Can you cite any source that actually says “the doctrine of faith alone assures us that morality is pointless and irrelevant in God’s eyes”? Having spent my entire life in a tradition that subscribes to that doctrine, I’ve never heard it suggested that morality is pointless and irrelevant to God.
At least when it comes to the question of salvation, isn't that the whole point of this thread? For example:
If our eternal destination is based on our earning it, then there is no place for the cross and resurrection in our faith.
Neither of the quotes you quoted said or implied that “morality is pointless and irrelevant in God’s eyes.” Those quotes said morality is not the basis for our “eternal destination,” to use @Cathscats’ words. That is not the same thing as “pointless and irrelevant in God’s eyes,” unless you’re going to make the argument that everything unrelated to our “eternal destination” is “pointless and irrelevant in God’s eyes,” that our “eternal destination” is the only thing God cares about
Speaking for myself, this Calvinist believes that salvation is a free gift of God that no one can earn or merit, not unlike how I never did anything to earn my parents’ love. (Yes, I know that not everyone has loving parents. But as I said, I’m speaking for myself.)
I also believe that God cares greatly about how we live and how we treat and love one another, just as my parents cared greatly about how I lived and how I treated and loved others. But their love of me was independent of my morality.
I'm not sola fide of course but would certainly accept that most of its proponents - at least in its classical form before revivalist 'decisionism' - didn't disparage 'good works' or personal morality.
@Nick Tamen will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a Reformed saying, 'The faith that saves is never alone.'
It's fair to say that Calvinism, even in its more moderate forms, is problematic from an Orthodox perspective but that doesn't mean that Calvin never 'rings true' or that the Reformed tradition offers nothing of value.
I think it's also fair to say that yes, there is a danger of Antinomianism in Calvinism and mainstream Reformed folk have always sought to combat that.
Yes, you get satirical works like Confessionsof a Justified Sinner and various extremes, but extremes can be found in any Christian tradition.
There is ritual and there is ritualism.
There is revival and there is revivalism.
Not all sola fide types promote a 'simply pray the Sinner's Prayer' or 'Put your hand up in a meeting' form of easy-believism.
Simply say the right formula and everything is OK from that moment on.
Sure, some fundamentalist types do promote that but in my experience Calvinist or neo-Calvinist evangelicals are far less inclined to go in for 'altar-calls' and repeating the Sinners' Prayer as some kind of insurance policy against eternal damnation.
I don't think sola fide developed as an 'excuse' to get away with doing whatever we like. Rather it developed as an understandable reaction against late-medieval piety with its chantry chapels, indulgences and mechanistic paraphernalia - and no, it wasn't only the 'Latin West' that went in for that sort of thing.
From an Orthodox perspective the Reformers had a point and were an understandable reaction against late-medieval Roman Catholic practice.
We would add, though, that it was a reaction that went too far and that the Reformers also retained some vestiges of late'medieval Scholasticism they would have better to have left behind.
But that's another story and I'm not here to be polemical.
The point I'm making is that the Protestant emphasis on personal faith is not one to disparage but to be encouraged.
As for whether 'despicable' people get into heaven or not, that's another matter and one I'm happy to leave to God to sort out.
I'm much more concerned with despicable people being held accountable and punished accordingly in this life. Until the afterlife is proven to be at all, I think the far higher priority is right here right now.
If there is heaven and its full of the same people right now that tell us all about being saved right now and they pretend to be Jesus followers but they are not make me wonder if I wanted to be in heaven if I went there if its full of those hell people. Like maybe an angel says to me "hey buddy what makes you think this is heaven any way?"
Back to where I think. So I don't believe in life after death very much. Life is bad amd good enough to want more. Maybe stop the despicable people now.
A follow up question: where is heaven? Do we see it as a spiritual realm somewhere in the ethersphere or is it a physical place at the end of time? I look at the end of Revelation in which John says:
Then I saw “a new heaven and a new earth,” for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Look! God’s dwelling place is now among the people, and he will dwell with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. ‘He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.” Rev 21.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, and I don't expect him to pass it by in the new heavens and new earth--but there were oddities about Jesus' resurrection body and what it could do, and there may be similar oddities for us when we get our new bodies. And that might imply things about how the new creation works. Not sure just what...
I didn't think it was a position you endorsed as a Lutheran but rather what you were hearing on this thread and I can understand how and why you got that impression.
We Orthodox are sometimes accused of promoting 'salvation by works' or even 'salvation by liturgy'.
I can understand that - and will address it before moving on to @Gramps49's secondary question.
There's a Romanian chap who travels up by train from a city about an hour and a half further south to attend the midweek Liturgy in our parish. He gets to the station and takes a convoluted bus route to reach us.
I gave him a lift yesterday and to my surprise found that he was aiming to attend five Divine Liturgies this week which would be a new personal 'record'. His previous tally was four.
As well as his own Romanian service on Sunday he aimed to attend a Serbian parish to celebrate the Dormition (again) and various other midweek or special liturgies elsewhere.
I didn't detect any 'fanaticism' in conversation and he could do a lot worse things of course but wondered what he was up to. Accumulating Brownie-Points?
He does work but seemingly irregularly. It must be costing him an arm and leg travelling hither and yon to as many services as possible.
Whatever the case, this sort of thing can give the impression that we are trying to 'earn' our salvation rather than to 'work out our salvation.'
The Orthodox don't go in for the kind of works vs faith dichotomy that became a feature of the Reformation, although we understand the arguments and issues involved.
But neither do we rely on 'works righteousness', although that can be the impression conveyed at times.
Be all that as it may, I don't think any Christian tradition teaches that we are saved by our own efforts and that the Cross and Resurrection (I'm picking up the Orthodox capitalisation habit) are bolt-on extras.
If we are saved at all we are saved by Christ. The whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - the Incarnation, his teachings, sinless life and moral example, his atoning death and glorious resurrection, his ascension into heaven and his sitting at the righthand of the Fathef on high, his coming again in glory to judge 'the quick and the dead.'
The whole kit and caboodle.
Which is why I'm happy to leave questions about this, that or the other person's salvation - as well as my own - to God.
Any ideas I might have are a pale reflection of our Lord's.
On the point @Gramps49 raises about the nature of heaven and its 'physicality' as it were...
Once again I'm on a similar page to @Lamb Chopped on this one.
Dare I posit that it's one of these both/and things?
😉
'Matter matters.'
I don't envisage God doing away with it - 'there is a man in heaven' - but redeeming and perfecting it in some way that we can't envisage and which has yet to be revealed.
These are cosmic issues that affect all of Creation. Think 1 Corinthians 15.
It's way, way, way bigger whether this, that or the other 'despicable person' or whether you or I or the cat next door are going to 'get to heaven.'
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
I'm much more concerned with despicable people being held accountable and punished accordingly in this life. Until the afterlife is proven to be at all, I think the far higher priority is right here right now.
...Back to where I think. So I don't believe in life after death very much. Life is bad amd good enough to want more. Maybe stop the despicable people now.
My hope is that this is just as relevant to those who do believe in an afterlife as it is to those who don't. I think the question being begged by the opening post is "how are despicable people held to account?"
Within a Christian understanding, the idea that accountability to a human authority goes alongside accountability to God doesn't seem particularly novel. What is less clear to me is how this is worked out in relation to morality. If addressed through an ordained (or set-apart) priesthood, a question arises of how the priesthood itself is held to account. Or if addressed through some system of mutual accountability amongst believers, a question arises of how consistency of standards or their application is maintained.
In the absence of satisfactory answers to these questions, one might conclude that the question of accountability in this life isn't a pressing issue, and that such questions are best left to the life to come.
No, accountability is a pressing issue here on account of justice and preventing more harm. We can’t wait till the next world for that. Christ doesn’t want us to.
The Bible is pretty clear that only God gets to decide whose name is in the Book of Life. Desp[ite attempts by many people over the years to suggest otherwise.
OTH, it also says that faith without works is useless. I suspect there are going to be some very surprised people on judgement day. In both a good and bad way. (Just hoping I get the good surprise not the other one).
Sounds like most people here think destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life. Is there anyone who disagrees?
Does anyone think that? Surely religions which believe in an afterlife reserve it for fellow believers?
The only religion I can think of where belief is not enough is Islam, where it seems the deity is picky and will decide later whether the believer's actions and faith are sufficient.
All sorts of religions base it on morality in this life--the pagan Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, bases it on the relative weights of the heart of the person and a feather.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, and I don't expect him to pass it by in the new heavens and new earth--but there were oddities about Jesus' resurrection body and what it could do, and there may be similar oddities for us when we get our new bodies. And that might imply things about how the new creation works. Not sure just what...
Man, I hope we can fly. Like Superman, I mean. Arguably, there have been various stories about saints and levitation (no, not The Flying Nun) over the centuries, so perhaps.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
The book of Exodus tells the story of God’s redemption of Israel, a story still remembered each year at Passover. It also tells the story of Israel’s consistent failure to live as redeemed people. The historical books and the books of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures continue that story and consistently call the people of Israel not to be redeemed, but to remember that they have been redeemed.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
It may be a heresy to you, but to those who aren't constrained by dogma, it's just a harmless musing. Further, Genesis only says that God saw what he had created as good -- not that he loved it.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
It may be a heresy to you, but to those who aren't constrained by dogma, it's just a harmless musing.
Or to be more specific, those who don’t subscribe to or aren’t constrained by the same dogma. Such folk may not subscribe to or be constrained by any particular dogma, or they may subscribe to or be constrained by different dogma.
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
It may be a heresy to you, but to those who aren't constrained by dogma, it's just a harmless musing.
Or to be more specific, those who don’t subscribe to or aren’t constrained by the same dogma. Such folk may not subscribe to or be constrained by any particular dogma, or they may subscribe to or be constrained by different dogma.
Indeed. "Constrained" may also be a bit too severe. Maybe "captivated" is more appropriate?
I doubt it's possible to say with clarity. I mean, God created matter, he clearly likes it, . . .
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
It may be a heresy to you, but to those who aren't constrained by dogma, it's just a harmless musing. Further, Genesis only says that God saw what he had created as good -- not that he loved it.
Well, John's Gospel tells us that 'God so loved the world that ...'
And the world is made of matter. As the song goes, 'we are living in a material world ...'
'Matter matters.'
I know you aren't constrained by dogma @The_Riv but if God doesn't love matter then what's the Incarnation all about?
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
Thank you
This is a beautiful and perfect summary of where I am in my understanding but so much better expressed than my own attempts!
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
They refused to accept it, yes, but that doesn't mean they eventually would do so. One of them did. I consider that scene to show God offering redemption and all manner of other gifts, but that the dwarves refused to accept it or even see it in the end, except for that one. (And there are surprises on the other side, too, like Emeth, who was even surprised himself to be in Aslan's Country.)
There is the Eastern Orthodox notion (which I consider to be very good theology) that the saved and the damned are both immersed in the fiery love of God, one joyfully embracing and one forever rejecting it, but even then I can't see how "redeemed" and "damned" are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, this does indeed assume that there are those who are ultimately damned. Of course, that's literally the point of the thread, right? That "despicable" people (more visibly despicable than most other people, at least to earthly eyes, presumably) could make it into Heaven?
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
They refused to accept it, yes, but that doesn't mean they eventually would do so. One of them did. I consider that scene to show God offering redemption and all manner of other gifts, but that the dwarves refused to accept it or even see it in the end, except for that one. (And there are surprises on the other side, too, like Emeth, who was even surprised himself to be in Aslan's Country.)
The thing is, redemption in the biblical understanding isn’t something that God offers, at least as I understand it; it’s something that God does. God didn’t offer redemption to people of Israel from Egypt. God delivered them, full stop. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . .” What follows is Israel’s response to the call to live as a redeemed people.
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
There is the Eastern Orthodox notion (which I consider to be very good theology) that the saved and the damned are both immersed in the fiery love of God, one joyfully embracing and one forever rejecting it, but even then I can't see how "redeemed" and "damned" are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, that’s the idea that The Last Battle is reflecting. I stand to be corrected by someone much more knowledgeable than I, though, with regard to “forever rejecting” it. The understanding of those Orthodox Christians who hold this view, at least as I have heard it, is that those who initially reject the fiery love of God may at some point accept it.
Yes, this does indeed assume that there are those who are ultimately damned. Of course, that's literally the point of the thread, right? That "despicable" people (more visibly despicable than most other people, at least to earthly eyes, presumably) could make it into Heaven?
I’m not sure it’s quite literally the point of this thread. The question in the OP reflects, I think, the assumption that @Lamb Chopped identified and that lots of shipmates in this thread have said they reject—that “destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.” Some in this thread have specifically said they hold to some form of universalism. Some of us (for I include myself in this group) have said we hold to what I sometimes call “hopeful universalism”—the idea that we cannot make a claim of universal salvation but that we can hope for it, and that we can find ample reason in Scripture supporting that hope.
I think that’s a completely orthodox attitude. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assert that there must be some people who will be damned, that it is not at all possible for everyone to be saved. That’s a claim I’ve pretty much only encountered among some really hardcore hyper-Calvinists.
But all of that is a slightly different question, I think, from what “redemption” means. In my understanding, my redemption was accomplished before I was born, as was yours and that of everyone else posting on this thread. Our redemption is not dependent on our acceptance of redemption; Christ has accomplished it. (Otherwise, we/re not going to immersed in the fiery love of God to start with.) But like the dwarves, we can nevertheless stubbornly insist on continuing to live as though we are in bondage to sin and death.
The Good News, as I understand it, is not that there is a way for us to get out of that bondage. The Good News is that we already have been released from that bondage.
The only advantage we gain by faith is living in that release, that freedom to live/of living in the fullness of God's love here and now, or at least tentatively attempting to do so. Any fear and trembling is supposed to be at the awesomeness of that possibility, or so it seems to me anyway.
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
They refused to accept it, yes, but that doesn't mean they eventually would do so. One of them did. I consider that scene to show God offering redemption and all manner of other gifts, but that the dwarves refused to accept it or even see it in the end, except for that one. (And there are surprises on the other side, too, like Emeth, who was even surprised himself to be in Aslan's Country.)
The thing is, redemption in the biblical understanding isn’t something that God offers, at least as I understand it; it’s something that God does. God didn’t offer redemption to people of Israel from Egypt. God delivered them, full stop. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . .” What follows is Israel’s response to the call to live as a redeemed people.
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
There is the Eastern Orthodox notion (which I consider to be very good theology) that the saved and the damned are both immersed in the fiery love of God, one joyfully embracing and one forever rejecting it, but even then I can't see how "redeemed" and "damned" are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, that’s the idea that The Last Battle is reflecting. I stand to be corrected by someone much more knowledgeable than I, though, with regard to “forever rejecting” it. The understanding of those Orthodox Christians who hold this view, at least as I have heard it, is that those who initially reject the fiery love of God may at some point accept it.
Yes, this does indeed assume that there are those who are ultimately damned. Of course, that's literally the point of the thread, right? That "despicable" people (more visibly despicable than most other people, at least to earthly eyes, presumably) could make it into Heaven?
I’m not sure it’s quite literally the point of this thread. The question in the OP reflects, I think, the assumption that @Lamb Chopped identified and that lots of shipmates in this thread have said they reject—that “destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.” Some in this thread have specifically said they hold to some form of universalism. Some of us (for I include myself in this group) have said we hold to what I sometimes call “hopeful universalism”—the idea that we cannot make a claim of universal salvation but that we can hope for it, and that we can find ample reason in Scripture supporting that hope.
I think that’s a completely orthodox attitude. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assert that there must be some people who will be damned, that it is not at all possible for everyone to be saved. That’s a claim I’ve pretty much only encountered among some really hardcore hyper-Calvinists.
But all of that is a slightly different question, I think, from what “redemption” means. In my understanding, my redemption was accomplished before I was born, as was yours and that of everyone else posting on this thread. Our redemption is not dependent on our acceptance of redemption; Christ has accomplished it. (Otherwise, we/re not going to immersed in the fiery love of God to start with.) But like the dwarves, we can nevertheless stubbornly insist on continuing to live as though we are in bondage to sin and death.
The Good News, as I understand it, is not that there is a way for us to get out of that bondage. The Good News is that we already have been released from that bondage.
I’m not sure what to tell you other than that it looks like we disagree on some of this stuff.
As a side note, as I understand it regarding the fiery love of God, everyone and everything in creation will be immersed in it, or technically in a certain sense already is/are. There is nowhere where He is not. But the blinders will be off.
I would love to believe in universalism. I would love to find out that I am mistaken regarding the understanding that definitively, at least some beings will indeed be damned. But I am not convinced of that based on my understanding of the plain words of Scripture, of Christian Tradition, and of human Reason. Again, I’d love to be mistaken. Obviously, we’ll all find out when the time comes.
The thing is, redemption in the biblical understanding isn’t something that God offers, at least as I understand it; it’s something that God does. God didn’t offer redemption to people of Israel from Egypt. God delivered them, full stop. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . .” What follows is Israel’s response to the call to live as a redeemed people.
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life? If James Dobson, to go back to the OP, is still beating kids in the great hereafter, it doesn't sound that great.
The thing is, redemption in the biblical understanding isn’t something that God offers, at least as I understand it; it’s something that God does. God didn’t offer redemption to people of Israel from Egypt. God delivered them, full stop. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . .” What follows is Israel’s response to the call to live as a redeemed people.
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life? If James Dobson, to go back to the OP, is still beating kids in the great hereafter, it doesn't sound that great.
No, of course not—the idea of Heaven and the New Creation is that it will be without sin, evil, pain, sickness, death, etc., so all of us there will not be doing evil of any kind, living joyfully and in love with God and one another.
No fear. Anybody who winds up in heaven / the new creation will be there because they are now "in Christ"--and Christ in them--which state is incompatible with behaving like an asshole. Whatever they may have been before, they won't be bringing that garbage into the Kingdom.
I would argue they have already been redeemed. Whether they live as redeemed people is a different issue.
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
That’s assuming that anyone is “ultimately damned.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
They refused to accept it, yes, but that doesn't mean they eventually would do so. One of them did. I consider that scene to show God offering redemption and all manner of other gifts, but that the dwarves refused to accept it or even see it in the end, except for that one. (And there are surprises on the other side, too, like Emeth, who was even surprised himself to be in Aslan's Country.)
The thing is, redemption in the biblical understanding isn’t something that God offers, at least as I understand it; it’s something that God does. God didn’t offer redemption to people of Israel from Egypt. God delivered them, full stop. “I am the Lord your God, who brought you up out of the land of Egypt . . . .” What follows is Israel’s response to the call to live as a redeemed people.
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
There is the Eastern Orthodox notion (which I consider to be very good theology) that the saved and the damned are both immersed in the fiery love of God, one joyfully embracing and one forever rejecting it, but even then I can't see how "redeemed" and "damned" are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, that’s the idea that The Last Battle is reflecting. I stand to be corrected by someone much more knowledgeable than I, though, with regard to “forever rejecting” it. The understanding of those Orthodox Christians who hold this view, at least as I have heard it, is that those who initially reject the fiery love of God may at some point accept it.
Yes, this does indeed assume that there are those who are ultimately damned. Of course, that's literally the point of the thread, right? That "despicable" people (more visibly despicable than most other people, at least to earthly eyes, presumably) could make it into Heaven?
I’m not sure it’s quite literally the point of this thread. The question in the OP reflects, I think, the assumption that @Lamb Chopped identified and that lots of shipmates in this thread have said they reject—that “destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.” Some in this thread have specifically said they hold to some form of universalism. Some of us (for I include myself in this group) have said we hold to what I sometimes call “hopeful universalism”—the idea that we cannot make a claim of universal salvation but that we can hope for it, and that we can find ample reason in Scripture supporting that hope.
I think that’s a completely orthodox attitude. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assert that there must be some people who will be damned, that it is not at all possible for everyone to be saved. That’s a claim I’ve pretty much only encountered among some really hardcore hyper-Calvinists.
But all of that is a slightly different question, I think, from what “redemption” means. In my understanding, my redemption was accomplished before I was born, as was yours and that of everyone else posting on this thread. Our redemption is not dependent on our acceptance of redemption; Christ has accomplished it. (Otherwise, we/re not going to immersed in the fiery love of God to start with.) But like the dwarves, we can nevertheless stubbornly insist on continuing to live as though we are in bondage to sin and death.
The Good News, as I understand it, is not that there is a way for us to get out of that bondage. The Good News is that we already have been released from that bondage.
I’m not sure what to tell you other than that it looks like we disagree on some of this stuff.
Actually, I’m thinking that maybe that root of the disagreement is in what exactly is meant by the words redeemed and redemption. What exactly do you understand that concept to mean?
I would love to believe in universalism. I would love to find out that I am mistaken regarding the understanding that definitively, at least some beings will indeed be damned. But I am not convinced of that based on my understanding of the plain words of Scripture, of Christian Tradition, and of human Reason.
I’m not aware of anything in Scripture or in mainstream Christian Tradition that requires a belief that “definitively, at least some souls will be damned.” And as others have pointed out, I think there are many plain words of Scripture that suggest otherwise. Church Fathers and Christian tradition, too. As I said above, like Barth, I think that “we are certainly forbidden to count on” universal reconciliation, but at the same time “we are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it.”
But if there is not universal salvation/universal reconciliation, it will not be because God through Christ has not redeemed all humanity, at least not as I understand it. It will be because some have stubbornly chosen, as it were, not to walk out the prison door that, as a result of the redemption of all humanity, has been knocked off its hinges.
Again, I’d love to be mistaken. Obviously, we’ll all find out when the time comes.
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life?
What is the basis for the assumption underlying the bolded? Has anyone in this thread suggested such an assumption? I agree with @ChastMastr, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames.
For my understanding of definitions of “redeem” and related words, I’d need to look them up in appropriate theological sources, mainly on the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox/Anglo-Catholic ends of the spectrum, and particularly in the historic/traditional approach to such things spread out through time.
From my viewpoint, some of the confusion on this thread results from the ambiguous use of the word "redeemed." It is possible to say someone has been redeemed (in the sense of Jesus has died for that person) while they are not yet redeemed (in the sense of, they haven't taken advantage of the new life, forgiveness, etc. that comes with faith in Jesus).
So if you mean redeemed = Jesus died for you, that's everybody. But if you (different you) mean redeemed = believing in Jesus and possessing all the benefits that come with that, well, that's not everybody, not yet, it's a smaller group of people.
Which I tried to do, when I said early on that “release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about,” and when I specifically mentioned the Exodus. It is my understanding that the Hebrew and Greek words historically translated redeem or redemption relate to the concept—an action that restores someone else to their former status or provides for their freedom, as Boaz does for Ruth and Naomi. Redemption is completely an act of the redeemer (such as the life, death, resurrection and ascension of Jesus), not of the redeemed. What the redeemed person does is respond to the act of redemption.
That redemption is completely a gracious act of God to which we respond is the understanding of my tradition, and that is how I’ve been using the term.
I meant, specify whether you are using the term to include everyone Christ suffered for, or only those who have actually trusted in him. The word “redeemed” is used both ways, even in churches who hold as you do (and I). Just look at our hymns.
I meant, specify whether you are using the term to include everyone Christ suffered for, or only those who have actually trusted in him. The word “redeemed” is used both ways, even in churches who hold as you do (and I). Just look at our hymns.
Ah, sorry. I use it to include everyone Christ suffered for. (Though, as I’ve indicated, I also use to it refer to more than the suffering of Christ; I use it to refer to the incarnation, life and ministry, suffering and death, resurrection and ascension—what Barth called “the Christ event.”)
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of hymns we sing where redeemed is used in a way to explicitly mean only those who actually trusted Christ, as opposed to where the more limited usage might be inferred. (I can, of course, think of numerous hymns that speak of redemption in personal terms, like “my redeemer.”) But I’ll readily admit there well may be obvious examples I’m just not thinking of, and that my inability to think of examples of that may be due to nothing more than posting before adequate caffeination.
Yes, I’m using it here to refer to those who have trusted, or ultimately will trust, in Him, who will dwell joyfully with Him and one another in Heaven and in the New Creation.
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life?
What is the basis for the assumption underlying the bolded? Has anyone in this thread suggested such an assumption? I agree with @ChastMastr, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames.
Which sound like, contrary to your prior claim, that despicable people don't make it to heaven. James Dobson, to go back to our OP example, won't be admitted to heaven unless he chooses to be not despicable any more. I'll note that this is something Dobson could have done at any point in his life and yet never did. I'm not sure what being dead would do to change his mind. There's also the question about whether such a radically different person is still "James Dobson", or whether James Dobson has been obliterated and replaced by someone else.
It doesn't end with the resurrection either - the ascension is the ultimate act of reconciliation. One for all, all reconciled in the one - no exceptions.
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life?
What is the basis for the assumption underlying the bolded? Has anyone in this thread suggested such an assumption? I agree with @ChastMastr, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames.
Which sound like, contrary to your prior claim, that despicable people don't make it to heaven.
No, it sounds like you spinning what others say/write to make your point. You’re once again responding to something I didn’t say rather than to what I did say.
Sorry for the double post. I missed the edit window,
In the post you quoted, @Crœsos, I said “what I was disagreeing with was the proposition that ‘destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.’” I don’t know how you get from that that I “claimed” that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven.” What I claimed is that anyone in heaven—despicable or not—is there for reasons other than their morality or lack of morality in this life.
Sorry for the double post. I missed the edit window,
In the post you quoted, @Crœsos, I said “what I was disagreeing with was the proposition that ‘destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.’” I don’t know how you get from that that I “claimed” that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven.” What I claimed is that anyone in heaven—despicable or not—is there for reasons other than their morality or lack of morality in this life.
Right. The implication there is that being despicable or acting despicably is no bar to making it to heaven. On the other hand you also agree with @ChastMastr and @Lamb Chopped that there are no despicable people in heaven, or at least that no one behaves despicably, which seems like a distinction without a difference. The resolution to this apparent contradiction is that the despicable simply stop being despicable. I'm just wondering if someone changed so radically (and apparently by an outside force) can still be considered the same person. If not, then apparently despicable people really don't make it to heaven.
Sorry for the double post. I missed the edit window,
In the post you quoted, @Crœsos, I said “what I was disagreeing with was the proposition that ‘destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.’” I don’t know how you get from that that I “claimed” that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven.” What I claimed is that anyone in heaven—despicable or not—is there for reasons other than their morality or lack of morality in this life.
Right. The implication there is that being despicable or acting despicably is no bar to making it to heaven.
And yet you say that in that post I claimed that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven.” So which is it? Are you saying I claimed that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven,” or are you saying that I implied that “being despicable or acting despicably is no bar to making it to heaven.”
On the other hand, you agree with @ChastMastr and @Lamb Chopped that there are no despicable people in heaven, or at least that no one behaves despicably, which seems like a distinction without a difference. The resolution to this apparent contradiction is that the despicable simply stop being despicable.
@Lamb Chopped, @ChastMastr and @BroJames all said quite clearly how they resolve what you call an “apparent contradiction.” And what they all said was neither a simple “there are no despicable people in heaven,” nor was it “no one behaves despicably” in heaven.
If you disagree with us, fine. I can deal with that, and I’m sure they can, too. But all you’re doing is attacking what others have said, and you’re doing so by taking bits of what they have said and removing those bits from the larger context of what was said—context that makes clear what was meant.
Perhaps you might tell us what you think the answer to the OP is?
I'm just wondering if someone changed so radically (and apparently by an outside force) can still be considered the same person.
It depends on what exactly you mean by “the same person.” People change their behaviors all the time, sometimes in big ways, sometimes not. And people often describe that change as “I’m not the person I was.” But they are, objectively, biologically, intellectually, the same person.
Comments
@Crœsos I'm guessing that was a crosspost. Please take any further discussion of slavery to Epiphanies.
Hostly beret off
la vie en rouge, Purgatory host
Speaking for myself, this Calvinist believes that salvation is a free gift of God that no one can earn or merit, not unlike how I never did anything to earn my parents’ love. (Yes, I know that not everyone has loving parents. But as I said, I’m speaking for myself.)
I also believe that God cares greatly about how we live and how we treat and love one another, just as my parents cared greatly about how I lived and how I treated and loved others. But their love of me was independent of my morality.
@Nick Tamen will correct me if I'm wrong, but I think there's a Reformed saying, 'The faith that saves is never alone.'
It's fair to say that Calvinism, even in its more moderate forms, is problematic from an Orthodox perspective but that doesn't mean that Calvin never 'rings true' or that the Reformed tradition offers nothing of value.
I think it's also fair to say that yes, there is a danger of Antinomianism in Calvinism and mainstream Reformed folk have always sought to combat that.
Yes, you get satirical works like Confessionsof a Justified Sinner and various extremes, but extremes can be found in any Christian tradition.
There is ritual and there is ritualism.
There is revival and there is revivalism.
Not all sola fide types promote a 'simply pray the Sinner's Prayer' or 'Put your hand up in a meeting' form of easy-believism.
Simply say the right formula and everything is OK from that moment on.
Sure, some fundamentalist types do promote that but in my experience Calvinist or neo-Calvinist evangelicals are far less inclined to go in for 'altar-calls' and repeating the Sinners' Prayer as some kind of insurance policy against eternal damnation.
I don't think sola fide developed as an 'excuse' to get away with doing whatever we like. Rather it developed as an understandable reaction against late-medieval piety with its chantry chapels, indulgences and mechanistic paraphernalia - and no, it wasn't only the 'Latin West' that went in for that sort of thing.
From an Orthodox perspective the Reformers had a point and were an understandable reaction against late-medieval Roman Catholic practice.
We would add, though, that it was a reaction that went too far and that the Reformers also retained some vestiges of late'medieval Scholasticism they would have better to have left behind.
But that's another story and I'm not here to be polemical.
The point I'm making is that the Protestant emphasis on personal faith is not one to disparage but to be encouraged.
As for whether 'despicable' people get into heaven or not, that's another matter and one I'm happy to leave to God to sort out.
Back to where I think. So I don't believe in life after death very much. Life is bad amd good enough to want more. Maybe stop the despicable people now.
To clarify:
I wasn't putting that forward as my own position. I was saying, "This is what I'm hearing so far on this thread."
I too would disagree with that statement.
I didn't think it was a position you endorsed as a Lutheran but rather what you were hearing on this thread and I can understand how and why you got that impression.
We Orthodox are sometimes accused of promoting 'salvation by works' or even 'salvation by liturgy'.
I can understand that - and will address it before moving on to @Gramps49's secondary question.
There's a Romanian chap who travels up by train from a city about an hour and a half further south to attend the midweek Liturgy in our parish. He gets to the station and takes a convoluted bus route to reach us.
I gave him a lift yesterday and to my surprise found that he was aiming to attend five Divine Liturgies this week which would be a new personal 'record'. His previous tally was four.
As well as his own Romanian service on Sunday he aimed to attend a Serbian parish to celebrate the Dormition (again) and various other midweek or special liturgies elsewhere.
I didn't detect any 'fanaticism' in conversation and he could do a lot worse things of course but wondered what he was up to. Accumulating Brownie-Points?
He does work but seemingly irregularly. It must be costing him an arm and leg travelling hither and yon to as many services as possible.
Whatever the case, this sort of thing can give the impression that we are trying to 'earn' our salvation rather than to 'work out our salvation.'
The Orthodox don't go in for the kind of works vs faith dichotomy that became a feature of the Reformation, although we understand the arguments and issues involved.
But neither do we rely on 'works righteousness', although that can be the impression conveyed at times.
Be all that as it may, I don't think any Christian tradition teaches that we are saved by our own efforts and that the Cross and Resurrection (I'm picking up the Orthodox capitalisation habit) are bolt-on extras.
If we are saved at all we are saved by Christ. The whole of the 'Christ event' as it were - the Incarnation, his teachings, sinless life and moral example, his atoning death and glorious resurrection, his ascension into heaven and his sitting at the righthand of the Fathef on high, his coming again in glory to judge 'the quick and the dead.'
The whole kit and caboodle.
Which is why I'm happy to leave questions about this, that or the other person's salvation - as well as my own - to God.
Any ideas I might have are a pale reflection of our Lord's.
On the point @Gramps49 raises about the nature of heaven and its 'physicality' as it were...
Once again I'm on a similar page to @Lamb Chopped on this one.
Dare I posit that it's one of these both/and things?
😉
'Matter matters.'
I don't envisage God doing away with it - 'there is a man in heaven' - but redeeming and perfecting it in some way that we can't envisage and which has yet to be revealed.
These are cosmic issues that affect all of Creation. Think 1 Corinthians 15.
It's way, way, way bigger whether this, that or the other 'despicable person' or whether you or I or the cat next door are going to 'get to heaven.'
Does he? If God created the universe matter is only a tiny fraction of its volume. Maybe God hates matter and created the universe with what he regarded as a necessary minimum of the stuff.
My hope is that this is just as relevant to those who do believe in an afterlife as it is to those who don't. I think the question being begged by the opening post is "how are despicable people held to account?"
Within a Christian understanding, the idea that accountability to a human authority goes alongside accountability to God doesn't seem particularly novel. What is less clear to me is how this is worked out in relation to morality. If addressed through an ordained (or set-apart) priesthood, a question arises of how the priesthood itself is held to account. Or if addressed through some system of mutual accountability amongst believers, a question arises of how consistency of standards or their application is maintained.
In the absence of satisfactory answers to these questions, one might conclude that the question of accountability in this life isn't a pressing issue, and that such questions are best left to the life to come.
OTH, it also says that faith without works is useless. I suspect there are going to be some very surprised people on judgement day. In both a good and bad way. (Just hoping I get the good surprise not the other one).
This. And redeemed.
All sorts of religions base it on morality in this life--the pagan Egyptian Book of the Dead, for example, bases it on the relative weights of the heart of the person and a feather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancient_Egyptian_afterlife_beliefs#Judgment_of_the_dead
Man, I hope we can fly. Like Superman, I mean. Arguably, there have been various stories about saints and levitation (no, not The Flying Nun) over the centuries, so perhaps.
God loves His Creation, and matter is part of it. The notion that God hates matter is a Gnostic heresy.
The book of Exodus tells the story of God’s redemption of Israel, a story still remembered each year at Passover. It also tells the story of Israel’s consistent failure to live as redeemed people. The historical books and the books of the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures continue that story and consistently call the people of Israel not to be redeemed, but to remember that they have been redeemed.
It may be a heresy to you, but to those who aren't constrained by dogma, it's just a harmless musing. Further, Genesis only says that God saw what he had created as good -- not that he loved it.
Indeed. "Constrained" may also be a bit too severe. Maybe "captivated" is more appropriate?
Well, John's Gospel tells us that 'God so loved the world that ...'
And the world is made of matter. As the song goes, 'we are living in a material world ...'
'Matter matters.'
I know you aren't constrained by dogma @The_Riv but if God doesn't love matter then what's the Incarnation all about?
I’m talking about those who have been saved, who are eternally with God in Heaven and then the New Creation—I don’t believe it’s accurate to call those who are not saved—who are ultimately damned—“redeemed.”
I think C. S. Lewis would disagree with you, at least if The Last Battle is anything to go by. There seemed to be no question that toward the end that the dwarves were “redeemed” (quotations marks used because I don’t think The Last Battle uses redemption language.) The issue for them was that they refused to see or trust in their redemption.
I believe that the in Christ—that is, in the incarnation, life, death, resurrection and ascension of Christ—God has redeemed humanity. How we each respond to our redemption, whether we live as people still in bondage or whether we live as people freed from bondage (because release from bondage is what the biblical concept of redemption is all about), is the issue for us.
Thank you
This is a beautiful and perfect summary of where I am in my understanding but so much better expressed than my own attempts!
They refused to accept it, yes, but that doesn't mean they eventually would do so. One of them did. I consider that scene to show God offering redemption and all manner of other gifts, but that the dwarves refused to accept it or even see it in the end, except for that one. (And there are surprises on the other side, too, like Emeth, who was even surprised himself to be in Aslan's Country.)
There is the Eastern Orthodox notion (which I consider to be very good theology) that the saved and the damned are both immersed in the fiery love of God, one joyfully embracing and one forever rejecting it, but even then I can't see how "redeemed" and "damned" are not mutually exclusive.
Yes, this does indeed assume that there are those who are ultimately damned. Of course, that's literally the point of the thread, right? That "despicable" people (more visibly despicable than most other people, at least to earthly eyes, presumably) could make it into Heaven?
In the Narnia books, Aslan had already accomplished the redemption of Narnia—dwarves and Emeth included. What is going on is their response to and acceptance of their redemption. (Indeed the case of Emeth, he wasn’t even fully aware that was what he was responding to.)
Yes, that’s the idea that The Last Battle is reflecting. I stand to be corrected by someone much more knowledgeable than I, though, with regard to “forever rejecting” it. The understanding of those Orthodox Christians who hold this view, at least as I have heard it, is that those who initially reject the fiery love of God may at some point accept it.
I’m not sure it’s quite literally the point of this thread. The question in the OP reflects, I think, the assumption that @Lamb Chopped identified and that lots of shipmates in this thread have said they reject—that “destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.” Some in this thread have specifically said they hold to some form of universalism. Some of us (for I include myself in this group) have said we hold to what I sometimes call “hopeful universalism”—the idea that we cannot make a claim of universal salvation but that we can hope for it, and that we can find ample reason in Scripture supporting that hope.
I think that’s a completely orthodox attitude. The alternative, it seems to me, is to assert that there must be some people who will be damned, that it is not at all possible for everyone to be saved. That’s a claim I’ve pretty much only encountered among some really hardcore hyper-Calvinists.
But all of that is a slightly different question, I think, from what “redemption” means. In my understanding, my redemption was accomplished before I was born, as was yours and that of everyone else posting on this thread. Our redemption is not dependent on our acceptance of redemption; Christ has accomplished it. (Otherwise, we/re not going to immersed in the fiery love of God to start with.) But like the dwarves, we can nevertheless stubbornly insist on continuing to live as though we are in bondage to sin and death.
The Good News, as I understand it, is not that there is a way for us to get out of that bondage. The Good News is that we already have been released from that bondage.
I like what you say here.
I’m not sure what to tell you other than that it looks like we disagree on some of this stuff.
As a side note, as I understand it regarding the fiery love of God, everyone and everything in creation will be immersed in it, or technically in a certain sense already is/are. There is nowhere where He is not. But the blinders will be off.
I would love to believe in universalism. I would love to find out that I am mistaken regarding the understanding that definitively, at least some beings will indeed be damned. But I am not convinced of that based on my understanding of the plain words of Scripture, of Christian Tradition, and of human Reason. Again, I’d love to be mistaken. Obviously, we’ll all find out when the time comes.
I guess the real question is if heaven is full of despicable people who behave just as despicably as they do here, what's the difference between heaven and what we have in this life? If James Dobson, to go back to the OP, is still beating kids in the great hereafter, it doesn't sound that great.
No, of course not—the idea of Heaven and the New Creation is that it will be without sin, evil, pain, sickness, death, etc., so all of us there will not be doing evil of any kind, living joyfully and in love with God and one another.
I’m not aware of anything in Scripture or in mainstream Christian Tradition that requires a belief that “definitively, at least some souls will be damned.” And as others have pointed out, I think there are many plain words of Scripture that suggest otherwise. Church Fathers and Christian tradition, too. As I said above, like Barth, I think that “we are certainly forbidden to count on” universal reconciliation, but at the same time “we are surely commanded the more definitely to hope and pray for it.”
But if there is not universal salvation/universal reconciliation, it will not be because God through Christ has not redeemed all humanity, at least not as I understand it. It will be because some have stubbornly chosen, as it were, not to walk out the prison door that, as a result of the redemption of all humanity, has been knocked off its hinges.
We will indeed.
What is the basis for the assumption underlying the bolded? Has anyone in this thread suggested such an assumption? I agree with @ChastMastr, @Lamb Chopped and @BroJames.
So if you mean redeemed = Jesus died for you, that's everybody. But if you (different you) mean redeemed = believing in Jesus and possessing all the benefits that come with that, well, that's not everybody, not yet, it's a smaller group of people.
So maybe specify the definition you're using.
That redemption is completely a gracious act of God to which we respond is the understanding of my tradition, and that is how I’ve been using the term.
Off the top of my head, I can’t think of hymns we sing where redeemed is used in a way to explicitly mean only those who actually trusted Christ, as opposed to where the more limited usage might be inferred. (I can, of course, think of numerous hymns that speak of redemption in personal terms, like “my redeemer.”) But I’ll readily admit there well may be obvious examples I’m just not thinking of, and that my inability to think of examples of that may be due to nothing more than posting before adequate caffeination.
It very much accords with the Orthodox understanding of these things - although that, in and of itself, isn't the only reason why I agree with it.
To pinch a Jane Austen bon mot, it is a truth that should universally be acknowledged. 😉
I always feel troubled when people fiddle around to isolate this, that or the other of the 'component parts'.
Not that I think anyone is doing so here, but some treatments of 'redemption' can end up doing that.
It's sometimes said that Orthodoxy emphases the Resurrection and 'Western' Christianity the Cross.
But we can't have one without the other of course.
Both/and ...
Now where have I heard that before?
Which sound like, contrary to your prior claim, that despicable people don't make it to heaven. James Dobson, to go back to our OP example, won't be admitted to heaven unless he chooses to be not despicable any more. I'll note that this is something Dobson could have done at any point in his life and yet never did. I'm not sure what being dead would do to change his mind. There's also the question about whether such a radically different person is still "James Dobson", or whether James Dobson has been obliterated and replaced by someone else.
It also kind of reminds me of this:
In the post you quoted, @Crœsos, I said “what I was disagreeing with was the proposition that ‘destination in the afterlife is based on morality in this life.’” I don’t know how you get from that that I “claimed” that “despicable people don’t make it to heaven.” What I claimed is that anyone in heaven—despicable or not—is there for reasons other than their morality or lack of morality in this life.
Right. The implication there is that being despicable or acting despicably is no bar to making it to heaven. On the other hand you also agree with @ChastMastr and @Lamb Chopped that there are no despicable people in heaven, or at least that no one behaves despicably, which seems like a distinction without a difference. The resolution to this apparent contradiction is that the despicable simply stop being despicable. I'm just wondering if someone changed so radically (and apparently by an outside force) can still be considered the same person. If not, then apparently despicable people really don't make it to heaven.
We should all pray that that’s the case, unless any of us are so deluded as to think we are completely free of sin.
Or perhaps despicable behaviour is simply impossible in heaven.
@Lamb Chopped, @ChastMastr and @BroJames all said quite clearly how they resolve what you call an “apparent contradiction.” And what they all said was neither a simple “there are no despicable people in heaven,” nor was it “no one behaves despicably” in heaven.
If you disagree with us, fine. I can deal with that, and I’m sure they can, too. But all you’re doing is attacking what others have said, and you’re doing so by taking bits of what they have said and removing those bits from the larger context of what was said—context that makes clear what was meant.
Perhaps you might tell us what you think the answer to the OP is?
It depends on what exactly you mean by “the same person.” People change their behaviors all the time, sometimes in big ways, sometimes not. And people often describe that change as “I’m not the person I was.” But they are, objectively, biologically, intellectually, the same person.