Universal Reconcilation?

Comment

Comment by brandon faris on March 6, 2010 at 9:31pm

Alex,

Let me chew on those thoughts for a bit. Yeah...I"m glad the conversation is continuing. Hope things are well in your world.

Comment by Alex McManus on March 6, 2010 at 1:56pm

Hey Brandon,

What is suspect? The way a father "knows" what any child of his is going to doing is via experience and probabilities. It is "knowing" in an idiomatic way, in a way of speaking, not knowing as in "there is no possibility that anything else can happen." So, the idea that the father "knows" what the child is going to do is suspect because it is a "way of speaking" about educated guessing not about true knowing.

Ok, about God's knowing...The way we typically understand God's knowledge is not like the human "knowing" I described above. We understand God as actually "knowing" what choices we make. [Disclaimer: I don't believe this. But it is what many of us do believe]. While the father described above has an educated guess, God is not guessing. He knows and thus there is no possibility that anything else can happen. It is as good as done.

So, given the way "knowing" is incorrectly used when speaking of a human father (which leads to unclear thinking), and how this "knowing" does not line up in analogy with God's knowing as widely understood (which leads to a false conclusion), the whole phrase lacks any meaning...to me.

Btw, Congrats on stirring up a really good conversation.

Comment by brandon faris on March 6, 2010 at 10:42am

Alex, can you elaborate on your thoughts concerning your No?

What is suspect?
What is the "way" God is believed to "know"?

Thanks,

B

Comment by Alex McManus on March 6, 2010 at 10:31am

Brandon,

"Simply because a father knows in advance that his child will choose chocolate instead of fruit, does not take away the child’s freewill to choose chocolate. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and He is in complete control of all of His creation. Perhaps, we shall never fully understand, on this side of life, how man’s freewill operates within the confines of God’s sovereignty."

Is the above something you can agree with?

No.

The phrase, "simply because a father knows..." is deeply suspect in and of itself. Beyond that, it does not correspond with the way God is believed to "know" so it doesn't work, for me, as an anology either.

Comment by brandon faris on March 5, 2010 at 1:43am

Nicolas. Thanks for jumping into the conversation. I'm so glad that Alex has created a platform where people who actually want to talk about something other than the weather or sports can gather to have these types of conversations. So, thank you for siding against me :) Now The conversation never truly ends so let me counter.

1) Counter argument one using the fly-fishing analogy isn't apples to apples. Would you rather go fly fishing or have your eye balls plucked out with a fork? I think that is more of what the argument was referring to.

2) If "human rationality can't perceive things like "horror" and "bliss" objectively" then how can we possibly make a decision for eternity? Thats precisely the point. If there is a win-lose scenerio, something has to determine that. So if its not God, then we are saying that its man. Therefore don't you think its kind of twisted for God to put a loaded gun in the hands of a bunch of unstable mentally ill patients?

3) As for the narrative, I agree, but what is the narrative of the Bible? The narrative that I find points to reconciliation. The father doesn't send the prodigal son back to the pig pen to rot and die does he? And what good is nothingness or annihilation, it certainly doesn't have an redeeming qualities does it?

So maybe what we need is to confront the wizard, because if my arguments are the Straw-man, your counter arguments seem to be missing a heart :) (that was said in good spirits!)

Comment by Nicolas Nelson on February 25, 2010 at 5:56pm

I think the "free will" and "rational choice" argument is a bit of a straw man. Our will is bent by sin, and our rationality by rationalizations... but not in a clean, uncluttered abstract way that will eventually be worn down by the relentless and equally uncomplicated grace of God.

I used the example of Samwise and Gollum because it is an extreme one, but not an uncomplicated one-- that's something appealing about Tolkien, the complexity of his characterizations and the rich depth of his narrative come closer to approximating reality as I know it, than the clear-cut unambiguous morality tales of most values-based fiction, christian or otherwise. And what little I have read about the "eventually everyone is saved" narrative sounds more like a morality tale than a glimpse of reality.

Switching lenses and looking at the logic, again I have to admit I haven't examined the entire case, so take this with a grain of salt: but the "best shot" post you offered seemed to have several logic flaws. They may be false flaws-- perhaps the holes are plugged, so to speak, elsewhere in the structure of their argument. But here are just two of them:
1. "The only plausible way to reject universalism is to say that we are not forever free to accept the offer of salvation. At some point, either the offer is withdrawn, or we lose the freedom to accept it." One point I tried to make with the example of Gollum is: why insist that the only issue is "freedom" to accept the offer of intimate eternal communion with a holy God? I may be forever free to go fly-fishing, but as long as I'm free to choose, I ain't goin'. The problem is not one of freedom, but one of desire. And it's only a problem from your perspective, because you want everyone to go fly-fishing with you.

2. "No one rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent could possibly prefer an objective horror-the outer darkness, for example-to eternal bliss..." I simply don't agree with the basic premises here: a) that human rationality can perceive things like "horror" and "bliss" objectively, b) that "free moral agency" or "free will" is really the issue here.

While grading papers yesterday my subconscious mind was knocking this around and suddenly I realized the crux of my discomfort with the arguments you make (or offer) for Universal Salvation: it is based on deductive reasoning. I think the central way to approach the scriptures-- or rather, the central way that the scriptures speak to us, the way God overwhelmingly speaks to us-- appeals to, and is based upon, inductive reasoning, not deductive. On narrative, not abstraction.

I'm not saying that all deductive reasoning is "the wisdom of the wise" that Jesus came to frustrate. I'm saying that what I read in the narrative of scripture simply doesn't give me confidence that you're right, however exhaustive your deductions to the contrary.

Sorry. You seem like a pleasant fellow, and I appreciate your earnestness and your passion for upholding the grace of God-- I'm all for that. Wish I could side with you and cheer you on. But I cannot. So I'll side against you, tentatively, and cheer you on anyway. Fair enough? ;-)

Comment by brandon faris on February 23, 2010 at 4:20pm

Nicolas,

"The path changes you. I did not grow up in a bible-believing home, and first heard the gospel when I was 15, at a Boy Scout camp. Most of it went straight over my head, uncomprehended. Some bits of it stuck. But by the time I came to Christ as an adult, I was already part-Gollum."

Did you come to Christ or did Christ come to you?

Your explination of Gollumish and Samwise didn't mean much for me because I've never watch Lord or the Rings and only figured it out with a little help from Google, that said, I think I understand what your trying to say. Even then I don't see a solid argument. Of course you lothed and had a distaste because you were under the influence of bondage. As that bondage was removed and Christ pulled you closer to him you were able to see and make a more clear decision to follow in the way. Or atleast that is what I took from your post. So what is it that you are questioning...or are you. It seems that your story only affirms that which I posted about free will unless I'm missing the point.

Comment by Nicolas Nelson on February 23, 2010 at 2:31am

Hey, thanks for the thoughtful answer to my first question! Like you, I don't pretend to be an expert in these matters, but about the Thomas Talbott quote. ""No one rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent could possibly prefer an objective horror-the outer darkness, for example-to eternal bliss..."

I wonder how objective humans really are about such things. Consider the parable of Gollum and Samwise. Both are (or were) hobbits. Yet now one of them yearns to see bright sunlight again, the other cringes from it. One loves rich cooked food with plenty of potatoes, the other loves fresh raw fish. Each is revolted by the other, not because they are inherently different creatures, but because they began as such similar creatures and followed such different paths.

The path changes you. I did not grow up in a bible-believing home, and first heard the gospel when I was 15, at a Boy Scout camp. Most of it went straight over my head, uncomprehended. Some bits of it stuck. But by the time I came to Christ as an adult, I was already part-Gollum.

I must submit to you that the idea of a "rational free moral agent" with an "objective" perception of outer darkness vs. Kingdom of God is purely hypothetical. It is a chimera, at least it was for me and still is for many like me. I know what it is to recoil in horror from the thought that God might never leave me alone, that my darkness and raw wriggling fish might be taken from me against my will. I have changed, but I am not so long changed that I have forgotten how I once thought. And unless God had wooed me through His people, I would be more Gollumish now than I once was. And once the door of death had closed on me, I can more easily imagine embracing my despair than suddenly discovering a taste for that which I had loathed so long.

Comment by brandon faris on February 23, 2010 at 1:43am

Thank you everyone for participating in this conversation. It seems that the most popular issue that people have with Biblical Universalism is FREE WILL. Most of you made comments like God doesn't always get what he wants, hell is up to people not God, and Universalism is true for those who want it. Since this seemed to be the most popular opposition I figured we should focus on this obstacle first. I would like to assert that my knowledge is a mainly a collective of thoughts said much better than I and I'll do my best to site sources.

The Problem of Free Will:

It seems that everyone agrees that Universal Salvation is what God wants. The problem seems to lie with what PEOPLE want. Therefore we have to question the nature of free will. David Sulem of www.godsplanforall.com put it this way:

"Simply because a father knows in advance that his child will choose chocolate instead of fruit, does not take away the child’s freewill to choose chocolate. Yes, God is absolutely sovereign and He is in complete control of all of His creation. Perhaps, we shall never fully understand, on this side of life, how man’s freewill operates within the confines of God’s sovereignty."

Is the above something you can agree with?

Thomas Talbott would argue that:

"No one rational enough to qualify as a free moral agent could possibly prefer an objective horror-the outer darkness, for example-to eternal bliss, nor could any such person both experience the horror of separation from God and continue to regard it as a desireable state."

People who are in bondage to sin can't controll it. Talbott and Eric Reitan would say:

"They choose to remain ignorant because they do not fully understand what such ignorance entails.  Hence, the choice is not free, and God would not be violating human freedom by eliminating such ignorance or bondage to desire. Even if we admit that our freedom to deceive ourselves is limited in the face of reality, it does not follow that God is violating our freedom when he simply allows us to face the reality that reveals our self-deception for the lie that it is.  In order for the damned to persist forever in their self-deception, God would have to shield them from reality.  He would have to blur their vision, in effect, thereby aiding in their self-deception."

Given our broken state, we are no more competent to be entrusted with our eternal destinies than a toddler is to be entrusted with life-and-death decisions.  (Marilyn McCord Adams)

Lastly I find Eric Reitan's final argument to be compelling. I think it nullifies the Free Will argument.

"The only plausible way to reject universalism is to say that we are not forever free to accept the offer of salvation.  At some point, either the offer is withdrawn, or we lose the freedom to accept it.  But each of these alternatives is problematic.  If the offer is withdrawn, we would wonder why a loving God would turn His back on some of the creatures he loves.  If the damned somehow lose the freedom to accept God's offer, we can wonder why a loving God does not restore that freedom to them.  in either case, the Arminian understanding of the Doctrine of Hell, according to which damnation results entirely from the free choice of the damned, must be rejected.  This means that finally, the only way to defend DH is to be more classic pre-destiny understanding, which has problems."

So the question is; Do you really believe that the difference between you and those who will supposedly be lost forever, or even between you and the world's worst criminals, lies in the superior character of your own free choices?

Comment by brandon faris on January 26, 2010 at 3:44am

Thank you everyone for joining this conversation. If you are really interested in this topic, I can't stress enough how insightful it would be for you to read Universal Salvation: The Current Debate. It contains twelve authors both challenging and defending the position of Biblical Universal Reconciliation. I will need some time to author an intelligent response to your questions and comments so thanks for your patience.

However after thoughtful study, meditation, and prayer I've finally come to the conclusion that I must accept the universal reconciliation of all creation on heaven and earth to Jesus Christ as the only sensible theological, philosophical, and logical solution to restoring the broken relationship between God and his creation, until God or man reveals a likewise significant contrarian revelation to me.

Stay tuned...

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• Next ›
• Page