New Prooftexts, Proofpassages?

[Prince_Myshkin]

Hi Everybody,

Many of the prooftexts for UR (naturally) involve “all” and “the world”, which as you know Cals heavily dispute the scope of these. Has anybody discovered verses/passages that are more explicit and/or lesser known (altho I think the former verses are explicit, many Cals are tired of them, thinking theses verses were refuted 100s of years ago). What do you think are the best explicit prooftexts for UR? (Let’s put aside for now ?s about propriety of prooftexting, for I’m guessing most of us have done it )

Also, if you have UR interpretations of any of the best Cal or Arm prooftexts, then go for it!

[corpselight]

Good idea. This could be a useful summary.
Prooftexts can be useful as a start for study and a beginning of discussion, so this could be quite helpful!
Will have a think. The whole Bible is full of the idea that God doesn’t give up and longs to save us all, so should be a bunch we can pick up on!

[Cindy_Skillman]

Just a quick note – I think I could safely say that just about all the proof-texts in existence can be found in Hope Beyond Hell (which you can download free at this link). I’ll try and post some of my faves later, but don’t miss the one in my siggy.

[Paidion]

Here is a post I once made concerning what I considered to be the best proof text that the unrighteous will be corrected after they are judged.

[The Best “Proof Text” of Correction After Judgment)

[Bob_Wilson]

As you imply, I’m not sure what could be more “explicit” than texts which modify the people of salvation with pas. But for Calvinists who hold ‘limited atonement,’ I’ve thought their tendency to limit the “scope” of God’s work to less than universal is called into question by 2 Peter’s 2:1’s offhand comment that the false prophets “deny the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Without involving the controversy of whether “all” people really means some, the natural reading seems to be that Jesus’ atoning death is assumed to apply to those who reject the faith.

[Username1]

Ephesians 1, 3-14 (NIV, Calvinist proof-texts in red, UR proof-text ‘rebuttal’ in green):

3 Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in the heavenly realms with every spiritual blessing in Christ. 4 For he chose us in him before the creation of the world to be holy and blameless in his sight. In love 5 he predestined us for adoption to sonship through Jesus Christ, in accordance with his pleasure and will — 6 to the praise of his glorious grace, which he has freely given us in the One he loves. 7 In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of sins, in accordance with the riches of God’s grace 8 that he lavished on us. With all wisdom and understanding, 9 he made known to us the mystery of his will according to his good pleasure, which he purposed in Christ, 10 to be put into effect when the times reach their fulfilment — to bring unity to all things in heaven and on earth under Christ.

11 In him we were also chosen, having been predestined according to the plan of him who works out everything in conformity with the purpose of his will, 12 in order that we, who were the first to put our hope in Christ*, might be for the praise of his glory. 13 And you also were included in Christ when you heard the message of truth, the gospel of your salvation. When you believed, you were marked in him with a seal, the promised Holy Spirit, 14 who is a deposit guaranteeing our inheritance until the redemption of those who are God’s possession—to the praise of his glory.

*implying that there are many more to come …

Which only goes to show the foolishness of proof-texting, I suppose .

Cheers

Johnny

[SLJ]

As you imply, I’m not sure what could be more “explicit” than texts which modify the people of salvation with pas. But for Calvinists who hold ‘limited atonement,’ I’ve thought their tendency to limit the “scope” of God’s work to less than universal is called into question by 2 Peter’s 2:1’s offhand comment that the false prophets “deny the sovereign Lord who bought them.” Without involving the controversy of whether “all” people really means some, the natural reading seems to be that Jesus’ atoning death is assumed to apply to those who reject the faith.

Good one, Bob! I hadn’t thought of that implication.

Sonia

[Melchizedek]

I think there is also an extensive list of “prooftexts” over at Tentmaker: tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html
also here: tentmaker.org/articles/unive … -bible.htm

[Prince_Myshkin]

These verses (1 Timothy 2:4, 2 Peter 2:1, Ephesians 1:12, 2 Peter 2:9) are pretty good!

So, usually the two passages contra universalism that come out, and are supposed to be bedrock are:

Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment; (It is interesting that two proofs for univ. are sandwiched around this one)

Anyway, when arguments about the scope of the "all"s, or discussions about Hell (not being Danten but thisworldly destruction) ensue with a non-universalist, often the two passages above are brought out as bedrock of ECT. It is interesting that two prooftexts for univ. are in the vicinity of 2 Peter 2:4. Yet, the language of 2:4 is strong, though perhaps not as knock-down as many ECT proponents believe it to be.

Mt 10:28 to me refers to a potentiality of God, not an actuality, but it is still harsh language, which sort of begs the ?, if God is a universalist, then why would He allow his Word to have this confusing stuff in it (tho perhaps that is a different issue)? It seems a shame that the truth can only be known thru study, though I guess that since God’s truth is somewhat distorted through human hands (depending on one’s stance on inerrancy), the less God is responsible?

Any ideas? What are other ECT texts that have been problematic to your universalism, and then found a positive way to construe them (that wasn’t contrived or ad hoc )?

[Cindy_Skillman]

Interestingly, the word we translate in some places “destroy” and in other places “lose” or “lost” is apollumi (G622)

The lost sheep is apollumi.
The lost coin is apollumi.
The little ones of the house of Israel – the ones Jesus sends His followers to heal & etc. – are apollumi.
The prodigal son is apollumi.

And more. These are only a few examples.

Don’t misunderstand my intent though. I do believe that Father will destroy body and soul in Gehenna if we insist. (Or as Sherman would say, in Hinnom Valley – where the dead were piled up after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon.) But the dead dry bones will come together, and the city will be (and in a limited sense IS) restored. Destruction isn’t forever when taken in the context of scripture. In this case it does seem to be a metaphor for wasting a life by clinging to one’s own control of that life. We won’t accomplish our ends; Father won’t allow it – not out of hatred but rather out of love, for it’s better we fail at doing that which will only bring harm.

Why would God allow His word to be so confusing? Hmm . . . I suppose we might as well ask why He would allow His church to so badly misrepresent Him in so many ways? We’re accustomed to consider the bible as almost a forth member of the Trinity. It isn’t. Its content even differs from EOx to RCC to Coptic, to Protestant and others – we all have more or less different canons from one another. It’s been mistranslated in many ways and for many reasons, but our conditioning is hard to resist. We see those words as a precise work of engineering. They’re not. They are what we have of the history of ancient civilizations and ancient believers. These works have been translated from ancient documents, many of which say something at least a little ‘other’ than what we had thought. We know that now because our archaeologists and sociologists continue to dig up ancient documents of all sorts and get a better handle on words that we may have even flat-out GUESSED at for many years. We have been given no guarantees that our versions of the scriptures are perfect.

That’s one reason the entire witness of scripture is so very important. When we take it and read it as a whole, there’s less chance of believing gross (and small) errors. The metanarrative (to use the hip phrase ) tells us so much more than isolated texts ever could, and it’s a lot safer bet if accuracy is what we’re after.

Love, Cindy

[Paidion]

Speaking of Eastern Orthodox Bibles, Cindy, we have purchased one—mainly because the OT has been translated from the Septuagint. New Testament quotes of the OT are identical or very similar to the Septuagint, but differ markedly from the Masoretic text from which most Old Testaments have been translated. However, the Septuagint itself has been altered throughout the centuries. The NT writers either quoted from the Septuagint itself, or a form of Hebrew such as was discovered in Qumran Cave 4.

[Cindy_Skillman]

Which one did you buy, Paidion? I have a PDF of the LXX, but it’s kind of hard to navigate.

[awakeningaletheia]

Interestingly, the word we translate in some places “destroy” and in other places “lose” or “lost” is apollumi (G622)

The lost sheep is apollumi.
The lost coin is apollumi.
The little ones of the house of Israel – the ones Jesus sends His followers to heal & etc. – are apollumi.
The prodigal son is apollumi.

And more. These are only a few examples.

Don’t misunderstand my intent though. I do believe that Father will destroy body and soul in Gehenna if we insist. (Or as Sherman would say, in Hinnom Valley – where the dead were piled up after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon.) But the dead dry bones will come together, and the city will be (and in a limited sense IS) restored. Destruction isn’t forever when taken in the context of scripture. In this case it does seem to be a metaphor for wasting a life by clinging to one’s own control of that life. We won’t accomplish our ends; Father won’t allow it – not out of hatred but rather out of love, for it’s better we fail at doing that which will only bring harm.

Why would God allow His word to be so confusing? Hmm . . . I suppose we might as well ask why He would allow His church to so badly misrepresent Him in so many ways? We’re accustomed to consider the bible as almost a forth member of the Trinity. It isn’t. Its content even differs from EOx to RCC to Coptic, to Protestant and others – we all have more or less different canons from one another. It’s been mistranslated in many ways and for many reasons, but our conditioning is hard to resist. We see those words as a precise work of engineering. They’re not. They are what we have of the history of ancient civilizations and ancient believers. These works have been translated from ancient documents, many of which say something at least a little ‘other’ than what we had thought. We know that now because our archaeologists and sociologists continue to dig up ancient documents of all sorts and get a better handle on words that we may have even flat-out GUESSED at for many years. We have been given no guarantees that our versions of the scriptures are perfect.

That’s one reason the entire witness of scripture is so very important. When we take it and read it as a whole, there’s less chance of believing gross (and small) errors. The metanarrative (to use the hip phrase ) tells us so much more than isolated texts ever could, and it’s a lot safer bet if accuracy is what we’re after.

Love, Cindy

I’ve thought many times about this. If Christian universalism is true then why not someone write a systematic theology connected with it? I know that sounds quite boring to some, but to me I know that most Reformed and other branches of Christianity have done similar things. John Calvin when he wrote his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” was so persuasive that his ideas are still influencing Christians of today. I’ve seen many books that are apologetics for the universal reconciliation, but never I have seen someone lay it out in such a way as how it fits into the overall picture of Theology. Robin Perry’s “The Evangelical Universalist” comes closest, but still it is not an exhaustive setting-down in writing of how all the pieces fit together.

If I were to call it all anything (this system of thought) I would say it is Trinitarian Universalism (in contrast to Unitarian). I know there are a few on here who don’t think much of the Trinity, but for me this is of course a core tenet of Christianity, a needed holding-line if the Christian faith is to stay “Christian”. While some may disagree, to me it is plain that the abandoning of Jesus as divine leaves you with the option of discarding Him from the whole picture (I feel I have seen this happen before). Also leaving the Holy Spirit off as a person makes Christianity into something very earthly and human led. What I mean is, if the Holy Spirit is the guide to the ekklesia (church) if He is not a person capable of leading and working in God’s people, then what do we have left to govern? If the Spirit is not a person, then we are a people with our Father and our Lord in heaven, and on the earth we only have this “force”. We’re stuck with something less than Christ, a Spirit that is less than the demons, He’s not a person so He can’t command, He’s not able to speak because He’s only an “influence”. I reject all of this very strongly, but Unitarians (who have various beliefs) do not. Eventually rejecting Christ’s deity and the Spirit’s personhood leads to leaving the Christian faith. I mean is that not what we see happened with the Unitarian Universalists? Now they are simply pluralistic universalists, as in “all-paths-lead-to-God” type. Its the reason why we have to constantly explain what we mean by universalism.

All that to say that a Trinitarian conception of God is crucial if we are to stay Christians. Why is that? Well I think its really simple. If all people are going to be saved, then why does theology really matter? Why not abandon Christ’s deity, the Spirit’s personality, the inspiration of the Scriptures? Unless of course the salvation of all is founded upon and inexorably wrapped up in the Trinitarian God and these inspired Scriptures (as Jason has so many times explained)? Origen presented something very akin to a systematic theology in his “First Principles”, though he was brilliant and this is a valuable piece of writing, for reasons quite obvious (his take on certain doctrines) there is a dire need for a new written universalistic theology.

What do you all think?

[corpselight]

Interestingly, the word we translate in some places “destroy” and in other places “lose” or “lost” is apollumi

(G622)

The lost sheep is apollumi.
The lost coin is apollumi.
The little ones of the house of Israel – the ones Jesus sends His followers to heal & etc. – are apollumi.
The prodigal son is apollumi.

And more. These are only a few examples.

Don’t misunderstand my intent though. I do believe that Father will destroy body and soul in Gehenna if we insist. (Or as Sherman would say, in Hinnom Valley – where the dead were piled up after the destruction of Jerusalem by Babylon.) But the dead dry bones will come together, and the city will be (and in a limited sense IS) restored. Destruction isn’t forever when taken in the context of scripture. In this case it does seem to be a metaphor for wasting a life by clinging to one’s own control of that life. We won’t accomplish our ends; Father won’t allow it – not out of hatred but rather out of love, for it’s better we fail at doing that which will only bring harm.

Why would God allow His word to be so confusing? Hmm . . . I suppose we might as well ask why He would allow His church to so badly misrepresent Him in so many ways? We’re accustomed to consider the bible as almost a forth member of the Trinity. It isn’t. Its content even differs from EOx to RCC to Coptic, to Protestant and others – we all have more or less different canons from one another. It’s been mistranslated in many ways and for many reasons, but our conditioning is hard to resist. We see those words as a precise work of engineering. They’re not. They are what we have of the history of ancient civilizations and ancient believers. These works have been translated from ancient documents, many of which say something at least a little ‘other’ than what we had thought. We know that now because our archaeologists and sociologists continue to dig up ancient documents of all sorts and get a better handle on words that we may have even flat-out GUESSED at for many years. We have been given no guarantees that our versions of the scriptures are perfect.

That’s one reason the entire witness of scripture is so very important. When we take it and read it as a whole, there’s less chance of believing gross (and small) errors. The metanarrative (to use the hip phrase ) tells us so much more than isolated texts ever could, and it’s a lot safer bet if accuracy is what we’re after.

Love, Cindy

I’ve thought many times about this. If Christian universalism is true then why not someone write a systematic theology connected with it? I know that sounds quite boring to some, but to me I know that most Reformed and other branches of Christianity have done similar things. John Calvin when he wrote his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” was so persuasive that his ideas are still influencing Christians of today. I’ve seen many books that are apologetics for the universal reconciliation, but never I have seen someone lay it out in such a way as how it fits into the overall picture of Theology. Robin Perry’s “The Evangelical Universalist” comes closest, but still it is not an exhaustive setting-down in writing of how all the pieces fit together.

If I were to call it all anything (this system of thought) I would say it is Trinitarian Universalism (in contrast to Unitarian). I know there are a few on here who don’t think much of the Trinity, but for me this is of course a core tenet of Christianity, a needed holding-line if the Christian faith is to stay “Christian”. While some may disagree, to me it is plain that the abandoning of Jesus as divine leaves you with the option of discarding Him from the whole picture (I feel I have seen this happen before). Also leaving the Holy Spirit off as a person makes Christianity into something very earthly and human led. What I mean is, if the Holy Spirit is the guide to the ekklesia (church) if He is not a person capable of leading and working in God’s people, then what do we have left to govern? If the Spirit is not a person, then we are a people with our Father and our Lord in heaven, and on the earth we only have this “force”. We’re stuck with something less than Christ, a Spirit that is less than the demons, He’s not a person so He can’t command, He’s not able to speak because He’s only an “influence”. I reject all of this very strongly, but Unitarians (who have various beliefs) do not. Eventually rejecting Christ’s deity and the Spirit’s personhood leads to leaving the Christian faith. I mean is that not what we see happened with the Unitarian Universalists? Now they are simply pluralistic universalists, as in “all-paths-lead-to-God” type. Its the reason why we have to constantly explain what we mean by universalism.

All that to say that a Trinitarian conception of God is crucial if we are to stay Christians. Why is that? Well I think its really simple. If all people are going to be saved, then why does theology really matter? Why not abandon Christ’s deity, the Spirit’s personality, the inspiration of the Scriptures? Unless of course the salvation of all is founded upon and inexorably wrapped up in the Trinitarian God and these inspired Scriptures (as Jason has so many times explained)? Origen presented something very akin to a systematic theology in his “First Principles”, though he was brilliant and this is a valuable piece of writing, for reasons quite obvious (his take on certain doctrines) there is a dire need for a new written universalistic theology.

What do you all think?

Probably a good idea…how do we start?

[Sherman]

Attached is a document where I’ve collected a lot of texts related to UR. It’s just notes and not organized but you might find it helpful.

Blessings,
Sherman
Universalistic Texts.doc (52.5 KB)

[Sherman]

Matthew 10:28 Do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul; rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Note that this passage does NOT affirm either ECT or Annihilation; rather, it simply affirms that God is ultimately in control and if He desired to could destroy (which I understand as annihilate in this passge) both the body and soul. The point of the passage is to encourage people to not fear people. Jesus was not teaching that God will ultimately annihilate anyone. And I believe that if someone was so far gone, had an incurrable disease of the soul, something God could not heal/deliver/restore, then God would in mercy annihilate that person. But I believe that God can save all whom he loves; and I believe God loves all.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare the angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of deepest darkness to be kept until the judgment; (It is interesting that two proofs for univ. are sandwiched around this one)

Note that this is the one place where the word Tartarus is used, which is the Greek word that would have conveyed the concept of ECT. Note though that this is the Present aboad of the angels that sinned. If these angels that sinned are the demons that plague people today, then their Tartarus is the Present Evil Age we currently live in, not a place or existance in the future, but the present reality for the angels that sinned and all of humanity. Also note that they are kept in Tartaru “until the judgment”; it does not affirm that it continues after judgment. At judgment I believe that the fire of God delivers us all from evil, we all are reconciled to God and one another through the fire of truth!

Mt 10:28 to me refers to a potentiality of God, not an actuality, but it is still harsh language, which sort of begs the ?, if God is a universalist, then why would He allow his Word to have this confusing stuff in it (tho perhaps that is a different issue)?

This is part of the big question, “If God is good then why is there evil?” I think that evil is part of the process of enabling all of creation to truly understand what Good is. It’s the dark that is overcome by the light, but that is necessary in order to understand the light.

It seems a shame that the truth can only be known thru study, though I guess that since God’s truth is somewhat distorted through human hands (depending on one’s stance on inerrancy), the less God is responsible?

He is the creator of all so ultimately God is responsible for all of creation, evil included. So to me UR, the belief that God makes all things right, is the only Christian theology that makes somewhat sense of the problem of evil.

Any ideas? What are other ECT texts that have been problematic to your universalism, and then found a positive way to construe them (that wasn’t contrived or ad hoc )?

There are many passages that have been “construed” to affirm Infernalism, but as I’ve studied them I found them to not affirm ECT. Sadly, most English translations still incorrectly interpret Gehenna as Hell, so people read Jesus warning of Hell and assume that there is a Hell. Even when one points out that Gehenna correctly interpreted is Hinnom Valley, a real place with a real history, even when one points out that Jesus was quoting Jeremiah, people have a difficult time accepting that Jesus was not warning of Hell, but of the very real destruction that sin brings in people’s lives, which is especially tragic destruction in the lives of Christians because we should know better and are empowered to live holy. The greatest strength of UR is pointing out what scripture actually says. God is sovereign. Salvation is by grace wholly. God loves all. And God will reconcile all.

[Melchizedek]

If I were to call it all anything (this system of thought) I would say it is Trinitarian Universalism (in contrast to Unitarian). I know there are a few on here who don’t think much of the Trinity, but for me this is of course a core tenet of Christianity, a needed holding-line if the Christian faith is to stay “Christian”. While some may disagree, to me it is plain that the abandoning of Jesus as divine leaves you with the option of discarding Him from the whole picture (I feel I have seen this happen before). Also leaving the Holy Spirit off as a person makes Christianity into something very earthly and human led. What I mean is, if the Holy Spirit is the guide to the ekklesia (church) if He is not a person capable of leading and working in God’s people, then what do we have left to govern? If the Spirit is not a person, then we are a people with our Father and our Lord in heaven, and on the earth we only have this “force”. We’re stuck with something less than Christ, a Spirit that is less than the demons, He’s not a person so He can’t command, He’s not able to speak because He’s only an “influence”. I reject all of this very strongly, but Unitarians (who have various beliefs) do not. Eventually rejecting Christ’s deity and the Spirit’s personhood leads to leaving the Christian faith. I mean is that not what we see happened with the Unitarian Universalists? Now they are simply pluralistic universalists, as in “all-paths-lead-to-God” type. Its the reason why we have to constantly explain what we mean by universalism.

All that to say that a Trinitarian conception of God is crucial if we are to stay Christians. Why is that? Well I think its really simple. If all people are going to be saved, then why does theology really matter? Why not abandon Christ’s deity, the Spirit’s personality, the inspiration of the Scriptures? Unless of course the salvation of all is founded upon and inexorably wrapped up in the Trinitarian God and these inspired Scriptures (as Jason has so many times explained)? Origen presented something very akin to a systematic theology in his “First Principles”, though he was brilliant and this is a valuable piece of writing, for reasons quite obvious (his take on certain doctrines) there is a dire need for a new written universalistic theology.

What do you all think?

I don’t think it’s necessary to hold to the Trinitarian concept of God in order to remain Christian (assuming the term means follower of Christ). I do think the divinity of Jesus is important though. Although I recognize the divinity of Jesus, I disagree with the trinitarian conception of the Father and Son as “Co-equal”. I am somewhat ambivalent about co-eternal (although they may be considered so for all practical purposes). But where I think trinitarian thought about God takes its biggest leap is with the “personhood” of the Spirit. It’s easy to see why it would be tempting to think of the spirit as a separate “person”, but as Paidion has pointed out, this view crept in quite a bit later and is not particularly well supported by scripture. The salvation of all is founded on and inexorably tied to Jesus and his sacrifice and resurrection, and the promises of God the Father. No formulation of theology trumps that.

[davo]

John Calvin when he wrote his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” was so persuasive that his ideas are still influencing Christians of today.

True… but one needs to ask, has that influence been a blessing or curse? – I suspect more the latter. But not only that, the real reason his views gained such traction was not because of some inherent truth more than what it was… a means whereby the masses could start to shake off the corrupt confines of rabid Romanism.

[Prince_Myshkin]

Cindy: Certainly, the fragmentation of the church is as antithetical to faith as the vaunting of the varied canons, but i am wondering, .esp on your view where free will is doubted (forgive me if I am distorting your view, but it seemed that ultimately, if free will ran into problems securing univ., you were willing to hedge on free will b4 universal salvation, and this would seem to put the onus on God), what reason would God allow this? Why couldn’t God have given us our Bible just as Allah gave the Koran? Why the ambiguity and hiddenness? I think Sherman is right, this is a subset of the POE, but it is a curious one. You argued convincingly that God may need this earthly time, with its pain, to perfect our souls, why would God need to have sort of moral and theological traffic lights (i.e. different Bibles) that are flashing different lights? How can that help in moral development if one doesn’t know what truths about God to believe? I guess ur arguing, with hipness of course , that any canon will lead to the metanarrative?

Sherman: Thanks for the universalist texts, particularly helpful is Mt 21:31, which is very interesting given certain prooftexting involving Paul’s lists of types of sinners who won’t inherit the Kingdom. I think Mt 21:31 goes a long way toward showing that Paul (on behalf of God) wasn’t excluding sinners but sin from Heaven.

Awakeningalethia: I think ur right and that universalists should create some sort of rigorous theology, though not necessarily dogmatic, which is where I think the likes of Calvin got into trouble. More Lutheran in the sense that Luther’s thought helped to advance Christianity but it was okay with paradox as a category for truth. I think personally I get into trouble when I try to look at things too logically (or too much in terms of a binaries) . I don’t know whether strictly logically God’s triune nature proves universalism, but it does support it, and there is no reason why universalists shouldn’t focus on this.

[corpselight]

John Calvin when he wrote his “Institutes of the Christian Religion” was so persuasive that his ideas are still influencing Christians of today.

True… but one needs to ask, has that influence been a blessing or curse? – I suspect more the latter. But not only that, the real reason his views gained such traction was not because of some inherent truth more than what it was… a means whereby the masses could start to shake off the corrupt confines of rabid Romanism.

This made me consider another aspect.
Do systematic theologies make us lazy? Maybe we get too loyal to a doctrinal system, and forget the real walk with God we are meant to have? Not all of us, of course…but people don’t like to think for themselves. If there’s a system, and it’s given to them with enough “authority”, then they can just buy into it and leave it at that.
I’m not saying we give up on the idea, but maybe we proceed with caution? Or maybe, the very questioning attitude and inquiring methodology we strive to have could be emphasised. It wouldn’t get rid of spiritual “laziness”, but at least it could draw attention to it. I’m as guilty of it as anyone else, so i know how difficult it is.