tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post2975971408048966538..comments2024-03-28T12:34:14.649-07:00Comments on dangerous idea: Universalism amongst the early church fathersVictor Repperthttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10962948073162156902noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-91844417990134248342011-09-02T22:20:33.914-07:002011-09-02T22:20:33.914-07:00Here are some quotes from a Paper . Authored by N....Here are some quotes from a Paper . Authored by N. N. Trakakis a philosopher of religion who calls himself a tentative Theist and has defended the Atheist philosopher Rowe's evidential argument from Evil against the existence of God.<br /><br /><br />QUOTE"Perhaps the most problematic feature of most theodicies is the way in which they conceptualize God. The problem, more specifically, is that theodicies such as those one finds in Hick and Swinburne, and in most discussions in contemporary analytic philosophy, <b>presuppose a thoroughly anthropomorphic conception of God.</b><br /><br /> God in the analytic tradition is understood as an individual entity or substance of some sort, usually a person or person-like being who exists alongside other personal beings (such as humans and angels) and non-personal things (whether they be things in the physical world, or the physical world itself).<br /><br /> The anthropomorphism of this conception of divinity is especially clear in the case of ‘perfect-being theology’,where the attributes of God are modeled on human virtues or excellences. In determining which properties are to count as ‘great-making’, the perfect-being theologian typically looks to see which properties are considered excellences or virtues in the case of humans.<br /><br /> Given that properties such as power, knowledge, and goodness would generally count as great-making in humans, the magnitude of each such property is then infinitely extended (e.g., the limited and fallible knowledge of humans is replaced by unlimited and infallible knowledge, or omniscience) and finally that property, suitably maximized, is ascribed to God.<br /><br /> Herein lies the anthropomorphic character of this methodology. <b>God,on the perfect-being model, looks very much like a human being, albeit a quite extraordinary one, one inflated into infinite proportions: a ‘super-duper superman’.........The gulf between Creator and creatures may be great, but it is not an absolute one, for it is only one of degree.</b>BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-45102163296600303032011-05-03T22:36:54.754-07:002011-05-03T22:36:54.754-07:00It's all too confusing. I think I'll have ...It's all too confusing. I think I'll have to consult a few external expert sources to see if I can get my head around this; Dawkins maybe, perhaps Hitchins. And of course, Sam Harris, the noted neuroscientist studying the debilitating effect of religion on a person's incapacity to relate or identify physical reality will assist in this review.Papalintonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03818630173726146048noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-85578636745481070732011-04-29T12:23:43.073-07:002011-04-29T12:23:43.073-07:00Forgive this interruption from the peanut gallery....Forgive this interruption from the peanut gallery...<br /><br />Will God save everyone? I don't know. Only God knows.<br /><br />Now if you'll excuse me, I've gotta go try to wash this terrible plank out of my eye....Shacklemanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01190598990748327537noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58284968979755029412011-04-29T12:23:14.654-07:002011-04-29T12:23:14.654-07:00>I like what someone said about the views of th...>I like what someone said about the views of the church fathers changing. They were not infallible and should not be treated as such.<br /><br />That might have been me....individual Fathers can teach error.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-48632045992096629412011-04-29T11:28:50.526-07:002011-04-29T11:28:50.526-07:00Ben:
On the question of denial of authority of tr...Ben:<br /><br />On the question of denial of authority of tradition -- denial of the Authority of Tradition(2 Thes 3:6), -- you are on firmer ground with II Thess 2:15.<br /><br />Even then I would argue you are over reaching but that is an argument for another day.<br /><br />I like what someone said about the views of the church fathers changing. They were not infallible and should not be treated as such.GREVhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10415494137313565242noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-58028917758902225652011-04-29T10:55:15.599-07:002011-04-29T10:55:15.599-07:00Hello again Gregory:
I guess you and I may simply...Hello again Gregory:<br /><br />I guess you and I may simply have to agree to disagree on the historical question of whether St. Gregory was a consistent universalist who never wavered in his belief in universal restoration. For the additional quotation you provide carries no implication, so far as I can tell, of unending punishment. Here it is again:<br /><br />"For if any one becomes wholly and thoroughly carnal in thought, such a one, with every motion and energy of the soul absorbed in fleshly desires, is not parted from such attachments, even in the disembodied state....So it is that, when the change is made into the impalpable Unseen, not even then will it be possible for the lovers of the flesh to avoid dragging away with them under any circumstance some fleshly foulness; and thereby their torment will be intensified, their soul having been materialized by such surroundings."<br /><br />You can find even harsher-sounding passages, by the way, in George MacDonald, who was unquestionably a consistent universalist, and similar passages even in Origen. In fact, the above quotation fits perfectly with Gregory’s understanding of universalism. The picture is this: The more rebellious the unrepentant become, the more intense will be their inner torment. That is but one reason why, if I may put it in an over-simplified manner, their rebellion cannot last forever.<br /><br />Of course, any interpretation of the Bible as a whole, whether it be from a Calvinist, an Arminian, or a universalist perspective, must deal with both the theme of judgment and that of God’s ultimate triumph over sin and death through Jesus Christ; they must deal, in other words, with an initial appearance of inconsistency here. As you point out yourself: “In fact, he [Gregory] goes on to note a "contradiction" here with his previous pontifications on the apokatastasis; and then tries to reconcile them.”<br /><br />Exactly! I rest my case.<br /><br />-Tom<br /><br />P.S. Incidentally, two of my own sisters and their families are members of an Eastern Orthodox Church, of which I think very highly. I also think highly of Bishop Kallistos Ware who, of course, comes down on the side of a non-dogmatic universalism.Topm Talbotthttp://www.willamette.edu/~ttalbott/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30391845897851911472011-04-29T08:04:44.048-07:002011-04-29T08:04:44.048-07:00Cheers Dave.:-)Cheers Dave.:-)BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-14187397970460859252011-04-29T07:52:37.742-07:002011-04-29T07:52:37.742-07:00Ben: I can't argue with customer. I lived in ...Ben: I can't argue with customer. I lived in Japan too long. The customer is always right, even when he's wrong. :- )David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-64563112587395737742011-04-29T07:43:16.775-07:002011-04-29T07:43:16.775-07:00We have by definition as rational creatures moral ...We have by definition as rational creatures moral obligations to Our Creator. God is not a Creature of any sort and by definition has no creator thus he has no moral obligations. He is <b>Goodness Itself</b> from which created moral Good derives but God is not morally good in the sense a creature of his must ideally be.BenYachovhttp://www.catholic.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-69793335303894592782011-04-29T07:28:52.094-07:002011-04-29T07:28:52.094-07:00>God is beyond evaluation, yet not beyond prais...>God is beyond evaluation, yet not beyond praise?<br /><br />Could not a scientist praise the biological innovations of Evolution? <br /><br />Yet would it be coherent to evaluate Evolution morally? <br /><br />OTOH Brian Davies might say the praise we give to God is not moral praise. When we praise God we are not saying "Job well done!" as if God could somehow fail at his actions.<br /><br />Praise to God is the gratitude due him for actions He need not have done. <br /><br />If my biological Father helps me that is significant. But in a certain sense as his child Dad is obligated to help me.<br /><br />OTOH if Donald Trump who owes me nothing helps me he is due gratuitous praise for his gratuitous good act.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-3289935098719255632011-04-29T06:36:34.109-07:002011-04-29T06:36:34.109-07:00BenY says
"I love this Classic view of God! ...BenY says<br /><br />"I love this Classic view of God! ...<br /><br />Praise God!"<br /><br />God is beyond evaluation, yet not beyond praise?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-37055309266418941352011-04-29T00:27:17.112-07:002011-04-29T00:27:17.112-07:00Tom:
I think that if you had considered his exege...Tom:<br /><br />I think that if you had considered his exegesis of David on "dipped in the blood of the ungodly", it's clear that he has eternal punishment in mind. He even states it categorically as such....namely, that the righteous understand their felicity in light of those who had gone to perdition. Again, let me produce a quote:<br /><br />"Man, like some earthen potsherd, is resolved again into the dust of the ground, in order to secure that he may part with the soil he has now contracted, and that he may, through the resurrection, be reformed anew after the original pattern; <i>at least if in this life that now is he has preserved what belongs to that image."</i><br /><br />Taken from his "Great Catechism".<br /><br />Again, as I said before, St. Gregory's views were mixed....much like St. Augustine's early views on freewill were different compared to his later thinking.<br /><br />At the very least, I have provided some primary source material to think about. I don't expect everyone to agree with me. I certainly don't expect many to care. But for those that do care, I hope they will consider reading the early Church Fathers themselves. Don't just read <i>about</i> St. Augustine....read St. Augustine for your self. So, if I have awakened the "Berean" from his/her dogmatic slumbers, then I feel that I have done my job.<br /><br />Remember to pray.Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-24850423685233263002011-04-29T00:00:56.748-07:002011-04-29T00:00:56.748-07:00That is why I provided the quotations. But let me...That is why I provided the quotations. But let me add to that quotation so that there is no mistaking what St. Gregory is saying there:<br /><br />"For if any one becomes wholly and thoroughly carnal in thought, such a one, with every motion and energy of the soul absorbed in fleshly desires, is not parted from such attachments, even in the disembodied state....So it is that, when the change is made into the impalpable Unseen, not even then will it be possible for the lovers of the flesh to avoid dragging away with them under any circumstance some fleshly foulness; and thereby their torment will be intensified, their soul having been materialized by such surroundings."<br /><br />In fact, he goes on to note a "contradiction" here with his previous pontifications on the apokatastasis; and then tries to reconcile them.<br /><br />However, I have not denied that he taught a "restoration" of all things. What I said is that he is not consistent on it...which is why I provided quotes from his other works. Also, all of his writings are not readily available, at the moment, in English translations. I suspect that we will find more anti-apokatastasis quotations there as well.<br /><br />Lastly, it makes little sense "why" St. Gregory would have spent exhaustive amounts of time refuting heretics like Eunomious if he absolutely believed that they all were guaranteed to be "saved" in the end. Even the elucidation of the meaning of the Holy Trinity becomes an exercise in superfluous ranting if there be no consequences beyond a temporary slap on the wrist and a free hall pass.<br /><br />If it were true that all mankind would be saved, even if purified through a temporal "fire", then I would have no problem assenting to this. In fact, it would be quite comforting.<br /><br />However, the Orthodox Church has had many Saints whom have directed the teachings toward eternal punishment: from the visions of St. Anthony to the frightening revelations of St. John of the Ladder. In other words, eternal punishment is not merely a "Latin" concept that was ignored by the Greeks.<br /><br />Note that St. Gregory was a married man who went on to extol the virtues of "virginity". Indeed, the man was capable of changing his mind. <br /><br />Robert Payne's "The Holy Fire" is where I started to develop the notion that St. Gregory straddled both sides of the fence on the issue of "hell".Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-19376338689344572442011-04-28T23:26:03.451-07:002011-04-28T23:26:03.451-07:00JP said:
"If what you meant is that even omn...JP said:<br /><br /><i>"If what you meant is that even omnipotence cannot simply force a person to willingly do what they are unwilling to do, then of course I agree (and have said as much myself on that topic elsewhere), seeing as how even omnipotence cannot do that which is intrinsically contradictive. But that was not what I said; I was very careful to use the word 'lead'.<br /><br />And if we cannot trust omnipotence and omniscience to omnicompetently lead even 'sinners of sinners' to repentance and righteousness, then you yourself have no hope of salvation either. (Nor I nor anyone else.)</i><br /><br />It remains to be seen whether I will pass the "test", so to speak. So I can only say, like St. Paul, that I "put no confidence in the flesh". That is to say, that I trust in the grace, mercy and love of God. But I'm not a monergist. I maintain, as the Fathers do, that man must co-operate with God in his/her own salvation. I have written elsewhere that all mankind has been "saved" through Jesus Christ. Meaning, that through the Incarnation, humanity--both body and soul--was brought into union with God through Christ. <br /><br />But that is not the entire story, for we cannot be said to be followers of "The Way" if we are not on His path. Nor ought we expect to reach our intended destination if we persist in going astray.<br /><br />It is a category mistake to place Divine Omnipotence as having "power" over a "free" act. It's like trying to say "the color round tastes shiny". Therefore, "middle knowledge" strategies, along with Calvinism, have already lost at the starting gate...unless, of course, one has already denied genuine, non-compatibilistic human freedom. I take it that JP holds to some libertarian position.<br /><br />If you are a proponent of libertarian freedom, then you necessarily have--at the very least have--left open the possibility of eternal punishment. And if one were to subscribe to the bizarre hermeneutic tradition of Origen, then I suppose the denial of everlasting torment could be made plausible.<br /><br />Tom Talbot said:<br /><br /><i>"What puzzles me, in any event, is why you ignore the numerous passages in which Gregory both declares his belief that all created persons will eventually be redeemed and also explains exactly how to interpret the passages that you have quoted. Certainly Gregory believed in the possibility of terrifying punishment in the next life; he even believed, as his comment on Luke 16 illustrates, that an unbridgeable gulf exists between the unrepentant who experience God as a consuming fire and those safely in Abraham’s bosom. For as long as the unrepentant remain unrepentant, nothing can bridge that gulf and nothing can extinguish the consuming fire of purification. But at this point we must consider how Gregory puts the theme of judgment through fire together with that of universal restoration."</i>Gregorynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-89219318656284098442011-04-28T22:46:18.987-07:002011-04-28T22:46:18.987-07:00Coming to see that there is a God involves seeing ...Coming to see that there is a God involves seeing a new meaning in one’s life, and being given a new understanding. The Hebrew-Christian conception of God is not a conception of a being among beings.<br />-Classic Theism<br /><br />God,on the perfect-being model, looks very much like a human being, albeit a quite extraordinary one, one inflated into infinite proportions: a ‘super-duper superman’<br />-Theistic PersonalismSon of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-54452291022544904632011-04-28T22:29:47.756-07:002011-04-28T22:29:47.756-07:00Finally this quote from the end of the paper. Aut...<b>Finally this quote from the end of the paper. Authored by N. N. Trakakis a philosopher of religion who calls himself a tentative Theist and had defended Rowe's evidential argument from Evil.</b> <br /><br />It’s interesting also that, like the divine command theory, <b>the idea that God is not a moral agent would dissolve the problem of evil into a pseudo-problem. Davies therefore concludes: To be blunt, I suggest that many contemporary philosophers writing on the problem of evil (both theists and non-theists) have largely been wasting their time... They are like people attacking or defending tennis players because they fail to run a mile in under four minutes. Tennis players are not in the business of running four-minute miles. Similarly, God is not something with respect to which moral evaluation (whether positive or negative) is appropriate.</b><br /><br />I love this Classic view of God! I so hate the Theistic Personalist "god"! I am a total strong Atheist in regards to the TP existence. But I love & believe in the True God with all my heart. I also love that I don't have to defend Him or justify Him.<br /><br />He can do all the Justification!<br /><br />Praise God!Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-30313800935594831952011-04-28T22:19:39.247-07:002011-04-28T22:19:39.247-07:00This Post of QUOTES is partly what I mean by Class...<b>This Post of QUOTES is partly what I mean by Classical Theism. I deny it is restricted to Thomism. Rather it is the original Christian view. The TP being the post-enlightenment Johnny come lately.</b> <br /><br />The ‘orthodox Christian thought’ referred to by Williams is a line of thinking that was prevalent in the patristic and medieval traditions. It also found expression in the Thomist view that God is not an individual entity, a particular being among others, but ipsum esse subsistens, subsistent being itself, or actus purus, pure act or activity, for in God being and doing completely coincide. Like the Wittgensteinians, Thomist philosophers and theologians have been vocal in their insistence that it is deeply<br />erroneous, if not idolatrous, to conceive of God as one thing existing alongside others, for in thinking of God along these lines one is in effect confusing the creature with the creator.<br />Brian Davies, in particular, has highlighted in many of his writings the importance of preserving the creator/creature distinction. He notes, for example, that it would be wrong to assert that God is an individual—in the familiar sense of ‘individual’where to call something an individual is to think of it as a member of a class of which there could be more than one member, as something with a nature shared by others but different from that of things sharing natures of another kind, things with different ways of working, things with different characteristic activities and effects.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-87698854281818406912011-04-28T22:15:43.932-07:002011-04-28T22:15:43.932-07:00Some quotes from the paper.
"Perhaps the mos...Some quotes from the paper.<br /><br />"Perhaps the most problematic feature of most theodicies is the way in which they conceptualize God. The problem, more specifically, is that theodicies such as those one finds in Hick and Swinburne, and in most discussions in contemporary analytic philosophy, presuppose a thoroughly anthropomorphic conception of God.<br /><br />God in the analytic tradition is understood as an individual entity or substance of some sort, usually a person or person-like being who exists alongside other personal beings (such as humans and angels) and non-personal things (whether they be things in the physical world, or the physical world itself).<br /><br />The anthropomorphism of this conception of divinity is especially clear in the case of ‘perfect-being theology’,where the attributes of God are modeled on human virtues or excellences. In determining which properties are to count as ‘great-making’, the perfect-being theologian typically looks to see which properties are considered excellences or virtues in the case of humans.<br /><br />Given that properties such as power, knowledge, and goodness would generally count as great-making in humans, the magnitude of each such property is then infinitely extended (e.g., the limited and fallible knowledge of humans is replaced by unlimited and infallible knowledge, or omniscience) and finally that property, suitably maximized, is ascribed to God.<br /><br />Herein lies the anthropomorphic character of this methodology. God,on the perfect-being model, looks very much like a human being, albeit a quite extraordinary one, one inflated into infinite proportions: a ‘super-duper superman’.........The gulf between Creator and creatures may be great, but it is not an absolute one, for it is only one of degree. <br /><br />For if God were thought of as an individual thing or object, there would be no way to account for the life-transforming impact that the reality of God is often said to have:<br />Coming to see that there is a God is not like coming to see that an additional being exists. If it were, there would be an extension of one’s knowledge of facts, but no extension of one’s understanding. Coming to see that there is a God involves seeing a new meaning in one’s life, and being given a new understanding. The Hebrew-Christian conception of God is not a conception of a being among beings.<br /><br /><b>The above is what I mean by Theistic Personalism.</b>Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-67947083200845280702011-04-28T21:55:55.345-07:002011-04-28T21:55:55.345-07:00>To claim that the God Who is thus essentially ...>To claim that the God Who is thus essentially love has no moral obligations, is what would be incoherent.<br /><br />No I don't agree that is like claiming since God is Perfection Itself he must have perfect Muscle Tone. But that is Prima facie absurd. God couldn't have perfect muscle tone without having muscles. But if God had muscles He wouldn't be Simple in Substance He would be Composite. He would have potency and thus wouldn't be Purely Actual. If he wasn't Pure Actuality & Simple in Substance then He wouldn't be Perfection Itself. We can coherently say God is the source of the perfection in perfect Muscle tone. But God doesn't have perfect muscle tone. In a similar manner. God is Goodness Itself. The goodness in moral goodness comes from God who is goodness itself. But God is not morally good. Or more precisely God is not a moral agent unequivocally comparable to a human moral agent. <br /><br />It is incoherent to say God is a moral agent. The problem with all Theodicies is they all anthropomorphize God to some degree. Thus they make Him less than God and more of a creature with Maximally good behaviors.<br /><br />That is not coherent.<br /><br />read this paper<br />http://philpapers.org/rec/TRAATA-2<br /><br />I might quote it.<br /><br />Also the Writings of Brian Davies & the Late Herbert McCabe on the Problem of Evil are invaluable.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-88238441608489798062011-04-28T21:28:36.583-07:002011-04-28T21:28:36.583-07:00@Jason
I am a Catholic Christian by the Grace of ...@Jason<br /><br />I am a Catholic Christian by the Grace of God and I can't be anything else.<br /><br />I never said Universalists are New Atheists. Rather I compared their arguments to those used by the New Atheists to morally condemn God for eternal punishment & I stand by that criticism. <br /><br /><b>I can't deny</b> that Universalists who confess the Trinity, Deity of Christ and are validly baptized are Christians since that would contradict the Infallible teaching of the Council of Trent. Catholics are Trinitarians and historically we have never taught Trinitarian Theology demands Universalism as understood by modern Universalists. <br /><br />Additionally I reject Sola Scriptura, the Perspecuity of Scripture, Sola Fide, Private Interpretation, denial of the Authority of Tradition(2 Thes 3:6), denial of the Infallible Authority of the Church, useless Theistic Personalist "god" etc...all of this you must undo before I even consider your interpretation of Theology over my Mother the Catholic Church.<br /><br />So I meant what I said about MAJOR theological differences on every level.<br /><br />Then there is Classic Theism & Thomism(they are not the same. Scotus was a Classic Theist). I don't think we have the same understanding of the term Classic Theism. <br /><br />Read my links to Edward Feser's blog on the other tread for details.<br /><br />Now for a few other points.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-72346841155375098082011-04-28T21:00:53.254-07:002011-04-28T21:00:53.254-07:00@Dave
>But the people you speak of DON'T &q...@Dave<br />>But the people you speak of DON'T "judge God," because they don't think he's sending the wicked to Hell for eternity. They're judging your beliefs, and finding them wanting. <br /><br />The Just God who sends the un-repented sinner to Hell for eternity exists. The novel unjust Universalist "god" does not exist. They judge any God who sends a soul to Hell for eternity to be evil and since I believe that God objectively exists they in fact judge God. Does God condemn them for this?<br />I am not God so I leave that to Him who knows their hearts. But the teaching is repulsive to me.<br /><br />>Both(Gnu'Atheist & Universalists) seem to agree that it would be unjust for God to send people to hell. <br /><br />Yes and for that I condemn their false view. God give them the Grace to join the One True Holy Catholic Church.<br /><br />>The New Atheists agree with YOU in assuming that that is what God is supposed to do. <br /><br />It seems to me the New Atheists deny the existence or profess to lack any belief in any type of god. Besides I would say people more or less send themselves to Hell. Hell can be earned 100% by your own natural efforts. The Beatific Vision however can only be obtained by Grace.<br /><br />To believe any mere New Atheist has such a sophisticated understanding of Religion is silly. A learned reasonable friendly Atheism might learn these facts acidemically but by Definition he would not be a Gnu'Atheist. Just as you can't be a Young Earth Fiat Creationist who at the same time believes in Theistic Evolution. <br /><br />>So you are in as much agreement with the NAs as the universalists are, only on different premises, while differing in your conclusions.<br /><br />That is logically fallacious. The Gnu's might agree The Catholic Church & other similar derivative groups teaches God condemns the wicked for eternity. But I don't see them understanding why that must be so. Since when are brain dead Gnu's knowledgeable in theology or Philosophy? I have your book Dave. You don't think they are that sophisticated. <br /><br />Good try thought guy. Cheers to you.Son of Ya'Kovhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05645132954231868592noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-50036811760085906562011-04-28T18:27:52.064-07:002011-04-28T18:27:52.064-07:00Ben: This seems to beg the question:
"Plus ...Ben: This seems to beg the question: <br /><br />"Plus I resent the self-righteousness of some of the Universalists who act as if God owes us salvation or that He is morally condemnable for sending the wicked to Hell for eternity. I find Judging God to be slightly more obnoxious than Judging our fellow human being(which is bad)."<br /><br />But the people you speak of DON'T "judge God," because they don't think he's sending the wicked to Hell for eternity. They're judging your beliefs, and finding them wanting. <br /><br />"Are they Christians or New Atheists? Because I find the similarity in argument disturbing."<br /><br />The similarity is in one premise, not the conclusion. Both seem to agree that it would be unjust for God to send people to hell. The New Atheists agree with YOU in assuming that that is what God is supposed to do. They agree with UNIVERSALISTS in assuming that that would be unjust. They agree with NEITHER in deducing that, therefore, God does not exist. <br /><br />So you are in as much agreement with the NAs as the universalists are, only on different premises, while differing in your conclusions.David B Marshallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04029133398946303654noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-81000119960633958822011-04-28T15:00:03.519-07:002011-04-28T15:00:03.519-07:00Part II
Here is St. Gregory’s conclusion that you...Part II<br /><br />Here is St. Gregory’s conclusion that you have ignored:<br /><br />“…for it is not likely that the one who has become involved to such an extent in forbidden evils and the one who has fallen into moderate evils will be distressed on an equal basis in the purification of bad habits, but rather that painful flame will be kindled either to a greater or lesser degree according to the amount of matter, as long as its source of nourishment exists. Accordingly if one has a great load of the [evil] material, then the consuming flame of necessity will be great and longer-lasting for that one, but if the consumption of the fire is introduced to a lesser degree, then the punishment diminishes in degree its actions of greater violence and ferocity, in proportion to the lesser measure of evil which exists in that one. <b>For it is necessary that at some time evil be wholly and completely removed out of existence</b>…. For since it does not belong to its nature that evil have existence outside the will, <b>when every will rests in God evil will depart into utter destruction, since there is no receptacle remaining for it</b>.”<br /><br />Could you perhaps identify what, if anything, in the quotations you have graciously shared with us commits St. Gregory, as you see it, to a doctrine of <b>unending</b> punishment? Gregory’s clearest statements on universal restoration are, not surprisingly, his comments on I Corinthians 15:20-28. See, for example, the quotation that I reproduced in the previous thread.<br /><br />-TomTom Talbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03634587835251087458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-2342681931850594812011-04-28T14:55:16.505-07:002011-04-28T14:55:16.505-07:00Part I
Hi Gregory,
I find more than a little puz...Part I<br /><br />Hi Gregory,<br /><br />I find more than a little puzzling, I must confess, your contention that St. Gregory of Nyssa was not a consistent universalist. Mind you, I am no expert on St. Gregory myself. But I would urge anyone who might doubt that he consistently affirmed universal restoration to consult Steven R. Harmon’s chapter on St. Gregory of Nyssa in Gregory MacDonald (ed.), <i>“All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moultman</i> (Cascade Books, 2011). Harmon wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on Gregory and most definitely rests his judgments on a reading of primary sources.<br /><br />What puzzles me, in any event, is why you ignore the numerous passages in which Gregory both declares his belief that all created persons will eventually be redeemed and also explains exactly how to interpret the passages that you have quoted. Certainly Gregory believed in the possibility of terrifying punishment in the next life; he even believed, as his comment on Luke 16 illustrates, that an unbridgeable gulf exists between the unrepentant who experience God as a consuming fire and those safely in Abraham’s bosom. For as long as the unrepentant remain unrepentant, nothing can bridge that gulf and nothing can extinguish the consuming fire of purification. But at this point we must consider how Gregory puts the theme of judgment through fire together with that of universal restoration. In his <i>Dialogue on the Soul and Resurrection</i>, the <b>very same text</b> from which you lift his comment on Luke 16, he arrives at a definitive conclusion that should put the matter to rest (see Part II below).Tom Talbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03634587835251087458noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10584495.post-57053212597615233182011-04-28T13:52:08.562-07:002011-04-28T13:52:08.562-07:00Hi Gregory,
I find more than a little puzzling, I...Hi Gregory,<br /><br />I find more than a little puzzling, I must confess, your contention that St. Gregory of Nyssa was not a consistent universalist. Mind you, I am no expert on St. Gregory myself. But I would urge anyone who might doubt that he consistently affirmed universal restoration to consult Steven R. Harmon’s chapter on St. Gregory of Nyssa in Gregory MacDonald (ed.), <i>“All Shall Be Well”: Explorations in Universalism and Christian Theology, from Origen to Moultman</i> (Cascade Books, 2011). Harmon wrote a Ph.D. dissertation on Gregory and most definitely rests his judgments on a reading of primary sources.<br /><br />What puzzles me, in any event, is why you ignore the numerous passages in which Gregory both declares his belief that all created persons will eventually be redeemed and also explains exactly how to interpret the passages that you have quoted. Certainly Gregory believed in the possibility of terrifying punishment in the next life; he even believed, as his comment on Luke 16 illustrates, that an unbridgeable gulf exists between the unrepentant who experience God as a consuming fire and those safely in Abraham’s bosom. For as long as the unrepentant remain unrepentant, nothing can bridge that gulf and nothing can extinguish the consuming fire of purification. But at this point we must consider how Gregory puts the theme of judgment through fire together with that of universal restoration. In his <i>Dialogue on the Soul and Resurrection</i>, the same text from which you lift his comment on Luke 16, he arrives at the following definitive conclusion:<br /><br />"…for it is not likely that the one who has become involved to such an extent in forbidden evils and the one who has fallen into moderate evils will be distressed on an equal basis in the purification of bad habits, but rather that painful flame will be kindled either to a greater or lesser degree according to the amount of matter, as long as its source of nourishment exists. Accordingly if one has a great load of the material, then the consuming flame of necessity will be great and longer-lasting for that one, but if the consumption of the fire is introduced to a lesser degree, then the punishment diminishes in degree its actions of greater violence and ferocity, in proportion to the lesser measure of evil which exists in that one. <b>For it is necessary that at some time evil be wholly and completely removed out of existence</b>…. For since it does not belong to its nature that evil have existence outside the will, <b>when every will rests in God evil will depart into utter destruction, since there is no receptacle remaining for it</b>."<br /><br />Could you perhaps identify what specifically, if anything, in the quotations you have graciously shared with us commits Gregory, as you see it, to a doctrine of <b>unending</b> punishment? Gregory’s clearest statements on universal restoration are, not surprisingly, his comments on I Corinthians 15:20-28. See, for example, the quotation that I reproduced in the previous thread.<br /><br />-TomTom Talbotthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03634587835251087458noreply@blogger.com