 |
| Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > Discussion About Hell, Scripture, Ambiguity, and Other Cool Stuff | Forum Quick Jump
|
| 
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/11/2005 12:41 PM (GMT -6) |   |
MephEternal said...
We also have Jesus talking very poignantly about harsh divine judgement, unforgiveness (Jesus is the one who introduces us to the unforgivable sin!), ostracism of the enemies of God (casting out of the children to outer darkness), and coming doom (both temporal [fall of the Temple] and eternal [end times]). Just read the Gospels (especially Matthew!) over again.
It seems to me that the FULLY HUMAN Jesus, given his background, aligning with John the Baptist's ideas, would have have not had that much of a problem with pronounced ECT upon God's enemies (including Satan!). Especially if he was as aligned with the apocalyptic vein of the time as some people think. I'm not intending to deny any of this. Jesus and others definitely preached of a terrible judgement to come, of being by nature objects of God' wrath, all that. I'm on board and don't want to minimize any of it. In fact, it seems quite proper to me God will rage against his enemies, so one must choose her allegience wisely! Judgement is indeed coming.
In my previous post I was trying to outline my general order of consideration. First, I want to consider that ECT was not actually taught. Still seems the best option to me. Secondly, if it was taught, I want to find a way to mitigate it such that I can maintain an ever-expanding passionate love for God. As a last resort, if all these attempts fail, I'll be forced to a place I really don't like. I'm not there yet, but just see it as something I'd have to deal with if I did get there. I'm hoping this slope isn't that slippery; I don't think it is.
Are you there already? Have you exhausted all the mitigating alternatives? If so, I've missed it.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 12:50 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
In my previous post I was trying to outline my general order of consideration. First, I want to consider that ECT was not actually taught. Still seems the best option to me. Secondly, if it was taught, I want to find a way to mitigate it such that I can maintain an ever-expanding passionate love for God. As a last resort, if all these attempts fail, I'll be forced to a place I really don't like. I'm not there yet, but just see it as something I'd have to deal with if I did get there. I'm hoping this slope isn't that slippery; I don't think it is.
Are you there already? Have you exhausted all the mitigating alternatives? If so, I've missed it.
Actually, I don't see how you could exhaust ALL the mitigating alternatives. We could always say that EVEN THOUGH Jesus and Paul did teach about ECT, that they didn't really believe it...and it was only used as a pedagogical tool or cultural accomodation. How could we ever disprove that historically? We couldn't. So that's there.
What I'm doing is trying to look at what I think is most historically plausible assuming the full humanity of Jesus. This means I'm assuming that Jesus would have most likely had to work within the plausibility structures allowed by his context to form his beliefs about eschatology. That God would have worked IN and THROUGH said plausibility structures to further His kingdom...just like we suppose that God has done in the past. As I'm thinking this way, I am getting the impression that it's more plausible to say that Jesus really DID teach some form of ECT.
Again, I haven't exhausted all of the alternatives. But things are leaning heavily this way.
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 12/11/2005 12:54 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Let me pose the question like this: Is it in the realm of possbility that Jesus embodied and believed in the most loving concept of God that his cultural milieu and religious upbringing would allow for? Remember, Jesus of Nazareth was NOT omniscient as a human being. He grew in knowledge before men...and he flat out said that he didn't know the exact TIME when he would be returning (Only the Father knew that, remember?) Why can't we postulate that Jesus' ideas and actions pointed the most clearly to who God was, but not in some infallible, culture-transcendent way. Why can't we postulate that to the Jesus, raised in an time of great messianic anticipation, apocalyptic fervor, and political instability, ECT for the utterly resistent enemies of God was not so bad. Think about it. It was ENOUGH for John the Baptist that God was granting people opportunity for repentence at ALL. And Jesus' activity was much different that he thought the Messiah's coming would be. Perhaps following the ascension of into Jesus, he gained more insight into the breadth of God's forgiving love. He obviously probably LEARNED the day and the hour of his return then, supposedly, right? Perhaps he learned that ECT WASN'T exactly corresponding to reality. I'm just throwing the thought out there. At some point, we HAVE to take Jesus's full humanity seriously. And this may be one of the implications of that.
I'm quite open to this. Maybe more than you know. This would satisfy me as long as we can get a sufficient foothold to avoid slipping down the slope toward a place where scripture becomes meaningless, practically speaking.Post Edited (Corey) : 12/11/2005 12:05:13 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:03 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: Perhaps following the ascension of into Jesus, he gained more insight into the breadth of God's forgiving love
Corey: What's this sentance mean? I think you're missing some words here. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Jeff: How would it have been effective? I thought the whole contention here is that Christ's notion of hell is CONTRADICTORY to his teaching on God's love? Thus, to have emphasized hell MORE, by that view, would be to make that contradiction more EMPHATIC.
Corey: It's not fair of you to put words in my mouth in this way. I'm NOT AT ALL saying that Christ's notion of hell is contradictory with his [incarnation] of God's love. This is a straw-man and I don't appreciate it. I know you're more intellectually virtuous than to need to resort to this tactic. It should be clear that I'm trying to understand, "What is Christ's notion of hell since we know that it can't be contradictory with his very nature as the incarnation of God." Please give me the respect to assume the best of me, not immediately assume that I would so cavalierly trash my Lord. (Now probably I'm straw-manning back at you... sorry. This hit a nerve.)
Jeff: You're right, bro. My bad. I was thinking you had agreed with something Meph had said earlier. I apologize!
Jeff: Not following you here. In what sense is Moses deceptive about divorce? Moreover, I don't see how our generation needs any less motivation than Christ's generation. Why would that be?
Corey: If Moses taught that it's lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason, and it's not really okay with God, isn't this a deception of sorts? This accomodation facilitates people's deception that divorce is just fine with God.
Jeff: I guess I had always assumed that Christ was teaching forgiveness for adultery that is regretted. And he was saying that Moses DID allow divorce for THAT ONE CASE. But I'm wondering if even Christ would have a problem with divorce (or separation) from a spouse who is perpetually and intentionally adulterous. I could see how the effect of THAT kind of adultery could be a greater evil to a family than divorce.
Similarly, Moses might have allowed divorce on account of the hardness of the heart for the same reason--that divorce is a LESSER evil than a marriage that has no peace due to unforgiveness for adultery. For, as Paul said, marriage is supposed to be a state of peace. If this is possible, I don't see any deception to it.
Jeff: As I see it, Meph is right about thinking that Christ and the apostles BELIEVED the OT and were therefore constrained by it.
Corey: Look, don't pit me against Meph or anyone else at this point. I'm really not trying to attack or defend any position. I'm just being out loud about the conflict I'm experiencing as I try to put ECT and Jesus (who was consistent with the OT -- he was the living fulfillment of the shadows seen there!) together. I'm taking Jesus as my fixed point and allowing everything else to be movable and take it's meaning from him. It seems to me that ECT advocates may be doing the reverse.
Jeff: Meph had said that a RELATED issue is HOW we take scripture. So all I'm saying is, I think I see you arguing a different hermeneutic approach than Meph. And I'm trying to see WHY or IF you see his contention that Christ believed in ECT as plausible. In other words, do you think Christ did NOT believe in ECT?
That's also why I'm curious about the Moses/divorce issue. 'Cause I'm not sure we should use it as an ANALOGY of deception until we can conclude that it IS deception.
These arguments take time and discipline and they always seem to peter out without prolonged effort. So please don't read antagonism into my words, bro. I'm really interested in arguing these things out and looking at what might be the approach which handles all the implications in the most balanced way. If I seem like a devil's advocate, just realize I'm not intending to be. I'm just trying to ask questions that I think a view implies to see how they can be handled IN THAT VIEW.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/11/2005 12:08:43 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:21 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
I'm quite open to this. Maybe more than you know. This would satisfy me as long as we can get a sufficient foothold to avoid slipping down the slope toward a place where scripture becomes meaningless, practically speaking.
THAT'S the hard part. The REALLY hard part. To say that this open's a veritable "Pandora's Box" for biblical interpretation would be an understatement!
I don't know what to do about that part yet. Ideas?
************
What I meant to say was, "Perhaps following the ascension of Jesus into the sky..."
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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:24 PM (GMT -6) | | One of the questions and presuppositions is that if hell is real (not necessarily a real PLACE) is justice served by making someone pay for finite crimes with infinite punishment? Question: Isn't this categorically wrong? Are you not thinking in terms of mathematical value and quantity as opposed to quality i.e. relationship? It seems to me that the biblical world/culture is more shamed based (like Asian cultures) than guilt (like us in the West). To start to "read" mathematical value is to start to read guilt categories onto texts about hell. I mean think of how we would do our ethics on this.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
Post Edited (BBBCanada) : 12/11/2005 12:30:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:28 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey : If Moses taught that it's lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason, and it's not really okay with God, isn't this a deception of sorts? This accomodation facilitates people's deception that divorce is just fine with God.
Jeff: I guess I had always assumed that Christ was teaching forgiveness for adultery that is regretted. And he was saying that Moses DID allow divorce for THAT ONE CASE. But I'm wondering if even Christ would have a problem with divorce (or separation) from a spouse who is perpetually and intentionally adulterous. I could see how the effect of THAT kind of adultery could be a greater evil to a family than divorce.
Similarly, Moses might have allowed divorce on account of the hardness of the heart for the same reason--that divorce is a LESSER evil than a marriage that has no peace due to unforgiveness for adultery. For, as Paul said, marriage is supposed to be a state of peace. If this is possible, I don't see any deception to it. Okay, we agree that Moses made accomodation that departs from God's ideal. My intent was to wonder whether the use of ECT, if actually taught, could have been a similar accomodation to the culture (for whatever reason, presumable to deal with their/our hardness of heart). I'm not saying this IS the case, just want to know if it's a viable alternative.Post Edited (Corey) : 12/11/2005 12:33:32 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:32 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: Is it in the realm of possbility that Jesus embodied and believed in the most loving concept of God that his cultural milieu and religious upbringing would allow for?
Jeff: I tend to think, especially given what genetic studies seem to indicate about the role of genes on psychology, that all societies have a RANGE of temperaments and intellectual strengths that essentially assure that no two people are equally affected by their environment. Hence, we have in Christ's time Essenes, Pharisees, Saducees, Zealots, criminals, and average folks with all their diversity. Saducees didn't even seem to believe in an afterlife. So what seems more likely to me is that it was Christ's epistemology that accounted for his beliefs, if it can be assumed that they transcended his culture.
And in that sense, I don't see anything fundamentally different about Christ's day than our day. We have a different culture, but that same genetic range of human attributes renders it inevitable that people will tend to side differently in the issues of their day. So it seems to me that nothing but a common epistemology can bring us to intellectual assent. Our individual sensibilities and intellectual strengths alone will never do it.
That's why, if Christ was conditioned by his culture and was wrong about his theology, we still need a methodology that will tell us what IS TRUE. It's not enough to just think Christ was wrong.
So how do we get there? If God's love is the bottom line that must be accounted for, then right off the bat we have the problem of accounting for a definition of God's love that makes natural evil intelligible. It can NOT be ignored--it is PURE DATA. This alone constitutes quite a task.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 1:51 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
If God's love is the bottom line that must be accounted for, then right off the bat we have the problem of accounting for a definition of God's love that makes natural evil intelligible. It can NOT be ignored--it is PURE DATA. This alone constitutes quite a task.
That is, indeed, a consideration. SATPOE's argumentation still makes tons of sense. The extent and amount of natural evil on earth, from a biblical point of view, is not fully explained without the idea of some quasi-personal, non-corporeal, chaotic force actively opposing God's working in the world. No combination of the other theodicies (ie soul-making, limitations of nature, process view, etc.) do it by themselves.
However, this quasi-personal, non-corporeal, chaotic/anti-creational force can be postulated without taking wholesale the idea of the satan.
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 12/11/2005 1:54 PM (GMT -6) | |
Jeff: Meph had said that a RELATED issue is HOW we take script ure. So all I'm saying is, I think I see you arguing a different hermeneutic approach than Meph. And I'm trying to see WHY or IF you see his contention that Christ believed in ECT as plausible. In other words, do you think Christ did NOT believe in ECT?
These arguments take time and discipline and they always seem to peter out without prolonged effort. So please don't read antagonism into my words, bro. I'm really interested in arguing these things out and looking at what might be the approach which handles all the implications in the most balanced way. If I seem like a devil's advocate, just realize I'm not intending to be. I'm just trying to ask questions that I think a view implies to see how they can be handled IN THAT VIEW. Cool. I know you're sincere and passionate about this stuff and we share the common goal of wanting to know the truth. I'm not trying to "win" any argument (I don't even really have a position yet), just want to travel together in the journey.
To be clear, I do accept that it's plausible that Christ taught ECT. But I don't know that for sure. But I know that the effect it has on my passionate love for God sure makes it unsavory for me. So I also think it's plausible (especially when considered in light of the various arguments laid out in Klassen's book) that ECT was not taught by Christ.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 2:13 PM (GMT -6) | | Millard Erickson had it right:
To the extent that evangelicals abandon the position that everything taught or affirmed by the Bible is true, other bases for doctrine will be sought. This might well be through the resurgence of of philosophy of religion, or what is more likely given the current "relational" orientation, through basing theology on behavioral sciences, such as psychology of religion. But whatever the form such as an alternative grounding takes, the list of tenets will probably shrink, for it is difficult to establish the Trinity or the virgin birth of Christ on either philosophical argument or the dynamics of interpersonal relationships.
--Christian Theology, page 254
What indeed do we do?
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 2:40 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
As I've mentioned, I'm taking my cue from N.T. Wright... I think his model avoids the problems on the right (words starting with "in-" and on the left (HCB).
I hear that. My only issue is with Wright's application of his ideas. Are we supposed to live in the story, even though significant portions of that story may not be true? Are we to create a "5th Act" to a play that has the first 2 acts being primarily fiction with some actuality and the 4th Act having characters who believed ALL the previous acts to be fully actual? It seems to me that's what applying Wright's principles says. Insofar as the story of Jesus is OUR story too, we live in it. But HOW do we live in it?
It would seem that the thing to do would be to FOCUS on the 4th Act, understanding the 4th act to be continuous with the others...but not necessarily valuing Acts 1-3 in the same way as the people in the 4th act did. Perhaps THIS is why Wright says this:
Thus, there is a hard thing which has to be said here, and it is this: that there is a sense in which the Old Testament is not the book of the church in the same way that the New Testament is the book of the church. Please do not misunderstand me. The Old Testament is in all sorts of important senses reaffirmed by Paul and Jesus and so on-it is the book of the people of God, God’s book, God’s word etc. But, the Old Testament proclaims itself to be the beginning of that story which has now reached its climax in Jesus; and, as the letter to the Hebrews says, ‘that which is old and wearing out is ready to vanish away’, referring to the temple. But it is referring also to all those bits of the Old Testament which were good (they weren’t bad, I’m not advocating a Marcionite position, cutting off the Old Testament) but, were there for a time as Paul argues very cogently, as in Galatians 3. The New Testament, building on what God did in the Old, is now the covenant charter for the people of God. We do not have a temple, we do not have sacrifices—at least, not in the old Jewish sense of either of those. Both are translated into new meanings in the New Testament. We do not have kosher laws. We do not require that our male children be circumcised if they are to be part of the people of God. We do not keep the seventh day of the week as the Sabbath. Those were the boundary markers which the Old Testament laid down for the time when the people of God was one nation, one geographical entity, with one racial and cultural identity. Now that the gospel has gone worldwide we thank God that he prepared the way like that; but it is the New Testament now which is the charter for the church.
This has a two-fold effect. One of those effects is that people following Jesus would NOT be totally wrong for not totally focusing on the first 3 acts, not would they be wrong for saying that the first 3 acts, in some real sense, are only our story in a DERIVATIVE way. Jesus enacted what he thought to be God's plan as given in the first 3 acts (see NT Wright's description of this in his works). Insofar as we are faithful to the 4th act, we have to AT LEAST acknowledge this. But HOW we acknowledge this is the question.
Is it ok for us to say that Jesus may well have been wrong on things like Creation and hell, but (using the resurrection as our lynchpin) giving narrative weight to that which informed Jesus' self-identity?
Practical outworking. Let's say that we seriously doubt that Jonah actually got swallowed by a big fish and stayed their 3 days. We think that story is NOT historical or actual. However, it informed Jesus' self-understanding and we can respect is as doing such. Perhaps we can take the same stance with other happenings like Elijah being taken up into heaven by chariot, or the floating axehead or whatever.
In short, we would hold to the STORY of Israel via our belief in Jesus, and therefore take it seriously...without believing everything to be actual.
Thoughts?
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 2:52 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
Like Erickson somehow was able to stand aloof? Anyway, you guys continue to talk amongst yourselves. I'll throw this out. Could hell be like a magnet in which the polarity of sinners is wrong? A person who is ashamed cannot come into the presence of God, but would indeed be driven away from it by the very nature of the dialectic, seeking to get as far away from the presence of the greatest glory and honor as possible. That is, that hell is relational in nature and involves banishment from heaven. There would be mental and physical anguish resulting from the sorrow and shame of the judgment of being forever relationally excluded from God, heaven, and so forth?
This is just like the Eastern Orthodox view of hell. It focuses MUCH MORE on psychological pain like you are describing than any physical pain. That's fine, well, and good.
But this doesn't help with what the Bible seems to actually teach...NOR with what it seems the majority of the early church actually held as belief. This is the essence of our issue.
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 | | |
|
BBBCanada
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 2763
| Posted 12/11/2005 3:47 PM (GMT -6) | | No, no, no...my friend. The "pain" question is secondary to what I'm saying. There is such exclusion from the presence of God that afflicts you not only pyschologically but to also to the very core of your "physical being." Go back to the death of Christ on the Cross. Now I know you didn't like the movie, "The Passion of the Christ" because it FOCUSED on the physical aspects of Christ's death (I've been reading you real closely, you know that). But what Christ underwent was a "status degradation ritual" designed to humiliate in EVERY WAY. We focus on the physical pain and the beatings and think the purpose was MAINLY to inflict pain. But in fact, the pain was of secondary focus to the ancients, for whom such rituals were a "process of publicly recasting, relabeling, humiliating and thus recategorizing a person as a social deviant."
Also, by focusing on the shame aspects it becomes a matter of quality not quantity. It is no longer necessary to argue that a sin is an "infinite offense" or to even to deal in terms of quantity. The matter of quality rests on that while all of God's honor is ascribed (due Him by nature), no ascribed honor of our own can match His (being born into a good family), and we are otherwise only capable of having what is called "acquired" honor.
When you think of hell, there IS this "reciprocal effect" i.e you reap what you sow, being paid back, suffering loss as you had despoiled others, unkindness for unkindness shown, apathy for apathy rendered, 'eye for an eye', proportional judgement, etc. This goes for honor and shame. You dishonor God? You receive dishonor in return. Appropriately your required response is to acknowledge your own need -- in effect, giving up your "honor" -- by admitting that you need God's help to pay the debt. Well, in Lewis' "The Great Divorce," people constantly get tired of the company of others and move themselves farther and farther out into the "boondocks" away from others.
Biblically speaking, Daniel 12:2 speaks not of everlasting pain, but of disgrace and everlasting contempt. The "weeping and gnashing of teeth" associated with punishment verses "describes a reaction of persons who have been publicly shamed or dishonored." The story of Lazarus. The QUALITY of life (of the rich man) is EQUATED to the quality of life of poor Lazarus. (Note that a beggar was a person of the lowest social status, and therefore one of the most "shamed" individuals).
Just a thought.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2005 5:40 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Mephi: Is it in the realm of possibility that Jesus embodied and believed in the most loving concept of God that his cultural milieu and religious upbringing would allow for?
Tom: Oh brother. Mephi, come on. When does Jesus’ being God incarnate count for something? Now WE understand love better than Jesus did. WE understand theodicy better than he did. WE understand human origins better than he did. WE understand JUSTICE better than he did. What’s left? Yes Jesus was fully human—you’re prepared to make all the logical connections from THIS. But he was also fully human. What are the logical connections from THAT? Are there any?
Maybe that’s too big a question. But anyhow, it’s not about Jesus being a member of his culture. That’s cool. But we’re saying Jesus understanding of justice was pretty much off, at least uninformed and unreflective. It this really what has to be true about Jesus for him to be a member of 1st century Palestinian culture? I don't think so. Jesus believed ECT (assuming for the moment Jesus believed ECT) was consistent with God loving the world so much he came to die for it. He understood God was THAT loving and that HE (Jesus) was the embodiment of that sacrificial love. And to my mind that’s the sort of love which is incompatible with ECT. So you don’t solve anything by saying Jesus was not omniscient and that his understanding was no greater than his contemporaries. It’s what Jesus DID know about God and his mission as loving that doesn’t fit with ECT.
Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/11/2005 7:38:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Laika
Registered Member
Date Joined Mar 2003
Total Posts : 2433
| Posted 12/11/2005 6:52 PM (GMT -6) | |
Corey said...
It seems reasonable that it would take faith for a person to cry out for reconcilation with God, especially in hell. In fact, it may in some sense require MORE faith... is it possible that even now God COULD save me? Is it possible that even now God WOULD save me? I now KNOW I'm a sinner justly condemned and I'm PROFOUNDLY out of relationship with God. Sure, he had mercy on his "favorites" ... but me? How could or why would he have mercy on me?! There's no freakin' way. Or is there?.... Maybe... Could it be that Jesus work on calvary could cover even me, even now? You'll recognize that this has strong echos to the parable of prodigal son.
Here in this life you have a real choice; faith goes against the whole grain of the world, against the passing pleasures of life, etc.
When you're bobbing in the Lake of Fire, playing the "get out of jail" card is a no brainer and takes absolutely no faith or sacrifice.
This is one reason why universalism is just a pipe dream, imho.
But hell and it's discontents is not a real interesting issue to me.
"in the bar, in the senate, in the alley, in the study
pimping dreams of riches for everybody" | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/11/2005 7:35 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Corey: To be clear, I do accept that it's plausible that Christ taught ECT. But I don't know that for sure. But I know that the effect it has on my passionate love for God sure makes it unsavory for me. So I also think it's plausible (especially when considered in light of the various arguments laid out in Klassen's book) that ECT was not taught by Christ.
Jeff: Yeah, I think we're all agreed on the seeming extremity of ECT. The only way I can make sense out of it is if those in torment continue to reject God consciously FOREVER. This is a bit hard to believe. So it would seem that the bare minimum MERE justice would demand is that the torment would be terminated once their suffering was comparable to the suffering they caused God.
But with respect to the hermeneutic question, I guess for me, the fact that Christ's description of gehenna is so similar to the OT passage Doc quoted in SATPOE, I find it probable that Christ was really talking about his own understanding of the OT on the issue.
One question that arises in my mind from the consideration that Christ was using the torment language as a form of accomodation is this:
Are Christ's comments to Judas to the effect that it would have been better for him (Judas) had he never been born to be taken MERELY as a way of saying he would not be saved? To me, it seems more plausible in the context that Christ was suggesting that it was Judas' specific sin that made his judgement so severe. But this is hard to reconcile with the idea that ALL the unsaved NECESSARILY suffer ECP, assuming Christ had been accomodating to that idea in Judas' presence, theretofore. I guess, though, it's conceivable that Christ could have been saying that Judas' action is what PROVED he was an unbeliever. I'll have to re-read the passage.
So far, though, I'm thinking Christ might have been referring to age-abiding (yet finite) torment ONLY for specific individuals guilty of mind-bogglingly heinous rebellions in the context of an apocalyptic eschaton.
Another place where Christ deals with DEGREE of judgement is where he says that certain Israelites who had seen his signs but didn't repent would be judged by Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgement. For they, he said, would have repented had they seen those signs. So the idea of comparative judgement is not foreign to Christ's teachings.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/11/2005 7:32:41 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/11/2005 9:17 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Oh brother. Mephi, come on. When does Jesus’ being God incarnate count for something? Now WE understand love better than Jesus did. WE understand theodicy better than he did. WE understand human origins better than he did. WE understand JUSTICE better than he did. What’s left? Yes Jesus was fully human—you’re prepared to make all the logical connections from THIS. But he was also fully divine [sic]. What are the logical connections from THAT? Are there any?
Jesus' divinity accounts for
1)why His sacrifice saves Israel and the world
2) how he remained in perfect relationship with the Father
It need NOT account for some supra-cultural, philosophical understanding of omnibenevolence.
Do we understand the cosmos better than Jesus did? Do we understand the human body better than Jesus did? Do we understand the psychology of the human mind more than Jesus did? Do we understand systems theory better than Jesus did?
Hmmm...
You come on, Tom.
*******************************
Tom:
Maybe that’s too big a question. But anyhow, it’s not about Jesus being a member of his culture. That’s cool. But we’re saying Jesus understanding of justice was pretty much off, at least uninformed and unreflective. It this really what has to be true about Jesus for him to be a member of 1st century Palestinian culture? I don't think so. Jesus believed ECT (assuming for the moment Jesus believed ECT) was consistent with God loving the world so much he came to die for it. He understood God was THAT loving and that HE (Jesus) was the embodiment of that sacrificial love. And to my mind that’s the sort of love which is incompatible with ECT. So you don’t solve anything by saying Jesus was not omniscient and that his understanding was no greater than his contemporaries. It’s what Jesus DID know about God and his mission as loving that doesn’t fit with ECT.
YES, it fits, Tom. If we were to say that God is VERY, VERY loving, it would fit what Jesus did fine. But this is not PERFECT love, as we understand it. That's the issue.
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 | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/11/2005 9:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Do we understand the cosmos better than Jesus did? Do we understand the human body better than Jesus did? Do we understand the psychology of the human mind more than Jesus did? Do we understand systems theory better than Jesus did?
Tom: This is not about science, systems, or cosmology. It’s about God and the meaning of love, something we have no basis in first century Judaism upon which to claim Jesus could not have believed God was love, was perfect love. BUT…even if you want to claim Jesus only thought God was very very very loving (loving enough to die for us on the Cross) but not loving enough to care whether people roasted in hell forever, then I would say that’s still enough to question the compatibility of it. Mephi, do you just need for Jesus to be this ignorant to make sense of your own beliefs and struggles? I for one am incapable of concluding I understand God as loving and just better than Jesus. What the hell is there anywhere in 2,000 years of technological and scientific progress that would give us the right to assume we understand love, justice, mercy, faith better than Jesus did? If anything we have proved ourselves to have sunken lower and lower in our understanding.
I’m not of the opinion that were we to sit every New Testament author in one room and drill then endlessly over theological and doctrinal matters that they’d all agree on every score. But the alternative is not what you’re suggesting either.
Tom: But we’re saying Jesus understanding of justice was pretty much off, at least uninformed and unreflective. It this really what has to be true about Jesus for him to be a member of 1st century Palestinian culture? I don't think so. Jesus believed ECT (assuming for the moment Jesus believed ECT) was consistent with God loving the world so much he came to die for it. He understood God was THAT loving and that HE (Jesus) was the embodiment of that sacrificial love. And to my mind that’s the sort of love which is incompatible with ECT.
Mephi: YES, it fits, Tom.
Tom: Not for me it dudn’t.
Tom
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/11/2005 9:59 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom: It’s what Jesus DID know about God and his mission as loving that doesn’t fit with ECT.
Meph: YES, it fits, Tom. If we were to say that God is VERY, VERY loving, it would fit what Jesus did fine. But this is not PERFECT love, as we understand it. That's the issue.
Jeff: Recently Tom added the following post to the Carly? thread:
"I guess the question is: What is God DOING (as opposed to just FEELING) to oppose evil when evil is in the works? I argued (and Mephi agreed...then) that "God is love" really makes sense only if God is understood as doing all God can do--given the free-will factors and other creational vairable he sovereingly put in place--to prevent and/or minimize evil."
So I'm wondering what do we know NOW, philosophically, that gives us more insight into God's PERFECT love that Christ could not have known? What FACTORS, as Tom calls them, are we now aware of that Christ could not have been aware of?
I'm thinking the modern view of human and earth history actually makes more DIFFICULT a rational theodicy which can account for the natural evil data, and hence God's benevolence. At least in Christ's day, there was no reason to rule out that creation had at least been CREATED very good with nothing but benevolent intent for an on-going, utopian harmony. So if anything, I'm thinking we're in a worse epistemological situation than Christ was with respect to accounting for the PERFECT benevolence of God.
| | Back to Top | | |
| 705 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 9:03 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 |
|
|