#14 in Ethics in christian theology books
Use arrows to jump to the previous/next product
Reddit mentions of Justice in Love (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion)
Sentiment score: 1
Reddit mentions: 1
We found 1 Reddit mentions of Justice in Love (Emory University Studies in Law and Religion). Here are the top ones.
or
- Emits a refreshing citrusy smell extracted from natural fruits like lemon and lime
- Lasts up to 8 weeks. Made in Japan
- Do not store in a direct sunlight or in a high temperature
Features:
Specs:
| Height | 9.21 Inches |
| Length | 6.14 Inches |
| Number of items | 1 |
| Release date | June 2015 |
| Weight | 0.96 Pounds |
| Width | 0.76 Inches |
That is a great response! I appreciate it.
I think that if one is committed to the idea of single predestination, one is necessarily committed to the non elect being eternally damned. (which is a morally heinous theological position). If God only chooses those who he sovereignly elects for heaven (and, in turn, those who choose God only with his divine assistance), then it follows that the rest are destined for an eternity of hell (because God could have saved them). How could this possibly be consistent with divine goodness? I am extremely dubious. If God can save some--if God is metaphysically able to force a free agent to choose Him--why can't he save all? It's a haunting question that the theologian, who is committed to soteriological predestination, must face.
I don't think of predestination as a soteriological issue; it's solely about service to the Kingdom of God (see N.T. Wright and Nicholas Wolterstorff).
> A word from someone who used to not like predestination: If you think about it too hard, you'll go crazy/be miserable/turn into John Calvin or a Jansenist. I'd recommend dealing with it in the abstract only and accepting that we won't understand it.
I just find this position to be untenable. When we consider the perfect goodness of God and his absolute moral perfection, the idea of God predestining some for an eternal punishment is untenable. Sure, there are some things we'll never understand, but there are things we can demonstrate to be rational and thus acceptable. For example: God existing before time. It's mind blowing to reflect upon; but is it incoherent? No. We can demonstrate a possible world in which God exists and time does not exist; God is timeless. Is it still mysterious and odd? Sure. But is it incoherent? No. It would be a disservice to the early church and its doctors to scoff of philosophical problems as 'accepting that we won't understand'. Think of what they went through to demonstrate extremely philosophical vexing questions like the trinity or the incarnation.