tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post4016367407468906975..comments2024-01-24T23:01:01.168+10:00Comments on Painting Fakes: The Evangelical UniversalistJonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-31219599517687390942013-09-12T18:10:36.896+10:002013-09-12T18:10:36.896+10:00I think I prefer the first option to the Lewis one...I think I prefer the first option to the Lewis one. All suffering is clearly not self-caused unless in a cosmic sense that it's all the result of the fall - we have microbes, floods, fire and earthquake, not to mention suffering caused by ruthless dictators.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-18816475671543075352013-09-12T18:03:45.160+10:002013-09-12T18:03:45.160+10:00The alternative is to make a C. S. Lewis move &...The alternative is to make a C. S. Lewis move & say the suffering is all self inflicted, God simply allowing the natural consequences of sin to play out.Alex Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012828252900281919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-48016911139839299102013-09-12T18:01:41.249+10:002013-09-12T18:01:41.249+10:00Here are some of my recent thoughts on theodicy - ...Here are some of my recent thoughts on theodicy - I think it applies both to now & hell:<br /><br />With heavy heart I believe God allowed it to happen as temporary suffering is the only way for beings with free will to learn. Not only that, but He suffers along side us, knows the harm isn't irreversible/irreparable & is working as fast as possible** to resurrect, restore, repair, reconcile all things to a far better existence than any of us have experienced.<br /><br />**given our finite view it's not surprising we can't see that this is occurring.<br /><br />in my experience, & limited understanding of machine learning/AI, learning/maturing in general usually involves suffering. Given I think this life is chapter one of each person's eternal journey, it's slightly easier to cope with death, because I believe we'll all be reunited. Again from my finite view, I don't know the specific things each person is learning, nor the complex interactions between the suffering of others.<br /><br />Because I think God is omniscient & all-loving, I deduce that this must be the most loving way to get to the good end for all of us that He desires. Also that if it was any quicker then it would be less loving...<br /><br />Has anyone else come up with a better system that's proven to work?Alex Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012828252900281919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-79374864566957380182013-09-12T16:02:15.224+10:002013-09-12T16:02:15.224+10:00Thanks Alex - don't let me get you sacked thou...Thanks Alex - don't let me get you sacked though! (I can't get sacked because I'm a partner in the business.)<br /><br />You've obviously studied this subject and this book more closely than me, so thanks for clarifying some of my sloppy reading. What I've written here is pretty much my initial impressions (although a couple of weeks after finishing the book) and obviously it's quite a complex book and requires more thought. I also have to confess to writing the review without reading the appendices which is a bit lazy I know.<br /><br />On the subject of hell, though, I still find his extra explanations unsatisfying. Of course neither purgatory nor hell are clearly described in formal Catholic doctrine, although there are some very lurid ones in popular piety. James Joyce recreates one of horrific specificity in the middle of "Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man". (I think it was part of what turned him away from the church.) But both appear to clearly involve suffering - purgatory for a limited time to bring us to the point of perfection, hell for eternity. Parry draws the lines differently from traditional Catholic theology but his hell is closer to their purgatory than to their hell.<br /><br />None of this (or his appendix on God as torturer which I've just had a look at) addresses my biggest problem. The existence of a hell which resembles the descriptions in the Bible makes God a torturer, or at least someone who turns a blind eye to torture. If God is all-powerful and all-loving, why is this necessary? Could he not have found a non-torture way to achieve the same end? I think Parry's appendix shows clearly that he gets this problem, and in the end he seems to be saying that the descriptions of hell may be best understood as anthropomorphisms. In other words, as I suggest, he starts to move away from literalism. <br /><br />I didn't have time to develop this theme (perhaps another time) but there is a strong link with theodicy here and in that case the problem seems insoluble since we obviously do suffer. No reason to think the question should become simpler when transferred from time to eternity.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-39618502463449630892013-09-12T13:46:42.679+10:002013-09-12T13:46:42.679+10:00I’d also say that Purgatory isn't just a Catho...I’d also say that Purgatory isn't just a Catholic idea, Gregory of Nyssa held something similar long before them, and according to Wikipedia, Catholics, Jews, Orthodox, Anglicans, Lutherans, Methodists, and other Protestants (like Jerry Walls) still do too. Importantly, there's a huge difference between paying for one's sin yourself (i.e. earning salvation) and having it purged out of you by God. James Gould (<i>God's Saving Purpose and Prayer for All the Departed.</i> Vol 10, p183211. Journal of Anglican Studies. 2012) helpfully clarifies:<br /><i>It might seem that belief in purgatory contradicts Anglican teaching. Point 22 in the Thirty Nine Articles says, ‘The Romish Doctrine concerning Purgatory... is a fond thing, vainly invented, and grounded upon no warranty of Scripture.’ While the Reformers had good reason to reject the scandals involving indulgences, pardons, relics and invocations to the saints, it is possible – as Newman argued – to believe in purgatory without accepting ‘the Romish doctrine’... since the satisfaction and sanctification views are clearly different.<br /><br />In the satisfaction theory the purpose of purgatory is to remove guilt by paying for sins which are not repented of before death. The problem with this view is that, according to Scripture, Christ alone makes complete and final satisfaction for sin... <br /><br />In the sanctification theory that I have defended the purpose of purgatory is not to pay for sin, but is to complete the process of transformation which is necessary for eternal fellowship with God. As Justin Barnard puts it, ‘on the satisfaction model, what gets purged through the purgatorial process is the penalty for sin ... By contrast, what gets purged in the sanctification model is the disposition to sin.’<br /><br />Many Anglicans have abandoned the Reformers’ assumption that death in and of itself perfectly sanctifies a person’s character. While some avoided the term ‘purgatory’, Ussher, Newman, Pusey, Maurice, Claude Moss, C.S. Lewis and the Commission on Doctrine all embrace the idea that those who die in a state of grace and favor with God but who are not free of sin and ready for complete union with God need a period of growth in their ability to love.</i><br /><br />Gould goes on to explain why gradual sanctification in ‘purgatory’ makes much more sense theologically than being made instantly perfect. Anyway, the whole article is really worth reading, particularly if you’re an Anglican. Alex Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012828252900281919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-21911608652536596092013-09-12T13:45:09.212+10:002013-09-12T13:45:09.212+10:00Came home early so I could reply :-D
I agree with...Came home early so I could reply :-D<br /><br />I agree with much of this review. E.g. I think it’s easy to make a very strong philosophical case based on Christian foundations, and most people I’ve come across admit that & say something onto the lines of “Universalism would be lovely, but I just don’t see it in the Bible”.<br /><br />Robin, both in the book & elsewhere (e.g. <a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1173#p16464" rel="nofollow">intro to book on history of Christian Universalism</a> & <a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1365" rel="nofollow">presentation at Spurgeon’s College</a>), goes to great length to try to show how Universalism can be within traditional, orthodox Christianity, indeed even with Evangelicalism, although admitting we’ve been a minority tradition in both.<br /><br />The reason metanarrative of the Bible is such a significant support for EU is due to the symmetry we find in passages like Col 1. That all that is created is reconciled. i.e. God is working towards restoring everything to the pre-Fall Eden state (no ECT/P in Eden!). As I’ve done further reading, I’ve found this has been identified by non-EUs too, for example John Dickson & Greg Clarke on p169 of “666 And All That”:<br /><br /><i>“Do the opening chapters of Genesis play the pivotal role in the New Testament vision of the world-to-come that they obviously do in the Old Testament? Any attentive reader of the (whole) Bible will instinctively say yes, but at least three passages – from three different apostles – confirm this intuition with great clarity. It is no accident that the final two chapters of the Bible contain more references to the first two chapters of the Bible than do any other part of Scripture.”</i><br /><br />Furthermore, as the Father gives all things to the Son in a “very good” state, it would be surprising for the Son to give it back to the Father in a worse state…<br /><br />Robin directly addresses the difference from Purgatory <a href="http://www.evangelicaluniversalist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=45&t=1688#p22190" rel="nofollow">here</a>.<br /><br />On p126, Robin says, <i>“It is entirely possible that this is an apocalyptic description of the historic destruction of the nations and has little or no bearing on the issue of post-mortem punishment. </i>[Footnote about N. T. Wright’s Preterism]<i> However, given the parallels between 14:9-11 and 20:10-15, I shall assume, for the sake of argument, that 14:9-11 does refer to post-mortem judgment.”</i> He also says somewhere something along the line of “due to the genre of Revelations, it’s unwise to use it as a foundation for detailed/precise doctrines” (John Dickson & Greg Clarke repeatedly say similar things in their book). I often say something along the lines of, “Preterism is probably right, but even if it isn’t, EU can still stand because…”.<br /><br />Similarly with Lazarus, Robin realises it’s probably a non-literal/“subversion” of one the Pharisees would’ve known e.g. there’s an Egyptian parallel, seven Jewish ones, and one from Lucian (see <a href="http://theologicalscribbles.blogspot.com/2011/05/puzzling-over-lazarus.html" rel="nofollow">his blog</a>)<br /><br />If you haven’t read the 2nd edition appendixes, I highly recommend them as they address a number of objections that came up since the 1st edition. e.g. p207-210 looks at “Does God still torture people?”.Alex Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012828252900281919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-84579216633756427762013-09-12T10:00:51.047+10:002013-09-12T10:00:51.047+10:00Look forward to it Alex.Look forward to it Alex.Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-42306787375884587162013-09-12T09:55:31.201+10:002013-09-12T09:55:31.201+10:00Thanks for taking the time to read & review it...Thanks for taking the time to read & review it Jon! I've just read it (now running late to work :-P) & I will try to push back on a couple of points as soon as I get a chance.Alex Smithhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03012828252900281919noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-85305755768711025232013-09-12T08:13:07.352+10:002013-09-12T08:13:07.352+10:00Hermit my clumsy summary probably made that sound ...Hermit my clumsy summary probably made that sound more linear than it really is. This more describes the way he presents the case, rather than the way he arrived at his views.<br /><br />I think in practice we read the bible as a kind of silent dialogue. We come to it with our ideas and preconceptions, we use them to question it, it questions them and so we learn. No-one is a blank slate, and if you were miraculously able to come to the Bible without preconceptions, who knows what you would find? The idea that the Bible is inerrant, for instance, is not something you can deduce from the bible itself, it's something you bring to it and which shapes the way you read it. Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-80717200718823706782013-09-12T01:47:15.794+10:002013-09-12T01:47:15.794+10:00"This is not a difficult conclusion to reach...."This is not a difficult conclusion to reach. The difficult part, especially for an evangelical such as Parry, is whether such a solution is compatible with the teaching of the Bible."<br /><br />This is all wrong. We don't come up with our theory, and then go and see if we can read the Bible in such a way as to find support for our theory there.<br />Hermithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12485029319098423399noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-34999782668529574272013-09-11T22:21:46.549+10:002013-09-11T22:21:46.549+10:00Yes, he mentions it briefly, saying he passed thro...Yes, he mentions it briefly, saying he passed through annihilationism on the way to universalism, but he doesn't think it solves the problem of every knee bowing, or the problem of eternal bliss being marred by the absence of loved ones. Jonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11272544252649766985noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-146183364287787287.post-73460522875298290082013-09-11T21:49:44.074+10:002013-09-11T21:49:44.074+10:00Interesting. Does he cover the idea of annihilatio...Interesting. Does he cover the idea of annihilationism (non-believers being destroyed forever, rather than either suffering in hell or joining believers in the new creation) at all?Bradhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04986265660954928076noreply@blogger.com