Freedom to Choose God (page 77)

LittleToe

Ozzie:
I specifically didn't name the "son of perdition". The text doesn't mention Judas at all. Further Paul seems to indicate that he was yet to come.
(John 17:12; 2Thess.2:3)
Mark.14:21 does seem to pronounce a curse on Judas, though.

Taking the same vein, though, what about the Rich man and Lazarus?
Or how about Simon Magus, who was cursed by Peter, but asked that the fate of perdition not fall to him (or words to that effect )?

In the circles I roam folks have the idea that King Saul fell, too, because of the incident with the Witch of Endor. Personally I'm not so sure at all. I wouldn't be dogmatic, but I don't think the text is anywhere near so certain.

Apoleia (Strongs G684), often translated "perdition", is also found in the following places:

Matt.7:13; 26:8; Mark.14:4; Acts.8:20; 25:16; Rom.9:22; Phil.1:28; 3:19; 1Tim.6:9; Heb.10:39; 2Pet.2:1, 2, 3; 3:7, 16; Rev.17:8, 11.

It may have a root from Apollum (Strongs G622), from which we find even more specific texts.

ozziepost

LT:

Interesting - I'll take that up with my fellow 'students'

Narkissos

Ross

I specifically didn't name the "son of perdition". The text doesn't mention Judas at all.

Sorry I made the connection, wrongly assuming you were meaning Judas.

Actually the (protognostic) Gospel of John lends itself especially well to dialectical theology, where the line between the elect and the reprobate does not separate people from each other but is drawn within everyone.

One text I found very illuminating in this perspective is 6:37ff, especially when you take note of the relation between the neuter (= impersonal) and masculine (= personal):

Everything that the Father gives me will come to me, and anyone who comes to me I will never drive away; for I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. And this is the will of him who sent me, that I should lose nothing of all (= anything) that he has given me, but raise it up on the last day.

In everyone there is something to save and something to lose (apollumi, apoleia)...

LittleToe

Didier:
But doesn't that still predispose the text to mean that if the Father doesn't give it then there is nothing in an individual which might be saved, ultimately leading to perdition? That certainly seems to be the context in that chaper.
(I may be missing your point, sorry, please be patient with me )

Narkissos

if the Father doesn't give it then there is nothing in an individual which might be saved

Yes, only if...

That's what Karl Barth called the "impossible possibility" of hell, if I remember correctly.

LittleToe

Dialectical logic is quite a paradigm shift, for me, but I think I'm getting the gist of what you mean (and growing in anticipation of getting around to reading Barth).

I do find Revelation interesting, on that score:
Not only do the devil, the beast and the false prophet (anti-Christ / son of perdition?) find their way into the lake of fire, but so do some others: Rev.20:15; 21:8.

Compare this with Rev.21:27, where there's a distinction made as to who goes into the city - after the judgement. Would this indicate a belief that such still exist?

Terry

LittleToe offers: It may be the side-order of enchiladas, but I think you picked up (and swallowed) a secular dictionary instead of a theological one
Besides, your logic is subject to cascade failure...
It starts with the very root of your logical fallacy - God is only a premise if you've never met Him...

Huh?

Can you untangle that knot for me?

Terry

ellderwho says:
God is only a premise if you've never met Him...
Amen brother Toe!
edited to add; or is it elder Toe?

Sigh....

I am, of course, referring to God in the sense of being the topic of discussion rather than in terms of God as a person.

When you discuss any topic at all (God or otherwise) then the topic subject must be defined first or else you can talk at cross purposes.

When you define and accept the definition of the topic and proceed to debate you are then on an even playing field. My comment was aimed at demonstrating that God (as a premise and discussion topic) MUST BE an agreed-upon entity. However, what makes God, as a subject and premise, unique among all subjects is that he can only be defined according to some subjective orthodoxy. What is the result of that? A Catholic does not really discuss God the same way Muslims discusses God because these subjectively arrived at definitions stem from varied sources, customs and beliefs.

Hence, to bloviate about God is a waste of time. (And here I am sucked into doing that very thing!) Why? God, to one person is quite different from what God is to another person. The actuality cannot be tested because God is elusive and unreachable except inside the mental processes of person's suffering the emotions that plug into their belief system.

LittleToe

Gordian tied it, Alexander can untie it

You suggest that the concept of "God" is a premise, and swiftly cascade down a "slippery slope" false dilemma to prove that the "only thing that can happen is wheel spinning efforts to revise the basic definition".

To be fair it's quite possible to discuss this whole topic (including the issues you raise) with no acceptance of "God" at all.

However my actual point is that unless you've met "God" then he is merely a premise at best, and one likely to be dashed by the wheel spinning efforts to revise the basic definition
All those who claim such a meeting declare that He defies definition, dashing the wheel in the process.

LittleToe

Hence, to bloviate about God is a waste of time. (And here I am sucked into doing that very thing!) Why? God, to one person is quite different from what God is to another person. The actuality cannot be tested because God is elusive and unreachable except inside the mental processes of person's suffering the emotions that plug into their belief system.

I would contest that.

Is it a waste of time to get to know another human-being, even though we may have held misconceptions about that individual?
Another may highlight that said individual is a great person, but this has little to do with their "belief system". I would agree that experience is subjective, but it's in the discussing of such experience that commonality is found. That is often the attraction of "sacred texts", in that a common experience is observed, rather than fashioned.

"God" is only elusive inasfar as He remains a theoretical construct. That isn't really what is ultimately being discussed, though. The theory of the mechanics of how such a relationship is obtained, is the subject matter under consideration.

Freedom to Choose God

Share this