"The "Destruction" of the Wicked" by Lorraine Day, M.D. is one of the lamest Greek word studies I've ever seen. Offhand I can't think of any that were worse.
Hi Rick,
Actually, I agree. Shortly after submitting that post I went back to check it and realized that in my haste I had linked to the wrong article, so I removed it. If I can find the study I had in mind, I'll post a link to it.
Reconciliationism, in my view, takes the philosophy of Romanticism and forces it onto and into (etc.) the Bible. It is also distinctly post-modern.
So are you saying that Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Gregory of Nyssa, et al, were post-modern romanticists?
It seems that the early, Greek-speaking theologians had a different understanding of
aion and
aionios than the later non-Greek speaking theologians (such as Augustine).
Texts have no inherent absolute meaning. Rather, it is up to the reader to find whatever meaning they "see". The surrounding context of texts (verses) are minimized at best, if not ignored. Personal beliefs and feelings are what interpret the text to give it its "real meaning".
I think that's a cheap shot. C'mon Rick, you know better than that. Maybe some Christian Universalists take this approach, but those I know and read are very interested in sound hermeneutics and proper exegesis.
Alternate meanings of Greek words are wrongly used in order to support their personal beliefs. Greek words can and often do have more than one meaning. But when alternate meanings are deliberately selected to "prove" a personal belief or doctrine, this is eisegesis: "reading [foreign and/or your own] ideas into the text".
But, of course, the same charge can be made from the opposite side. For example, how much was the decision to translate
apollumi as "perish" in one place, "destruction" in another and "lost" elsewhere based on doctrinal presuppositions?
Imo, historical and literary context, and, original authorial intention and meaning are the criteria for interpretation of the Bible and its Greek, Hebrew, or Aramaic words. Personal beliefs, philosophical or "curiosity" questions, presuppositions, and feelings and emotions are decidedly NOT the criteria for biblical interpretation.
I think we all agree on that. C'mon, let's discuss the doctrines on their own merits and set aside the questioning of people's intentions.
What stands out is Reconciliationist thought is erroneous on SO many levels that plainly put; I not only don't believe it was taught by Jesus and the Apostles; it was foreign to their own beliefs and worldview.
Fair enough. Although I haven't seen anything all that compelling yet to show me how it is erroneous on so many levels, other than claims that it is.
I won't go so far as to call Reconciliationists heretics.
Thank you. Although I
am a heretic. And so are you. In fact, all of us are heretics in
somebody else's opinion.
My last paragraph was to say that the disagreement is strong and I wonder if this debate will ever end?
Probably not, but I have enjoyed this thread!
Homer,
Are you a closet Calvinist? :Shocked: God's grace is irresistable post mortem, but resistable in this life? God is Armenian in this age but a Calvinist in the next? This is a new theological concept to me, I'd like to hear more of it!
I can understand why you would see hints of Calvinism since, as I've stated before, Universalism is a "middle way" between Calvinism and Arminianism.
If God wants people to love Him, but only of their own free will (His terms), I think He will have precisely what He wants when He accepts those who love Him without coercion and casts away those who reject Him. I fail to see how you think He "wins" when people are tortured until they "love" Him.
This is a gross misunderstanding, at least of the Universalism that I hold. I want to give you as thorough an answer as I can, which means I'll have to wait until I have a little more time to write.
Rick (again),
Talbott's argumentation is to use 'points of view' of these three systems--which he, btw, doesn't accurately portray to begin with---and pit them against each other. His premises are faulty, his arguments lack coherence, his conclusions are unreasonable.
Talbott has certainly had an influence on me. Could you please delineate how exactly his portrayal of the three systems is inaccurate, his premises faulty, his arguments incoherent and his conclusions unreasonable?
The only authorities I recognize are Jesus and His Apostles who lived in the first century as Jews. Later Gentile religious systems, their teachers, their worldviews, what they taught, how they differed and so on, are of little consequence.
So I take it you'll be burning your N.T. Wright books?
Bob & Homer, more to come!
God's grace is irresistable post mortem, but resistable in this life? God is Armenian in this age but a Calvinist in the next? This is a new theological concept to me, I'd like to hear more of it!
