有關普救論的問題

[小兔黑黑]

在Ellul的閱讀小組中，明姊姐引了書中的一段：

God is still a jealous God. That is to say, he loves to such a degree that he cannot bear it that his creature should not finally be saved. He cannot bear it that man should turn to someone other than himself (p.108).

小組的人好像都對普救論比較陌生，不知大家對這個題目有什麼認識？

[Daniel_Cheung]

在Ellul的閱讀小組中，明姊姐引了書中的一段：

God is still a jealous God. That is to say, he loves to such a degree that he cannot bear it that his creature should not finally be saved. He cannot bear it that man should turn to someone other than himself (p.108).

小組的人好像都對普救論比較陌生，不知大家對這個題目有什麼認識？

你不如請明姊姐在小組裡分享一下更好，她才不會對這些事陌生呢，她大概只是謙厚不多說話而已。

[kit]

Universalism is one of the topics that interests me. I personally tend to believe in this doctrine and follow the line of thought. The short excerpt “I am a convinced Universalist” from his William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography (pp. 65-67) is worth reading. (http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm).

I have been reading a book, Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (2003) (Ed. Parry & Partridge). The book is around Thomas Talbott’s Universalism. His idea on Universalism is based on the following inconsistent set of propositions (p.7):

1. God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each of them.
2. Because no one can finally defeat God’s redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires.
3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever.

If the above set of proposition is logically inconsistent, and it surely is, then at least one of the above propositions is false. Obviously for Tallbot, (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false. (1) and (2) are the combination of Augustinians and Arminians. The whole issue is whether we will believe in eternal punishment in hell.

In early Christianity, a term Apocatastasis is used to describe "a doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls". The early fathers who first argued that all people would be saved were Origen (185-254) and Gregory of Nyssa (335-395). The biblical ground for this belief: 1 Cor 15:28, Philippians 2:10.

More recently, it is still controversial to talk about if Karl Barth is a universalist. His Christo-centric theology especially toward the end of his life seems to point to that direction. (see Betti (1967) “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” Scottish J. of Theology, 20, pp. 423-36).

In late Tillich's thought, especailly after his trip to Japan, he tends to appreciate more about the other religions.

How about in Buddhism: All men have a Buddha-Nature? = All men will be saved?

That's all I can offer...

[zhengzi]

How about in Buddhism: All men have a Buddha-Nature? = All men will be saved?

I think this should be better postulated as:
All men have a Buddha-Nature = All men can save themselves
(More strictly, "all men" should be replaced by "all living things")

[clement]

I think this should be better postulated as:
All men have a Buddha-Nature = All men can save themselves
(More strictly, "all men" should be replaced by "all living things")

"save" is also a word coloured by Christianity...

How about the verb "to self-enlighten" ?

[zhengzi]

"save" is also a word coloured by Christianity...

How about the verb "to self-enlighten" ?
佛教也談渡、救吧？譯成英語豈不就是save？

[kit]

其實對普救論的文獻不是太熟，只是在近兩三年來才認實地思索這個問題，另外對佛家哲理的對讀之下，才開始對這課題作較深入探討。

我個人覺得普救論是救贖論的最後一個階段的課題，就是救贖之後的普遍現象，從基督教傳統聖經的內容來看，沒有給予我們一個十全十美的答案，所以從教父時代開始就有這種觀念的出現，但被視異端(heretical)，代表人物有Origen (185-254) 及 Gregory of Nyssa (335-395)。這種信念一切都活著至今。

簡單一點去問及想一下，神是全能又是全愛全義，救贖計劃完成後，永恒的地獄之火還真的存在嗎?被火燒的沒有回轉悔改的人真的沒有第二次機會嗎?在天堂的回轉的人，當向腳下一望看到被火燒的在世時親朋戚友，是否真的可以大聲唱詩讚美神呢?

關於Origen及Gregory of Nyssa，參看了一文:Ludlow, M. “Universalism in the History of Christianity”，對他們發展普救論思想的影嚮，可歸納以下三點:

(1) Idea of punishment as educative: 在希臘時代從Socarates開始，就存在這種流行的思想，Plato更加認為punishment有藥物治療性作用(medicinal)。將這種educative或medicinal的觀點加進Origen思想中，他便認為神可被看為divine physician who “in his desire to wash the sins of our souls.. makes use of penal remedies of a similar [healing] sort, even to the inflction of a punishment of fire on hose who have lost their soul’s health.”Ludlow有這個結論: The idea of punishment as educative and medicinal (healing) ”allowed Origen and Gregory to explain the punishment of hell as reformative and thus temporary state.”

(2) Stotic idea of restoration of cosmos to its original state: The term apokatastasis literally means a setting back to the beginning. From Acts 3:21, Peter mentions “the time of the restoration of all things”.

(3) The Bible: (a) 1 Corinthians 15:28 (b) Philippians 2:10 – “so that at the name of Jesus every knee should bend , in heaven and on earth and under the earth, and every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord to the glory of God the Father.”(c) Psalm 59 asserts that sinners will not be destroyed but will be restored.

近代一點有Schleiermacher, Moltmann, von Balthasar, Rahner, Barth等都有某種普救論的傾向或主張。可參Ludlow, M.一文。

其實大乘佛教中的眾人皆有彿性這觀念，在救贖之後，人人成佛，當然我不是比較人如何被救，無論是自渡他渡自救他救，到最後最後，可能都是達到同一境界。我現朝著這方向是去思去信。相信要花上三五七年才可了解清楚確實方向。

耶佛比較一直覺得很難，近期流行Mahayana Theology，個人不太熱衷於此種互補式的理解。Mahayana Theology是John P. Keenan主張的，在香港有鄧紹光及賴品超跟著這方向發展。(e.g., 鄧紹光 <從天台佛學看巴特的基督論〉>及 <大乘神學的再思：以菩薩與基督的悲心與智慧為焦點>; 賴品超<從大乘佛學看迦克墩基督論>)

[kit]

信仰基督教人士普遍很怕及很不願意聽到普救論的主張，因為好像普救論若有可能成立，那麼基督教便失去其獨特性，福音廣傳的使命便受到重大的挑戰。義理歸於義理，整個宗教史中的確發現這種義理的存在，多了解一下也無防。

請看看以下:

(1) 神願意所有人都得救 (God desires to save all people: Arminism)
(2) 神只揀選擇部分的人得救 (God elects to save some people: Calvinism)
(3) (1) + 人有自由意志，神的願望沒有達成。(Arminian Universalism)
(4) (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救。(Multiracial Universalism)
(5) 神願意所有人都得救，願望最終達成。(Strong Universalism)

[Daniel_Cheung]

信仰基督教人士普遍很怕及很不願意聽到普救論的主張，因為好像普救論若有可能成立，那麼基督教便失去其獨特性，福音廣傳的使命便受到重大的挑戰。義理歸於義理，整個宗教史中的確發現這種義理的存在，多了解一下也無防。

請看看以下:

(1) 神願意所有都得救 (God desires to save all people: Arminism)
(2) 神只揀選擇部分的人得救 (God elects to save some people: Calvinism)
(3) (1) + 人有自由意志，神的願望沒有達成。(Arminian Universalism)
(4) (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救。(Multiracial Universalism)
(5) 神願意所有都得救，願望最終達成。(Strong Universalism)

我覺得相信普救論的信徒仍可以有福音使命感，只是不會有那麼強烈的逼切感，目的會是希望有更多人認識到這個他們原來已獲得但卻沒有視之為真實的關係。這個有可能嗎？

另外，請問 (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救為甚麼會被視為 universalism 的一種？

[kit]

另外，請問 (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救為甚麼會被視為 universalism 的一種？Strictly speakly, I should not put "(2) +" in this Multiracial Universalism. In this view, the gospel is not restricted to racial or ethnic groups, i.e., the gospel seems to be universal for everyone, covering all racial groups. Calvinists might say that even though God chose some people to be saved but universally the gospel is for all racial or ethnic groups.

Parry & Partridge wrote in the Introduction of "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.": "There is a sense in which all Christians could be considered to be 'universalists'. Since the early days of its existence the Christian church has stood by the claim that God's people are a multiracial group composed of persons from every nation. This view could be labelled 'multiracial universalism'.... The Calvinists hold a very high view of divine sovereignty and does not see human freedom a problem to God when exercising his providential control. So the mainstream Calvinist would affirm 'multiracial universalism' but not 'Arminian universalism.'

The view is still quite controversial!

[zhengzi]

(4) (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救。(Multiracial Universalism)

所謂每一個種族是甚麼意思？是指黃種人、白種人.....那種種族，還是漢滿蒙回藏那種種族？如果是後者，那麼一些已滅亡的種族又怎麼辦？

[kit]

所謂每一個種族是甚麼意思？是指黃種人、白種人.....那種種族，還是漢滿蒙回藏那種種族？如果是後者，那麼一些已滅亡的種族又怎麼辦？
This is quite controversial. Racial and ethnic groups can have different intrepretations. In NT times, there are only 2 groups: the Jews and the Gentiles. In this very limited scope, as long as the gospel is not restricted to the Jews and can be reached by the Gentiles, this view has been established. How the Gentiles are differentiated is another big problem! I have no answer for this!

[Daniel_Cheung]

This is quite controversial. Racial and ethnic groups can have different intrepretations. In NT times, there are only 2 groups: the Jews and the Gentiles. In this very limited scope, as long as the gospel is not restricted to the Jews and can be reached by the Gentiles, this view has been established. How the Gentiles are differentiated is another big problem! I have no answer for this!

印象中，聖經某處有提及各族各民裡都有人歸主，那是不是 multi-racial universalism 的根據之一？記得不少宣教機構都是因此緣故遍尋各地種族。

[kit]

印象中，聖經某處有提及各族各民裡都有人歸主，那是不是 multi-racial universalism 的根據之一？記得不少宣教機構都是因此緣故遍尋各地種族。
Yes I think so. I am not an expert in this area.

[if_chf24]

但我覺得問題的要點不在multi-racial or multi-ethnicity。自早期教會以來，教會就是multi-racial and multi-ethnic的。
我認為，問題要點在於：
１）未聞福音者可否得救？如：福音來華前的中國人。
２）聞福音，而拒絕者，又可否得救？如：今天許多聽了福音又不信的朋友（不管他們是無神論者，或者信其他宗教）
這個與地獄的教義沒有必然直接的關係。因為，我可以不信普救論，同時相信不得救的人死後就不再存在，換句話說，對聖經中，”永火”等字眼進行象徵性解讀。
另外，普救論又往往與基督徒如何看待其他宗教有密切關係。如果普救論成立的話，是不是我們不用向佛教徒或印度教徒傳福音？如果說，我們要照樣傳，是讓他們了解到原來他們所信的，其實就是基督，或者是基督的上帝的另一個化身的話：
一）他們可能一樣覺得我們好patronistic。正如我有佛教朋友向我強調佛教不信一個Creator的存在（i.e.我信的與你信的不同）；
二）印度教徒會說印度教才是無所不包：印度教中有人會將耶穌視為Brahman(God)的眾多個avatar(reincarnation)中之其中一個，正正是基督教強調基督之獨特性，為印度教徒所不接受。而印度的基督徒一般又會強調這一點，不然，why becoming a Christian?

[nkcwong]

另外，請問 (2) + 每一個地方國家種族都有人得救為甚麼會被視為 universalism 的一種？

Strictly speakly, I should not put "(2) +" in this Multiracial Universalism. In this view, the gospel is not restricted to racial or ethnic groups, i.e., the gospel seems to be universal for everyone, covering all racial groups. Calvinists might say that even though God chose some people to be saved but universally the gospel is for all racial or ethnic groups.

Parry & Partridge wrote in the Introduction of "Universal Salvation? The Current Debate.": "There is a sense in which all Christians could be considered to be 'universalists'. Since the early days of its existence the Christian church has stood by the claim that God's people are a multiracial group composed of persons from every nation. This view could be labelled 'multiracial universalism'.... The Calvinists hold a very high view of divine sovereignty and does not see human freedom a problem to God when exercising his providential control. So the mainstream Calvinist would affirm 'multiracial universalism' but not 'Arminian universalism.'

The view is still quite controversial!

異族通婚（interracial marriage）越來越普遍。看美國的華人移民史，19世紀初期的移民華人男士，就有與Irish移民女士結婚的個案。黑白混血兒，所謂mulatto，就更不用說了。"Multiracial universalism"是否包涵種族主義的前設，是需要思考的課題。個人覺得multiracial universalism這種講法越來越不能make sense，因為種族之間的界線越來越模糊。

[nkcwong]

所謂每一個種族是甚麼意思？是指黃種人、白種人.....那種種族，還是漢滿蒙回藏那種種族？如果是後者，那麼一些已滅亡的種族又怎麼辦？

種族（Race）是直接與血緣、膚色有關的﹕漢族、高加索族（Caucasian）等
族裔（Ethnicity）是與地域有關的﹕Chinese，Irish， Hispanic，而ethnicity可以包括不同種族，漢滿蒙等等
文化（Culture）是與生活世界及symbolic reproduction有關的﹕一個美國土生華裔可能對中國文化沒有什麼認同；相反的，戴德生葬在中國的鎮江，他的一份中國情意結，比很多華人更要濃。

[yong_zhi]

Universalism is one of the topics that interests me. I personally tend to believe in this doctrine and follow the line of thought. The short excerpt “I am a convinced Universalist” from his William Barclay: A Spiritual Autobiography (pp. 65-67) is worth reading. (http://www.godstruthfortoday.org/Library/barclay/barclay.htm).

I have been reading a book, Universal Salvation? The Current Debate (2003) (Ed. Parry & Partridge). The book is around Thomas Talbott’s Universalism. His idea on Universalism is based on the following inconsistent set of propositions (p.7):

1. God’s redemptive love extends to all human sinners equally in the sense that he sincerely wills or desires the redemption of each of them.
2. Because no one can finally defeat God’s redemptive love or resist it forever, God will triumph in the end and successfully accomplish the redemption of everyone whose redemption he sincerely wills or desires.
3. Some human sinners will never be redeemed but will instead be separated from God forever.

If the above set of proposition is logically inconsistent, and it surely is, then at least one of the above propositions is false. Obviously for Tallbot, (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false. (1) and (2) are the combination of Augustinians and Arminians. The whole issue is whether we will believe in eternal punishment in hell.

In early Christianity, a term Apocatastasis is used to describe "a doctrine which teaches that a time will come when all free creatures will share in the grace of salvation; in a special way, the devils and lost souls". The early fathers who first argued that all people would be saved were Origen (185-254) and Gregory of Nyssa (335-395). The biblical ground for this belief: 1 Cor 15:28, Philippians 2:10.

More recently, it is still controversial to talk about if Karl Barth is a universalist. His Christo-centric theology especially toward the end of his life seems to point to that direction. (see Betti (1967) “Is Karl Barth a Universalist?” Scottish J. of Theology, 20, pp. 423-36).

In late Tillich's thought, especailly after his trip to Japan, he tends to appreciate more about the other religions.

How about in Buddhism: All men have a Buddha-Nature? = All men will be saved?

That's all I can offer...

我想人受造的特点是有自我意识，这个自我意识是否自愿而不是被迫的敬拜神是要靠信心来表达的。换句话说，问题的焦点不在于神有无“能力”让受造物敬拜他，而是如果有可能，人是否选择不要神呢？对于选择信主的人，此时此地的证据已经足够，对于选择不信的人，证据永远不够。

关于地狱的看法，我有几分同意斯托得(John R.W. Stott)的见解。