 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/3/2005 10:09 AM (GMT -6) |   | | While I'm on the roll, read this too.
Ok. This is not canonical...BUT this was a QUITE the popular piece of writing to the early church. It was VERY widely read, and Clement (and others) even considered it scripture. According to Eusebius, this piece of writing was second in popularity ONLY to John's Revelation. All things considered, what this means is that the conception of hell that is in this writing is one of the major ones excepted to be the case of what hell is like.
Think about that when you read it.
We'll leave out Peter's appeal for the damned, for now. Note it, but don't focus too heavy on it. (That may be a later addition.) Just focus on the view of hell. It gets interesting. | | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/8/2005 7:36 AM (GMT -6) | | Here's my thought on it.
If we leave out Peter's appeal (Maybe no one in heaven would pray for the damned!), it seems very clear that the view of hell espoused is NOT any form of annihiliationism. Nor is it any type of C.S. Lewis view of hell. It clearly shows bodily torture with flames in an ACTUAL burning place with demons all around. And it clearly denotes that they are SENT there. The tortures themselves seem quite grotesque.
Now...
If this apocalypse were a very familiar one to be read in churches all over at that time...AND it was similar in time and popularity to the book of Revelation...AND it's similiarity to the content of Revelation (ie burning place for all enemies of God), it makes sense to say that this view of hell was most likely a (if not THE) predominant one in the early church at that time. Even if Peter's plea is a later addition, that later addition was STILL is working against the held belief of eternal conscious punishment by bodily burning and torture in a fiery place.
Implications?
If anyone tries to argue for annihilationism or universalism, it would seem that they are going against a very early tradition in the Church. Moreover, putting the Apocalypse of Peter with, Jesus' "Lazarus" parable and talks about "hellfire" and the "outer darkness", and the Revelation of John, it would seem reasonable that ECP was probably the intended belief all along. To me, this is a pretty reasonable conclusion. Do I like coming to this conclusion? Nope. But it seems to make sense to me.
Some artless iambic lines of uncertain date are appended here, which show what was thought of the doctrine:
' Plainly false: for the fire will never cease to torment the damned. I indeed could pray that it might be so, who am branded with the deepest scars of transgressions which stand in need of utmost mercy. But let Origen be ashamed of his lying words, who saith that there is a term set to the torments.'
Now, what does this mean? Let's just speak about it squarely.
If a believer in the Biblical depiction of God DOES NOT think that an all-loving God is compatible with the type of hell described in the Apocalypses of Peter and John, then that believer seems to have these options open to them:
1) Deny that the Biblical God is all-loving.
2) Deny that scriptural testimony about final states of the unsaved is accurate with respect to hell.
I don't see any real other options. Do you?
Corey and Selah! Where y'all at on this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/8/2005 9:40 AM (GMT -6) | | | This is a dish that was brought to full boil a few years ago for me and I've been letting it simmer over low heat to reduce off some of the volume since then. The broader topic here is not so much on hell per se, as it is on Authority.
A little background about where I'm coming from: about 5 years ago a close friend from my college days (the same guy who went on to get his PhD under Plantinga and Stump) told me that he had converted to Catholicism. You can imagine I was pretty surprised, as I was a full-out Reformationist at the time, and last I heard he was too.
Here's what compelled Steve to become a Catholic: the Eucharist. He demonstrated pretty compellingly that all of the earliest church fathers held to a real-presence view. He posited that the earliest fathers held the most accurate understanding of what the Christian life should be, and we ought therefore to follow their example. Add to this the claims the Church makes about papal succession and his choice becomes quite understandable.
So what do we do about VERY early and apparently universal traditions that may not be compatible with our contemporary Christian understanding? My short answer that I choose to live in for the last 5 years is, "I don't know.... yet." Steve's answer was, "conform yourself to Tradition."
Now, it's kinda funny that this topic is coming up at this time. Over the last couple weeks I've been talking with old friends about this universalist stuff I've been trying on (and haven't found a need to take off yet). In these recent articulations I've brought it down to this: I'm essentially rethinking my understanding of the nature of hell. Is it a one-way door or not? Is repentance and faith in Christ impossible for the condemned or not? One pretty good book I've been reading on the topic is this one. I even ordered a copy for a friend.
Also, in the last couple weeks I've been soaking my mind around some lectures given by N.T. Wright on the Authority of scripture. It REALLY makes sense to me, and since I'm relatively inarticulate I'll just point you to the article to better describe the view I now hold.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/8/2005 9:53 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Also, in the last couple weeks I've been soaking my mind around some lectures given by N.T. Wright on the Authority of scripture. It REALLY makes sense to me, and since I'm relatively inarticulate I'll just point you to the article to better describe the view I now hold.
That site is one of my favs right now. ntwrightpage.com I've read that article and definitely like his ideas on authority. But it would be interesting to take his ideas (and a robust sense of pneumatology and ecclesiology) to their furthest conclusions. Wouldn't this view of biblical authority (the Bible as document of wrestling) mean that earlier views held (like that of ECP hell) need not be ACTUAL to direct us on the path to walking with God? "Story"? Lots of evangelicals would have a fit with this, ya know. Hmm...
************************
Corey:
Now, it's kinda funny that this topic is coming up at this time. Over the last couple weeks I've been talking with old friends about this universalist stuff I've been trying on (and haven't found a need to take off yet). In these recent articulations I've brought it down to this: I'm essentially rethinking my understanding of the nature of hell. Is it a one-way door or not? Is repentance and faith in Christ impossible for the condemned or not? One pretty good book I've been reading on the topic is this one.
Gotta check that book out.
The newest mantra:
God graciously FINDS us meaningful when God doesn't need to do it and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Hmm. Why not? What the hell. Let's try it."
--God
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/8/2005 10:37 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Wouldn't this view of biblical authority (the Bible as document of wrestling) mean that earlier views held (like that of ECP hell) need not be ACTUAL to direct us on the path to walking with God? "Story"? Lots of evangelicals would have a fit with this, ya know. Hmm... Somewhere Wright commented on this by way of analogy (paraphrased): "we shouldn't be surprised when in the story of Jack and the Beanstalk that somtimes Jack is going up the beanstalk, and sometimes he's going down. These are only a contradiction to those who hold to a modernist mindset."
I made a small remark in an earlier post that I'm contemplating on this notion that "all theology is doxology." This gives me a way to deal with incompatible earlier (and contemporary) traditions than my own; it gives me a way to make sense that sometimes Jack is going up, and sometimes he's going down. I consider the early formulations on the Eucharist to be doxologistic (is that a word?) attempts. They considered it to be most worshipful, to be ascribing their concept of "the highest" to God. I suspect the same goes for other conflicting theological doctrines; they were all constructed in an endeavor to glorify God. I can easily model for myself how one would develop an ECP view of hell because they consider anything else to not maximize the seriousness of rightly relating to the Highest.
Think about it. At least for myself, this is why I came to the Open View. I'm seeking to hold the highest view of God that I can fathom, especially in regards to the PoE.
Is this making sense? There's a sense here where I'm downplaying the importance of "right thinking" and instead want to emphasize the importance of "right relating" (Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul, mind and strength. Love your neighbor as yourself.) I'm kind of on an anti-theology theology.... which I hope is a paradox and not a contradiction.
So to answer your question directly, it seems quite possible to me that the earlier views (as well as later views!) of hell could be inaccurate to the reality that God knows. Post Edited (Corey) : 12/8/2005 9:51:59 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/8/2005 12:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Personally, I am not following Piper here. He is saying that Greg:
A. Doesn't understand the importance of the body in eternal torment.
B. Doesn't argue for short term physical hell followed by extinction-Boyd believes the bodies of the wicked will be raised.
Then he says:
I do not know what account Boyd would give of the resurrection of the body of unbelievers.
A. Body and soul are both destroyed. Matt 10:28.
B. Acccording to Boyd-destruction doesn't mean "destruction" or absolute non-being of soul.
C. Question: Why would he understand it as non-being of the body?
It seems to me that Greg believes that the body will be resurrected. But it isn't clear to me that "being" has to be understood as "reality" but non-being can't be understood as some sort of negation of THAT reality but be a reality in "it's own dimension" so to speak i.e. a negative or film. That is, there is reality and there is UNreality which is a reality of it's own. I don't think Greg mentioned that the body would be absolutely destroyed unto non-being Only that it would exist in this dimension of unreality.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 12/8/2005 11:26:40 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 5:49 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads
|
Forum powered by dotNetBB v2.42EC SP3
dotNetBB © 2000-2026 |
|
|