Did I just contradict myself in the previous post?
Quote 1: We, as Christ-followers, are to love. We are to love for love’s sake. We are to love without an agenda.
Quote 2: Addressing universalism with this mandate in clear view, my personal philosophy is to hope against all hope that universalism is true, but more importantly to act like it’s not.
Just how do I go about acting like universalism is not true? Wouldn’t that be loving people regardless of whether or not they are fellow Christ-followers? Now, wait, is that loving with an agenda? Loving to make sure that I don’t non-love a non-Christ-follower, so I don’t push them away from becoming a Christ-follower?
Does that make sense? I’m having a hard time articulating this one seeming contradiction that’s feels like it’s lying just under the surface.
“Well, I don’t know if John Doe is will spend eternity in perfect fellowship with Christ or not, so I better love them just in case.” That seems to be what the last clause of Quote 2 implies… and BAM! that’s an agenda.
I think I need to refine Quote 2. Maybe then the alleged contradiction will surface.
Quote 2: Addressing universalism with this mandate in clear view, my personal philosophy is to hope against all hope that universalism is true, but more importantly to act like it’s not love with no regard given to universalism’s veracity.
…?
Quote 1 trumps any action arising from Quote 2, especially the last clause of Quote 2.
Would really appreciate input here.
0 responses so far ↓
mshedden // Thursday, 13 July 2006 at 1:51 PM
I pity the man who does not have his own contradictions. Being able to hold to opposing thoughts is critical for me, otherwise I might start to make sense.
Leave a Comment