วีดีโอ

Good insight--thanks for the comment. ks

Interesting paper! I'd love to see what you find. Much research needs to be done between the Reformed tradition and Catholic tradition (like the JDDJ did for Lutheran/Catholic dialogue). Keep pressing on! ~kevin

Thanks so much for the good words. If I am understanding you correctly, I would say that I agree with you completely. I am certainly not in a place to say that either Aquinas (West) or, say, Zizioulas (East) are "incorrect"--this is why I don't want to give a quick Scriptural proof-text and pronounce the issue "solved!" I also want to affirm that this should not be a Church-dividing issue, which is why I am willing to see both Traditions as confessionally "correct" (therefore confessionally binding) and to learn from both. It seems this has been the path of many recent "Western" theologians (Barth, Jenson, Sonderegger, Pannenberg, etc.), and this approach has proven productive to the theological task. Please forgive me if I sound dismissive of any theologian you note above--each has formed my theological perspective and I am continually indebted to their insights. Thanks again for your appropriate comments--I wish you the best in your theological journey! ~Kevin

Thanks for the encouragement! Best wishes on your theological journey. ~kevin

Yes--that would be a problem! Aquinas's way of avoiding it is to distinguish between the Immanent Trinity and the Economic Trinity: God's actions "ad extra" (toward creation) are always free and contingent (although they always align with the eternal Being of God in Godself). This means that what we see in redemption is the character of God, but it is not a necessary emanation of God; rather, it is God's free and gracious decision to be "for us." It is this distinction between "Immanent" and "Economic" that structures Part 1 of the Summa, as Aquinas certainly wants to avoid the problem you pose here. Thanks for the comment! ~kevin

Thanks for the question. "Person" clearly means more than "human being" when applied to God, who is "three Persons in one Essence" and none of those "Persons" are "human beings." Of course, we don't know quite what a Divine Person is (except that he/she is greater than us, beyond gender, and shares intellect/will/operation with the other "Persons" of the Trinity). Barth and Rahner both saw the danger in using the term, but we don't seem to have a better one! ~kevin

@@kevinstorer1966would it be correct to say that, in the eschaton, we will be x billions persons in one nature, referring to human nature?

Thanks for the suggestion--I'll see what I can do. I appreciate the encouragement. ~Kevin

Hahaha! Your position is faith based! The presentation in the video is an intellectual theological exposition! Theologians are not necessarily people of faith! The discussion clearly separates the intrinsic nature of God (immanent Trinity) from the revelation of self through what HE has tangibly done through the ages (economic Trinity). It is through this latter that the useful overall explanation of the Trinity finds its substance! Thus, the tangible revelation presents the Father from whom the the Son is generated, made incarnate and proceeds to save mankind! Hence, proceeding from the Father, the Son cannot be of another substance. Thus the Father and the Son must be "homoousios" though distinct in personality! One sends and the other performs! The nature is therefore one and so is the intent! Subsequently, the combined activity of the Father and the Son reveal the third possibility that the Holy Spirit proceeds from BOTH to convince and to convict! However, the problem pops out when it appears as though the only way to explain God is by looking at what HE has done for Man. My problem is the homocentric interpretation of God! I find it hard to accept it when the implication is that the sole existence of God was to eventually save mankind from its sins!

@@tersooawen4249 “We walk by faith and not by sight.” “Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.” “Without faith it is impossible to please God…” We must all be people of faith, not just theology. You cannot worship something in spirit and truth if there is no image of the thing. Otherwise, you worship in imagination only. There are not three images of God, therefore your trinity can only be worshiped in imagination. As for the existence of God, it is not predicated on man’s existence. The Bible gives man the revelation that there is one God who created man in his image and desires to have fellowship with man, even going so far as to die for man’s sins. The Bible does not explore anything beyond that about God, but we do know there are manifold mysteries to God. In other words, there’s more to God than what human understanding can know.

Haha--thanks for the encouragement. I wish you the best in your theological journey! ~kevin

Thanks, Hanna, for the encouragement. I wish you the best in your theological quest. ~kevin

Thanks, Eric--a very well-worded statement by LG indeed. Thanks for clarifying the point! ~Kevin

Yes--I agree! God's gracious gift is the same (prevenient grace is effective in all), and all persons come to God through the transformation God alone effects. And I very much appreciate the way Origen (etc.) articulates the doctrine. But...it seems to me that God does not give us that assurance; probably because we human beings would use it as license to be lazy with the call of God upon our lives right now. If we knew we would eventually be saved no matter what, we wouldn't (perhaps) take God's judgement or mercy very seriously. That's my concern which prevents me from fully affirming that path. Thanks so much for your good insights. ~Kevin

Thanks, Kevin, for the great insight. My heart yearns for your position to be correct! (I'm not entirely sure that we can affirm that position with confidence, given the many Scriptural warnings about the seriousness of decision.) But I so hope your position is correct. Thanks for stating it so clearly. ~Kevin

You can't get around Scripture repeatedly saying that the fire is eternal. Or Jesus using violent language like "slay these traitors before me". If Jesus was open to giving them a second chance, why would He use such violent imagery? To scare people in to submission? All while He was lying? It's good to be compassionate; it's bad to think you're more compassionate than God. Even if you wanted to be super generous with most people. Folks like Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot killed millions of innocent people with unbelievable malice and callousness. You don't get to that point just because you weren't loved enough as a child, and they just needed some more time and love. They got to that point because they *chose in cold blood* to be that way. They are an abomination to the entire universe.

@@kevinstorer1966 I highly, earnestly recommend you to check the works of David Bentley Hart (That All Shall Be Saved), David Artman's book and/or podcast "Grace Saves All: The Necessity of Christian Universalism" and "Hope Beyond Hell" aand "Hope For All" by Gerry Beauchemin on the topic, if you haven't yet looked deeper into it, because they do a great job at laying down the biblical foundation for universal restoration. If your heart yearns for that position to be correct, don't dismiss it, it might be the prompt of the Holy Spirit, pray for His leading as you research this amazing view and let yourself be filled with joy and awe at the indeed greatness of our Creator, who indeed had a perfect plan for all His creation since the beginning. You'll find that universal restoration/reconciliation not only IS biblical and sound, but also is the only position that is able to preserve and defend the picture of an all good, all loving God as scripture reveals, without having to dance around the many problems that the other theological positions bring up which inevitably always end up contradicting that characteristic of God. The key is in the proper understanding of the original languages, and looking at the testimony of those who read the Scriptures in the original languages and understood them, hence why as brother Kevin said above, the fact that Irenaeus' recapitulation theory tends towards universalism should not be seen as a weakness, but something worth taking into account, considering how in order to have the best theological understanding that we humanly can, looking back at what those who were closer to the Lord, the apostles and their teachings thought and believed is the wisest choice. So many truths have gotten lost in translation, tradition and disagreement. Looking at the texts in their original languages and intended meanings, nuances etc. with fresh eyes and listening to what the early church fathers considered on the matter is the best thing we can do for our faith, for the faith. Don't dismiss the promptings of the Spirit when some doctrine doesn't feel "right" in your heart, no matter how "conventional, traditional and orthodox" it is considered to be today. I was "accidentally" lead towards Christian Universalism without even intending to, I would have never even began questioning the doctrine of eternal conscious torment, but I was constantly praying for God's direction towards truth, asking Him to not let me be deceived, and to teach me and lead me, granting me wisdom and discernment, after He rescued me from a charismatic cult. I began my discernment journey pretty convinced in my human wisdom that I had found "the right theology" in reformed theology/calvinism, and was set on upholding the reformed position according to my own will, but I did not stop praying for God's will and discernment even while trying to become reformed, so after I attended a reformed church's bible studies for a couple of times, my heart grew wearier and wearier, my spirit felt unsettled, I couldn't properly point to why, but it was just the same feeling I had before leaving the cult, and the Lord provided and led me, as I started to seek further understanding about RT and found how it did not have a solid biblical foundation at all. But from there, as I kept learning and studying, I never thought I would eventually end convinced of the case for Universal Restoration. I say it was "accidental"; but truth be told, I wholeheartedly believe it was God-led, indeed. Now, the whole biblical picture, and God's character and plan make perfect sense, whereas they never really did in all the other theological positions. I believe a good case can be biblically made for annihilationism too, but ultimately, with all things considered, the case for universal reconciliation of all makes an even stronger case, given that God is sovereign, God is love and God wills for all to be saved, and nothing can stop God's will. As it is written, love conquers all. Love NEVER fails! God NEVER fails! I'll keep you in my prayers and thank you for the video!

And we humans being finite can never truly understand the Infinite...Yeshua is the Son of God and the Savior of mankind....that we all can agree on!!!!!!!!

I've never heard of a god having kids only in Greco-Roman Mythology.

Yes--exactly what you mention is quite needed, isn't it! Eucharistic ecclesiology is surely an enduring aspect of his thought.

Thanks so much for the encouragement. Indeed, it's interesting to see the good discussions that have already happened in the Church on these key doctrines. I wish you the best in your theological journey.

Hi Carol. Thanks for the comment. The council did not address the Jews in its official statements (although it is certainly defining a Christian view of God in contrast to a Jewish view). If you are pondering something specific, I'd be interested to hear! ~Kevin