thank goodness for that!but the ultimate disposition on the grand scale i suspect belongs in God's hands alone.
TK
Hope as a legitimate reason to believe UR
Hello Christopher,
I've been meaning to get back to you. You wrote (in part):
Ron Rhodes says well what I contend for:
"John Calvin once said that "we must be reminded that there is a permanent relationship between faith and the Word. [God] could not separate one from the other any more than we could separate the rays from the sun from which they come." Calvin assures his readers that God's Word "is the basis whereby faith is supported and sustained; if it turns away from the Word, it falls. Therefore, take away the Word and no faith will then remain."
Calvin recognized that the New Testament writers were adamant on this issue. John's Gospel tells us that "these things have been written that you may believe. . ." (John 20:31). Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). If someone should ask, "How can I increase my faith?" the answer is: SATURATE YOUR MIND WITH GOD'S WORD.
We have looked at several inspiring examples of how George Muller's faith reaped incredible results. It is no surprise that Muller sees a cause and effect relationship between the Word of God and faith. Based on what he has learned over the years, he offers two pieces of advice for Christians who want to see powerful results from their faith.
First, since true faith is solidly anchored upon Scriptural facts, we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by impressions. "Impressions have neither one thing nor the other to do with faith," says Muller. "Faith has to do with the Word of God. It is not impressions, strong or weak, which will make the difference. We have to do with the Written Word and not ourselves or impressions."
And second, we must beware of letting probabilities hinder our faith. Muller warns: "Many people are willing to believe regarding those things that seem probable to them. Faith has nothing to do with probabilities. The province of faith begins where probabilities cease and sight and sense fail. Appearances are not to be taken into account. The question is - whether God has spoken it in His Word."
So what does all of this boil down to? Perhaps Miles Stanford sums it up best when he says that "there can be no steadfastness [in faith] apart from immovable facts." And these "immovable facts" are found in God's unchanging Word. Regardless of how impressions and probabilities relentlessly assault the physical eye, the immovable facts contained in Scripture keep the eye of faith in proper focus."
I know some here have read Tom Talbott. I have read some of his stuff. He is a philosopher, not a theologian or biblical scholar. In Universalism we have a system of belief based in philosophy. It has latched onto a scattering of scriptures, not one of which can not be shown to have one or more possible (IMO, probable) other meanings. Here is an example of one of their favorites:
Ephesians 1:9-10 (NKJV)
9. having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10. that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
What is not noted is that the preposition is in Christ, not into (Grk. eis) Christ. The text says nothing about gathering together all people, but gathering together all those in Christ. "Into" is not in the passage.
I was recently listening to the Narrow Path when I heard Steve inform a caller that all the arguments of the Calvinists "were vacuous". I found this interesting. I had been thinking that the arguments of the Universalists were not as biblically strong as those of the Calvinists! Actually they have many similar traits. Both are deterministic and necessarily must override free will at some point. Both have a philosophical paradigm that forces everything to fit - the Calvinist and God's sovereignty, as they understand it, and likewise the Universalist and their understanding of God's love.
I've been meaning to get back to you. You wrote (in part):
I have no disagreement with your statement regarding faith. I mistakenly assumed that it would be understood that I meant faith is based on belief of testimony regarding facts. I do believe, however, that, although hope strengthens faith, faith is not informed by hope, at least in the biblical sense.You wrote:
Quote:
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).
Ron Rhodes says well what I contend for:
"John Calvin once said that "we must be reminded that there is a permanent relationship between faith and the Word. [God] could not separate one from the other any more than we could separate the rays from the sun from which they come." Calvin assures his readers that God's Word "is the basis whereby faith is supported and sustained; if it turns away from the Word, it falls. Therefore, take away the Word and no faith will then remain."
Calvin recognized that the New Testament writers were adamant on this issue. John's Gospel tells us that "these things have been written that you may believe. . ." (John 20:31). Paul tells us that "faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ" (Romans 10:17). If someone should ask, "How can I increase my faith?" the answer is: SATURATE YOUR MIND WITH GOD'S WORD.
We have looked at several inspiring examples of how George Muller's faith reaped incredible results. It is no surprise that Muller sees a cause and effect relationship between the Word of God and faith. Based on what he has learned over the years, he offers two pieces of advice for Christians who want to see powerful results from their faith.
First, since true faith is solidly anchored upon Scriptural facts, we must not allow ourselves to be influenced by impressions. "Impressions have neither one thing nor the other to do with faith," says Muller. "Faith has to do with the Word of God. It is not impressions, strong or weak, which will make the difference. We have to do with the Written Word and not ourselves or impressions."
And second, we must beware of letting probabilities hinder our faith. Muller warns: "Many people are willing to believe regarding those things that seem probable to them. Faith has nothing to do with probabilities. The province of faith begins where probabilities cease and sight and sense fail. Appearances are not to be taken into account. The question is - whether God has spoken it in His Word."
So what does all of this boil down to? Perhaps Miles Stanford sums it up best when he says that "there can be no steadfastness [in faith] apart from immovable facts." And these "immovable facts" are found in God's unchanging Word. Regardless of how impressions and probabilities relentlessly assault the physical eye, the immovable facts contained in Scripture keep the eye of faith in proper focus."
I know some here have read Tom Talbott. I have read some of his stuff. He is a philosopher, not a theologian or biblical scholar. In Universalism we have a system of belief based in philosophy. It has latched onto a scattering of scriptures, not one of which can not be shown to have one or more possible (IMO, probable) other meanings. Here is an example of one of their favorites:
Ephesians 1:9-10 (NKJV)
9. having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, 10. that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him.
What is not noted is that the preposition is in Christ, not into (Grk. eis) Christ. The text says nothing about gathering together all people, but gathering together all those in Christ. "Into" is not in the passage.
I was recently listening to the Narrow Path when I heard Steve inform a caller that all the arguments of the Calvinists "were vacuous". I found this interesting. I had been thinking that the arguments of the Universalists were not as biblically strong as those of the Calvinists! Actually they have many similar traits. Both are deterministic and necessarily must override free will at some point. Both have a philosophical paradigm that forces everything to fit - the Calvinist and God's sovereignty, as they understand it, and likewise the Universalist and their understanding of God's love.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
Of course not Homer! He is not being negligent! He has not left us nor forsaken us!Homer wrote:dmatic,
Should God be sued for negligence? Seems to me you need to think this responsibility business through a bit more.
He is a most reponsible parent!
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Sorry TK, but I am not suggesting that God made any mistakes or that He was caught "off guard".TK wrote:dmatic-
The implication that God has "repsonsibility" in the sense you mean implies that God made a mistake, or that He isnt perfect, which of course is the antithesis of God.
You might POSSIBLY argue that God was "surprised" by the bad turn that mankind took, and took action to assuage the problem, but even this possibility stands on very shaky ground.
TK
What I am willing to say is that this is all part of His plan! Do you really think God so naive as to be outsmarted by the "devil", or by man's "free" will?
It is evident that He "allowed" evil.....for some purpose of His.
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
Very, very good Steve! I wish I would have read, first, your repsponse before answering with my own! You did a much better job! Thank you!STEVE7150 wrote:The implication that God has "repsonsibility" in the sense you mean implies that God made a mistake, or that He isnt perfect, which of course is the antithesis of God.
I think by responsibility he means that the fall of Adam and Eve was predestined by God as part of God's blueprint for mankind as nothing surprises God, nothing is unexpected.
So of course God owes us nothing and of course we don't deserve mercy or anything but the fate of mankind is not left to happenstance but ultimately is in the hands of God. And if it is in the hands of God it is in a sense His responsibility, not because it has to be and not because He owes us anything but because that's the way He wants it.
Anyway that's how it just seems to me , i could be wrong but i'm starting to think the vast majority of people are woefully incompetent of making decisions affecting their eternal destiny.
I'm not trying to relieve man of his accountability to God, he is accountable and we all get judged but the ultimate disposition on the grand scale i suspect belongs in God's hands alone.
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
-
_Christopher
- Posts: 437
- Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2005 5:35 pm
- Location: Gladstone, Oregon
Hi Homer,
You’ve argued well my friend!
I’m back at work now so I may not have time to completely give your post the response it deserves, my discussion time is now confined to breaks. But I’ll do my best to give the concise version.
First, I want to comment on something you wrote:
My counterpoints to them would be from the same authors they cited.
Paul says:
Rom 8:16
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
NKJV
John says:
1 John 4:13
13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
NKJV
And…
1 John 5:6
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
NKJV
Does this sound more like a revealed word or an inward feeling to you? I don’t know how else the Spirit would “bear witness” to our spirit if not by an impression or a feeling in our hearts.
Let me clarify once more what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that hope or intuition alone is sufficient to make something believable or not. I’m not saying that all things being equal, hope makes one view truer than another. I’m not saying that we can base our beliefs solely on what we hope is true.
What I am asserting is that, being made in the image of God, and love being at the core of God’s being, and hope being at the core of love, than it is not unreasonable to hope for the best possible outcome when the facts do not preclude it. And so far, I have not seen a undeniable argument against UR.
You wrote:
I married my wife with the hope that she will remain faithful to me for life. I have no facts to base that hope on other than my love for her and the trust she has won from me over time. There is no prophesy about it and it still has room to not be true. But I have faith and hope that it will be because there are no facts that tell me otherwise.
I don’t believe faith can be commanded by facts alone. In fact, I don’t think faith can be commanded at all. I think it is won over by the receiver of that faith. I believe God wins our trust/faith, not commands it. He commands repentance, but how can you command things like trust and love and hope? Those things are emotional IMO. Rationally emotional (if I may coin what sounds like an oxymoron
), but emotional just the same.
You wrote:
My arguments are not for proving universal reconciliation, they are for leveling the playing field. I have not seen any proof yet that precludes it from being true. Nor have I seen conclusive proof that it, or any other view, is true.
To me, that leaves room for hope to supplement the facts as a basis for rational belief.
I’m out of time and that’s the best I can do for now, and I may eat some of these words later. Please feed them to me gently.
Thanks for the discussion Homer.
You’ve argued well my friend!
I’m back at work now so I may not have time to completely give your post the response it deserves, my discussion time is now confined to breaks. But I’ll do my best to give the concise version.
First, I want to comment on something you wrote:
What, in your mind, makes the distinction between philosopher and theologian? Can there truly be such a distinction? Do we not all appeal to philosophy in our theological discussions at some point? I would have to say that the examples you cited from Calvin, Mueller, Rhodes, etc. are thick with philosophy with some scripture mingled in. And though the opinions of these men are no doubt to be respected, they are not inspired nor infallible.I know some here have read Tom Talbott. I have read some of his stuff. He is a philosopher, not a theologian or biblical scholar.
My counterpoints to them would be from the same authors they cited.
Paul says:
Rom 8:16
16 The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,
NKJV
John says:
1 John 4:13
13 By this we know that we abide in Him, and He in us, because He has given us of His Spirit.
NKJV
And…
1 John 5:6
And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is truth.
NKJV
Does this sound more like a revealed word or an inward feeling to you? I don’t know how else the Spirit would “bear witness” to our spirit if not by an impression or a feeling in our hearts.
Let me clarify once more what I’m not saying. I’m not saying that hope or intuition alone is sufficient to make something believable or not. I’m not saying that all things being equal, hope makes one view truer than another. I’m not saying that we can base our beliefs solely on what we hope is true.
What I am asserting is that, being made in the image of God, and love being at the core of God’s being, and hope being at the core of love, than it is not unreasonable to hope for the best possible outcome when the facts do not preclude it. And so far, I have not seen a undeniable argument against UR.
You wrote:
In what way does hope strengthen faith if it doesn’t somehow come from emotional input?I do believe, however, that, although hope strengthens faith, faith is not informed by hope, at least in the biblical sense.
I married my wife with the hope that she will remain faithful to me for life. I have no facts to base that hope on other than my love for her and the trust she has won from me over time. There is no prophesy about it and it still has room to not be true. But I have faith and hope that it will be because there are no facts that tell me otherwise.
I don’t believe faith can be commanded by facts alone. In fact, I don’t think faith can be commanded at all. I think it is won over by the receiver of that faith. I believe God wins our trust/faith, not commands it. He commands repentance, but how can you command things like trust and love and hope? Those things are emotional IMO. Rationally emotional (if I may coin what sounds like an oxymoron
), but emotional just the same.You wrote:
As an agnostic on this topic (and as objective as I can be), I don’t believe this is a fair statement given the extent of arguments we’ve seen so far that includes the use of much scripture. I would have to say that the same can be said for any of the views expressed.In Universalism we have a system of belief based in philosophy. It has latched onto a scattering of scriptures, not one of which can not be shown to have one or more possible (IMO, probable) other meanings.
My arguments are not for proving universal reconciliation, they are for leveling the playing field. I have not seen any proof yet that precludes it from being true. Nor have I seen conclusive proof that it, or any other view, is true.
To me, that leaves room for hope to supplement the facts as a basis for rational belief.
I’m out of time and that’s the best I can do for now, and I may eat some of these words later. Please feed them to me gently.
Thanks for the discussion Homer.
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed;
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free." John 8:31-32
Hi Christopher,
Thanks for your response and your Christian spirit!
You wrote:
He speaks to me through His word. I am wary of my mental impressions.
Perhaps I can illustrate what seems to me to be the difference between Christian hope, which I believe to be "confident expectation" and the common use of the word.
Example 1
Johnny is 10 years old. His father is a good man who has proven his love for Johnny. His father has always kept his word. Johnny has made many requests of his father. His father always does what is best, sometimes granting Johnny's requests, sometimes not. Johnny wants a bicycle for Christmas. His father has discussed giving Johnny a bicycle, or a baseball glove, or a dog, provided he respects his parents. He has made no promise. Johnny hopes he will get the bicycle.
Example 2
Conditions are the same as in example 1, except in this case Johnny's father has promised him the bicycle if he respects his parents. Johnny hopes to get the bicycle for Christmas.
I believe Example 1 is the way "hope" is all too often used while Example 2 is an example of that "confident expectation" based an a promise by someone who is the object of faith.
We see hope commonly confused with wish, as in "I hope to win the lottery, I bought a lot of tickets".
I must add I mean these illustrations to apply to no more than the meaning of faith and not as an analogy regarding Universalism.
God bless!
Thanks for your response and your Christian spirit!
You wrote:
I don't know if you would call it an impression or a feeling but in my case its more like a poke with a very sharp stick (God's word) when I "mess up".Does this sound more like a revealed word or an inward feeling to you? I don’t know how else the Spirit would “bear witness” to our spirit if not by an impression or a feeling in our hearts.
He speaks to me through His word. I am wary of my mental impressions.Perhaps I can illustrate what seems to me to be the difference between Christian hope, which I believe to be "confident expectation" and the common use of the word.
Example 1
Johnny is 10 years old. His father is a good man who has proven his love for Johnny. His father has always kept his word. Johnny has made many requests of his father. His father always does what is best, sometimes granting Johnny's requests, sometimes not. Johnny wants a bicycle for Christmas. His father has discussed giving Johnny a bicycle, or a baseball glove, or a dog, provided he respects his parents. He has made no promise. Johnny hopes he will get the bicycle.
Example 2
Conditions are the same as in example 1, except in this case Johnny's father has promised him the bicycle if he respects his parents. Johnny hopes to get the bicycle for Christmas.
I believe Example 1 is the way "hope" is all too often used while Example 2 is an example of that "confident expectation" based an a promise by someone who is the object of faith.
We see hope commonly confused with wish, as in "I hope to win the lottery, I bought a lot of tickets".
I must add I mean these illustrations to apply to no more than the meaning of faith and not as an analogy regarding Universalism.
God bless!
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
A Berean
dmatic wrote:
right, paidion?
TK
some people on this forum might state that God does not know what free will agents will do, and necessarily must be "surprised" in the loosest meaning of the term. If God knows what a free will person will do, the person is not truly "free." God knows every possible contingency; the question is whether he knows specifically what each person will actually do. or something like that.Do you really think God so naive as to be outsmarted by the "devil", or by man's "free" will?
right, paidion?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)
I know what some people may say about "free" will, TK, but I was hoping you'd simply answer No, I don't think God could be outsmarted by the devil or by anyone's will since it is He that works within us to will and to do of His good purpose!
peace, dmatic
peace, dmatic
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
dmatic-
i dont think God is ever "outsmarted." the question is whether he knows, in advance, what each person is going to do. just because he has contingencies in place for every possibility does not necessarily mean that he knows in advance what a free will agent will choose prior to the choice.
by the way, i am undecided on this. however, i no longer believe that omniscience MUST include knowledge of things that cannot be known. If Paidion is correct, then the choice of a free-will agent, by definition, cannot be known beforehand. If you are interested, check out the multi- multi- page discussions on "open theism."
at any rate, this is quite a bit off topic from christopher's original post. how did we get down this rabbit trail?
TK
i dont think God is ever "outsmarted." the question is whether he knows, in advance, what each person is going to do. just because he has contingencies in place for every possibility does not necessarily mean that he knows in advance what a free will agent will choose prior to the choice.
by the way, i am undecided on this. however, i no longer believe that omniscience MUST include knowledge of things that cannot be known. If Paidion is correct, then the choice of a free-will agent, by definition, cannot be known beforehand. If you are interested, check out the multi- multi- page discussions on "open theism."
at any rate, this is quite a bit off topic from christopher's original post. how did we get down this rabbit trail?
TK
Last edited by Guest on Wed Dec 31, 1969 7:00 pm, edited 0 times in total.
Reason:
Reason:
"Were not our hearts burning within us? (Lk 24:32)