Jump to content

Universal Reconciliation continued...


Recommended Posts

before I beging back on this subject,

I'd like to thank Fatty and gang for getting the board back up...

Man, I clicked on my MMMM button for about 2 or so weeks and it went from "server is down" to NO PAGE AT ALL!!!

 

I thought, man IT"S GONE! MMMM IS GONE!!!

LOL! I was sad :)

 

I met you all some 4-5 years ago and had some great nights CSing with you all, yea I sucked and I'm no better than that first day I played. But I gotta say I've met some GREAT people and still hope to meet some of you some day.

 

I'll pick back up mine and darks conversation on this subject..

 

Just wanted to say thanks Fats and all who do work on the forum.

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thats alot of U or UR takes (especially talbotts) however I take a different route.

My feelings (understanding) is that the scriptures are built on tensions rather than on harmonies.

 

So when one person says,

see this parable proves no one can ever cross

then I ask to show how the lady looking for the lost coin and does not stop until she finds it. Or the lost sheep, the same.

 

So tension arises between eternal outcasting from God and a God who seeks out his son and does not stop until he finds it.

a tension arises between a God who is pure and holy and cannot tolerate sin and a God who loves the wicked and eats suppers with the wicked

a tension arises between a God who seeks to save his creation from sin and a God who is going to kill the wicked creation that does not repent.

a tension between a God who loves the wicked so much that he lays his life down for them and a God who is going to cut off his creation FOREVER.

A God who's love endures forever and a God who gives a timeline and torments people forever (while loving them?)

A God who's patience is ever enduring and a God who's patience has set limits

A God who is merciful and a God who is violently cruel

A God who does not show favoritism and a God who has a chosen elect group

A God who commands us to be like him and love our enemies and a God who is going to wipe out his enemies

 

My point is that the parables are meant to have a point and may even mean it, however it must be weighed out in the overall scheme of scripture.

If one person says "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sistersâ€â€yes, even his own lifeâ€â€he cannot be my disciple."

tension:

honor your father and mother (1 of the 10) and hate your father, mother, wife, children, brother, sister and yourself"

now this one is obvious and therfore makes the point. of which of these should be considered literal and worthy of teaching? Obvious answer is "love".

The reason is not mathmatical though, but rather should be based on the character of God which the scripture bears out.

 

So when I find the parable saying "anyone who wants to go from here (heaven) to there (hell) cannot because the chasm is fixed" does not mean there will be people in heaven who want to go to hell. I see it more pointing out that those who live by faith receive eternal life while those who reject God receive death. A wicked man cannot inherit the kingdom of God nor can a rigtheouss man receive the wrath of God. It is impossible for either of the two to exist and in that way it is fixed.

If someone begs God, please dont' throw me in the lake of fire they will be thrown in.

But it does not mean God is not dealing with them in a way of love that he cannot reconcile them in the next age.

 

So I'm not saying "your crazy" for reading it that way, but rather, the chracter of God does not seem to me to be one who torments people forever but a God who seeks his lost sheep and his patience is unending. Thus like "hate your father" I tend to think the parable is sense of hyperbole of "no one ever gets out". I don't even think it's to make them afraid but to tell them the reality of being seperated from God.

 

Aug

Edited by auggybendoggy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

the chracter of God does not seem to me to be one who torments people forever but a God who seeks his lost sheep and his patience is unending.

Aug

 

But that's your interpretation of God's character. I readily agree with the second part, not the first. I know we both would say that God cant be put into a box, but the argument is based on the fact that God cant do two opposing things at the same time. Yet, God is infinite, and we cant wrap our heads around that - for example, He is filled with joy at one "moment" and anger at the same time.

 

What do you make of that Revelation passage that talks about "the smoke of their torment rises forever"? Or being tossed outside of the banquet, or when the servants who misuse the vinyard and kill the owners son are "cut to pieces"?

 

It just still seems to me that you can explain away any part of scripture if you want to. Like, you have said taht an aspect of this is God's power, and if he cant save everyone he's not powerful enough. Yet (I hope!) you dont say God's not powerful enough when he lets a christian starve to death, even though in Matt 6 and 7 that he'll supply ALL of our needs if we ask him... Seems like a contradiction, but at the heart of the matter it's not. How can a loving God let people starve to death?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Talbott argues (which I agree) that God's character is always true to his nature...

That means that if God is just then he always acts justly. HE NEVER ACTS UNJUSTLY.

If God is love then he always acts in love. Thus to see how he dies for those whom he

is angry to the point of killing them becomes a bit hazy.

 

My point is the very ones God is angry with is because he has a righteouss and RESTORATIVE anger. We believe this because

we believe that God wants all men to come to repentance at the same time he is angry with them and pours out his wrath

upon them.

 

Thus it is not a one or the other

God's JUSTIVE VS. God's LOVE

Rather they work together bringing God's will (that he may have mercy on them all) to fruition.

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll quote a paragraph I found...

 

"Many are the attempts made by those who understand nothing of the real character of God to save Him from the undesirable reputation He must acquire if He does not in compassion rescue all beings from eternal retribution. Such is the doctrinal confusion which arises when one truth is stressed without regard for other truths which qualify it. God is holiness and righteousness as well as love It is the holiness of His Person and the righteousness of His government which preclude Him from any mere generosity which would make light of sin. In fact, sin is sufficiently sinful to require eternal retribution as the divine penalty for it. There is no field for argument at this point. The Word of God must stand and man must be reminded that of the two issues involved---sin and holiness---he knows nothing about their depth of meaning. Being absolute, divine holiness cannot be varied or altered in the least degree. This truth is the key to the entire problem which the idea of retribution engenders. If God could have forgiven one sin of one person as an act of mere kindness, He would have compromised His own holiness which demands judgment for sin. Having thus compromised Himself with sin, He would need Himself to be saved because of the unrighteous thing He had done. He would, by such supposed kindness, have established a principle by which He could forgive all human sin as an act of divine clemency, and thus the death of Christ is rendered unnecessary. This truth must not be overlooked if the doctrine of eternal retribution is to be understood at all. Let it be restated that, if God could save one soul from one sin by mere generosity, He could save all souls from sin by generosity and the death of Christ thus becomes the greatest possible divine blunder.

 

It is the fact of unyielding divine holiness which demands either the retribution of the sinner or the death of Christ in his room and stead. God is love, and that love is demonstrated by the gift of the Son that men might be saved; but love and mercy did not circumvent the demands of holiness to save the sinner: they paid its every demand. The conclusion of the matter is that God, because of His holiness, cannot save the lost unless His holy demands are met for the sinner, as they are met in the death of Christ; and to be unsaved, or outside the grace of God as it is in Christ, is to be destined to eternal retribution. God can do no more than to provide a perfect salvation, which is provided at infinite cost. When love will pay such a price that a sinner may be saved and holiness remain untarnished, it ill becomes finite men to tamper with these immutable realities. Those who resent the idea of eternal retribution are, in fact, resenting divine holiness. However, the message of God's grace to sinful men is not merely a proclamation of eternal condemnation; it is rather that the chief of sinners may be saved through the Savior that infinite love has provided. "

 

That's basically what I've been trying to say, but they sound a lot smarter than me ;)

 

It's 2 am now, night man. Have a good one!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is a classis position of the ET (eternal torment) believer. Namely that God's holiness requires justice and not forgiveness.

I agree with Talbott that the problem with the view is God has conflict within himself in this view. As Mcdonald (who both talbott and he came from the ET position)

states in the first chapter "A hell of a problem" we view God as having a internal conflict within of love and justice. The ET viewer sees

that God's holiness cannot EVER be compromised but God's love CAN FAIL....(1 cor 13 'love never fails'). And thus set up a perfect God into a utter failure.

Namely God is trying to save EVERY MAN by drawing him but the man in his arrogance refuses God's attempt and God's grace is stumped.

 

"Such is the doctrinal confusion which arises when one truth is stressed without regard for other truths which qualify it."

Exactly my point in the "tension" post. You have one verse I have another. The person who wrote this sees 1 truth "holiness" as being the diving decree that cannot be altered.

But in his attempt to protect God's holiness he compromises God's love (which NEVER fails). The perfect God (be perfect as our Father in heaven is perfect) must not only be holy, just and loving but also FLAWLESS or esle there is no certainty that he will prevail for he makes errors.

 

In my view (I think, not I know...Talbott would agree) that indeed Love reigns supreme in the character of God. It is because he is perfect in love by which his power and holiness are met. Most people think of "love" as an emotion.

 

God is holiness and righteousness as well as love It is the holiness of His Person and the righteousness of His government which preclude Him from any mere generosity which would make light of sin.

Mcdonald makes the point which is well said. It is not that UR make light of sin though in the mind of the ET, thats what they think. Rather it is that most of mankind underestimate the love and grace of God...

Romans 5:20 "The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,"

Men often think that Sin can actually beat God's grace. Not only this but in God's attempt to save the world (john 3:16) Sin wins more people than God as only few (remnant) are saved. Thus the 1 act of unrightouessness OUTSHINES the 1 act of righteoussness.

According to Paul:Romans 5

15But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.

 

18Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men. 19For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.

 

The paragraph you post is for U and not UR so for that much I agree with them. God punishes sin but the UR questions God's punishment. Mainly that God punishes with love and that he seeks to reconcile EACH and EVERY human via humility. It is God who humbles and NO ONE ELSE.

 

So I see no problem for the UR in that the view does not say God will let each man go to heaven, but rather that God will not fail in saving each and every person from falling forever. That means that each man will get saved and be changed and so God's holiness and love and perfection all are met.

In the view of the ET love is defeated for most of man kind, namely that God attempted to save them but in his attempt they chose not to turn to him, and thus he torments them forever.

 

In the reconciliations belief, God attempts to save the world, and God succeeds in the end.

 

The dogma of "The Word of God must stand and man must be reminded that of the two issues involved" only leads one to the same clutter. This proves nothing except ignorance that others of a different view take God's word serious.

Also note that there are 3 issues involved of which he mentions but man only needs to be reminded of 2 (sin and holiness)?

what about Love.

 

Of course this one is ommited because love covers a multitude of sins and that is problematic because forgivness is an ABSOLUTE contradiction to our view of holiness.

Justice provides that the evil doer receive what his sin demands. But Forgiveness (mercy) takes justice and puts it in it's place.

 

Dark, the problem with these guys is they don't understand the UR view. God's holiness is not met in permanently serperating his creation forever but in redeeming all that which is lost.

 

This writer seems to think holiness cannot sit in the presence of sinners. JESUS DESTROYS FULLY THAT VIEW. The Pharisees would agree with the above viewpoint of God's holiness. I believe Jesus would agree with Talbotts view that God in his justice presents love which ENDURES FOREVER and NEVER FAILS, and KEEPS NO RECORDS OF WRONGS OR RIGHTS, and IS PERFECT. Thus God truly has bound all men over to disobedience (rom 11) so that he may have mercy on them all. (is that too holy, too amazing, too wonderfull, too sweet)? He is indeed more amazing that we truly know.

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I understand the scriptures, God's love and God being love is an extension of His holiness. God is first and foremost not like us, set apart, very "other", and His love is an aspect of that "other-ness". I'm not downplaying God's love in it's perfection at all, rather uplifting His holiness. What about the thousands of verses that talk about God destroying His enemies, God the warrior, God the righteous judge who will blow away the wicked like chaff?

 

I in no way omit God's love in eternal damnation. God is still 100% love and merciful and gracious. His love never fails, and He's perfect. Jesus came to save us from eternal separation from God - if God is to dismiss (through Jesus work of course) every sin committed, whether in this life or even AFTER we die, then there really is nothing to be saved from. We really didnt need Him after all.

 

Without dismissing scripture, "Just as man is destined to die once and after to face judgment"... (Heb 9:27) - what about that verse? We're to be judged once we die.

 

Again, you've been arguing from a philosophical point of view and not a theological. What Talbott has is a philosophy of God, and is missing the heart of God. God is watered-down and tamed, and I dont see that as beautiful, I see it as sad.

 

+1 for dark's shorter posts! :D jk man :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dark,

I'm convinved that God's holiness is a result of his love. Indeed don't get me wrong as if Holiness is not God's nature, I believe God is NEVER UNHOLY but all the same I believe he never acts OUT OF HATRED toward those whom he loves (his creation).

 

God destroying his enemies is part of the mystery of scripture that is revealed in Jesus. What I mean is for years people read (still do today) the bible as if it were tom sawyer. Not realizing that God LOVES his enemies. They simply read scriptures like the first 3 chapters of psalms and read "God hates those who do evil" and many many other verses that described God's hatred for the wicked.

 

But in all this were little verses that God indeed loves the wicked and Jesus comes and argues God does love the wicked and wants them to "repent".

 

Heres an example...

We (from our natural reading) concieve of God as being both a blessing or a curse (depends on your choice). We see God as VIOLENT if you do not choose him. Thus the ALL POWERFUL, HOLY God is coming to get you!

Jesus comes along and states God is compassionate and merciful and we should be like him FORGIVING THOSE WHO WRONG US AND LOVING OUR ENEMIES.

 

In the OT loving the enemies is not aparant in scripture. So it seems reasonable for me to assume that the pharisees and sad's argued that God's mercy depended on YOU!

Jesus easily could point the the OT scriptures that state God is merciful (if you'll only turn) but the sanhedrin would turn to Jesus and say "your only reading part of the scripture and not the whole".

 

I believe Jesus tells them many times "you dont understand the scriptures"??? WHY?

because it's not a normal book like tom sawyer.

 

So this leads me down the road of some AWSOME revelation that God has mercy on men because they are IGNORANT!

 

We think God has mercy on us because we repent....

NO WAY!

We repent because God has already had mercy on us to move us (draw us) towards this repentance.

 

Think of Paul, He was confronted by God not because he cried out "forgive me" rather God met him on the road to damascus and thus paul repented.

Paul writes to timothy...

"God had mercy on me because of my IGNORANCE".

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We think God has mercy on us because we repent....

NO WAY!

We repent because God has already had mercy on us to move us (draw us) towards this repentance.

 

Think of Paul, He was confronted by God not because he cried out "forgive me" rather God met him on the road to damascus and thus paul repented.

Paul writes to timothy...

"God had mercy on me because of my IGNORANCE".

 

Aug

 

I agree 100%!!! You're a Calvanist after all! :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with both on different points.

 

On the matter of man is dead in his sin I agree with reformed

but on the matter of God loves all men I agree with arminian.

 

I feel there is enough evidence to say that the only reason we are able to choose God is because God humbled us

and softened our hearts and it is not dependant on mans efforts or his desires but on whom he wants to have mercy (romans 9).

 

The Arm view that God lets us choose our destiny makes no sense to me any longer. If we are bound to sin and we are ignorant of God's goodness

than how do we find it? I believe because God led us like sheep to water. We dont find God, God finds us. We are truly lost, truly blind, as Jesus came

to give sight to the blind and set the captives free.

 

Sure has been great talking with you Dark, I do appreciate your opinion and though we disagree, I pray God blesses you and keeps you safe bro!

 

God Bless man,

 

Hey has school started back up for you?

 

Aug

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel there is enough evidence to say that the only reason we are able to choose God is because God humbled us

and softened our hearts and it is not dependant on mans efforts or his desires but on whom he wants to have mercy (romans 9).

 

Yep, totally true and it's just our way of thinking that puts us at the centre of the universe that would say otherwise - not the scriptures! :) And I've enjoyed the talks too because it's made my ask why I believe what I believe, and has pointed me to look towards the character of God, not just theological truths.

 

School starts for me on Thursday, so I have about 5 more days off until then. Then books books books, math math math, fun fun not. I may be remembering incorrectly, but dont you record (music)? And if I'm right, dont you owe me a file to listen to? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...