Originally posted by Jay Joos
God exists....

I'm counting on it, my (near) future depends on it.

Hoping He has a little corner somewhere for those that never got the knack for developing faith ... maybe a "mulligan"/do-over/2nd chance.

Did some bad stuff, things that can't be "made right" .. put it this way .. I can't forgive me.

Originally posted by jammer
I'm counting on it, my (near) future depends on it.

Hoping He has a little corner somewhere for those that never got the knack for developing faith ... maybe a "mulligan"/do-over/2nd chance.

Did some bad stuff, things that can't be "made right" .. put it this way .. I can't forgive me.

But he will forgive you...thats his speciality.....God bless you 🙂

Originally posted by vistesd
I would say that if God’s essence is agape, then justice, or whatever else, serves that. I don’t see how God can be love, and act any other way but from that essence.

I have never seen agape as “warm and fuzzy.” Have you never heard phrases such as the “flames of passion,” or “the fire of love”? Where do you get this idea that lo ...[text shortened]... to translate aionios as “eternal,” and (2) eternal punishment is neither loving nor just.

Okay, these are questions so I can pull out of you what I think you
are saying, I believe I understand you, but there is just enough gray
area that I’m not sure. Justice is required in Love, or it must be
denied for Love? I see it as it is demanded, if all there was were a
one on one relationship between two people for example you can
forgive just about anything; however, when more are involved such as
children you have to maintain the greatest level of fairness (justice)
between them otherwise some could suffer over the elevation of the
favored.

Agape is fierce beyond measure I believe that to be true to, but it
isn’t one that will purposely hurt or force its will upon the object of its
affection for its own good pleasure, but will endure much for it (see
1st Corinthians 13) , coupled with Justice and a race of people there
are complications to be sure. The balance between Love and Justice
towards us from God is actually required in my opinion between man
towards God and other men as well; the thing is everything is in order
of the proper priorities. With regard of priorities we see things like we
need to take care of ourselves as well as our families, friends,
neighbors, and strangers, you would not for example if the issue
came up starve your family to death feed a stranger forever. So if
heeling and so on is going to be offered, and fairness and justice are
coupled in balance, where do you think these things will be, in those
with God in God’s Kingdom or with those outside of God and God’s
Kingdom?

I also would say that even along with agape love and justice, there is
the issue of God’s wrath as well; do you think it is possible for
example that God being Love can be wrathful? The one thing I believe
to be true about God is that God never gives mix messages like we
do, He does exactly what is required to the full, so if He is giving
forgiveness it is complete, but if He is going to hold someone unto
account that to will complete and there will be no mercy mixed into
that justice delievered by God it will be as complete a judgment as
the mercy will be to those that recieve it.
Kelly

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, these are questions so I can pull out of you what I think you
are saying, I believe I understand you, but there is just enough gray
area that I’m not sure. Justice is required in Love, or it must be
denied for Love? I see it as it is demanded, if all there was were a
one on one relationship between two people for example you can
forgive just abou ...[text shortened]... by God it will be as complete a judgment as
the mercy will be to those that recieve it.
Kelly

I think, again that the justice/love dichotomy with regard to salvation is a false one, since I am standing in the salvation-as-healing paradigm. However, I would say that the issue of justice is better addresed by the model (2) I listed above, than model (1).

I don’t accept the idea of God’s wrath, except perhaps as a metaphor for, say, love being appalled at non-love—or something like that. More like a physician becoming angry at all the illness in the world (including mental illness). I’m not a biblical literalist. I would, however, say that the God you describe in your third paragraph cannot be called agape itself, since such a God decides to set aside agape in order to satisfy his wrath or insistence on justice.

A wrathful God may well choose to condemn someone to eternal torment; but that satisfies only vengefulness, not justice or love.

Originally posted by vistesd
I confess I have never heard that. I’d be interested in both hearing what it entails, and when/where it originated...

However, with regard to the Pauline references noted on page 3 (and in the multi-referenced essay from which they came), I will repeat your words in the “All Are Welcome?” thread: “Last time I checked, ‘all’ meant ‘all.’”

A lot of win ...[text shortened]... been not such a minority stream in Christendom as I had thought: it is both broad and ancient.

To be sure, the word 'will' is bandied about somewhat indiscriminately resulting in more confusion than before the discussion began. Aspects of differentiating between God's desires and His will were described in greater detail in one of my previous posts (I think) titled "Attributes of God," from over a year ago.

As you are very aware, I am a systematic dispensational theologian who holds that whatever God wants us to know is knowable. I also hold that--- without discounting the emotional aspect of the faith experience--- God is orderly and definite in His revelation. I believe that the sloppiness which creeps in is due to our lack of discipline and humility.

Having said that, I have become convinced that despite my ability to always comprehend any particular point of doctrine, the doctrine has never moved; my eventual understanding has always been in direct proportion to my dependence upon Him. I cannot say that such realization has been easy to swallow (having been previously self-convinced of Colossus-like mental acuity), but one truth has been borne out time and time again: if I wish to know Him, I must do it on His terms. His terms and conditions can only be found in Scripture.

How's that for in-your-face confrontation on a Thursday!
😉

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To be sure, the word 'will' is bandied about somewhat indiscriminately resulting in more confusion than before the discussion began. Aspects of differentiating between God's desires and His will were described in greater detail in one of my previous posts (I think) titled "Attributes of God," from over a year ago.

As you are very aware, I am a system ...[text shortened]... ound in Scripture.

How's that for in-your-face confrontation on a Thursday!
😉

NRS Hosea 6:6 For I desire steadfast love and not sacrifice, the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.

NRS Malachi 2:15 Did not one God make her? Both flesh and spirit are his. And what does the one God desire? Godly offspring. So look to yourselves, and do not let anyone be faithless to the wife of his youth.

NRS Colossians 1:9 For this reason, since the day we heard it, we have not ceased praying for you and asking that you may be filled with the knowledge of God's will in all spiritual wisdom and understanding,

NRS Hebrews 10:10 And it is by God's will that we have been sanctified through the offering of the body of Jesus Christ once for all.

NRS 1 Peter 2:15 For it is God's will that by doing right you should silence the ignorance of the foolish.

NRS 1 Peter 3:17 For it is better to suffer for doing good, if suffering should be God's will, than to suffer for doing evil.

NRS 1 Peter 4:19 Therefore, let those suffering in accordance with God's will entrust themselves to a faithful Creator, while continuing to do good.

NRS Acts 18:21 but on taking leave of them, he said, "I will return to you, if God wills." Then he set sail from Ephesus.

NRS 1 Corinthians 4:19 But I will come to you soon, if the Lord wills, and I will find out not the talk of these arrogant people but their power.

NRS Colossians 4:12 Epaphras, who is one of you, a servant of Christ Jesus, greets you. He is always wrestling in his prayers on your behalf, so that you may stand mature and fully assured in everything that God wills.

>> The Greek word translated as desire in the OT passages (LXX) and as will (or wills) in these NT passages is thelema (verb: thelo) – will, wish or desire.

NRS 2 Peter 3:9 The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance.

>> The word translated as “wanting” here is boulomai – want, desire, wish; be willing; intend or plan.

____________________________

This is all I can find on a fairly quick search. I remember your thread; any chance you have handy just the section on God’s will and desire?

It does not appear that the Biblical texts themselves make the distinction you’re talking about.

My intention on this thread has not been to argue sola scriptura per se. It is only after having read some of the references cited on here (page 3), and from them others, that I have become convinced that scripture itself gives stronger support to an ultimate universal salvation than to the alternative.

______________________________

If that’s as “in your face” as you get, I can take it. 😉

Originally posted by KellyJay
Okay, these are questions so I can pull out of you what I think you
are saying, I believe I understand you, but there is just enough gray
area that I’m not sure. Justice is required in Love, or it must be
denied for Love? I see it as it is demanded, if all there was were a
one on one relationship between two people for example you can
forgive just abou ...[text shortened]... by God it will be as complete a judgment as
the mercy will be to those that recieve it.
Kelly

Agape is fierce beyond measure I believe that to be true to, but it isn’t one that will purposely hurt or force its will upon the object of its affection for its own good pleasure, but will endure much for it (see 1st Corinthians 13)

Sorry, Kelly—I didn’t respond to this; was in a bit of a hurry this afternoon...

I actually think this bolsters my argument, as long as death is no bar to God’s being able/willing to act.

(1) Any kind of “Love me or else” message is coercive, a forcing of will.

(2) Not forcing one’s will does not mean that one cannot act at all. (Again, however, I suppose the Good Samaritan was forcing his will, in a sense, on the unconscious man in the ditch—but not to hurt, as you say, but to heal.)

But God can act to “draw” people to “him”; and, scripturally, does. And Jesus says, in John 12:32, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to [or toward, or in company with] myself.”

Originally posted by vistesd
I think, again that the justice/love dichotomy with regard to salvation is a false one, since I am standing in the salvation-as-healing paradigm. However, I would say that the issue of justice is better addresed by the model (2) I listed above, than model (1).

I don’t accept the idea of God’s wrath, except perhaps as a metaphor for, say, love bein ...[text shortened]... condemn someone to eternal torment; but that satisfies only vengefulness, not justice or love.

Do you in this life time with people we have now think there are times
that it is just to punish someone for wrongs done forever, as in
sending them to the great beyond by killing them?

Are their crimes that are so bad you agree it is the right thing to do?

Even if we disagree about death simply putting somoene behind bars
for the rest of their natural life is forever if there is nothing beyond this
life for them. So even a non-death sentence really goes the distance
if you reject an after life. so do you think those types of punishments
are just at all? Should we set aside justice for love no matter what the
crime against anyone? This seems okay and good, we allow them to
go free for love?
Kelly

Originally posted by vistesd
I think, again that the justice/love dichotomy with regard to salvation is a false one, since I am standing in the salvation-as-healing paradigm. However, I would say that the issue of justice is better addresed by the model (2) I listed above, than model (1).

I don’t accept the idea of God’s wrath, except perhaps as a metaphor for, say, love bein ...[text shortened]... condemn someone to eternal torment; but that satisfies only vengefulness, not justice or love.

"I think, again that the justice/love dichotomy with regard to salvation is a false one, since I am standing in the salvation-as-healing paradigm. However, I would say that the issue of justice is better addresed by the model (2) I listed above, than model (1). "

I believe salivation has healing in it, but it is a by product, it is really
in my opinion a restored relationship above all else. So with God the
goal is to restore our relationship with Him, rejecting that or God's
terms for such a great thing to miss His great salvation. Seek God
while He may be found shows us that God wants a relationship with
us, but He will not force Himself on any one of us. The things that get
in the way, such as our pride or our lust and so on simply are
meaningless when you look at God, if we do seek we will find, but only
as we answer God's call through Jesus Christ. To reject a relationship
is give those that do not desire it what they want, except when the
time comes for them to see the truth it will be to late to change their
course. If God revealed Himself clearly as we see the morning Sun,
the reality of choices would then be in question, we would than be
forced to choose.
Kelly

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
To be sure, the word 'will' is bandied about somewhat indiscriminately resulting in more confusion than before the discussion began. Aspects of differentiating between God's desires and His will were described in greater detail in one of my previous posts (I think) titled "Attributes of God," from over a year ago.

As you are very aware, I am a system ...[text shortened]... ound in Scripture.

How's that for in-your-face confrontation on a Thursday!
😉

I find this interesting. Whodey and others seem to take the position that Scripture is basically useless unless you have already established your "personal relationship" with God (he said that prior to God "lifting the scales from his eyes" the Bible made no sense to him). Do you agree with that?

I found this in the Upanishads:

This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals its own form.

This is explained as follows:

Atman, which is the seeker's own self, reveals its real nature to him, being pleased with his earnestness and devotion. As long as a man remains egotistic and desires to know Atman through such external means as scriptural knowledge or erudition, he fails in his quest. When all external disciplines are proved inadequate, the earnest seeker than realizes the futility of the ego and develops self-surrender, which makes possible the descent of the divine grace, resulting in his realization of the Truth.

Sounds like our present day Fundies borrowed some of their ideas from a religion that predates Christianity by about 3000 years.

Originally posted by KellyJay
Do you in this life time with people we have now think there are times
that it is just to punish someone for wrongs done forever, as in
sending them to the great beyond by killing them?

Are their crimes that are so bad you agree it is the right thing to do?

Even if we disagree about death simply putting somoene behind bars
for the rest of their nat ...[text shortened]... the
crime against anyone? This seems okay and good, we allow them to
go free for love?
Kelly

This reminds me of Luther’s doctrine of the “two kingdoms” (as I remember it anyway).

These things might be just, given the human condition we live in. But we also use both the death penalty (which I am generally opposed to, largely because one cannot rectify any errors) and life-imprisonment for the protection of society. God, I wouldn’t think, has that problem with regard to after death.

We also make provision for those who are mentally ill and (hopefully) treatable.

I realize there are several ideas about what happens under a divine sentence of eternal condemnation: eternal torment (we don’t torture our criminal, either), simple separation from God, and annihilation. I don’t think the first one can be considered either loving or just. The second two can be just but not loving.

Now, if God can heal sinfulness (again, even after death), then the just and loving thing to do is to heal. Note that I have not assumed that such healing might not be painful (“hell” ) or that it is necessarily immediate (it could be, but I am not assuming that).

I understand your analogy of the death penalty and life imprisonment regarding “eternal” if there is no afterlife. But, even then, the punishment comes to an end at death.

There are really two issues here (as I see it):

(1) Whether God really is agape, as a statement of God’s essence; and

(2) whether death is a bar to God’s ability or willingness to act.

The question of whether salvation really means healing, or making well or whole (as I think it does) is secondary—since of the three models of salvation, only one entails eternal condemnation. And none of them presume that there is no “hell”—only that (in two cases) that it is not eternal.

BTW, have you ever read C.S. Lewis’ The Great Divorce?

Originally posted by KellyJay
"I think, again that the justice/love dichotomy with regard to salvation is a false one, since I am standing in the salvation-as-healing paradigm. However, I would say that the issue of justice is better addresed by the model (2) I listed above, than model (1). "

I believe salivation has healing in it, but it is a by product, it is really
in my opinion ...[text shortened]... the reality of choices would then be in question, we would than be
forced to choose.
Kelly

If God revealed Himself clearly as we see the morning Sun, the reality of choices would then be in question, we would than be forced to choose.

And is that not what is supposed to happen when we no longer see through a glass darkly?

And let’s put it this way, drawing from 1st Corinthians 13—does not God then have all eternity to wait for us to choose, and choose again? And to continue to try to draw us? (Again, have you read Lewis’ The Great Divorce?)

Originally posted by KellyJay
I believe salivation has healing in it, but it is a by product.

Urine also has healing qualities.

Originally posted by vistesd
There has been some talk here recently about whether or not God* can fail—

Can God’s “plan for salvation” (however you see that) in the end fail? What would constitute a failure?

There seem to me to be only two ways in which God could be considered not to fail:

(1) God from the beginning did not want (and does not want) all humans to be sav ...[text shortened]... Referencing the famous 3-O super-being God here; not every notion of God falls into this box...

You seem to be thinking of 'failure' as an engineer does. X% of items off the factory line are defective, ergo the failure rate is X% etc.

I would simply dispute your assumption that this is an appropriate paradigm for a relationship between beings that possess free will. A relationship can break down for no fault of one of the parties involved.

If a person ends up permanently severing his relationship with God due to his own free choice, then it is he/she that has failed, not God. Shifting the blame to God is an attempt to evade responsibility.

Originally posted by lucifershammer
You seem to be thinking of 'failure' as an engineer does. X% of items off the factory line are defective, ergo the failure rate is X% etc.

I would simply dispute your assumption that this is an appropriate paradigm for a relationship between beings that possess free will. A relationship can break down for no fault of one of the parties involved.
...[text shortened]... she that has failed, not God. Shifting the blame to God is an attempt to evade responsibility.

First—glad to see you back! 🙂

Second, this is not a blame shifting exercise: it is an exploration and critique of certain views of soterias, under which it is fair to ask whether God ultimately (1) chooses not to save (at least some); (2) fails to save; or (3) saves. [I am arguing for (3), BTW, so no blame is involved.]

Third, even God’s failure to save would only be blameworthy if God is able to save but does not; as I have distinguished, that is not the kind of failure I’m talking about (I have also not forced the assumption of God’s omnipotence in that regard).

With regard to the relational model, I would just note:

a) It does not appear to be a relationship of equality.

b) One party is handicapped by being able to only “see through a glass darkly,” and, in the illness/impairment model of sin may not be capable of the kind of free relationship you’re talking about.

c) In your articulation of relational possibilities, it would seem that breakdown in the relationship could be “no-fault” with regard to either party...

To go back to the Good Samaritan parable (with God as the Samaritan)—the Judean in the ditch was unconscious, and unable to carry on a relationship; and had the man been conscious may well have rejected the hated Samaritan’s help. I think this is the part of the depth of that parable: God acts to heal even the one who hates him and cannot cry out the appropriate words of faith, or articulate the appropriate belief.

With that said, you need to read through the thread a bit further (especially my Gregory of Nyssa post on page 2, and the internet cites provided by No.1 on page 3, and subsequent discussion).

________________________________

EDIT:

Again, with regard to the relationship model—

In a loving relationship, we generally cede some power to the other in our lives—one is not the lord/lady of the manor who always gets his/her way without regard top the other. The more intimate the relationship, the more that is so (to the point where person and power lines blur).

That would seem to imply that God gives up some of his power in order to have a loving relationship. That’s fine. But does that mean God is powerless (by choice or not) to act to ultimately save the beloved? I do not “steer” my beloved when we walk: she walks free (both physically and as metaphor here)—that does not mean that I will not attempt to save her if she steps in front of a speeding truck. It also does not mean that I would not do so unless I am sure that she still “loves me back.”

Now, I am aware of the Christological considerations here—the cross and all that—but the question is, once again, is death a bar to God’s further ability or willingness to act salvifically? Further, does God still act salvifically, or was the cross God’s final salvific gesture (chronologically, that is)—believe it or not, till death do us part?

The stream of text and tradition that sees an ultimate salvation for all seems to be both more ancient and far broader in the churches than I had thought when I started this thread (in fact, it may have once been the majority view among orthodox Christians, east and west).