 |
Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > General Chat > (No Subject)
| Forum Quick Jump
|
| In your opinion, which view is MOST viable, given all Scriptural and historical considerations? | | Eternal Conscious Punishment/Torment - 56.5% | | Annihilationism - 13.0% | | Universal Reconciliation - 8.7% | | I don't know right now - 21.7% |
| | 113 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 | | [ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ] |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 10:16 AM (GMT -6) |   | | | |
 |
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/13/2006 1:42 PM (GMT -6) | | Oh, come ON, y'all. Only 3 votes? I KNOW we got more people here than this. Let's get some more votes!
This IS an anonymous vote, ya know... | | Back to Top | | |
|
Violin for God
Luke, I am your father. --Nooooooooo!!!!!
Date Joined Dec 2004
Total Posts : 690
| Posted 1/13/2006 3:53 PM (GMT -6) | | |
Can we have 2 more options like "Not Quite Any of the Above"(or "None of the Above") and "A Vague Combination of the Above"?
I'm still undecided, but I'd vote in the direction I'm sorta leaning (which of course would be one of the options I listed here).
Otherwise, I guess I'd go with "Not Sure Right Now"...
but I'm not sure about my being not sure...
[As Bill and Ted approach Socrates]:
Bill: "Yo Ted, say something profound, dude."
Ted: "Oh, yeah. Right. All we are...is dust in the wind dude."
Bill: ..."Dust".... "Wind" ... "Duuuude".
Socrates: (gasping in awe) "Like sands through the hour glass, so are the days of our lives." | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 1/14/2006 11:38 AM (GMT -6) | | Well, this is showing up fairly clear. Very interesting.
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 | | |
|
PotOnWheel
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890
| Posted 1/14/2006 4:04 PM (GMT -6) | | |
M.E.... and we, in ourselves, can't do it.
"Deep calls to deep" makes one point in favor of this and one point in modification of this.
(o) | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 1/29/2006 6:08 PM (GMT -6) | | Ok, I voted for 'annihilationism', but can I slightly alter that to 'conditional immortality'?
Immortality is something we attain to (Romans 2:7), not something we have innately. Eternal life is what you get from believing in Jesus.
But if you don't want God, then God doesn't force you to keep existing but rather consigns you to the eternal fire of hell (which burns you up til you're no more). God wants a universe that's full of people who want him, and so it seems silly to keep alive everyone who doesn't want God. There's eternal punishment in scripture, but not eternal punishing.
And God's not going to force you to want him if you really don't. He's well boundaried and can take no as the answer. The consequences of rejecting life is that you get death (end of life), but because God values our personhood, he honours our decisions by allowing their consequences.
Well, that's what I think anyway.
Tim | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/1/2006 10:47 AM (GMT -6) | | The votes are in.
ECP wins it.
"The soul...the soul...the soul is in tormeeeeent! They don't need no water, let the mu#$@$##s suffer!
Suffer, mu@#$#@#$...SUFFER!"
(Some of y'all don't remember that old 70s funk, huh?  )
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 2/1/2006 10:58 AM (GMT -6) | | 
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 2/1/2006 11:58 AM (GMT -6) | | | In your opinion, which view is MOST viable, given all scriptural and historical considerations?
ECP right? Philosophically, it's problematic.
Brandon
It is the purpose that makes strong the vow, but vows to every purpose must not hold.--A friend.
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 2/1/2006 12:24 PM (GMT -6) | | Brandon:
In your opinion, which view is MOST viable, given all scriptural and historical considerations?
ECP right? Philosophically, it's problematic.
Very much so. You obviously see the tension, right?
If a person REALLY believes that all the scriptural and historical considerations (church tradition, etc) point towards ECP being the MOST viable...AND they believe that the Spirit guides significantly guides both scriptural assertions and the majority of historical reflection on scriptural assertions, what does it mean to DENY this on a philosophical basis?
Sure, there's always been a tendril of universalism in the Church...but so what? Universalism and ECP are mutually exclusive ideas. Both cannot be true.
Do we play the philosophical theologian and play DOWN scripture and historical treatment of the matter?
Or do we say "screw philosophical considerations", bend our knee to Tradition (with a big "T" , play our mystery card mulligan, and go with it?
What do YOU think?
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/1/2006 2:55 PM (GMT -6) | | | Personally, I found myself rather satisfied with Boyd's synthesis of Annihilationism with Eternal Conscious Punishment/Torment in "Satan and the Problem of Evil", chapters 11 and 12. Has anyone else read it? If this was one of the voting options, that's what I'd vote for. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/1/2006 6:26 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey: Consider how people in earlier chapters of biblical story expected a conquering Messiah but he turned out to be a servant king. Their theology was inaccurate, but in hindsight we can the servant-king aspects were there in scripture all along. I expect something similar in regards to this current topic -- their theology may indeed hold to ECT, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were right.
See, that's why I'm saying that I think it's totally plausible that ECP as we moderns read it can not, in any real sense of the meaning, mean eternal torment. I think NT people, however, didn't bother to think about the reality of the issue anymore than they gave thought to the reality of a serpent talking to Eve or a seven-day creation. So Jesus and Paul can talk as if Adam and Eve really did all that we are told they did without thinking twice about the literality of the events. The theology ruled. The theology of ECP is not, as I see it, squaring too well with the injustice and nonsensical stand of eternal torment. I think it simply implies everyone gets their just desserts.
In the poll, I'd like to see the option, "Semi-Universalism."
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 | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/1/2006 7:12 PM (GMT -6) | |
Starkman said...
The theology of ECP is not, as I see it, squaring too well with the injustice and nonsensical stand of eternal torment. I think it simply implies everyone gets their just desserts. I think we're pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think hell is so much about just desserts as it is about dying to self/sin. The notion of "just desserts" seems to imply that the person will suffer in hell until justice is satisfied. At a metaphysical level, I don't see how this works (how does person B's suffering truly remedy the suffering of person A?) Feels like a works-based limbo.
I think the biblical language about hell is intended to warn and exhort people to die to self/sin now, rather than waiting the inescapable death sentance later. Post Edited (Corey) : 2/1/2006 6:17:26 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/1/2006 7:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey said...
Lookie -- I'm the lone vote for ultimate reconcilation. Hmmm. At least it's consistent, huh?
Lay it out for me, you guys. Is the exegetical case that air-tight?
Consider how people in earlier chapters of biblical story expected a conquering Messiah but he turned out to be a servant king. Their theology was inaccurate, but in hindsight we can the servant-king aspects were there in scripture all along. I expect something similar in regards to this current topic -- their theology may indeed hold to ECT, but that doesn't necessarily mean that they were right.
I remember reading somewhere that the pre-Christian Jewish scribes and teachers recognized in their scriptures 2 Messianic themes - 1 of a King that would rescue Israel, conquer her enemies, and reign forever, and 1 of a Servant who would die for his people. It didn't occur to them that these might be the same person, so they divded the themes into 2 expected Persons. Of course, by the time Jesus was born, Israel was under Roman rule, and by the time He was grown the people of Israel were desperately hoping for the "conquering" Messiah (and not particularly thinking about the Servant theme). So in their expectation for the "conquering" Messiah, they failed to recognize in Christ's First Advent the Servant theme being fulfilled. So it wasn't so much that their overall theology was "inaccurate", so much as they weren't keeping all of it in mind (though it seems perhaps some of the Jewish leaders might have still had the "Servant" theme in mind, because when they asked John the Baptist if he was the Messiah or Elijah, they also asked him "Are you the Prophet?).
As far as Universalism goes, I would personally LIKE to believe in it, but I try to avoid letting my "likes" or "dislikes" determine my understanding of scripture. I believe that God's love and grace are sufficient to allow for Universal Salvation - if only every person actually wanted to join in with Him! To use a metaphor, I believe He has made His house big enough for everyone to have a room there - but alas, some people may, for whatever reason, never ever come for a visit. As it stands, it seems that the Lake of Fire (in Revelation) already has reservations for several occupants - Satan, the Beast (Antichrist), and the False Prophet, along with any person who worships the Beast and takes his mark. More likely than not, Judas Iscariot will end up there, seeing that Jesus said of him "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (which seems to rule out Universal salvation in the case of Judas, because Universal salvation is definitely better than never having been born). There is also the sin spoken of by Jesus called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which (for whatever reason) seems to be unforgiveable (it seems to me that this sin, in whatever form it may take, entails utter and final rejection of God).
Ultimately, it seems to me that it would be out of character for God to coerce any person into eternal fellowship with Him - if someone bears Him an unending grudge, and wants nothing to do with Him, for what reason would He force Himself on them?
Just some ideas to ponder, that's all. But if in the end it somehow works out that God manages to bring about Universal salvation, I can't imagine myself objecting.Post Edited (John N. Darby) : 2/1/2006 6:49:16 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Corey
Five with a Four-wing
Date Joined Feb 2003
Total Posts : 1893
| Posted 2/1/2006 8:31 PM (GMT -6) | | John: As far as Universalism goes, I would personally LIKE to believe in it, but I try to avoid letting my "likes" or "dislikes" determine my understanding of scripture.
Corey: The same goes for me.
John: I believe that God's love and grace are sufficient to allow for Universal Salvation - if only every person actually wanted to join in with Him! To use a metaphor, I believe He has made His house big enough for everyone to have a room there - but alas, some people may, for whatever reason, never ever come for a visit.
Corey: Yes. I agree wholeheartedly that most will not choose God and thus will be condemned on judgment day; they don't have ears to hear.
John: As it stands, it seems that the Lake of Fire (in Revelation) already has reservations for several occupants - Satan, the Beast (Antichrist), and the False Prophet, along with any person who worships the Beast and takes his mark. More likely than not, Judas Iscariot will end up there, seeing that Jesus said of him "It would have been good for that man if he had not been born" (which seems to rule out Universal salvation in the case of Judas, because Universal salvation is definitely better than never having been born). There is also the sin spoken of by Jesus called blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which (for whatever reason) seems to be unforgivable (it seems to me that this sin, in whatever form it may take, entails utter and final rejection of God).
Corey: You seem to be assuming that I would deny that there's going to be lots of beings condemned to this sentence. I don't deny that.
John: Ultimately, it seems to me that it would be out of character for God to coerce any person into eternal fellowship with Him - if someone bears Him an unending grudge, and wants nothing to do with Him, for what reason would He force Himself on them? Just some ideas to ponder, that's all. But if in the end it somehow works out that God manages to bring about Universal salvation, I can't imagine myself objecting.
Corey: Yep. I completely agree that God will not coerce us to freely love him (which is metaphysically impossible). But God WILL unilaterally force us to die to sin (that's what hell is). After all that is sinful in one's life has been turned to ash, the person will be profoundly aware of their thirst for life. The God-shaped vacuum that makes up their existence will obsess their every thought. At this rock-bottom point, after dying to sin, they will freely but desperately search for life, but without the baggage they carry now. Inevitably they will eventually freely choose to make the leap of faith to God.
This is not a coercion to love God, but only a coercion to die to sin. Post Edited (Corey) : 2/1/2006 7:47:08 PM (GMT-6) | | Back to Top | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/1/2006 8:54 PM (GMT -6) | | Corey said...
Corey: Yep. I completely agree that God will not coerce us to freely love him (which is metaphysically impossible). But God WILL unilaterally force us to die to sin (that's what hell is). After all that is sinful in one's life has been turned to ash, the person will be profoundly aware of their thirst for life. The God-shaped vacuum that makes up their existence will obsess their every thought. At this rock-bottom point, after dying to sin, they will freely but desperately search for life, but without the baggage they carry now. Inevitably they will eventually freely choose to make the leap of faith to God.
This is not a coercion to love God, but only a coercion to die to sin.
Ah, the "Purgatory for Non-Christians" concept. I'll admit it has a certain philosophical appeal. And I'm open to hearing further. But first, how exactly does one begin to, step-by-step, construct this theory from scripture (specifically from scripture, I should reiterate, and not using any extrabiblical presuppositions), while keeping the entirety of scripture in view?
Everyone else here - what are your views on this? | | Back to Top | | |
|
timlings
Registered Member
Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 130
| Posted 2/2/2006 8:05 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Who says that all the scriptural and historical considerations (church traditio, etc.) point towards ECP being the MOST viable.
For the first 300 years or so of church history, nobody believed in Eternal Conscious Torment, rather that immortality was a gift from God (we don't inherently have it), and if you reject God, he will destroy your body and soul in hell.
It's not until all these crazy Greek ideas about the immortality of the soul came in that there began to be the split between EPC and Unniversalism.
It makes sense - if God's created everyone's souls as immortal, he's got to do something with them! They either are tortured for all eternity (meaning that heaven would have a worse problem of evil than now! How can a good God cause suffering for ever??) or everyone is ultimately reconciled.
But, if we don't have an immortal soul, then there's no problem ultimately getting rid of all the rubbish in the cosmic landfil/incinerator that is hell.
Can I get a witness?
Is the radical middle ground worth looking at?
In Christ
Tim | | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 2/2/2006 9:06 AM (GMT -6) | | Yo, Corey,
You said, "I think we're pretty much on the same page. However, I don't think hell is so much about just desserts as it is about dying to self/sin. The notion of "just desserts" seems to imply that the person will suffer in hell until justice is satisfied. At a metaphysical level, I don't see how this works (how does person B's suffering truly remedy the suffering of person A?) Feels like a works-based limbo.
I think the biblical language about hell is intended to warn and exhort people to die to self/sin now, rather than waiting the inescapable death sentance later."
That's certainly got to be a part of it, but then what do we make of the ECP passages in scripture. Off the top of my head, most of those kinds of passages do not hint at a metaphorical dying-to-self; rather, they seem to point toward a "just desserts." How do we reconcile those passages to mean otherwise?
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 | | |
|
J.N.Darby
Registered Member
Date Joined Feb 2005
Total Posts : 124
| Posted 2/2/2006 5:11 PM (GMT -6) | | timlings said...
Who says that all the scriptural and historical considerations (church traditio, etc.) point towards ECP being the MOST viable. For the first 300 years or so of church history, nobody believed in Eternal Conscious Torment, rather that immortality was a gift from God (we don't inherently have it), and if you reject God, he will destroy your body and soul in hell.
Tim
As much as I hate to disagree with you, Tim, I'm going to have to in this instance. Here are some quotes from the ante-nicene fathers:
From the 2nd Century A.D.:
Barnabas: The way of darkness is crooked, and it is full of cursing. It is the way of eternal death with punishment.
Justin Martyr:
"We know from Isaiah that the members of those who have transgressed will be consumed by the worm and have unquenchable fire, remaining immortal. As a result, they become a spectable to all flesh."
"Christ foretold that Satan would be sent into the fire with his host, along with the men who follow him, and they will be punished for an endless duration."
"But since sensation remains to all who have ever lived, and eternal punishment is laid up (i.e., for the wicked), see that ye neglect not to be convinced, and to hold as your belief, that these things are true. For let even necromancy, and the divinations you practise by immaculate children, and the evoking of departed human souls, and those who are called among the magi, Dream-senders and Assistant-spirits (Familiars), and all that is done by those who are skilled in such matters--let these persuade you that even after death souls are in a state of sensation... "
Tatian: We who are now easily susceptible to death, will afterward receive immortality with either enjoyment or with pain.
Athenagoras:
...we are persuaded that when we are removed from the present life we shall live another life, better than the present one, and heavenly, not earthly (since we shall abide near God, and with God, free from all change or suffering in the soul, not as flesh, even though we shall have flesh, but as heavenly spirit), or, falling with the rest, a worse one and in fire; for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere by-work, and that we should perish and be annihilated. On these grounds it is not likely that we should wish to do evil, or deliver ourselves over to the great Judge to be punished.
Irenaeus: And to as many as continue in their love towards God, does He grant communion with Him. But communion with God is life and light, and the enjoyment of all the benefits which He has in store. But on as many as, according to their own choice, depart from God. He inflicts that separation from Himself which they have chosen of their own accord. But separation from God is death, and separation from light is darkness; and separation from God consists in the loss of all the benefits which He has in store. Those, therefore, who cast away by apostasy these forementioned things, being in fact destitute of all good, do experience every kind of punishment. God, however, does not punish them immediately of Himself, but that punishment falls upon them because they are destitute of all that is good. Now, good things are eternal and without end with God, and therefore the loss of these is also eternal and never-ending.
Clement of Alexandria: All souls are immortal, even those of the wicked. Yet, it would be better for them if they were not deathless. For they are punished with the endless vengeance of quenchless fire. Since they do not die, it is impossible for them to have an end put to their misery.
From the 3rd Century A.D.:
Tertullian: We, however, so understand the soul's immortality as to believe it to be "lost" - not in the sense of destruction - but of punishment, that is, in Gehenna.
Mark Minucius Felix: There is neither limit nor termination of these torments. There, the intelligent fire burns the limbs and restores them. It feeds on them and nourishes them.
Hippolytus: To the lovers of wickedness, there will be given eternal punishment. And the fire that is unquenchable and without end awaits these latter ones. So does a certain fiery worm that does not die and that does not consume the body, but continues bursting forth from the body with unending pain. No sleep will give them rest. No night will soothe them. No death will deliver them from punishment.
Origen: However, even the resurrected body of those who are destined to everlasting fire or to severe punishments is by the very change of the resurrection so incorruptible that it cannot be corrupted and dissolved even by severe punishments.
Commodianus: Thou rejectest, unhappy one, the advantage of heavenly discipline, and rushest into death while wishing to stray without a bridle. Luxury and the shortlived joys of the world are raining thee, whence thou shalt be tormented in Gehenna for all time.
Cyprian: A person may fear to die, who from this death will pass over to a second death. He may fear to die, whom on his departure from this world eternal flames will torment with never-ending punishments.
Early 4th century A.D.:
Lactantius: ...if the soul, which has its origin from God, gains the mastery, it is immortal, and lives in perpetual light; if, on the other hand, the body shall overpower the soul, and subject it to its dominion, it is in everlasting darkness and death. And the force of this is not that it altogether annihilates the souls of the unrighteous, but subjects them to everlasting punishment. We term that punishment the second death, which is itself also perpetual, as also is immortality. We thus define the first death: Death is the dissolution of the nature of living beings; or thus: Death is the separation of body and soul. But we thus define the second death: Death is the suffering of eternal pain; or thus: Death is the condemnation of souls for their deserts to eternal punishments. This does not extend to the dumb cattle, whose spirits, not being composed of God, but of the common air, are dissolved by death.
Arnobius: Do you dare to laugh at us when we speak of Gehenna, and fires which cannot be quenched, into which we have learned that souls are cast by their foes and enemies?
What, does not your Plato also, in the book which he wrote on the immortality of the soul, name the rivers Acheron, Styx, Cocytus, and Pyriphlegethon, and assert that in them souls are rolled along, engulphed, and burned up? But though a man of no little wisdom, and of accurate judgment and discernment, he essays a problem which cannot be solved; so that, while he says that the soul is immortal, everlasting, and without bodily substance, he yet says that they are punished, and makes them suffer pain. But what man does not see that that which is immortal, which is simple, cannot be subject to any pain; that that, on the contrary, cannot be immortal which does suffer pain?
And yet his opinion is not very far from the truth. For although the gentle and kindly disposed man thought it inhuman cruelty to condemn souls to death, he yet not unreasonably supposed that they are cast into rivers blazing with masses of flame, and loathsome from their foul abysses. For they are cast in, and being annihilated, pass away vainly in everlasting destruction. For theirs is an intermediate state, as has been learned from Christ's teaching; and they are such that they may on the one hand perish if they have not known God, and on the other be delivered from death if they have given heed to His threats and proffered favours. And to make manifest what is unknown, this is man's real death, this which leaves nothing behind. For that which is seen by the eyes is only a separation of soul from body, not the last end--annihilation: this, I say, is man's real death, when souls which know not God shall be consumed in long-protracted torment with raging fire, into which certain fiercely cruel beings shall cast them, who were unknown before Christ, and brought to light only by His wisdom.
That's a large percentage of the early Christian writers - all within the first 300 years of the Church - and only a portion of what they said on this topic. And while the later writers made some appeals to Greek philosophers, the earlier writers appealed to scripture instead.
Out of curiosity, from where did you obtain the assertion you wrote? Because I have also seen literature here and there which claims that none of the early Christians were ECP (some of the literature, as I recall, charged Tertullian with fabricating ECP and/or immortality of the spirit, but obviously many of the Christian writers before him accepted both concepts). | | Back to Top | | |
| 113 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 4 5 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:45 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 |
|
|