemical, organic, spiritual..the kingdom of heaven is like a measure of yeast hidden in three measures of dough till all was leavened)

In the Chronicles of Narnia, Lewis deals a lot with "gates" and "portals" and the consequences of transformation and the power of selfish and selfless persons and the effects of their attitudes and acts upon the surrounding world.

Winter comes because the Ice Queen is risen and she rises because creatures choose her delights rather than the warmth and trueness of Aslan's Way.

In Perelandra Ransom battles with Weston's "unman", allegorically, to save his heart from the dominion of his mind(tree of life versus tree of knowledge of good and evil) and a bitter battle it is. ("the flesh lusts against the spirit and the spirit lusts agianst the flesh so you cannot do as you wish...the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak....walk in the spirit and you will not fulfill the lusts of the flesh....if you do by the spirit put to death the deeds of the flesh you shall live")

In That Hideous Strength he dealt even more clearly(imo) with the whole concept of intelligence without faith and love and the struggle within mankind as a whole to deliver the community from that hideous power through direct action, trueness of heart and laying down ones life for a friend.

I personally think the Great Divorce is a s good an illustration of how God is working with people "behind the veil" as there could be... and a good picture of what the LOF is, and I think that if Lewis did not fully conceive the reconciliation of all things, it was because he gave a little to much credit to the power of chaos and evil, which, as we have seen in the history of the world- as well as in our own lives- must always fall to the degradation of its own entropy and inertia.

Man's will simply cannot sustain resistance to God indefinitely and his arguments can only recycle as long as his appetites drive them and God is independently eternal but man is not, so a breaking point must come and that is when the revelation of Christ crucified will break through the veil and the soul will be redeemed. In every soul where this has occured a new portal is opened. Another gate lifted up.

"Lift up ye gates and be lifted up ye everlasting doors that the king of glory may come in".

"The veil of the heavens will be rolled back like a scroll and the sign of the son of man will appear in the heavens and He will come in the clouds with ten thousands of ten thousands of His holy ones and every eye will see Him even those who have pierced Him."

I never claim to possess any resolution of the tension between predestination and free will because I believe that is a mystery that can only be "seen through a glass darkly" For who has known the mind of the Lord and who has been His counselor"

I generally believe that predestination is fulfilled in both the foreknowledge of God and in the fact that He has caused all things to work together for good, and that His "kind intention" is the reconciliation of all things and the gathering together of all things into one in Christ and that he tinkers with the machine and its individual parts all along the way to accomplish a pre-determined purpose(causes all things to work according to the counsel of His will).

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we would be holy and blameless before Him. In love He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, which He freely bestowed on us in the Beloved. In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of His grace which He lavished on us. In all wisdom and insight He made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His kind intention which He purposed in Him with a view to an administration suitable to the fullness of the times, that is, the summing up of all things in Christ, things in the heavens and things on the earth. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will, to the end that we who were the first to hope in Christ would be to the praise of His glory. (Eph 1)

An extemporaneous response that may or may not resolve the tensions you defined - but at perhaps enlarges perspective(or perhaps not! :)). I am not trying to make an emphatic statement against the possibility of pre-existence either, I just feel the creation record and its language cause me to lean heavily towards the creation of a living soul when the breath of life enters the clay, and that creative act and its uniqueness kind of thrills me, knowing that every single one will eventually find its place in Him as sparks rising from the fire.
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Paidion » Fri Oct 16, 2015 11:35 am

Michael wrote:While God is timeless and can see all events equally vividly His experience of time is unique and very different than ours. He can exist in a timeless "now" and still be within time.


Hi Michael,

Let's say that God sees the future event of you performing Act A at 3 P.M., August 23, 2016. Then it is impossible for you to refrain from performing Act A on that date at that time. It's inevitable. You have no choice in the matter. Expand that to all people and to all events, and no one has the ability to choose.

It would be like watching a movie. All events in a movie have been pre-determined. No matter how many times you run the movie, there will be no difference in the events. So if all events on earth have been pre-determined, God might as well have created a race of robots.
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: 3362
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2009 5:38 pm
Location: The Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Eaglesway » Fri Oct 16, 2015 1:37 pm

Let's say God is so huge He sees all possible choices and knows which one you will choose, perhaps foresee you choosing it. He might speak to you "in time" about it, but does not choose it for you. He would foreknow you. You would not be a robot. But maybe He would be really bored. :lol:
Eaglesway
 
Posts: 867
Joined: Sat Feb 11, 2012 7:01 am

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby Michael H » Sat Oct 17, 2015 7:08 am

Paidion,

You need to come to grips with the fact that there is paradox in reality. God's Lordship and control over us is paradoxical to our human responsibility. Just as God is three and one. Just as Christ is human and divine. Just as we are good and evil. Just as we are living and dying. ALL AT THE SAME TIME!
The sweetest thing in all my life has been the longing — to reach the Mountain, to find the place where all the beauty came from - C.S Lewis
User avatar
Michael H
 
Posts: 232
Joined: Thu Aug 27, 2015 7:32 pm

Re: Pre-existence: the missing piece to the Universalist puz

Postby LLC » Sat Oct 17, 2015 12:38 pm

Coming from the point of view that Eaglesway mentions about the spark and the clay, I think what pre-existed is God. God has always existed, and when He created man, He put something of Himself inside of us. As it says in Genesis, everything on the earth has the seed of itself, in itself, according to it's kind. When it comes to the terms "pre-determined" and "foreknowledge", as Paidion mentions, I don't think that God has already determined or already knows every move that each individual is going to make. But just like the seed of a tree, that seed is pre destined to be a tree and bear the fruit of it's kind. It's not that God says "this particular seed is going to land in this particular spot and grow at this particular time." But seeds go where they will, some are carried by the wind far away, some grow in rocky hillsides, some in fertile ground etc. As we know, some seeds can lay dormant in the ground for many years until they get enough water to sprout. The seed that is inside of us is one that never dies, so I suppose that even though it may take awhile, this seed will eventually sprout and grow.
LLC
 
Posts: 622
Joined: Mon Mar 02, 2015 9:45 am


Return to Philosophical

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest