 |
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 12/9/2005 12:20 PM (GMT -6) |   | Sparknheart:
The difference lies in man’s definition of “all-loving” and God’s definition.
Ok, then. So it's in the mysterious distinction betwene God's view of perfect love and ours. If that is the case, then it would seem to me that this would lead some to say that the problem of evil is intractible. Somehow, God's PERFECT LOVE (as shown in the self-giving activity of Christ) is consonant with the classical view of ECP hell. Perhaps we can use the same logic to justify our belief in exhaustive definite foreknowledge and God's predestination of all things. Mystery.
This leads us, it would seem, to distrust our fundamental emotional and moral wiring about what love is. But hey...
Anyone else? | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/9/2005 12:41 PM (GMT -6) | | Sparknheart:
If your definition of love is anchored on emotion then love will always fail you.
I don't see how a person can look at the Bible and the way God almost FAWNS over Israel...and say that the idea of "love" is not anchored on passionate emotion. I don't see how someone can say that God's exhibition of love is not grounded in hearty display of emotion. Show me where you get this idea.
At any rate, I believe that any Old OR New Testament scholar worth their salt would disagree with the idea of an biblical concept of love ungrounded in emotion.
Oh, by the way. What's the shortest verse in the entire Bible? It's revelant.
 | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/9/2005 1:17 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Let's say that the early church ideas of ECP is true [...] I agree that such a picture is incomprehensible.
One response (not my own) would be that punishment fits the offense. That the punishment is so outrageous shows the seriousness of sin, and the holiness of God. It's not a proper analogy to refer to a human father punishing his child for a human "sin"... a kid cursing and her parent is of course unworthy of such a punishment. But a human sinning against a holy God... well, that's another category altogether. That you would use this analogy just shows that your picture of sin and of God is too small.
Myself, I don't believe that ECP view of hell is true, for biblical reasons as well as existential ones. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/9/2005 1:46 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...Sparknheart: If your definition of love is anchored on emotion then love will always fail you. I don't see how a person can look at the Bible and the way God almost FAWNS over Israel...and say that the idea of "love" is not anchored on passionate emotion. I don't see how someone can say that God's exhibition of love is not grounded in hearty display of emotion. Show me where you get this idea. At any rate, I believe that any Old OR New Testament scholar worth their salt would disagree with the idea of an biblical concept of love ungrounded in emotion. Oh, by the way. What's the shortest verse in the entire Bible? It's revelant.
This fallen world cast shadows of both Heaven and Hell. The path to Hell is the default most people find themselves following. One could argue that it would not be an all-loving God that offered no choice to get aboard a ship out of hell. But God does, Jesus is the ticket. The Titanic was a tragedy, but this world is not like the Titanic, as here everyone is offered a life boat. Where we differ Meph is you feel there is another rescue boat coming, a love boat called “universalism”.
Emotions are dictated by feelings. The feelings for most passengers on the Titanic were that of an indestructible ship, a ship that would never sink. So the early life boats were lowered down partially filled to compactly. Most people feel the same way about life, their world is never going to end. They sit relatively comfortable pursuing things of this world, things that makes them feel good. The motto: God is love, love is a feeling and my feelings will lead me right. Funny thing everyone “feels” their right; Hussein feels he’s right, bush feels he’s right. In the meantime while we sit back and sort out feelings, people continue to die.
BTW, I don’t understand, are you implying Lazarus was a wicked man cast into hell?
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/9/2005 12:54:55 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/9/2005 2:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Hmmm...
Corey:
One response (not my own) would be that punishment fits the offense. That the punishment is so outrageous shows the seriousness of sin, and the holiness of God. It's not a proper analogy to refer to a human father punishing his child for a human "sin"... a kid cursing and her parent is of course unworthy of such a punishment. But a human sinning against a holy God... well, that's another category altogether. That you would use this analogy just shows that your picture of sin and of God is too small.
I know this argument well...as I once subscribed to it. There is a force to the internality of the logic. If God is perfect holiness and ANY amount of sin (finite though it may be) before perfect holiness warrants the worst possible end state of affairs, then it wouldn't matter if the sin (humanly speaking) was cursing someone out or mass murdering 6 million people. It all warrants divine retribution and punishment. Infinite penalty for infraction against an Infinite God.
[Digression: This is how many Calvinists do this in their head existentially, as I see it. Think about Dr. Piper's contention that Katrina was God's judgement mixed with mercy. It only makes sense if you assume the line of thinking above. If EVERY human being deserves the worst possible state of affairs they can endure, then every moment that they are NOT in that state is a moment of grace. And every moment that death, destruction and pain are experienced, it may well be seen as a TASTE of what we really deserve anyway. So, this is how people can say stuff like...
"We should be happy that God chose to save ANY of us at all! We all deserve hell. God's gracious salvation of any amount of human beings is prima facie demonstration of God's loving grace."
I understand the logic. My problem with this idea would be 1) God being PERFECT love, not just GREAT love and 2) God genuinely wanting to maximize his glory [See my treatise against John Piper's Inconsistent Thesis] ]
But this is just the point. WHO DECIDES this? Obviously God, right? Unless someone really wants to argue that the metaphyscially necessary interaction between creaturely sin and God's perfect holiness is the creation of a realm of eternal conscious punishment for resurrected beings, then we have to say that ECP would be a DECISION made by God...according to God's standards of justice.
So, what if our parent believes that cursing one's parents out is deserving of the worst punishment that parent can mete out? The parent flexes their parental authority and determines what penalty fits the crime. The same principle applies.
So, it goes back to the "theistic bootlicking" line of thought again. God's ways are higher than our ways. Etc. etc. Just like Sparknheart is saying.
Back to mystery again. Inscrutable mystery.
***********************************
Corey:
Myself, I don't believe that ECP view of hell is true, for biblical reasons as well as existential ones.
Well, given your current view of biblical authority and all the implications of it, I'd say that wouldn't be too hard. You could easily dismiss the killer passages in Revelation (Rev. 14:10 and 20:10) AND the corroboration in the Apocalypse of Peter...while retaining either the universalistic or annihilationist interpretation of the texts.
My view? I find it hard to say, at this point, when looking at all the evidence, that Paul or Jesus (especially represented in Matthew, chapter 25 in particular) really held to some form of annihilationism or universalism over the idea of eternal conscious punishment. It's just as unlikely as them holding a "day-age" theory of creation or believing in progressive creationism! It's not to say that we can't theologize a doctrine of annihiliation or universalism from scripture. I'm just saying that I'm finding it highly unlikely that Jesus, Paul, or the majority of the early church who believed in the bodily resurrection and judgement were annihilationists or universalists.
What do you think?
******************************
Sparknheart:
BTW, I don’t understand, are you implying Lazarus a wicked man cast in hell?
Nope.
John 11:35: Jesus wept. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/9/2005 3:08 PM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
Sparknheart:
BTW, I don’t understand, are you implying Lazarus a wicked man cast in hell?
Nope.
John 11:35: Jesus wept. What's your point?
Show me a verse where He wept for those in hell.
"Besides all this, between you and us a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who might want to pass from here to you cannot do so, and no one can cross from there to us.' - Luke 16:27
"great chasm"
Chasm means a wide difference: a wide difference in feelings, ideas, or interests.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/9/2005 3:43:14 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/9/2005 8:35 PM (GMT -6) | | | Meph: I know this argument well...as I once subscribed to it.
Corey: Me too. Can you tell?
Meph: But this is just the point. WHO DECIDES this? Obviously God, right? Unless someone really wants to argue that the metaphyscially necessary interaction between creaturely sin and God's perfect holiness is the creation of a realm of eternal conscious punishment for resurrected beings, then we have to say that ECP would be a DECISION made by God...according to God's standards of justice.
Corey: Of these two options, I'd be inclined to pursue the metaphysical necessity angle. At least that way God doesn't look so monstrous, at least at first glance. But then it follows that God torments people eternally because he just can't help himself; it's just part of who he IS. Hmmm... God IS a torturer by nature. Not much better, is it?
Meph: So, it goes back to the "theistic bootlicking" line of thought again. God's ways are higher than our ways. Etc. etc. Just like Sparknheart is saying. ... Back to mystery again. Inscrutable mystery.
Corey: I'm not following you here. I haven't made the connection you're seeing.
Meph: My view? I find it hard to say, at this point, when looking at all the evidence, that Paul or Jesus (especially represented in Matthew, chapter 25 in particular) really held to some form of annihilationism or universalism over the idea of eternal conscious punishment. It's just as unlikely as them holding a "day-age" theory of creation or believing in progressive creationism! It's not to say that we can't theologize a doctrine of annihiliation or universalism from scripture. I'm just saying that I'm finding it highly unlikely that Jesus, Paul, or the majority of the early church who believed in the bodily resurrection and judgement were annihilationists or universalists. [emphasis mine]
Corey: Really good insight.... so how have you dealt with this for yourself, given your own non-traditional views on these and other doctrines?
FWIW, that book I mentioned by Klassen primarily addresses the questions you've been raising here. One interesting thing I've learned from him is that belief in a tortuous afterlife for the wicked is common in most ancient cultures going back at least to the Egyptians 4000 years ago. So it's not so surprising that we should find it in other ancient literature like the Apocalypse of Peter.
My own speculation: What IS surprising is that Jesus and the apostles did so little to make use of this belief, compared to what they COULD have and what WOULD have been readily received. Maybe this is similar to how women and slaves were treated, for example: in contrast to the culture, Jesus and the apostles were surprisingly non-traditional. A beachhead of sorts was established which would later grow and develop to overthrow those oppressive systems. Maybe.
Klassen, however, attempts to build a case that in fact there is "no hell in the Hebrew bible." I'm not quite sure yet how to square all this. (So was it or wasn't it common to believe in a tortuous afterlife in first-century Jewish palestine?) I'm still reading and thinking it through. Post Edited (Corey) : 12/9/2005 7:59:37 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/9/2005 10:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey:
Of these two options, I'd be inclined to pursue the metaphysical necessity angle. At least that way God doesn't look so monstrous, at least at first glance. But then it follows that God torments people eternally because he just can't help himself; it's just part of who he IS. Hmmm... God IS a torturer by nature. Not much better, is it?
Nope. 
*******************
Meph: My view? I find it hard to say, at this point, when looking at all the evidence, that Paul or Jesus (especially represented in Matthew, chapter 25 in particular) really held to some form of annihilationism or universalism over the idea of eternal conscious punishment. It's just as unlikely as them holding a "day-age" theory of creation or believing in progressive creationism! It's not to say that we can't theologize a doctrine of annihiliation or universalism from scripture. I'm just saying that I'm finding it highly unlikely that Jesus, Paul, or the majority of the early church who believed in the bodily resurrection and judgement were annihilationists or universalists. [emphasis mine]
Corey: Really good insight.... so how have you dealt with this for yourself, given your own non-traditional views on these and other doctrines?
For a while now, I've used Bruegemann's take on scripture (as well as some insights from NT Wright's view) to claim "progressive revelation" such that Jesus and Paul's testimonies, inspired by the Holy Spirit, pointed to the reality of divine judgement albeit inaccurately. God used their culturally-contextual beliefs to point to actuality.
Now, of course, most evangelicals will have a fit about saying that any biblical author can be in error on a theological matter being clearly taught or asserted . But, you know me. Since when have I ever really fit in that well anyway?
[Digression: I don't know why we don't just deal with that upfront though. Even hardcore "old earth" evangelical creationists have to be honest with themselves sometime and say the obvious: Insofar as they believe that there was no 6 day creation, they are implicitly saying that Jesus and Paul were inaccurate, insofar as they (in all probability) believed in it and made claims from said belief. NT Wright shows, in his commentary on Romans and other statements, that it's beyond any reasonable doubt that Paul truly DID believe in the literal 6 day creation and the literal Adamic couple therein. So, what's up with that?]
****************************
Corey:
FWIW, that book I mentioned by Klassen primarily addresses the questions you've been raising here. One interesting thing I've learned from him is that belief in a tortuous afterlife for the wicked is common in most ancient cultures going back at least to the Egyptians 4000 years ago. So it's not so surprising that we should find it in other ancient literature like the Apocalypse of Peter.
My own speculation: What IS surprising is that Jesus and the apostles did so little to make use of this belief, compared to what they COULD have and what WOULD have been readily received. Maybe this is similar to how women and slaves were treated, for example: in contrast to the culture, Jesus and the apostles were surprisingly non-traditional. A beachhead of sorts was established which would later grow and develop to overthrow those oppressive systems. Maybe.
Well, hey. Maybe. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/10/2005 12:23 AM (GMT -6) | |
MephEternal said...
So, it goes back to the "theistic bootlicking" line of thought again. God's ways are higher than our ways. Etc. etc. Just like Sparknheart is saying.
Back to mystery again. Inscrutable mystery.
The envious brothers of Joseph certainly believed their father’s favorite son was a "bootlicker" too. Hmmm... a theistic brownnoser that believed in the Divine love of God instead of his own.
So don’t feel forlorn with your man-made definition of love, Meph. Many brothers before you have also found the fugitive love of God to be a mystery.
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/9/2005 11:32:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 12/10/2005 9:16 AM (GMT -6) | | Selah,
Let's have this dialogue out where we can all learn from it! I really value your thoughts and would love to be sharpened by you.
The model of hell that I'm operating under is something like this: Hell is an Intervention. I imagine my response if one of my daughters (God forbid!) should make some terrible choices and turn her life into a train wreck. I'm sure I'd do anything I'm capable of to "save" her. Whatever the cost, it's worth it. At some point, though, it may become clear that she's hardened her heart, and so I've got to try something more radical... an intervention. The point is to pop the bubble of deception that facilitates her continued self-destruction. Immediate consequences would be imposed (not self-chosen) on her. This is all out of love for her and seeking her best, the need for her to wake up to reality. My rage and wrath toward the destructive things in her life would be forcefully evident.
When my daughter has hit bottom and finally decided to humble herself and turn for help, the door is always open for our reconcilation. There's nothing that I can possibly imagine that would harden my own heart such that I would forever shun her. My goal is not punishment, it's reconcilation.
Does this work as an analogy? I think it's congruent with the biblical story.
P.S. This is quite different from purgatory. My daughter wouldn't be working her way back to me, all I'm waiting for is that moment of humble broken contrition, the call out in faith to be "saved."
P.P.S. Please, God, Lead me not into temptation! Deliver me from this evil! Don't test me on this, I'm not sure I'd pass. Post Edited (Corey) : 12/10/2005 8:32:29 AM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/10/2005 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | Corey: (emphasis mine)
The model of hell that I'm operating under is something like this: Hell is an Intervention. I imagine my response if one of my daughters (God forbid!) should make some terrible choices and turn her life into a train wreck. I'm sure I'd do anything I'm capable of to "save" her. Whatever the cost, it's worth it. At some point, though, it may become clear that she's hardened her heart, and so I've got to try something more radical... an intervention. The point is to pop the bubble of deception that facilitates her continued self-destruction. Immediate consequences would be imposed (not self-chosen) on her. This is all out of love for her and seeking her best, the need for her to wake up to reality. My rage and wrath toward the destructive things in her life would be forcefully evident.
When my daughter has hit bottom and finally decided to humble herself and turn for help, the door is always open for our reconcilation. There's nothing that I can possibly imagine that would harden my own heart such that I would forever shun her. My goal is not punishment, it's reconcilation.
Does this work as an analogy? I think it's congruent with the biblical story.
P.S. This is quite different from purgatory. My daughter wouldn't be working her way back to me, all I'm waiting for is that moment of humble broken contrition, the call out in faith to be "saved."
Hmmm..this seems VEEERY familiar...
Naw, man. For real. This is the ONLY model that I feel is really consonant with the idea of an all loving God. The only way that there could be a genuine synthesis of retributive and rehabilitative punishment. Rock-bottom experience time and all that. From my argumentation, I genuinely believe it's a philosophically viable solution.
The main issue, IMHO, is that to affirm this view of hell is, I believe, to largely go against beliefs that the earliest NT testament believers like Paul most likely had. If no one has a problem with that, fine. If they do, then it would seem that a significant choice must be made. This question SIGNIFICANTLY aligns itself with how one is going to read and interpret biblical revelation.
*****************************************
Selah:
You said: This would be analogous to a "loving" parent wanting to chastise their 7 year old child for cursing at them in a fit of rage byplacing them in a room for of fire ants...AFTER by covering their body with honey (making them ultra-tasty!), giving them medicines (so they wouldn't die of allergic reaction or shock), and giving them a ant-free mask to cover their head (so that the ants don't suffocate them).
Start here: NO, this would not be analogous. "A fit of rage" what? How is that = to choosing anti- life/love/peace and truth?
Come on, Selah. Existentially, there is NO finite sin that is worthy of the kind of torture that ECP depicts. Not even HITLER'S acts are worth that. Compared to the punishment, the crimes would be like unto a "fit of rage." Even if a person lived their entire life in anti-love (which maybe like what 110 years), this is NOTHING compared to the eternality of God...and comparted to the eternality of their own future existence (assuming the resurrection post-mortem existence is true), it WOULD be like a brief fit. Moreover, hell would be purely punitive and in no way rehabilitative.
I think I described the traditional ECP view quite well. Unless YOU want to take the Anselmian argument of ECP being the just price for sin against an Infinite God, how could you argue otherwise? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 12/10/2005 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | A few thoughts.
There are a lot of good people in the world. By "good" I mean people who really try to be loving, caring and do the best they can. Yeah, they sin, but many go their whole life not sinning nearly as badly as others. Not even as close. There really are a lot of good people out there.
Many of these people have no idea how to think through spiritual things. They wouldn't know how to figure out that they are in opposition with God based merely on their own lives if they were told "You have ten seconds to figure it out: ready...go!". As far as they can see and rationalize, things seem okay. If there's a God, well, great. It'll be nice to meet him. There's nothing more many of these people could think through about that issue even if they tried. Simply put, many are not thinkers. Many do well just getting by with the simple things of life and nothing more.
So, along comes Paul who writes in Romans 1, as many interpret him, that EVERYBODY knows there's a God; that EVERYBODY can clearly and plainly see that God exists; that EVERYBODY can clearly think through toward the type of God He is based on the revealing of His attributes and by creation (many of whom haven't even gotten remotely close to figuring out that God created the world rather than evolution or some other scientific explanation having played the part). Let me ask you something: how many people have you met—everyday, plain-joe/jane people-who have come to the conclusions with little or no effort just based on what Paul purportedly said in Romans 1? I'd venture to say very, very few. You have to search far and wide to find folk (many of whom, as I say, are good and honest people) who can even come remotely close to discovering what Paul seems to say is so self evident.
So, then along comes the logic, often based on Romans 1, that since man can so OBVIOUSLY both detect and understand God, it stands, therefore, that not only is man guilty when he doesn't do so, but he's so absolutely heinously guilty before God, AND KNOWS THAT HE'S GUILTY, that he deserves everlasting punishment for His sin. Somehow, not having ever done a whole lot of evil things, as we call evil, these people deserve to burn...not be stabbed, hung, shot, drugged over and over, but burned, one of the worst forms of pain known to man. EVERYONE, mind you, burns in some manner or another, whether its by being hung by the tongue or hung upside down. (Really, what difference does that make when you're on fire?) It does NOT seem to be, as it is often the case in the Bible, that God is going to take much into consideration about the ignorance of these people's knowledge: they all should have known God—who and what He is—therefore, they are all guilty. Burn them all. I mean,there's no room in the view of eternal punishment in the Apocalypse of Peter for various degrees of judgement. If you see it, please explain to me how the guy burning in eternity by being hung by his tongue is in more or less pain than the guy being burned while being hung upside down.
Whatever the lake of fire is, if we take the Apocalypse of Peter as our guide, it is far from righteous judgement and fair distribution of punishment. All are lumped into the same bed of coals, and that is the first red flag about the whole concept of ECP in this tale. So much for the days of Jesus' gentle hand and understanding upon the screwed up, messed up lives of individuals whom He knew quite well couldn't tell their left hand from their right hand.
Starkman
My teacher used to say that whenever he read Scripture, he would always ask the question, "What does this have to say about the character of God?" Working off his thinking, as I read Scripture, I have come to ask, "What does this have to say about the heart and passion of God's desire for relationship for us? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 12/10/2005 3:48 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
There are a lot of good people in the world. By "good" I mean people who really try to be loving, caring and do the best they can. Yeah, they sin, but many go their whole life not sinning nearly as badly as others. Not even as close. There really are a lot of good people out there.
Hello Starkman,
I agree, some people that don't have strong "religions" practices can still display morality.
Examples like parenting and serving the community and country and charitable work might come from either a sense of duty or a form of consequentialism. But, is this not unregenerate love that ultimately flows from SELFISH motives?
Contradictions if well understood and managed can spark off the fires of invention. Orthodoxy whether of the right or of the left is the graveyard of creativity. Post Edited (sparknheart) : 12/10/2005 4:27:39 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/10/2005 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph: The main issue, IMHO, is that to affirm this view of hell is, I believe, to largely go against beliefs that the earliest NT testament believers like Paul most likely had. If no one has a problem with that, fine. If they do, then it would seem that a significant choice must be made. This question SIGNIFICANTLY aligns itself with how one is going to read and interpret biblical revelation.
Jeff: Well, I disagree that the NT prophets taught an eternal hell. Regardless, how do we come up with a rational exegetical method inclusive enough for all Christians which determines what texts really mean?--a method that makes objective study valueable, as opposed to all revelation being accomplished by just reading it and allowing God to tell us what is really true? If THIS is the only way, I'm trying to understand why we need teachers at all. For then, the Holy Spirit and some mystical use of the words of the texts are ALL that is used by God to enlighten. But this would revolutionize modern Christendom's view of the role of pastors/teachers/elders/etc. What am I missing?
I keep hearing that the scripture is not to be taken per authorial intent. Fine. And if personal revelation is all there is, fine. But I'm having a hard time understanding some middle road between the two, other than the one I just described. But that road is just a different case of private revelation. For the words themselves do not mean what they seem to say.
In other words, is there a biblical approach that is inclusive enough for all believers to have access to it without personal revelation being necessitated for every step of the way? And if not, why are teachers paid? And why go to theological school? Can't individuals read the bible for themselves and let God do His magic of personal revelation?
I am NOT trying to be difficult, here. I'm truly baffled!!
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/10/2005 3:17:07 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 12/10/2005 4:29 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Selah: Tom?
Tom: Girl, you didn’t wanna talk to me on my testosterone thread. Now you wanna talk? 
Of all the doctrines believed to be plausibly “biblical,” ECT (‘T’ for torment, not punishment, doesn’t matter…) sucks the most. I mean it really really stinks. I don’t like it, don’t care for it, don’t wanna believe in it, and long for it to be false. But exegetically speaking, it’s the most likely to be the "biblical" view. To my mind, 98% of the evidence is in its favor. Universalism is in second place with 1.5 % of the evidence in its favor. And then there’s Annihilationism with .5% of the evidence in its favor.
I agree. ECT is morally revolting. And I don’t think this is because I’m a fallen, sinfully stained evaluator who just doesn’t get how incomprehensibly holy God is and how it’s the case that such holiness demands eternal punishment for any finite offense, even that of a 12 year old stealing a candy bar, as if the only punishment of sin consistent with an infinite holiness is an infinite punishment.
My biggest two problems with ECT are:
1) It’s morally revolting and incompatible with God’s being an omnibenevolent God. That doesn’t mean NO punishment is the only other compatible option. It just means ETERNAL conscious torment isn’t consistent with God’s nature as all-loving. I can think of not ONE reason why God would require or otherwise need this. Come on ya’ll! Think about it. Eterrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrral torment. Never ends. Never stops.
2) It virtually empties the biblical notion of God’s ultimate or final victory over sin and evil of all meaning. I don’t think there’s anybody who argues the biblical writers did not all share the belief that ultimately God’s Kingdom arrives in every nook and cranny of the universe. God wins. He really wins. He defeats sin and evil. All is resolved. But with ECT I don’t see how this can be, for there remains for all eternity not just a nook or cranny, but a huge swath of creation, personal/human creation, where God’s reign is forever rejected and his name forever cursed. If that is consistent with God’s really winning and bringing the war to an end, then I no longer understand what the terms ‘ultimate’, ‘final’, or ‘victory’ mean. What’s final about God’s victory if the same rejection and cursing of God that exists today continues unendingly?
So I’m screwed. It seems to me that the authors really believed in eternal conscious torment (on the one hand—that part Mephi agrees with) but yet also believed God’s victory over sin and evil is REALLY to be final and ultimate (on the other hand). Unless we want to say Paul and other NT writers were total nit-wits and didn’t themselves see the contradiction involved in believing both these things, we have to resolve it. Mephi and I will disagree here. He'll say that Jesus, John, and Paul could all hold to such contradictory beliefs without either a) noticing the incompatability, or noticing but b) not giving a rip about belief-consistency. I can't buy either (a) or (b). So where Mephi can just say, "Heh, they were wrong and didn't know or care about it," I on the other hand have to resolve it. And the only way is by:
A) Arguing that the ‘ECT’ passages don’t really mean what they seem to mean and that either the universalist or annihilationist is correct,
or
B) Arguing that the passages that describe the universal, final, or ultimate and all-inclusive nature of God’s ‘victory’ doesn’t really mean ‘ultimate’ or ‘final’ at all, but instead is compatible with such a great swatch of creation carrying on unendingly the rejection and hatred of God.
If I had to choose. I’d say (A) is more likely to be the case. I can more easily embrace the plausible (if even not very plausible) universal or annihilationist explanations than I can the idea that God’s victory is less than ultimate, final, and all-inclusive.
But…
The issue of Mephi’s thread here isn’t REALLY hell. It’s the Bible—inspiration, infallibility, etc. What’s it mean to say the Bible is “God’s Word”? I mean, what’s that really mean? What level of error is consistent with it’s being the “word” of God? Can Jesus and Paul hold false theological beliefs? To what extent? What are the consequences for our understanding of the Bible if such error is granted?
Tom
Selah, you know I'm just playing witcha!
Post Edited (TGB) : 12/10/2005 3:37:09 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/10/2005 5:19 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
So I’m screwed. It seems to me that the authors really believed in eternal conscious torment (on the one hand—that part Mephi agrees with) but yet also believed God’s victory over sin and evil is REALLY to be final and ultimate (on the other hand). Unless we want to say Paul and other NT writers were total nit-wits and didn’t themselves see the contradiction involved in believing both these things, we have to resolve it. Mephi and I will disagree here. He'll say that Jesus, John, and Paul could all hold to such contradictory beliefs without either a) noticing the incompatability, or noticing but b) not giving a rip about belief-consistency. I can't buy either (a) or (b). So where Mephi can just say, "Heh, they were wrong and didn't know or care about it," I on the other hand have to resolve it. And the only way is by:
A) Arguing that the ‘ECT’ passages don’t really mean what they seem to mean and that either the universalist or annihilationist is correct,
or
B) Arguing that the passages that describe the universal, final, or ultimate and all-inclusive nature of God’s ‘victory’ doesn’t really mean ‘ultimate’ or ‘final’ at all, but instead is compatible with such a great swatch of creation carrying on unendingly the rejection and hatred of God.
If I had to choose. I’d say (A) is more likely to be the case. I can more easily embrace the plausible (if even not very plausible) universal or annihilationist explanations than I can the idea that God’s victory is less than ultimate, final, and all-inclusive.
You are leaving out Option C...
C) Jesus, Paul, and others had the view that God's victory was seen like a military conquest, where things are "put to rights" by utterly supplanting and humiliating the opposition. Everyone gets their just deserts and in so doing, the conquerer becomes ruler "of all". (Think of all the warfare language in the NT with Jesus mocking the powers and stuff!) And the victory is seen as "final" because of the eternality of the "put to rightness" The evil will never afflict the good again, nor frustrate God restored creation again. In other words, the "victory" of God would always be slightly more PRINCIPAL than ACTUALITY. And it was understood that way.
It is this option that I see being the one to go with. This way, ECT is intact and the victory is only final and ultimate, with respect to their being no further reconciliation that will occur...NOT with respect to scope.
This option, however, STILL conflicts heavily with the idea of a perfectly all-loving God who really wants all people to be saved. (Hence, my problem with it) So, even though I believe C to be the most plausible option, it still doesn't align with the idea of an all-loving God...and it's still morally problematic as Tom has aptly stated.
********************************
Tom:
The issue of Mephi’s thread here isn’t REALLY hell. It’s the Bible—inspiration, infallibility, etc. What’s it mean to say the Bible is “God’s Word”? I mean, what’s that really mean? What level of error is consistent with it’s being the “word” of God? Can Jesus and Paul hold false theological beliefs? To what extent? What are the consequences for our understanding of the Bible if such error is granted?
Tom is just a perceptive as ever! Absolutely correct, sir!
Any way that you go, to the end that you disagree with ECT for whatever reason, you are effectively saying that the biblical authors and/or characters who testified about such were WRONG about that belief. And we have the same problem essentially with the literal 6 day creation. If this doesn't sink the ship of infallibility or inerrancy, I don't know what does! This opens the door to a biblical agnosticism that many people just don't even want to BEGIN to face.
If we come to the conclusion that Jesus and Paul can be wrong about theological matters like the eternality and nature of hell, then what can they possibly NOT be wrong on? And how do WE adjudicate that?
Yeah...
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/10/2005 4:31:52 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/10/2005 5:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Jeff:
Well, I disagree that the NT prophets taught an eternal hell. Regardless, how do we come up with a rational exegetical method inclusive enough for all Christians which determines what texts really mean?--a method that makes objective study valueable, as opposed to all revelation being accomplished by just reading it and allowing God to tell us what is really true? If THIS is the only way, I'm trying to understand why we need teachers at all. For then, the Holy Spirit and some mystical use of the words of the texts are ALL that is used by God to enlighten. But this would revolutionize modern Christendom's view of the role of pastors/teachers/elders/etc. What am I missing?
I keep hearing that the scripture is not to be taken per authorial intent. Fine. And if personal revelation is all there is, fine. But I'm having a hard time understanding some middle road between the two, other than the one I just described. But that road is just a different case of private revelation. For the words themselves do not mean what they seem to say.
In other words, is there a biblical approach that is inclusive enough for all believers to have access to it without personal revelation being necessitated for every step of the way? And if not, why are teachers paid? And why go to theological school? Can't individuals read the bible for themselves and let God do His magic of personal revelation?
I don't think that the problem is as much trying to find out authorial intent...as it is when we discover authorial intent...and that intent seems to fly in the face of some scientific, historical, or philosophical assertion we have really good reasons to be true...what do we say about the biblical author's assertion? Do we ante up and SAY that they may be wrong? Obviously more liberal people will do this without problem. But what about others?
One place I see HUGE implications for this is in the realms of homosexuality and women in ministry. If we get to a place where we cannot call something right or wrong JUST because the Bible teaches such, then I don't see how Christians can assert that homosexuality is wrong JUST because Pauline writings mirror OT ideas in that direction. Heck, if Paul can be wrong on matters of creation, the nature of human origins, and his eschatological framework, why in the world couldn't he be wrong on homosexuality being PURELY a moral issue...or women truly being subordinate to men because of Eve's sin? Now, of course, we could still claim homosexuality and the complete egalitarianism of men and women to be wrong...but we'd have to find OTHER REASONS because biblical claims to say such. We'd no longer be able to speak as Billy Graham..."The BIBLE says..." and that be that.
Awww...but we don't want to go THERE, now do we?
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/10/2005 5:11:27 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 12/10/2005 5:30 PM (GMT -6) | | Let's make no mistake here.
The conservatives of the past saw this slippery slope coming a MILE away. And that's partly why so much energy was placed into the ideas of infallibility and inerrancy. It artificially REMOVES the slippery slope by making it a matter of inferred logic from dogmatic assertion that biblical authors MUST ALWAYS BE speaking truth in everything that they intend to teach, assert or affirm, particularly regarding matters of faith and practice.
What do we do if we continue falling down the slippery slope?
Hmmm...
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 12/10/2005 5:49 PM (GMT -6) | | This conversation is reminding me of something...
There's an article by Rabbi David Wolpe, a "conservative Jew" talking about the lack of evidence for the way the Exodus is detailed in the Bible. (It was probably much smaller of an event and all that.) He got in mad trouble for talking about these issues in his synogogue.
www.beliefnet.com/story/157/story_15723_1.html
It got to this one part that I thought was so interesting...
"Some people are surprised, even upset, by these views. Yet they are not new; such views have been a staple of scholarship, even appearing in popular magazines, for many years. Not piety but timidity keeps many rabbis from expressing what they have long understood to be true. As a scholar who took me to task in print told me privately over lunch, 'Of course what you say is true, but we should not say it publicly.' In other words, tell the truth, but not when too many people will be listening."
I'm slowly but surely beginning to realize that this is the case. The things that we are talking about here are by NO STRETCH of the imagination new things. These issues have been discussed and rediscussed for many, many years. It just that the potential effect on people's faith in biblical testimony is so consequential that some feel it better not to even DEAL with these issues...and just let people live pious lives so not as to "cause others to stumble" or something like that. I can almost hear it...
Better to err on the side of believing all things in the Bible are absolutely true (Jonah and the whale, floating axehead, she-bears killing 42 kids, etc) than to have an attitude of skepticism because of a "slippery slope" of issues! So let's not talk about it!
I refuse to believe that the vast majority of evangelical thinkers and theologians have not considered the issue of how holding any old earth view like theistic evolution or progressive creationism (ala day-age view) is utterly incompatible with the core ideas of what inerrancy (ala Chicago Statement of Biblical Inerrancy) actually MEANS. No, I believe that they know all to well. They just choose not to talk about it! Especially in general public. It's all pragmatic. Gotta love it.
Now, I can understand why this happens. Seriously. It's just like some pastors and teachers who are REALLY open view theists, but would NEVER talk about such in their churches or whatever..due to denominational or political pressure. One has to pick their battles. I can't imagine one solidly evangelical church who believed in an old earth situation...actually believing in dinosaurs, the KT boundary, and modern human beings being at least over 30,000 years old...who would REALLY talk through the bibliological implications of such from the pulpit. Do you THINK they'd juxtapose the idea of the scientifically derived age of humanity with an discussion of Paul's anthropology as seen in Romans??? To do something like that would be career suicide for ANY teacher or minister in an evangelical context...if not an ripe opportunity to split a congregation. And who wants to be the instrument of division in a group of believers like that?
No...we keep these things on the down low and only barely MENTION these things to people who know enough to ask the right questions...and THEN we mention these things in whispers...outside of the church.
I know some of you who are preachers and ministers out there KNOW what I'm talking about, now don't you? 
Soo...such interesting vistas we are exploring here. Yes, they are...Post Edited (MephEternal) : 12/10/2005 5:05:23 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Similitude
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2004
Total Posts : 4968
| Posted 12/10/2005 9:03 PM (GMT -6) | | | Tom, why do you think that an unconscious death is an improbable biblical view?
Meph: I don't think that the problem is as much trying to find out authorial intent...as it is when we discover authorial intent...and that intent seems to fly in the face of some scientific, historical, or philosophical assertion we have really good reasons to be true...what do we say about the biblical author's assertion? Do we ante up and SAY that they may be wrong? Obviously more liberal people will do this without problem. But what about others?
Jeff: I have no problem saying biblical writers may be wrong. I have no problem saying Christianity may be wrong. But WHAT criteria is EQUALLY accessible to ALL PEOPLE, or at least most currently living people, that would adjudicate what truth is? That's what I never hear an answer to.
One thing seems absolutely obvious to me. Most believers do NOT accept the bible as completely authoritative, per authorial intent. I've met VERY FEW professing Christians who hold to such a standard, if you press them. And in many cases, their disagreement with authorial intent has nothing to do with scientific, historical, or philosophical argument. They just can't be happy living that way, so they don't.
Meph: One place I see HUGE implications for this is in the realms of homosexuality and women in ministry. If we get to a place where we cannot call something right or wrong JUST because the Bible teaches such, then I don't see how Christians can assert that homosexuality is wrong JUST because Pauline writings mirror OT ideas in that direction.
Jeff: But there are people who disagree with YOU where you agree with the biblical authors. Like, for example, consentual adult sex. There's plenty of modern church members who have no problem with it. And I suspect there's HUGE implications there, too.
My experience with people leads me to believe that consensus on ANY belief, independent of God SETTLING IT, is impossible for one very simple reason. People feel DIFFERENTLY about things--and for various reasons. Some of it has to do with just biological wiring and some has to do with experience, etc. That's why there are people all over the world, and always have been, who believe that men and women are not equally fitted to any and all functions. That's why there are people all over the world, and always have been, who believe that homosexuality is an unnatural perversion. They believe these things completely INDEPENDENT of the judaeo-christian scriptures.
That's why Paul can say that the law is written, to some extent, in men's hearts. Because biblical morals are NATURALLY held in regard by humans to SOME extent. So to suppose that most folks that hold views about these matters hold them ONLY because the bible says something or other about it seems false, to me--even within Christendom.
Meph: Heck, if Paul can be wrong on matters of creation, the nature of human origins, and his eschatological framework, why in the world couldn't he be wrong on homosexuality being PURELY a moral issue...or women truly being subordinate to men because of Eve's sin? Now, of course, we could still claim homosexuality and the complete egalitarianism of men and women to be wrong...but we'd have to find OTHER REASONS because biblical claims to say such. We'd no longer be able to speak as Billy Graham..."The BIBLE says..." and that be that.
Jeff: So what facts would lead me to conclude that nature is so designed that genders are equally fitted to all functions? Or that homosexuality is morally neutral? What about consentual adult sex? I see plenty of people who have no qualms about the latter who have no beef with Christianity. They reject the biblical teachings on consentual sex PRECISELY because they know of NO "OTHER REASONS" to oppose it. They are using your methodology and coming to different conclusions than you do. So on WHAT BASIS do you say they are incorrect?
Meph: Let's make no mistake here.
The conservatives of the past saw this slippery slope coming a MILE away.
Jeff: And if THEY DID, don't you reckon God did? So WHY did God lead people so astray by giving the biblical writers signs and wonders and then not using signs and wonders to witness CONTRA the bogus moral information the apostles wrote down? I'm wondering just how incompetent God is? E.g., since some people have ALWAYS opposed homosexuality independent of scripture, WHY did God REAFFIRM that opposition with signs and wonders if indeed God is not opposed to homosexuality?
Meph: To do something like that would be career suicide for ANY teacher or minister in an evangelical context...if not an ripe opportunity to split a congregation. And who wants to be the instrument of division in a group of believers like that?
Jeff: Christ supposedly said he came not to bring peace but a sword. I have no reason to believe he had any qualms with division for truth's sake. And in what sense is a teacher a TEACHER if he/she refuses to teach where controversy would result? Isn't that PRECISELY where the learning needs to occur? Where there is consensus on the facts, no teaching is required.
Post Edited (jefscott) : 12/10/2005 10:11:06 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
| 705 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:58 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 |
|
|