Hope as a legitimate reason to believe UR

[Guest]

I...don't want to contest anything or begin debating again,

So, Happy New Year, Steve, et al!

[Guest]

The future of all mankind is one of the biggest questions of our entire lives – it first came to me at a very young age. To not talk about it or discuss it would make for a wasted life.

Let me share a scripture with you:

[Jesus] asked his disciples, saying, Whom do men say that I the Son of man am? And they said, Some say that thou art John the Baptist: some, Elias; and others, Jeremias, or one of the prophets. He saith unto them, But whom say ye that I am? And Simon Peter answered and said, Thou art the Christ, the Son of the living God. And Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou, Simon Barjona: for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee, but my Father which is in heaven (Mt. 16:13-17).

I believe there is an answer to these great questions, and the answer will come to each of us by the same revelation that revealed Jesus to Peter and to us – if we have “ears to hear”.

It is 30 years since I met Jesus in the home of some folks who had just met Him, and I suddenly knew that I was a Christian. Neither flesh and blood, nor the written word revealed it to me, but the Spirit of God revealed it to me. Afterward, I was given the run-down of what I was to believe, and even though the proof text for the teacher’s point of view was there in black and white, I just could not believe some of the things they regarded as foundational.

I found myself years later in a discipleship church and one thing they stressed was, “in the mouth of two or three a matter is established”, and that the spirit and the word must agree. I began to feel not so stupid because I could not believe what so many on the TV and in the popular books were setting forth.

If I had not realized the importance of “the Spirit and the word must agree”, then I would think myself amiss - because I still have hands and eyeballs (Mt 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off. . .).

About the words ‘conservative’ and ‘liberal’ - the meanings have changed over the years. Politically, I had always thought myself a conservative, but when I heard Arnold Schwarznegger’s wife, a Kennedy, speak about how she was raised to live a life of service, I found myself in her camp – but the Kennedys are liberals!?! I think we are going to have to dig deeper to find our identities, especially in matters pertaining to the faith.

What Christopher has written was spoken by the Spirit of God.

Jepne

Jas 1:5 If any of you lack wisdom, let him ask of God, that giveth to all men liberally . . .

De 15:14 Thou shalt furnish him liberally out of thy flock, and out of thy floor, and out of thy winepress: of that wherewith the LORD thy God hath blessed thee thou shalt give unto him.

[Guest]

So, Happy New Year, Steve, et al!



Rick, Same to you brother.

[Guest]

Christopher,

I have been pondering what you wrote.

But the fact remains that none of the views can claim undeniable truth. And for that reason, I believe that hope remains a valid and rational reason for someone to believe in universal reconciliation. With any of the views being equally possible (yes, I mean equally, for none have been undeniably disproved in my opinion making any of them just as possible as the other), it is hope that tips the scales for the person who believes it.

It seems to me you have defined all three views as being outside the bounds of faith, for you say there is no certainty in any of them.

Hebrews 11:1 (New American Standard Bible)

1. Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

(NIV)
1. Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see.

You assert that "hope remains a valid and rational reason for someone to believe in universal reconciliation", but hope springs forth from faith, not the other way around. Hope is not a personal subjective attitude separate from its objective content. It is not theoretical knowledge about possible future events but a function of a living faith.

Perhaps I am in error, but I have long believed that Christian faith is based on belief of facts, not some mixture of fact, feelings, imagination, etc.

If what you say is correct, it seems that what is believed about the fate of the lost amounts to no more than personal opinion and can be no part of "the faith once for all delivered to the saints".

[Guest]

Hi Homer,

I can see that I’ve failed to make my point. I’ve tried to emphasize that hope does not exist in a vacuum void of revelation, but, alas, my words have missed the mark.

As you know, there are a great many topics with varied opinions that people hold in “faith”.

You wrote:

Hope is not a personal subjective attitude separate from its objective content. It is not theoretical knowledge about possible future events but a function of a living faith.

I think we’re saying the same thing in different ways. Steve summed it up best with this statement:

As for the value of the emotions in determining truth, I think Christopher made it clear that he does not look to emotion or imagination to determine matters about which the Bible speaks unambiguously. If there truly is a case that can be made biblically for annihilationism, for universalism and for eternal retributionism (as seems to be the case), then it may fall to our biblically-informed intuitions to choose between options that enjoy roughly equal biblical support.

Hope is not a denial of the facts, but rather it is informed by the broader “facts” to tip the scales of probability in favor of the outcome that seems most hopeful.

In the case of universal reconciliation, the universalist looks at the ambiguous facts that seem to be contradictory and uses other information to inform the hope of ultimate. So, starting with the biblical statements that seem to say:

1. There is an eternal judgment for the unbeliever.
2. Christ’s finished work is the reconciliation of “all things” and “all men” to Himself.

If the problem can’t be solved with the available data on the subject, then the apparent contradiction must be explained somehow by looking at data outside the verses related to the fate of the wicked. From what I can tell, the universalist looks at data that describes God’s will and character (like “His mercy endures forever”, “not willing that any should perish”, “with God, all things are possible”, “the Lord will not cast off forever”, etc.) and concludes that it’s possible that “eternal judgment” doesn’t necessarily mean what we have always thought it means, and looks for sensible alternative explanations. The eternal retributionist and the annihilationist do the same thing with the “all” statements, but with different collaborating data.

I believe that informed hope for the best outcome is quite reasonable and rational given the ambiguity of the subject. It’s hard to imagine anyone (except Jonah maybe ) that would be sorry if God ultimately wins all that He desires and the effects of sin are ultimately destroyed and consigned to the past. But it is not hard to imagine some degree of lament for the lost if they are forever lost.

I personally hope for an ultimate reconciliation of all people to God, and with all the available data, including the character of God and His revealed redemptive purposes, I think it is the most probable and favorable outcome I can imagine at this time. If I’m wrong, I’m sincerely wrong.

You wrote:

Perhaps I am in error, but I have long believed that Christian faith is based on belief of facts, not some mixture of fact, feelings, imagination, etc.

I would have to say that if faith was merely an acknowledgment of facts…then it’s not faith. It’s knowledge. You don’t believe something you know, you simply know it. In my mind, faith is the trust (a feeling) that the information presented is worthy of some risk towards an imagined future outcome (imagination). When I jump in my car everyday, I don’t know that my brakes will work when I go down the 10 mile long, 12% grade, curvy hill. But I trust that they will work based on some pretty good historical information and mechanical theory. That’s what I consider faith.

I agree with you that hope is subjective in the sense that it is not simply an acknowledgment of revealed facts. But I think I have demonstrated that hope is an aspect of the revealed definition of divine love. A love which is said to be a “fruit of the Spirit”, who is in every believer. And that is based on facts revealed in scripture.

Therefore, I don’t think hope can be dismissed with a wave of the hand.

That’s my best attempt brother.

If it still misses the mark, I’m afraid my abilities to articulate my opinions are woefully inadequate to convince.

Lord bless.

[Guest]

wow Christopher!

You sum up just about every thought and feeling I have had on this subject.

Nice work brother!

[Guest]

Christopher, I too, would like to thank you for your good words that reveal your good heart in this matter! I particularly liked this paragraph:

The hope of the universalist is not one without scriptural support. If God is willing (“desires all men to be saved”) and able (“with God, all things are possible”), then why should we assert that hoping that God gets all that He wants is somehow unreasonable? Is it somehow dishonoring to God to hope that He gets the outcome He wants? If God is love, as John tells us in his epistle, then I think it’s very reasonable to hope that God will do everything He can to win those who were lost and will never abandon that hope.

There are some, according to the parable of the vineyard workers being hired at all hours of the day, who will be angry at God for giving others equal "pay" when it comes time for Him to reconcile with everyone. They somehow, think God unfair to disburse with His graces and mercies in a manner that does not seem right to them, but, if they did have the interests and wants of our Redeemer at heart, as you have allowed for in your excellent writings, then they woujld actually be happy for those who may receive salvation...at the end..instead of "eternal" punishment in burning torture, and even more importantly, be happy for the redeemer Himself, because His will will be being done!

Peace friend, dmatic

[Guest]

There are some, according to the parable of the vineyard workers being hired at all hours of the day, who will be angry at God for giving others equal "pay" when it comes time for Him to reconcile with everyone.


Well said, dmatic!

[Guest]

John 9:4
As long as it is day, we must do the work of him who sent me. Night is coming, when no one can work.


So some of you folks think they will get "paid" for showing up after the day has ended and there is no more work to do? Humm, that's a new one to me.

Regarding your on-going ad hominem ad nauseam you might consider that it is possible for a candid person to read scripture and get the idea that EP or CI are clearly taught therin. Or is it just that most Christians are evil, mean, hateful persons who long to see people punished in hell. Pray for us; perhaps we can become as good as you.

[Guest]

Okay, Homer. We will. That hope is always in us!