John Behr - Will God Save the Cosmos?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 17 фев 2016
- Will God transform the cosmos? God has promised to give God's own salvation or eternal life to human beings. In the context of the resurrection of the dead, could God also reconstitute or restructure the entire physical universe?
Click here to watch more interview more interviews on God and the cosmos bit.ly/1TsKhH4
Click here for more interviews with John Behr bit.ly/1TsKxG7
Click here to buy episodes or complete seasons of Closer To Truth bit.ly/1LUPlQS
For all of our video interviews please visit us at www.closertotruth.com
Gregory of Nyssa, Isaac of Syria, Origen: universal salvation, aka universalism, has a high enough pedigree for me to take it seriously.
Sergius Bulgakov, Pavel Florensky, Kallistos Ware, and many others have also taken universal salvation seriously.
@@bayreuth79 Notably, many in the Latin west did not. Augustine and Aquinas, for example, were not big fans...
@@Joeonline26 I am aware of that fact. It is worth noting that Augustine did believe in universal salvation at the beginning of his life as a Christian and only changed his views towards the end of his life. Thomas Aquinas, as with many Western theologians, more or less followed St. Augustine. Augustine wrote that the 'plurimi' (the many or the majority) of Christians in his time believed in universal salvation. It was the common currency in the Patristic period, as Ilaria Ramelli has demonstrated. It has to be said that Augustine and Aquinas believed some atrocious things about God, such as that God predestines some (but not all) to 'heaven', allowing the non-elect, who he could have saved, to dwell in hell forever. That view is not worthy of God, especially the God who in Christ died on the cross.
@@bayreuth79 All good points and for the record I don't disagree with anything you said. Just thought it was worth pointing out for those who are unaware
I don't like how Behr implies that one or both of the other two universalists he named were condemned. The extent to which Origen was condemned for his universalism as opposed to other things (many of which he never actually believed or taught) is highly disputable. Gregory of Nyssa and Isaac the Syrian were not condemned at all.
Behr has matured some since this interview and I doubt would speak so carelessly at his current age and level of learning.
Am I wrong? Their discussion had nothing to do with what the title says.
With all due respect, I'd say you are wrong! Behr insists on the *possibility* of salvation after death - of man, of the cosmos. This does not positively answer the question - of course. But Behr is laying out what we need to understand about salvation - in the Christian tradition - in order to properly *frame* the question of universal salvation within that tradition. It's not a matter one can address in four minutes and twenty-nine seconds! The Catholic Church has been tossing the question about for centuries, the Roman church deciding that the answer is in principle undecidable, while Eastern tradition has been more willing (it seems to me) to entertain an the answer "yes." The forum of Closer to Truth can hardly be expected to get into all of that, but Behr does a splendid job in focusing the question.
Dear Erich,I must be confused about the meaning of the word 'cosmos'. The discussion they had and what you try to explain in your response to me is about the 'salvation of humans'. I don't hear anything about the cosmos in their discussion nor your defense of Behr's explanation. I don't see what 'human salvation' has to do with the cosmos.
Well, if you can save humanity you can save anything! I'm not being facetious: in the Christian tradition, the whole cosmos is in a sense broken, but most of it is not culpable, and yields perfectly to its own restoration. Only that part of it which is *us* is capable of resisting salvation. So if there is ultimately salvation for us, then there is salvation for the whole cosmos. Does that makes sense?
Sorry, Erich. It does not make sense to me. I understand what you wish to explain but I am not able to agree with you. I find the idea of salvation incomprehensible so I do not see the connection between salvation of humans and the cosmos.
It means what I suppose you think it means - being saved from permanent ruin. You can apply it to almost anything you think worth saving.
My only pushback is going to be aimed towards what you said at 2:48. Where you say “How are you going to respond to that”. You’re speaking on “responding” in a libertarian fashion. I would argue as David Bentley Hart argues, that the entire point of the gospel is that Christ will free us so THAT we CAN freely choose the good, and to reject the good, is to have never truly known the good. Salvation is liberation so successful it leaves nothing to be chosen.
If you don't love G-d in life why would you love him in death? Honestly people may have a chance to choose after death but after hating G-d your entire life why would dieing change how you feel? I hope it would but somehow doubt it. I'll pray for you
Oops I meant to reply to the general comment section. Sorry to tag on to your thingy
@@tallmikbcroft6937 They don't love him because they do not know him. To see him for who he is, is to love him, for we cannot know him truly and not love him.
@@Jordan-hz1wr true.. yes that's a good point. If I love Him at all it's only because He loved me first. I can not boast. I pray the eyes of our understanding be enlightened to understand just how must He loves us. Amen
No, not necessarily. By "responding" he means conscious awareness. Conscious awareness implies communion, which does indeed imply reciprocation of at very least; thought. And the "response" is of course hoped to be sincere repentance and submission
My interpretation of Behr's opening remarks.... I can't give you a simple, unqualified "Yes," lest I be condemned like Origen.
Those canons condemning that are now shown to be added later.
Demas, the good thief, had certainly quit smoking by the moment of his death lol
Fr. Behr should've stopped him at the point of "after death." That was misleading..
we are given opportunities to know & ability to choose, but only by the power of GodJesus Merciful Spirit, God saves the needy/thirsty souls. most people don't really want God & never admit/realize/regret their Evil Pride heart/state, that they don't like GOD/JESUS. naturally human don't like The Mind of God/Holiness, & live for their own mind/idea they like/create! you need to Know His Truth & to Love God to Own Him & be Owned by Him!
..
first, God in His Spirit come to judge & touch your heart with Truth about your sin & Jesus Holiness/Righteousness, before He offer/give Mercy Forgiveness & Acceptance to be saved by HolyGodSpirit in HolyBloodJesus. all people can stay in sin, or hate their sin. For God Kingdom is Holiness & Peace. you won't be saved only by knowing/hear about Him. either against/outsider, or accepted/insider. 🙏
I beg to differ. No one comes to the Father but through me.
we have made our choice in life and have to live with the consequences. God wants all me (women) to not parish however the reality is we have free will. Jesus says “behold I stand at the door and knock” he does not say “behold I stand at the door and kick it in”
“it is appointed unto men once to die and after that the judgment” Heb. 9:27
Seems like it says No Second Chance to think it over
+bubayou It also says nothing about the judgement being executed over an infinite period of time, or how God's love functions for those in judgement.
+TheCopticThinker
Using your logic since the bible is silent about the 72 virgins that are waiting for us in heaven we should seriously consider that possibility.
I think you might be reading into the TEXT
bubayou
Judgement day in Hebrews 9.27 was in 70 AD when Jerusalem was destroyed. So we've all missed it!
@Andre Agrippa
You mean the Jews who say they are Jews today are also gentiles?
Try changing your thinking about judgment.
Read this:
http4281.wordpress.com/2019/05/10/judgment/
I heard no scriptural references, just speculation and references to three dissenting voices from 2,000 years of settled church opinion.
You do know that for a long time, the church was also pretty OK with its members owning slaves,right? Sometimes the church doesn't get something right immediately.
@@gre8 "Immediately"? You mean it takes 2000 years for the church to get it's teaching right on hell? Slave owning, in itself, is not an evil. Treating your slaves poorly or thinking them inferior by nature is.
@@philagon Yes, slave owning is evil, whatever you think of them. No need to skirt around the issue. And when you say the church got it wrong for 2000 years, remember that ever since Paul, there have been those who deny your understanding of hell. Gregory of Nyssa, the PILLAR OF ORTHODOXY himself didn't see hell as eternal, so it's not like people are inventing the wheel just now.
@@gre8 Stating that there has been a dissenting voice, since the beginning of the church, on any given issue, proves nothing. It only means that people have held wrong opinions on doctrine or practice from the apostolic era. If this were not so, Paul would not have needed to correct errors as he obviously does in the epistles. Gregory of Nyssa is not infallible, nor he is representative in any way of what Christians have believed on the issue of hell for 2000 years.
@@philagon Well, I agree that people held wrong opinions on doctrine, and that's why the majority opinion also proves nothing. As I said, if you went back far enough, the majority opinion was that slavery was totally ok.
God's word is clear. 5000 denominations can't be wrong.
Sure they can. Truth isn't a matter of consensus. Error widely propagated remains erroneous, and truth that goes largely unrecognized remains true.
1 Tim 4: 10. God is the saviour of all men, especially those who believe.
Ummmm... yeah, they can. numbers alone do not a compelling argument make. Just think of the amount of people who thought that slavery was an amazing acceptable idea endorsed wholeheartedly by a loving God, who actually used God as an excuse to continue purchasing and owning humans. You'll have to find a more compelling argument than "a whole lot of people think so"
Every sinner will stop sinning as their flesh dies. Then they will never know what sin is when they awaken in their new bodies in Paradise. In Paradise, man will awaken in two bodies. One body will be a male and the other body a female. They will remain partners forever without ever having to be married or divorced.
And no underwear is required.
mark collins
That's correct my friend. We won't be making anything with our hands ever again. Our new bodies might not even have hands.
MikeRoePhonicsMusic
You must be gay to understand what you just wrote. I'm not gay.
MikeRoePhonicsMusic
You're fucking sick dude!
70 AD haha no but I'll bet any amount of money I could kick your teeth out.