tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post8530721143948154278..comments2024-03-02T08:27:42.344+00:00Comments on Theological Scribbles: Her Gates Will Never be Shut: a good readRobin Parryhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-2725975922584874152011-05-03T16:30:45.379+01:002011-05-03T16:30:45.379+01:00Stephen
Alas, you cannot. It is not published in ...Stephen<br /><br />Alas, you cannot. It is not published in the UK.<br /><br />RobinRobin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-87238379038791611802011-05-03T16:29:23.966+01:002011-05-03T16:29:23.966+01:00ROBIN!!! Could you please say where to obtain &quo...ROBIN!!! Could you please say where to obtain "Her Gates . ." + "All Shall Be Well" in Britain? It's going to be dear getting by post from Oregon, USA!<br />Many Thanks.Stephennoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-78342080030653856392010-04-28T21:57:19.346+01:002010-04-28T21:57:19.346+01:00Thank you for this. All too often the topic of he...Thank you for this. All too often the topic of hell comes up with my friends who have questions about biblical justice, and I have no idea how the hell to explain Eschaton to them without hell deeply comprimising its claim.<br /><br />-- I have been looking deeper and deeper into this subject... <br /><br />Annihilationism is a cop out; not much better than the traditional idea of eternal torture. -- Actually, in a more profound sense, it is worse, for it suggests that sin has left an indelible mark which cannot be reversed or redeemed by God. Suddenly cosmic redemption isn't so cosmic. I think we can feel it in our bones that God is not in the business of snuffing people out of existence, and further glancing over his shoulder to make sure that his hellfire is burning hot enough; smoke rising up "forever and ever" (Revelation 14:11). Yes, God does have a dimension of wrath, but as OT scholar Terence Fretheim says, God has to hold back his natural disposition toward grace and forgiveness in order to bring about a day of judgment. But must we forever separate judgment and hope? -- the Prophetic tradition certainly didn't separate the two, but had them integrally wrapped up into each other. <br /><br />(I am taking a Prophets of Israel class at my college right now. the judgment/hope dimension is one of the main motifs of the prophets, along with cosmic justice. Jeremiah was not a prophet to Judah alone, but a prophet to the nations.)<br /><br />The substance behind your nuance of "convinced universalism" is an interesting move on your part. Yes, maybe we ought to push the agenda toward not just wishing to think God wouldn't snuff out some and not others, like Jersak has proposed. That is a good first step, but not the last one perhaps. It seems a sort of creedal affirmation needs to be got.<br /><br />Would you elaborate on Jersak's position on the Rich man and Lazarus and his idea of an imagined 'dialogue' format..?myth_of_Serpentryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03900051357653653741noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-51614775445871351472010-03-26T18:18:35.694+00:002010-03-26T18:18:35.694+00:00Hi Robin,
Some scriptures to consider:
"Si...Hi Robin,<br /><br />Some scriptures to consider: <br /><br />"Sin is in the flesh".<br /><br />"He who has died has been freed from sin."<br /><br />"The body is sown in corruption, raised in incorruption."<br /><br />With these verses in mind, (and many others) I see no need for ANY type of Hell after death. When people are resurrected, they are no longer in their carnal and sinful nature. Sin will be non existant in the resurrection. <br /><br />What are your thoughts on these verses?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-9841582016580132162010-03-25T17:21:25.258+00:002010-03-25T17:21:25.258+00:00I see I have yet to explain what I mean by the hyp...I see I have yet to explain what I mean by the hypothetical possibility of literal everlasting hell. I'll give a personal example. I rejected God's gift of salvation numerous times before I accepted it. And I believe that given the same circumstances when I accepted the gift, I could have rejected the gift. And I could have rejected the gift all following times that God would have offered the gift to me. I see this as hypothetically possible while practically impossible.<br /><br />And I can analogize this to an endless series of fair coin tosses. Hypothetically, an unlimited number of fair coin tosses with heads on one side and tails on the other side could always result in heads. For example, ten fair coin tosses resulting in ten heads has odds of one in a thousand; twenty fair coin tosses resulting in twenty heads has odds of one in a million; thirty fair coin tosses resulting in thirty heads has odds of one in a billion, and ad infinitum. There is a chance of always getting heads despite the odds eventually becoming practically zero. Likewise, there's no essential chance of endlessly flipping heads in an unlimited series of fair coin tosses. And you may recall that Eric Reitan used a similar analogy in the book you edited.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-26037311251722794432010-03-24T23:21:26.325+00:002010-03-24T23:21:26.325+00:00I see the mistake I made. I read a few people on t...I see the mistake I made. I read a few people on the web define "strong universalism" along the lines of "unconditional election universalism". And that never was your definition. Sorry.:)<br /><br />Yes, my idea of "weak universalism" is a subset of strong universalism. Perhaps I could call it "conditional strong universalism" as opposed to unconditional election universalism and inclusivistic universalism. Not that I'm being decisive on any of these terms. And this merely represents how I think of things while others would want other categories of universalistic theologies.<br /><br />And I am a Molinist while I believe that any free will creature in any given universe would eventually accept God's gift of salvation, assuming that the nature of God is the same in any given universe. And I suppose that a Molinist or non-Molinist could hold to weak universalism while saying that God always avoids creating creatures who would literally continually forever reject God.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-72343981429705646322010-03-24T09:47:54.504+00:002010-03-24T09:47:54.504+00:00James
a good point. I think we do need a nuanced ...James<br /><br />a good point. I think we do need a nuanced typology of Christian universalisms.<br /><br />All that I mean by 'dogmatic universalism' is 'universalism that is confident that God will save all'. So it is interchangable with 'convinced universalism' or 'confident universalims'. I would also be happy to use the term 'strong universalism to describe this view'.<br /><br />That said, I would want to distinguish within these 'strong universalisms' the view that (a) all people will be saved, from (b) all people must be saved. <br /><br />And within (b) I would wish to distinguish different views on what the 'must' amounts to. Why 'must' all people be saved? I think some answers would be wholly unacceptable but that other might be fine.<br /><br />I wonder if your 'weak universalism' is a species of (a) above. Perhaps, if you accepted Molinism you could argue that there are possible worlds in which some people freely reject God forever but such worlds will never be actualized. That would still be universalism (even confident/strong/dogmatic universalism) but allows for the hypothetical possiblity of eternal hell. Or, is it a version of hopeful universalism?<br /><br />To be honest, 'hopeful universalism' seems a misnomer to me (if we are using the term 'hope' biblically). In the Bible eschatological hope is confident and certain. I think a more appropriate term would be 'possible universalism'.<br /><br />By 'dogmatic universalism' I do NOT mean that universalims is Christian dogma, or is the authentic Christian view (as opposed to what most Christians actually believe). It does not and cannot have that status. So whilst I think the traditional view is wrong I do not think that it is unChristian.<br /><br />Hmmm - all very messy. I think we need a nuanced typology to tidy all this up.Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-71432805435290774472010-03-24T09:33:20.114+00:002010-03-24T09:33:20.114+00:00Chris
I'd have to re-read the book but the im...Chris<br /><br />I'd have to re-read the book but the impression that I got was that it was, in part, the ambiguity of the Hell texts that drew BJ towards hopeful universalism. That is, he made a case that they did not rule out salvation from Hell or universalism but it is possible that they really do speak of everlasting doom and he wanted to leave that option open. I can repect that.<br /><br /><br />Eric Reitan's philosophical work on Hell is great (I discuss some of it in ch 1 of my book). Eric wrote a chapter in the book I edited called "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate" (Paternoster/Eerdmans)Robin Parryhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08856329564156757485noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-34766864681939236522010-03-24T08:07:14.328+00:002010-03-24T08:07:14.328+00:00Thanks for the heads up on this one Robin.Thanks for the heads up on this one Robin.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-78981055993775489042010-03-24T02:16:57.879+00:002010-03-24T02:16:57.879+00:00Thanks, Robin. I added this to my must read list.
...Thanks, Robin. I added this to my must read list.<br /><br />I strongly agree with the main point that the gates of the New Jerusalem will never close to the damned.<br /><br />I suppose we need more clarification in the terms related to universalism. I suppose everybody knows the meaning of "hopeful universalism". And you clarified in UNIVERSAL SALVATION that "strong universalism" means that everybody "must" eventually get saved according to God's will. But "convinced universalism" and "dogmatic universalism" are sketchy to me. I suppose dogmatic universalism sounds like strong universalism, but I'm unsure.<br /><br />I like the term "weak universalism", which I define as a belief that everybody will eventually get saved while they have the hypothetical possibility of continually rejecting God's love literally forever. (For example, the committed damned would spend a gogleplex years in hell and have no less days in hell then when they began in hell, unless they accept the gift of salvation.)<br /><br />I suppose convinced universalism could include both strong universalism and weak universalism. And I wonder if Jersak considered a middle ground between strong universalism and hopeful universalism such as weak universalism. Perhaps I'll figure this out after I read it.James Goetzhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02412501436355228925noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2713231510890712652.post-58942120133752030992010-03-23T23:21:59.837+00:002010-03-23T23:21:59.837+00:00Thanks, Robin, looks v. interesting. As you know, ...Thanks, Robin, looks v. interesting. As you know, I have tended in the hopeful direction myself. It is not the ambiguity of the universalist texts which stop me going the whole way, but rather texts such as "those who do such things won't inherit the kingdom of God", "destroyed with everlasting destruction" etc. Its such texts as those which cause me to pause.<br /><br />By the way, have you come across Reiten and Kronen's work on universalism at all (see <a href="http://thepietythatliesbetween.blogspot.com/" rel="nofollow">here</a>)? I'd love to hear your thoughts.Chris Tillinghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03153087287030167791noreply@blogger.com