The problem I have is that SOME folks here…And I’m NOT naming names or pointing the finger… present their ideas in obscure and technical language. It’s hard for the layman (much less the scholar) to grasp.
It’s kind of like being a member of the Theosophical Society…and trying to read their flagship work.
For the life of me, I could never get through - the first few pages
Or reading James Joyce’s Ulysses or Finnegan’s Wake. .
It is significant for its experimental style and reputation as one of the most difficult works of fiction in the English language.[2
All this tasks are doable. But extremely tedious, time consuming and labor intensive.
On the other hand…folks who write direct response, copywriting or marketing collateral…write to a grade school level, keep the reader engaged and appeal to the psychological triggers and persona.
And the top ones, can make millions each year - in royalties.
Or take the Harry Potter series, of novels and movies.
The author went from being a welfare mom to a billionaire.
If folks would honor the KISS philosophy (Keep It Simple and Stupid), their readership and fan base - would explode exponentially.
Yes… egotism can be a real pain as it often reads what it wants to read and not necessarily what’s actually been written — and thereby the potential for frustration either side ensures. A classic example of this is where you interpret something I say and provide a counter-argument against said interpretation that is NOT germane BECAUSE I haven’t actually said what you’ve claimed and argued by your interpretation. Here is a good example. Just now you claim…
You asserted, NOTHING in Hebrews suggests any negative outcomes are possible.
This is disingenuous, wrong and a mere steppingstone for your ends — well ok… but, it’s NOT correct and NOT what I stated. Let me give you the specific quote where my comment was NOT the sweeping statement you’ve given above, BUT rather, pertinent to Hebrews 9 alone… which you yourself actually brought up, not me… I was merely responding to you. Here’s the original quote…
As you can see… you brought up Hebrews 9passage to which my ‘NOTHING’ comment spoke… NOT the sweeping generalisation you’re now asserting.
From my perspective… biblical ‘eschatological judgment’ was pertinent to the old covenant age and as such no longer exists. So in that very real sense, there is nothing relative to THAT ‘eschatological judgment’ to be saved from, i.e., it no longer exists — humanity lives past event.
So again, this is what I ACTUALLY said…
Well… don’t put words in my mouth Bob. There “may” be judgment postmortem for all — I kind of think yes — BUT only following the biblical pattern. I can only see ‘judgement’ as possibly relevant to one’s “works” (and thus rewards / loss thereof)…
So let me clarify or qualify again. Please note that my judgment postmortem “yes” was predicated on my “may”. IOW… the NT is clear as to judgement on works relative to the parousia, BUT seems somewhat silent (as far as I can tell) beyond that point. I’m simply of the opinion and so inclined to think that each of us might face similar scrutiny in terms of our works in this life etc. Again, a thought and NOT a dogma.
My position is and has been that all judgement ON sin was met through the Cross-Parousia event (AD30-70) Jn 1:29; Heb 9:26et al.
Here again Bob you’ve simply conflated things… YOU yourself actually introduced the terminology “faithful obedience” NOT me, again to which I simply clarified how I would view that — see the last quote and paragraph HERE.
I know that you know THAT was NOT what I was actually saying… plus I never used the word “unrepentant”. IF I was to argue for universalism the “not guilty verdict” might be an option; BUT you’ve repeated this here EVEN THOUGH I gave you two links showing EXACTLY my position.
I can’t give a rock-solid, gold-plated definition as to what I… “think “postmortem judgment” actually was in the mind of the Bible’s writers” BECAUSE I can’t find one — perhaps you have some texts you can share? The closest if that I can come to is John’s… “to him who overcomes will I grant…” BUT even that does NOT require death aka postmortem.
I think I speak for a number of others here, who have found the discussions above interesting/frustrating/challenging etc.
In sum, we can’t see the forest for the trees. So much detail, it’s overwhelming.
If you Bob and Davo, could state your answer to the following hypothetical, it might clear away the fog a bit. You don’t have to, just askin’.
Simple question: My neighbor dies. She was not a believer in God, she was in fact a Wiccan priestess, an adulteress many times over, but an excellent cook.
What ‘happens’ to her - what does the biblical message say about - her soul if you will, her body, her eternal fate ?
Keep it simple?
Bob, If I am understanding you correctly, you seem to be implying that my response is in some way self righteous. Yet,this IS what God commands us to do. You also say that faithful obedience to God is required with which I agree. It doesn’t matter whether you say “Well, people can’t follow these instructions.” The fact of the matter is that if we don’t, we won’t prosper. Obviously, Abraham achieved this because he was blessed by God.
Davo, a covenant is an agreement between two parties. If you are disobeying the covenant then you are NOT in the covenant. There are no “covenant sanctions”. You either obey God, or you perish (Gen. 3:3,Deut.30:16-18).
You also said this:
From my perspective… biblical ‘eschatological judgment’ was pertinent to the old covenant age and as such no longer exists.
Yes, destruction still occurs.This is plain and obvious.
In the context of sharing my own sense of falling well short of such a degree of love, and my allusions to my skepticism of Wesley’s interpretation of perfect love, I was actually just implying my surprise when folk express no difficulty in claiming to have fulfilled the great commandment…
I see that my poor exegesis and grasp of your views is frustrating, and I regret that. Please know that I don’t distort them on purpose. That’s why I repeatedly asked if I’d misinterpreted them, and confessed I was sensing that I was failing to understand what your position is. And that sense of inadequacy on my end remains.
E.g. my impression that you connected the call to obedience to AD 70 was gleaned from your response on June 16 that: “The main thrust and call was to “faithful obedience—until the day” i.e., the Day of the Lord, aka the Parousia — which from my understanding was AD70.” As with other statements of yours, I honestly don’t know what such language is claiming. I am sorry for leaving the feeling I haven’t addressed your actual beliefs.
“The actual beliefs” is what I was trying to get at with my question above; instead of minutiae of doctrinal points - as important as those are - I thought focusing on ONE thing would show where the disagreements really come in.
That one thing is something everyone cares about - what happens when we die? Not just the wiccan priestess - a bit of whimsy there - but any person here in the 21st century.
What is the difference between the Pantelist view and Bob’s view - in the particulars of this question? The soul, the body, the personality - what happens at and after death?
What a wonderfully thought provoking question. I get lost in the detail too (and lack clarity about the details) .
I think my basic impression of some NT authors is that they expect both the righteous and unrighteous will be ‘bodily’ raised and appear to be judged by God according to their response to Him and the kind of works expressed in their life, and that while some will be declared to be found righteous, some will not. And thus that there is the possibility that the God who alone can search hearts as to what is needed, could deal with your example in accord with how he deals with rebellion all through our known experience and the Biblical story (letting us experience the sobering results of our choices), in order to bring about the restoration of his character that he is committed to with all of his creation.
As I told Davo, language on this seems metaphorical, and I’m unsure what they thought this would literally involve. I’d like to think e.g. that Revelation’s place of ‘fire’ is a metaphor for some kind of purifying experience that would accomplish God’s loving goal in lives. It might be to be in His presence and help her see the painful impact of her ego-centered life, such that she could freely embrace the calling God desires for us all.
(What I don’t see is that writers expected readers to see all of the NT’s warnings about God’s painful judgment as irrelevant to later generations. Specifically, I don’t see that texts like John 1:29 or Hebrews 9:26 are referring to completing Rome’s destruction of Jerusalem in AD70 as the way that God removes the continued problem posed by entrenched sinful resistance to Him and His ways. I see them as assuming that God retained the prerogative in some form to continue in the next world the way that judgments fulfilled in this one’s history sought correction and restoration. And that God can be trusted to rightly do that.)
It’s really NOT a matter of disagreement (there could be many). It’s more a matter of understanding. It took me a while, to wrap my head - around a Theosophist’s esoteric Christianity and Christian Science. Obviously, I have disagreements. But since there is so much written, I really understand their point of view. When there’s NOT that much written, on a particular ISM - I have trouble. Some ISM’s even the non-denomination site Got Questions - couldn’t answer. Speaking of Got Questions. They did write about, the topics I brought up.
Now when they can explain Pantelism, LLC-ism, etc. - I’m in the clear.
Ok I can see what happened. That statement was actually your statement… I simply tweaked it thinking I’d bring some clarity, but in fact the exact opposite occurred — my bad. Here’s your actual quote that my June 16th was bouncing off, underlined…
I made the mistake of thinking IF I use your language then you’d get my meaning, BUT what I now realise is that using your language quite naturally had your interpretation of the same attached to it… naturally; again my bad lol.
That statement was actually your statement… I simply tweaked it thinking I’d bring some clarity, but in fact the exact opposite occurred. Here’s your actual quote…
Thanks for helping me see the confusion. I hardly recognized the quoted reference to "theday," since for me the point was that obedience was called for until the yet clearly future “day when the dead are raised with new bodies.” But you stopped my words at ‘day,’ in order to define it to fit your rejection of that future eschatology.
Unfortunately, even with that explanation of what happened, I still suspect that I’m failing to gain the “clarity” as to what you were affirming. Even assuming my reference to “the day…” could be “tweaked” to suggest it means AD70, what do you mean by rephrasing that the call to faithful obedience lasts until AD70?
I’m guessing that you see the Gospel and epistle writers as intending that their exhortations to obedience be understood as focused toward (an original audience of) Israel, and thus not to be understood as a call for others, especially after AD70, when they’d see that the old need and approach to judgment was completed.
Insofar as that perception fits, my sense of unsureness of your meaning may lie in my earlier comment that we appear to have such differing assumptions about the nature of those compositions and why they were written (given that I assume Gentiles already were a crucial part of the church’s disciples, and do not see that they’d understand AD70 to mark a pivotal dispensational change in their hermeneutic or application of the apostles’ teaching).
I agree with Bob’s reply and I appreciate his willingness to reply to a pretty simple and direct question. I find it helpful.
As for Bob’s difficulty in trying to understand Davo’s interpretations and their consequences I can only say that I am in Bob’s company.
Well, to be on davo’s side seems to be in the minority at this point, but, to be honest, none of you have put forth an exegesis about the subject matter that even closely works in comparison to David’s.
You all are looking at Evangelical ideas to the universalist idea and davo has been telling you all along that you are looking at this in not the proper view…
Bob, you are scholar but you got to know that the evangelical view is fading fast so we need to look at possibly an alternative.
davo offers this alternative. But to get there you have to re-think your understanding of Yahweh and Christ and of what God has done for us.