"Every knee shall bow and every tongue confess the Lord

[_Rick_C]

STEVE,

One quick reply before I go to work.

Rick, You're right there is a fundamental difference between how the two sides view the character of God.

I agree. A lot has been said about this on the thread; especially from the Reconciliationist viewpoint. We '(theological) conservatives' haven't really elaborated on it much in terms of what we positively believe about: "How God is good though He doesn't save all." A case for this could be made. But since this hasn't been done, that would be another though related debate and remains to be seen.

IMHO you view God as vengeful and petty and unmerciful to the vast majority of mankind.

That's Ad Hominem..."arguing according to a person" and a personal attack on my character. Not only this; you are 'putting words in my mouth'' (which is another form of Ad Hominem).

I won't reply to this kind of thing any longer.

Have a Pleasant Evening,
Rick

[_Rick_C]

Danny, I have like 5 minutes....

I don't know if I'd go so far as to say we have different worldviews, but certainly different paradigms (thought patterns) in this specific area. Also I think the words "conservative" and "liberal" carry a lot of baggage that may not be helpful.

Our worldviews (pretty radically) differ on what it all means...how salvation is obtained, who will be saved, how things will turn out, (and much more).

'Christian universalism' since the Enlightenment has been well within the liberal tradition in Christianity. Old School liberals such as Schleirermacher advocated it. I see the present 'revival' of universalism as having roots in liberalism: New School Liberalism.

Things that have been said (in your posts and others) demonstrate a liberal vantage point. Schleirermacher himself could have posted them!

If you want I could give some examples how modern universalism, as posted about on this thread, is within the theological liberal tradition. (It's clear to me and easy to see...Don't you guys read your own posts)???

I have to go to work!
Rick

[Guest]

IMHO you view God as vengeful and petty and unmerciful to the vast majority of mankind.


That's Ad Hominem..."arguing according to a person" and a personal attack on my character. Not only this; you are 'putting words in my mouth'' (which is another form of Ad Hominem).


Rick, That is absolutely not a personal attack on your character, i consider you a sincere believer in Christ but with that particular point of view of God's character.
We (reconcilationists) have been portrayed as "liberal" as "believing another gospel" as "our universal friends" as believing sin to be finite therefore "making me sick."
If i want to i could look at those descriptions as uncomplimentary and take them personally.
But we have to all suck it up and turn the other cheek. So seriously i did'nt mean it that way, but to me it appears that your viewpoint portrays God in that way. Nothing personal toward you, most Christians have believed the way you do historically.

[Guest]

Hey Rick,

Things that have been said (in your posts and others) demonstrate a liberal vantage point. Schleirermacher himself could have posted them!

I'm trying to decide whether to take that as a compliment or not!

I don't like "conservative" and "liberal" as blanket labels. I am (relatively) liberal on certain topics and quite conservative on others.

But If you want I could give some examples how modern universalism, as posted about on this thread, is within the theological liberal tradition.

Is this guilt by association? It's interesting that I've come to Christian Universalism apart from any liberal tradition, as I assume do many other Evangelical Universalists.

... Don't you guys read your own posts)???

Hey, it's hard enough writing them, let alone reading them!

I have to go to work!

I hope you have a good night!

[_Rick_C]

Okay, then ... never mind......

[Guest]

Hello Paidion,

Thank you for your kind an patient words.

Quote: "I would like to comment that a person's mental picture of God is possibly the most important feature in his belief system"

A persons belief system may indeed be "the most important ".
But is it according to truth? Does it cohere with the known facts revealed in the scripture regarding God's revealed character? A persons mental picture of God may have been "colorized", for example, if a person was maltreated by his parents or had an abusive father. That persons image of Gods character maybe deeply flawed, especially if he focuses soley upon the "wrath" passages of scripture which frames his mental picture.

I have noticed from your posts and others, that there is imo, an inordinant
focus upon the 'wrath' of God as being 'cruel, unusual, extreme, torturous, etc', if it means God's justice is anything else but "corrective and remedial". Such a God is not worthy of our worship. I tried to bring out in my post (and poorly to some here) that since there are different views of Salvation, Universal Reconcilliation imo, could be nothing more than someones "wish projections" based upon a fawlty "mental picture" of God's Justice. Since discussing this topic at length here, my views are changing to Conditional Mortality rather than Conscious Eternal Suffering.

Universal Reconcilliation while attractive as I've said, does not square with my present understanding which sees God as a Righteous Judge who always does whats right and who by no means will "aquit the guilty". However, He does offer pardon in Christ through His shed blood. There is no other Atonement offered today for the sinner. There is nothing that would even remotely suggest the "fires of Gehenna" are remedial or has any salvific motif attached to it in scripture.

[Guest]

'Christian universalism' since the Enlightenment has been well within the liberal tradition in Christianity. Old School liberals such as Schleirermacher advocated it. I see the present 'revival' of universalism as having roots in liberalism: New School Liberalism.

That is precisely the reason I reject the Universalist label.

I believe the Unitarian-Universalist Church to be the most liberal church in existence. I understand that atheists are welcome to join that church.

My understanding is that the Liberal Universalist believes that God is so "loving" (permits any kind of behaviour) that He will not judge anyone, but will take them all to heaven in the next life.

Unlike these, the early church (and many today who hold to their practice and beliefs), believe that no one will be reconciled to God until they repent and submit to the authority of Christ. Those who refuse will have judgment executed upon them and undergo severe correction in Gehenna. But it's not that they will get out in so many million years because they've "done their time". No, that won't do it at all. They have to repent and submit to Christ just as you and I have done. That they do so is inevitable. No one can hold out forever ---- maybe theoretically, but not practically.

[_Rick_C]

Paidion,

I see what you're saying and understand why you wouldn't want to be confused with a Unitarian Universalist.

On this forum, as far as I know, no "UU" (Unitarian Universalist) has ever posted. They haven't been in on our discussions/debates anyway.

On another thread Bob has abbreviated views presented on the forum as "CU" (Christian Universalism) which several of the forum posters adhere to, though they (and you) have some differences on details.

I agree with you that 'Reconciliationism' is probably better descriptive of your view, and of the others also, in terms of it 'positive' message (similarly with 'Conditional Immortality' as opposed to 'Annihilationism').

But since [Christian, not Unitiarian] Universalism is still the standard way of describing the view---or at least the older alternate---I hope you won't be offended if I use the term.

I know you're a "CU" not a "UU"...and Reconciliationism or Reconciliationism/Universalism are longer to type out!

I apologize in advance if the use of 'universalism' offends you. But I will probably use it for the above reasons. I disagree with both CU and UU which are two separate belief systems.

Btw, I know a 'Christian Unitarian Universalist', a member of one of the nation's oldest UU churches. He's a Schleirermacher type liberal Christian...and is the first to admit it. If he were to post here he would be in some agreement with much of what the CU's on the forum say...while remaining a UU.

I hope this clears things up, Don.
Rick