Why the year 0 CE?

Not fretting does not mean being lackadaisical nor ‘care less’, but trusting that you have a good Father.

There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear…

It’s not our perfect love! It is our Father’s, and he only does what is good for both him and us. So whenever I catch myself being anxious about anything, I can go crawl up on Father’s lap even when court is in session in the throne room, so to speak, and his strong arms will comfort me and shield me.

1 Like

There is no ‘perhaps’ about it, but being obedient to the laws of love is not optional.

Amen to all of that! And when the Father has comforted, encouraged, and strengthened us - and calls us to go out and do courageous and needed things (like speaking truth to power) so that others can experience that comforting care also, may we have the courage of His continued presence to obey.

Thanks for your words, Dale.

2 Likes

Yes, I gave the example of Ezekiel 23 but there are many examples in the Bible of prophecy interpreting the past. Nevertheless, they don’t reveal new historical events–unlike Gnosticism, Islam, Mormonism, and a thousand other religions and cults that use the Bible (but don’t teach the Bible).

And yes, Revelation was very much for both the 2nd-century churches to whom it was addressed and to the universal church. I’ve only had time to skim y’all’s discussion about prophecy and certainly agree that many US churches have at times had a very myopic interpretation–such as reading in the 7 stages of church history–but I can’t really debate the various schools of thought on it (I don’t even remember what the term preterest means :grin:!)

1 Like

In a nutshell preterism is the idea that a large majority or all of Bible prophecy was fulfilled by 70 AD. There are partial preterist like I who see a large majority of prophecy having been fulfilled by 70 AD except for the return of Jesus Christ and the final judgement. full preterist see ALL Bible prophecy having been fulfilled by 70 AD including the return of Jesus and the final judgement.

2 Likes

Speaking of dual fulfillments to prophecy, this would be cool to see:

Betelgeuse is acting strange, and astronomers are buzzing

(It would fit nicely with Luke 21:25, as mentioned before.)

 
I have no trouble with preterism and the imagery it presumes, as long as it allows for the possibility of dual fulfillments to some prophecy and dual noncontradictory meanings to some other scripture, from Genesis 1 through Revelation, not unlike the classic optical illusion of two women – both are true and nonconflicting:

CC473925-7C9E-4DA8-9A8C-C210AD1BC20E

I suggest that the Bible is bigger than we know, penned (metaphorically speaking :slightly_smiling_face:) by the ultimate Wordsmith and the Artist of artists.

1 Like

Well, there are many instances of the NT taking OT descriptions as prefigurations and “predictions.” However, how do we make sure these are true exegetically? The saying “Out of Egypt have I called my son” doesn’t refer to a prediction at all clearly in the original text–it’s not even in that configuration–it’s changed in the NT. While I don’t doubt how the NT describes Christ, really, it doesn’t help me accept Christ based on a prediction.
Also, many Muslims use the prediction of “paraclete” as referring to Muhammad. I don’t think it fits with him; it’s certainly with the Holy Spirit. However, if we use prefigurations to take any description, how do we keep to some sort of orthodoxy?

Thanks. Blessing.

How many women are in the drawing? Two, and only two. It does not support ‘any description’. Do they conflict with each other? No. That is how we maintain orthodoxy – by testing scripture against scripture and reality against reality.

For instance, I still like the ‘Rossian’ cosmological sequence in Genesis 1 – it does not conflict with an ANE/literary framework interpretation. (I also very much like Michael LeFebvre’s take.)

I never read that part by Joel Duff on Michael Lefebvre till now–I like it. Thanks." My thesis is that the Pentateuch uses dates for liturgical instruction, not to provide a journalistic chronology. Event sequencing, not dates, is the Pentateuch’s method to indicate chronology. ” Page 60"

that is very unfamiliar to my eyes, though. I should read more of Dr Walton.

Forgive my bad memory, but which story of 2 women were we talking about? I scanned back, but am missing it. Thanks.

1 Like

The optical illusion drawing, as emblematic of two true and noncontradictory readings of the same thing.

1 Like

Oh, I got it. Thanks.

1 Like

Just read this in Richard Rohr’s “Universal Christ” and thought it applicable to the OP of this thread:

An eagerness and readiness to love is the ultimate freedom and future. When you’ve been included in the spaciousness of divine love, there is just no room for human punishment, vengeance, rash judgment, or calls for retribution. We certainly see none of this small-mindedness in the Risen Christ after his own rejection, betrayal, and cruel death; we don’t see it even from his inner circle, or in the whole New Testament. I really cannot imagine a larger and more spacious way to live. Jesus’s death and resurrection event was a game changer for history, and it is no surprise that we date our calendar from his lifetime. The Crucified and Risen Christ uses the mistakes of the past to create a positive future, a future of redemption instead of retribution. He does not eliminate or punish the mistakes. He uses them for transformative purposes. People formed by such love are indestructible. Forgiveness might just be the very best description of what God’s goodness engenders in humanity.

Rohr, Richard. The Universal Christ (p. 72). The Crown Publishing Group. Kindle Edition.

1 Like

I can only concur with one sentence:

(And not even that, fully – I would have only used an apostrophe and not apostrophe s to make the possessive case. :grin:)

I cannot be a universalist, not the least reason being the unforgivable sin, and it is for eternity.

An article that I do concur with is Why I Don’t Flow with Richard Rohr.

I can agree with that, also – provisionally and out of context. It does not apply to all.

Yeah, I know. You and a lot of others. Rohr (and many others like him) aren’t for everybody … yet … (though, I guess we could observe that if they are right, then such a love will be for everyone, on that day when every knee bows and every tongue confesses!) The older I get, and the more I read my bible, the more I find Rohr and his ilk on the higher ground, and the more I find his critics wanting, both scripturally and spiritually. But that’s just me. And yet, all too often, I am among their critics as well, so you certainly aren’t alone.

3 Likes

I’m relatively old and have read through the Bible a bunch of times, but am no doubt ossified in my ways, so don’t hold your breath. :slightly_smiling_face: Don’t be swayed by noble sounding saccharine, though, thinking it higher ground.

I am curious what you think of Lewis’ proposed idea of inclusivism. In a way, I suppose, it could be called universalism, but it would not the stereotypical one, if so. He which he shares it with George Macdonald, and expresses in “Mere Christianity.” I can post another thread on it and wrestling many have had with it. Thanks.

A Bing search of “CS Lewis universalism” shows conflicting titles–C S Lewis was a dangerous universalist; he wasn’t a universalist; etc. :slight_smile: He appears to be an inclusivist, but there are unique characteristics, I think.
I found this post interesting: https://thinkingthroughchristianity.com/2012/06/c-s-lewis-is-not-a-universalist-heretic.html

1 Like

This may also be an ambiguous point on MacDonald as well - according to a later American editor of his books (Michael Phillips) it is a mistake to think that MacDonald was a universalist. The distinction could perhaps be a fine one indeed, but I shouldn’t presume to know better than somebody who has painstakenly gone over Macdonald’s work. So I may have erred here in the past if I referrred to MacDonald as such.

I will do my best to consider the ground only, and not the sweetness!

1 Like

I reviewed Lewis’ position in my very fundamentalist church a month ago in adult Sunday School. One of the most empathetic men said, “It stops short of the stereotypic universalism; and I could identify with it. However, I wouldn’t preach it from the pulpit.” I found that very interesting.

Does faith mirror our tension between justice and survival of the fittest, so that we feel that we have to fit into a certain slot beyond repentance, and be unique to be saved? I love Macdonald; and I think that the idea of his universalism makes it palatable and just. This is because he leaves it open to our ultimate choice to refuse God, but still affirms our choice to repent, and affirms that God, as our father, knows our limits of understanding, as He made us. The only reason I haven’t posted a new thread on this is that I don’t feel wise enough to deal with the strong feelings it could give rise to, with enough insight to adequately defend him. I still gain more in wisdom by reading his novels, though–just read an excerpt from “David Elginbrod,” that reminded me of Macdonald’s insight.
The fundamentalist caricature of universalism seems to be the opposite of extreme Calvinism–where in the latter, we are born without choice to be evil and are saved only in a small number; in the former, we are saved inexorably, and carry our sneering attitude to God even to Heaven. There’s no in between–Purgatory, annihilation, punishment to repentance.

Macdonald, I think, starts with God’s character. He says that God can’t be any worse than the best of all parents–and that all punishment is for repentance and reconciliation, not for sating the selfish whims of a tribal god. It seems to reflect Macdonald’s own good relationship with his father. Once you read him, you get the impression that his entire writings stem from his relationship with God.
Macdonald was quite concerned about the fate of those who didn’t get things quite right–not from their own fault, but from lack of knowledge, or because they showed more attention to love (which he felt reflected Christ) than to rules. Thus, he postulated that it was precisely in punishment that God is closest to us–where He is trying to wake us up and become more like His Son. Hell, then, would be Purgatory for those who opted to repent. Lewis echoed this idea in some of his work, including “The Great Divorce,” “The Last Battle,” and wrote an approving foreword to Macdonald’s book, "Unspoken Sermons, which included his work on “Justice”.
I’d be interested in other thoughts you bring out about Macdonald.
Thanks

And to state that more specifically: his relationship with Christ who is unequivocally the face of God for MacDonald (and all of us who are Christians).

That is a good insight to people’s reactions, I think. We often (or I know I do anyway) pick up new ideas by first playing with any logical extremes associated with them (even if unfairly so in the end) and letting any far-reaching or imagined implications play out in our own minds for a while before our eyes adjust to the new surroundings and we become aware of the world of nuance and texture inside our former simplistic label for the thing.

Yes! The verse: 1 John 1:5 “… God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.” is an oft-quoted favorite of MacDonald I suspect and while he would show external patience, he doesn’t mince words about what he thinks of the view that would paint God like an abusive father around which the entire family must tip-toe as if on eggshells lest they rouse his offense. It doesn’t even take a “good parent” but even any of us as mediocre parents do better by our own kids than that. So however many passages people have found to push such a “wrathful God” notion, the scriptures are legion that prevail against it, not to mention the thoroughly fatal notion that God could somehow be beneath the very notions of justice and love that He has awakened in us. Christ’s own words and parables are even used to promote the wrathful view (don’t fail to be vigilant, don’t be late, don’t waste your talents, don’t tolerate the presence of even a body part that causes you to sin, etc…) the urgency and consequent wrath involved are very real, to be sure. Jesus makes that quite clear. He also, by his life and company kept, makes it clear what a tender heart is behind it all, and where that wrath gets directed when leaders would use rules and moral walls to exclude those they disapprove of. That even the so-blasted Pharisees must include people such as Nicodemus and eventually Paul, should be taken as an encouraging testimony for us all that God is not in the habit of being satisfied with our rejection of Him.

Actually, as I recall, didn’t Lewis have the animals who had only hatred as they looked upon Aslan end up marching off to the one side (I suppose mercifully) into oblivion? From the Great Divorce, Lewis is more clear on it, I agree. But I’m not sure “The Last Battle” would be confused for universalism - the whole episode with the Calorman, Emeth, notwithstanding.

2 Likes