 |
| 
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 8:38 AM (GMT -6) |   | I want to keep my word to Tom about keeping the "Exegetes, Ho!" thread mainly for exegesis. and theological consideration. This thread is for me to process some thoughts I'm having as we're doing this.
So...
1) When thinking about all this stuff (sulfur, darkness, fire, firey coals, heat), does anyone ever wonder if one of these persons ever saw or heard of VOLCANIC ACTIVITY and considered THAT to be "gehenna" under the ground? Just a thought.
2) Here's where I think annihilationists and/or universalists should face some facts. I think we have enough evidence to gather that it was probably seen as a good thing for one's enemy's (particularly those of God) to be displayed as defeated and debased...paraded for the enjoyment of those who have conquered. One cannot read much of the Bible without picking up this trend. Various times in the OT, God is said to have used the destruction and desolation of places as a testimony to his wrath and the ramificaitions. (See how he talks about Jericho...and see how Jude used the demonstration of Sodom and Gomorrah) Even Paul uses language of conquest and debasement in talking about how Jesus makes a mockery of his enemies as he defeats them...
Colossians 2:13-15
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Brief example from an unlikely place...Revelation itself.
Revelation 11:7-10
When they have finished their testimony, the beast that comes up from the bottomless pit will make war on them and conquer them and kill them, and their dead bodies will lie in the street of the great city that is prophetically called Sodom and Egypt, where also their Lord was crucified. For three and a half days members of the peoples and tribes and languages and nations will gaze at their dead bodies and refuse to let them be placed in a tomb; and the inhabitants of the earth will gloat over them and celebrate and exchange presents, because these two prophets had been a torment to the inhabitants of the earth.
It may seem shocking to us...but, to be sure, this was NOT a new idea. Even in crucifixion, we see the trend of the paraded torture and humiliation of one's enemies...torture for the crucified, reminders for others. As I see it, part of the POINT of using the Valley of Hinnom for burning criminals and whatnot was to demonstrate uncleanness, but also disgrace. Criminals were trash and to be treated as such. Accordingly, I don't think it would be anything for early church readers of Revelation to be absolutely cool with the idea of evildoers burning in a fiery lake while they knew about it.
Just a thought. Is it possible that this trend was a SINFUL HUMAN trend that God had to accomodate with in order to convey divine truth? Sure, we could say that God just prefers things this way...and that's fine. But is it possible that they yearning for seeing one's enemies debased and crused before you to testify to another defeat is ALL too human to be of divine origin? Can it be possible that this is YET ANOTHER example of progressive revelation in progress??
Again, just a thought.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
 |
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:22 AM (GMT -6) | | I think Tom's right about this. If we dump inerrancy (at least some version thereof), we can pick and choose what we will accept, and it is inevitable that what we end up believing will correspond just to what we would like to believe. There's no logical stopping point.
At the very least the onus is on those who hold to such views to provide a clear, objective way that is readily justified of how to disentangle the human bits and the divine truths.
Another thing I find interesting about such arguments is that they always emphasize how the people who produced the Bible were culture-bound and so forth, BUT they never seem to take seriously the reality that we are also culture-bound, and that maybe that, God forbid, modern Western cultural assumptions are blinding us.
Finally, progressive revelation does not have to mean that the earlier revelation contained false things and that over a period of time those got ironned out. It could just mean that the earlier revelation was incomplete, and the later revelation filled in more details. | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 9:42 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
On what basis do you differentiate the sinful human and erroneous claims from divine truth? Show me 'how' you do this. How is the choice not simply arbitrarily made based on the desire to get to one's conclusions?
How do we ascertain in ANY WAY the kernels of divine truth from cultural accomodation of divine speech? How do YOU do it?
----------------
HB:
I think Tom's right about this. If we dump inerrancy (at least some version thereof), we can pick and choose what we will accept, and it is inevitable that what we end up believing will correspond just to what we would like to believe. There's no logical stopping point.
And the alternative is doing what many more conservative evangelicals do: creating artificial boundaries to keep the idea of inerrancy intact. How about hell no.
Just because there's a slippery slope doesn't mean we shouldn't ask questions that venture forward.
*********************************
HB:
At the very least the onus is on those who hold to such views to provide a clear, objective way that is readily justified of how to disentangle the human bits and the divine truths.
I'll ask you, too: How do we IN ANY WAY distinguish the conveyance of divine truth from the human language through which it is conveyed. IS there any distinction? If so, how do YOU say we get at it?
*******************
HB:
Another thing I find interesting about such arguments is that they always emphasize how the people who produced the Bible were culture-bound and so forth, BUT they never seem to take seriously the reality that we are also culture-bound, and that maybe that, God forbid, modern Western cultural assumptions are blinding us.
Hey, I know I'm not saying that. Of course, we are often very biased towards our own zeitgeists. That's not my main issue. My main issue is simply asking is it POSSIBLE that there is a distinction between divine truth and the human means through which it's conveyed. Is it POSSIBLE that the militaristic campaign of Israel truly was God's accomodation to hostile human civilization? Is it possible that God worked WITHIN early henotheistic belief rather than condoning henotheism? Things like that.
*************************
HB:
Finally, progressive revelation does not have to mean that the earlier revelation contained false things and that over a period of time those got ironned out. It could just mean that the earlier revelation was incomplete, and the later revelation filled in more details.
But can't it ALSO mean the former, HB?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 7/29/2005 10:11 AM (GMT -6) | | More thoughts:
Why wouldn't God just talk about annihilationism or universalism plainly? Hmmm...
If the immediate salvation of babies or the mentally challenged was true, why didn't God just say it plainly?
If the idea of a triune God were true, why didn't God just say it plainly?
Just thinking...
_________________
Moreover...
Let's go with the idea of eternal punishment. Let's further functionally DENY the existence of original sin (as some here do). Let's further say that a FREELY MADE CHOICE for God is what God ultimately desires.
Doesn't it still stand, as Doc so consistently notes, that there MUST BE some post-mortem "place" where infants, children, and mentally-challenged have to be able to CHOOSE for God?? Doc makes no bones about this: if it's possible for ANY BEING to go to heaven without having to choose for it, the free will defense is nullified as a metaphysical principle and reason for the existence of hell. This logic is unassailable. He talks about it very well in SATPOE. Hell, even PIPER ends up speculating about a post-mortem state where dead infants come to faith in Christ!
But scripture DEFINITELY doesn't talk about this post-mortem state at all. What do we make of that? Just chalk it up to mystery? Or do we try to GENERALIZE an answer from what we think we know about God?
Hmm...
Again, random thoughts.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 7/29/2005 4:09 PM (GMT -6) | | Colossians 2:13-15
When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your sinful nature, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them in it.
Starkman: What's interesting about this passage is that it is in Christ's debasement, not His enemies, that His enemies become debased; Christ, in having harmed and debased Himself in turn debases His enemies. For that matter, we can't even "see" the debasement of His enemies. This is, in my opinion, the consumate debasement of an enemy, particularly God's enemy(ies). There is not need to think (and I'm not suggesting anyone here is thinking) that God literally laughs and says, "What a bunch of goons. Watch me mock these idiots like no one's business."
I'm a big proponent of God using what He has been given, so to speak, to work with in this nasty ol' sinful world. That means He's not above using the humility/debasement method since this is quite the method of man's way. That God parades his enemies's debasement isn't to do so in a "I'm going to rub your nose in my arm pit something fierce, dude." Those kind of thoughts and feelings are not, in my opinion, the way God thinks (again, I'm not suggesting anyone here is thinking that).
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 | | |
|
Empiressque
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 7/31/2005 9:12 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph said...
Why wouldn't God just talk about annihilationism or universalism plainly? Hmmm...
If the immediate salvation of babies or the mentally challenged was true, why didn't God just say it plainly?
If the idea of a triune God were true, why didn't God just say it plainly?
During one of my many faith crises, I decided I couldn't be a Christian because the Bible was simply NOT clear on some VERY foundational matters of the Faith, namely:
-The Trinity
-Jesus' Nature (Human/Divine)
Sure, these were hinted at in scripture, but nowhere were they clearly stated. I felt that if the Bible was God's Word, and these were foundational truths of the Christian faith, it sure as heck ought to be more clearly put! The only thing that helped me recover my faith as a Christian was the concept of "Tradition"...something that that the RC's, Orthodox, and Anglicans have been talking about all along. It's just the idea that the Holy Spirit reveals truth to the Christian community, over time, and particularly in the first few centuries. The "three legged stool" of Anglicanism is: Reason, scripture, and Tradition...the Methodists (Wesley was an Anglican priest) threw in "experience" as a fourth leg. Maybe "tradition" is really just another way to talk about progressive revelation, I don't know (because I don't yet know what this term emcompasses).
When Jesus said, "The Spirit will lead you into all truth"...he was referring to this process....or what became referred to as "Tradition."
So, with the discovery of Tradition, I could accept these basic tenets of the Faith (and I became an Anglican in the process) once again.
scripture also hints (all over the place!) at Universalism. Over time, we seem to be gaining a clearer grasp on the radical nature of God's grace. Today, we wouldn't dream of killing people over minor theological disagreements, as we were doing just less than 500 years ago. We simply don't see that as being in accord with God as revealed in Jesus anymore. I could easily see Universalism becoming apart of our Tradition (only in retrospect of course...say a century+ from now) over time as discerned by the Community's encounter with God the Holy Spirit.
~E+ | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/1/2005 6:37 AM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
The ‘One’ is obviously God. And the fear is a ‘real and rational’ one that Jesus’ audience ought to experience. But what’s the fear based on? It’s based on the belief that God “can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Now, it doesn’t seem to me that ‘can’ here should mean ‘able’ in terms of ‘sheer power’ or ‘muscle’. For of course we’d all agree that God has the ‘muscle’ to destroy both soul and body in hell while some would argue God in fact will not do so given the program he’s pursuing now. The fear is only real and rationally justified if one believes that destruction of soul and body in hell are really possible futures, futures we can really ‘get to’ from where we are. But this means that destruction of both body and soul in hell, or annihilationism, is possible. One does not rationally fear what one knows somebody is ‘capable’ of doing but which they in fact ‘will not’ do because of other commitments or ‘cannot do’ given other commitments. So right off the bat believing in universalism seems ruled out here, for the conviction that all ‘will’ make it rules out the conviction that ‘some might not’ make it, and the ‘might not’ has got to have teeth to it, teeth enough to justify a real and rational fear, which Mephi's view can't really do. So people are here and now created by God as ‘conditionally’ immortal and their ‘destruction’ (the destruction of both soul and body) in hell is a real future possibility.
So much for universalism.
Tom, are you saying that in my form of universalism, that there is NO THREAT of destruction for the person, body or soul? Are you saying that, in my form of universalism, that hell is NOT something to be avoided and shunned because of its horribly painful and destructive nature? Hmmm...
Better go back and think about that, man.
********************************************
about the whole "eternal destruction by fire". It doesn't seem that hard for me to conceptualize. I would think about someone taking me out to Gehenna and being like...
Ok. Do you see how that trash over there is burning AND burning up? It's going to be kinda like that...except without the burning up. You know. Like how Moses saw the bush burning but not burning up when he encountered God? There will be a continuous burning, flaking off of the smoky ash, and destruction of flesh...where one layer of flesh will be destroyed only to have another one to be burned! And you'll feel all the pain of being burned the WHOLE TIME. And that will go on for eternity! Sucks, doesn't it.
Moreover, it would be hard to see destruction of body and soul occuring in the same horrendous process.
So, from an ANCIENT'S standpoint, (as much as I can try to put myself there) I could see this idea being understandable.
***********************************
Question for HB:
Obviously, looking at Rabbinic and intertestamental period, you know that there were different understandings and designations of end-time punishment...not to mention the differences between Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna (different words translated "hell" in the NT in some translations). Are you saying that Jesus's use of the "eternal firey hell" motif NECESSARILY means that end-time punishment MUST be exactly the way Jesus has described...and not in any way different? If it cannot be so, why not? If so, HOW different could it be? To me, this is an important question.
Maybe a side question. Does this mean that the Father really has a house with many rooms for us, and he's making up those rooms for us? I mean he specifically says that if it weren't true, he'd have told us, right? (John 14)
Moreover, how literally do you take the descriptions of the New Jerusalem that comes from heaven in Revelation? Is that just as real as the lake of fire? Hey, I've got it! That must be the "house" that Jesus is talking about. The one with all the rooms! It's the New Jerusalem that comes out of the sky! The city with God as it's light...where there will be no sun or moon.
I'm not trying to be overly funny here. I'm serious. Could you answer some of these questions for me.
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Tom
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 10353
| Posted 8/1/2005 6:52 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Tom, are you saying that in my form of universalism, that there is NO THREAT of destruction for the person, body or soul?
Tom: No, I'm saying that in your view the body and soul are not "destroyed." There is SOME THREAT in your view, just not THE THREAT Jesus appears to be describing. Now, it seems that others feel being 'destroyed' is compatible with 'not being destroyed' (i.e., actually surviving forever). You also would have to understand 'destroyed' here as compatible with 'not being destroyed' but only 'suffering for finite duration'. So you and the EPC are in the same boat here.
If Jesus in Matt. 10 WANTED to say the body and sould are destroyed in the sense of being annihilated, how WOULD you suggest he say it other than in the way he actually speaks in this passage?
******************************************** Mephi: Ok. Do you see how that trash over there is burning AND burning up? It's going to be kinda like that...except without the burning up. You know. Like how Moses saw the bush burning but not burning up when he encountered God? There will be a continuous burning, flaking off of the smoky ash, and destruction of flesh...where one layer of flesh will be destroyed only to have another one to be burned! And you'll feel all the pain of being burned the WHOLE TIME. And that will go on for eternity! Sucks, doesn't it. Tom: Except the body and soul are never 'destroyed'. They're not even on their way to being 'destroyed'. Would you use 'destroyed' for this? I wouldn't. Mephi: Moreover, it would be hard to see destruction of body and soul occuring in the same horrendous process. Tom: Oh that's just it, it's EASY to see the destruction of body and soul occuring in such a process. You suffering until you're extinguished, i.e., destroyed. Until you are no more. What's difficult is to see how one would see the body and soul suffering without being destroyed but calling this the 'destruction of body and soul'. Tom
Post Edited (TGB) : 8/1/2005 6:58:40 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Sahid
Megistered Rember
Date Joined Jun 2004
Total Posts : 2013
| Posted 8/1/2005 9:26 AM (GMT -6) | | |
Tom: If Jesus in Matt. 10 WANTED to say the body and sould are destroyed in the sense of being annihilated, how WOULD you suggest he say it other than in the way he actually speaks in this passage?
Zach: I don't think we should vew Matt. 10 in isolation. Jesus says at one point that the kingdom is like a mustard seed. If we read this passage in isolation, we will come up with a very strange understanding of the kingdom. If we look at Matt. 10 in isolation we read that God can destroy souls. If that's all we have to go on, then we might justify considering this a statement of the duration of punishment as well as of the quality. But taken with other teachings in the New Testament, the duration application is a hard sell. It would be like saying the kingdom of heaven is yellow, black, and inanimate because Jesus compared it to a mustard seed.
Jesus compared human killing to divine destruction. Quality jumps out as the main difference to me here, not duration.
Watch me fly. Freedom like wings and I will use them. Freedom like wings and I will spread them wide. - StavesacrePost Edited (Sahid) : 8/1/2005 9:31:21 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/1/2005 3:21 PM (GMT -6) | |
Empiressque said...
So, with the discovery of Tradition, I could accept these basic tenets of the Faith (and I became an Anglican in the process) once again.
scripture also hints (all over the place!) at Universalism. Over time, we seem to be gaining a clearer grasp on the radical nature of God's grace. Today, we wouldn't dream of killing people over minor theological disagreements, as we were doing just less than 500 years ago. We simply don't see that as being in accord with God as revealed in Jesus anymore. I could easily see Universalism becoming apart of our Tradition (only in retrospect of course...say a century+ from now) over time as discerned by the Community's encounter with God the Holy Spirit.
~E+ Hello E,
Do you have any examples where two thousand years of Christian tradition changed to something that was previously considered heretical for 2000 years?
Thanks,
Mark
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. | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/1/2005 5:29 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph said...
Obviously, looking at Rabbinic and intertestamental period, you know that there were different understandings and designations of end-time punishment...not to mention the differences between Tartarus, Hades, and Gehenna (different words translated "hell" in the NT in some translations). Are you saying that Jesus's use of the "eternal firey hell" motif NECESSARILY means that end-time punishment MUST be exactly the way Jesus has described...and not in any way different? If it cannot be so, why not? If so, HOW different could it be? To me, this is an important question.
No, I'm saying that Jesus teaching clearly corresponds best to the dominant orthodoxy: that punishment was eternal. In fact, if there were other views around, that makes the situation even more difficult for annihilationism. If Jesus had rejected eternal punishment and agreed with these other views against orthodoxy, wouldn't he have made this very clear, rather than using language that mimics the eternal punishment writings? He explicitly supports the Pharisees against the Sadducees on resurrection, for instance.
Meph said...
Maybe a side question. Does this mean that the Father really has a house with many rooms for us, and he's making up those rooms for us? I mean he specifically says that if it weren't true, he'd have told us, right? (John 14)
Moreover, how literally do you take the descriptions of the New Jerusalem that comes from heaven in Revelation? Is that just as real as the lake of fire? Hey, I've got it! That must be the "house" that Jesus is talking about. The one with all the rooms! It's the New Jerusalem that comes out of the sky! The city with God as it's light...where there will be no sun or moon.
I'm not trying to be overly funny here. I'm serious. Could you answer some of these questions for me.
Yes, I believe the Father does have a house/property with many rooms/dwellings for us (keep in mind the range of meaning of the nouns)- though no doubt this far surpasses anything we can currently imagine. However, whatever it is like, it will legitimately be described by these nouns.
What's the problem with the description of the New Jerusalem being literal with the proviso that the reality will far outstrip the description? So what? | | Back to Top | | |
|
Empiressque
Registered Member
Date Joined Jul 2005
Total Posts : 17
| Posted 8/1/2005 10:38 PM (GMT -6) | | Hi Mark,
Universalism was never declared a heresy. The early Christians offered up prayers for the dead and several early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Origen, and Clement held and taught universalist beliefs.
Some of the scriptural bases for it include:
Romans 5:18 "Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all people, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all. For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous."
Romans 11:32: For God has imprisoned all in disobedience so that he may be merciful to all.
1 Corinthians 15:22 "As in Adam all die, in Christ ALL will be made alive."
Colossians 1:20. "For in him [Christ] all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself ALL things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross."
Throughout history there are examples of various theologal views that were previously unaccepted, or accepted only by a minority that have become generally accepted and have made or are making their way as "tradition" within the Christian community. We've seen shifts in our views of salvation (by works versus salvation by faith), in our atonement theories (victory, substitution, satisfaction, etc.), in our views of ministry & church leadership (women, divorced persons, etc).
Tradition is not a dead, solidified thing. Tradition is living and continues to grow and take hold throughout time and place by the movement of the Holy Spirit within the Christian community. Again, I don't know if this is related to the concept of "progressive revelation" as used on this Board (I should go back and see if I can find out some more info on that).
I don't believe anything that was been declared "heretical" by the early church or the Ecumenical Councils will ever become part of the Christian Tradition, but I do think many peripheral issues and various interpretations of the tenets of the faith will become Tradition and have become Tradition over time. Does that clarify?
Thanks,
~E+ | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/2/2005 6:51 AM (GMT -6) | | HB:
No, I'm saying that Jesus teaching clearly corresponds best to the dominant orthodoxy: that punishment was eternal. In fact, if there were other views around, that makes the situation even more difficult for annihilationism. If Jesus had rejected eternal punishment and agreed with these other views against orthodoxy, wouldn't he have made this very clear, rather than using language that mimics the eternal punishment writings? He explicitly supports the Pharisees against the Sadducees on resurrection, for instance.
Ok. Going with that. Jesus's belief correspond to the "dominant" position that punishment was eternal conscious torment by fire. Obviously this "dominant" position on the underworld changed over time. And I suppose it would MAKE SENSE that Jesus would inherit the major Jewish beliefs of the time primarily Pharisaic. (Especially thinking of his relationship to John the Baptist) Just like he would have probably inherited the belief that creation was a process that took 6 24 hour days, that Jonah REALLY DID stay 3 days in the belly of the whale. Now, from your thinking, it seems to me that we should say this...
Whatever Jesus believed about reality MUST be actually true in just the way Jesus believes it. This would include all things of theological important like Creation, angels, hell, etc.
So this means that...
1) anyone interprets Creation as ANYTHING OTHER THAN 6 24 hour days
and...
2) anyone who takes Jonah's time in the whale as totally metaphorical
is most likely going against Christ's own belief. You WOULD say that, right? From my understanding, Jonah had LARGELY been interpreted literally...even in the intertestamental period. (Tobit and III Maccabees). And we can say fairly surely that Jesus was NOT a theistic evolutionist or a progressive creationist!
So, does this mean that theologians should be limited to ONLY what Jesus would have most likely believed about reality in those theologically revelant things?
Don't hear what I'm not saying. I'm not saying to say that Jesus was just WRONG about stuff so we have to throw everything up in the air. No. What I am wondering about is the consistency saying that that Jesus's beliefs about reality (those of a 1st century Palestinian Jewish carpenter inheriting at least some of his beliefs from ) MUST correspond in all respects to what is actual...such that if Jesus believed in a fiery torment for waiting [Hades] until eternal fiery torment for "eternal destruction" (Gehenna?) or in actual domiciles in Heaven (which I suppose would be in the "sky" ...it MUST be actually that way. For this line of thinking to be consistent, we'd have to take everything Jesus said about anything even somewhat theological relevant as being the way things are.
Do you see what I'm trying to think through? It seems patently inconsistent for someone to believe in a literal fiery, dark, underworld BECAUSE Jesus talks about it and believed in such a thing...and turn around and believe 1) that creation took MORE than 6 days or that 2) Jonah didn't actually sit in the belly of the whale 3 days.
So, I just want to figure this out one way or the other...for consistency's sake.
Are we to take Jesus's possible beliefs about reality as being literally as it is JUST BECAUSE Jesus believes it?
or...
Are we to take Jesus's possible beliefs as representing TRUTH, but not literally as Jesus believed it?
If so, it would seem to me if I come to believe in a fiery eternal underworld scenario BECAUSE I believe Jesus believed it, then that I MUST also believe in a 6 24 hour day creation and a literal "belly of the whale" Jonah event...because Jesus most likely believed that too. Is this the case, HB?
*************************
HB said...
But the fact that it is God who is the principal author here makes it quite possible that what we are to learn from the text in question is something rather different from what the human author proposed to teach”
What this said to me was that you believed that a biblical character could be teaching something from their actual beliefs that is DISTINCT from what God really wants to convey, though it wouldn't be fundamentally UNTRUE. That a biblical character could speak about something that describes reality, albeit IMPRECISELY. Contra Evangelicalism's obvious intent to dodge this slippery-slope question and given our belief in Jesus's true humanity, is there any real reason why this line of thinking cannot be applied to Jesus? If so, what is that reason?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/2/2005 7:12 AM (GMT -6) | | Mephi: Ok. Do you see how that trash over there is burning AND burning up? It's going to be kinda like that...except without the burning up. You know. Like how Moses saw the bush burning but not burning up when he encountered God? There will be a continuous burning, flaking off of the smoky ash, and destruction of flesh...where one layer of flesh will be destroyed only to have another one to be burned! And you'll feel all the pain of being burned the WHOLE TIME. And that will go on for eternity! Sucks, doesn't it.
Tom: Except the body and soul are never 'destroyed'. They're not even on their way to being 'destroyed'. Would you use 'destroyed' for this? I wouldn't.
Check out the way "apollumi" can be used. What other word WOULD you use for the idea of something constantly being ruined, marred, and in the PROCESS of destruction without any end or hope of repair?
Just wondering?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Truth Aficionado
Registered Member
Date Joined Dec 2003
Total Posts : 1544
| Posted 8/2/2005 11:42 AM (GMT -6) | |
Empiressque said...
Universalism was never declared a heresy. The early Christians offered up prayers for the dead and several early Church Fathers including Tertullian, Origen, and Clement held and taught universalist beliefs.
Throughout history there are examples of various theologal views that were previously unaccepted, or accepted only by a minority that have become generally accepted and have made or are making their way as "tradition" within the Christian community. We've seen shifts in our views of salvation (by works versus salvation by faith), in our atonement theories (victory, substitution, satisfaction, etc.), in our views of ministry & church leadership (women, divorced persons, etc).
Tradition is not a dead, solidified thing. Tradition is living and continues to grow and take hold throughout time and place by the movement of the Holy Spirit within the Christian community. Again, I don't know if this is related to the concept of "progressive revelation" as used on this Board (I should go back and see if I can find out some more info on that).
I don't believe anything that was been declared "heretical" by the early church or the Ecumenical Councils will ever become part of the Christian Tradition, but I do think many peripheral issues and various interpretations of the tenets of the faith will become Tradition and have become Tradition over time. Does that clarify?
Thanks,
~E+
Hello E+,
I agree, tradition is alive and continues to grow within the Christian community. Woman in church leadership is a good example of tradition changing. But universalism, as pointed out in the following, is altogether a different animal.
Rationalists may deny the eternity of hell in spite of the authority of Christ, and professing Christians who are unwilling to admit it, may try to explain away Christ’s words; but it remains as the divinely revealed solution of the problem of moral evil. Rival solutions have been sought for in some form of the theory of restitution or, less commonly, in the theory of annihilation or conditional immortality. The restitutionist view, which in its Origenist form was condemned at the Council of Constantinople in 543, and later at the Fifth General Council , is the cardinal dogma of modern Universalism.
Hell in the traditional teaching of the church designates the place or state of men (and angels) who, because of sin, are excluded forever from the Beatific Vision. In this wide sense it applies to the state of those who die with sin on their souls (Council of Florence, Denzinger, no. 588), although this is not a state of misery or of subjective punishment of any kind, but merely implies the objective privation of supernatural bliss, which is compatible with a condition of perfect natural happiness. But in the narrower sense in which the name is ordinarily used, hell is the state of those who are punished eternally for unrepented personal mortal sin. Beyond affirming the existence of such a state, with varying degrees of punishment corresponding to degrees of guilt and its eternal or unending duration, early church doctrine does not go. It is a terrible and mysterious truth, but it is clearly and emphatically taught by Christ and the Apostles.
Thanks,
Mark
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) : 8/2/2005 11:52:30 AM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
Humphrey Bogart
Registered Member
Date Joined Jun 2003
Total Posts : 205
| Posted 8/3/2005 8:27 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph said...
Whatever Jesus believed about reality MUST be actually true in just the way Jesus believes it. This would include all things of theological important like Creation, angels, hell, etc.
So this means that...
1) anyone interprets Creation as ANYTHING OTHER THAN 6 24 hour days
and...
2) anyone who takes Jonah's time in the whale as totally metaphorical
is most likely going against Christ's own belief. You WOULD say that, right? From my understanding, Jonah had LARGELY been interpreted literally...even in the intertestamental period. (Tobit and III Maccabees). And we can say fairly surely that Jesus was NOT a theistic evolutionist or a progressive creationist! So, does this mean that theologians should be limited to ONLY what Jesus would have most likely believed about reality in those theologically revelant things?
It means that theologians should be limited to what Jesus taught, yes. When Jesus spoke, he spoke as a prophet. His words were inspired by the Holy Spirit. As for what Jesus believed about reality, other than his teaching as recorded in scripture, who knows what he thought and who cares? If he thought the Roman team was going to win the local football contest, and they didn't, that doesn't matter.
Are you going to toss out everything that Jesus held in common with contemporary Jews, or only some things? We'd have to toss out the whole OT and even the idea that God exists. So you're going to have to come up with some good criteria for distinguishing beliefs which Jesus taught and which were also believed by contemporary Jews which are correct, and those which are incorrect. It seems, for instance, that Jesus held the OT canon in common with contemporary Jews. So should we revise the canon? Maybe Jesus was mistaken in thinking that Isaiah was scripture.
Meph said...
we'd have to take everything Jesus said about anything even somewhat theological relevant as being the way things are
Yep, we would, if it was his teaching as recorded in scripture.
Meph said...
Are we to take Jesus's possible beliefs as representing TRUTH, but not literally as Jesus believed it?
I would take his actual teaching, not his "possible beliefs", as representing truth. How do you propose to find out what Jesus' "possible beliefs" were? A time machine?
Meph said...
If so, it would seem to me if I come to believe in a fiery eternal underworld scenario BECAUSE I believe Jesus believed it, then that I MUST also believe in a 6 24 hour day creation and a literal "belly of the whale" Jonah event...because Jesus most likely believed that too. Is this the case, HB?
Yep, it is, but only because he taught these things in scripture.
Meph said...
What this said to me was that you believed that a biblical character could be teaching something from their actual beliefs that is DISTINCT from what God really wants to convey, though it wouldn't be fundamentally UNTRUE. That a biblical character could speak about something that describes reality, albeit IMPRECISELY. Contra Evangelicalism's obvious intent to dodge this slippery-slope question and given our belief in Jesus's true humanity, is there any real reason why this line of thinking cannot be applied to Jesus? If so, what is that reason?
No, I meant that God could be saying more than what the Biblical author was. So Isaiah may have been just speaking about someone contemporary to him when he said "a young woman will conceive and bear a son", but God might have been saying more than that. That doesn't make Isaiah's statement false. It just means that Isaiah's perspective was only part of the story.Post Edited (Humphrey Bogart) : 8/3/2005 8:31:37 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/3/2005 9:02 PM (GMT -6) | | HB:
It means that theologians should be limited to what Jesus taught, yes. When Jesus spoke, he spoke as a prophet. His words were inspired by the Holy Spirit.
and...
Meph: If so, it would seem to me if I come to believe in a fiery eternal underworld scenario BECAUSE I believe Jesus believed it, then that I MUST also believe in a 6 24 hour day creation and a literal "belly of the whale" Jonah event...because Jesus most likely believed that too. Is this the case, HB?
HB: Yep, it is, but only because he taught these things in scripture.
Yeah. I thought that would be the implication. I knew it. So...the hermeneutical principle is as follows...
If a biblical author, ESPECIALLY A PROPHET, states something as a theologically relevant teaching or truth, it MUST be true in at least the way the speaker conveys his meaning. It can have MORE truth attached to it, but not less.
But this means that it MUST BE true that...
1) the story of Adam and Eve was literally true, as Jesus and Paul most likely believed.
2) death truly DID come from Adam's first sin, as Paul obviously believed.
3) Jonah REALLY DID spend 3 days in the belly of a whale, as Jesus most likely believed.
4) Creation REALLY DID take place in 6 24 hour days, as Jesus and Paul most likely believed.
5) The underworld really IS a place that DOES have eternally enduring darkness, fire, smoke, etc, were people are tormented forever as Jesus may well have believed.
All of the preceding things were in SOME way integrated into teachings by Jesus and Paul.
Now...
The following ideas would NOT be acceptable within the scope of this hermeneutical principle:
--annihiliationism
--universalism
--viewing hell as ANYTHING BUT eternally enduring darkness, fire, smoke, etc. were people are horribly tormented forever (This INCLUDES C.S. Lewis's little namby pamby take on hell!!)
--day-age theory of Creation
--progressive creationism
--theistic evolutionism
--believing that the Jonah story was metaphorical
--literary view of Creation
So, for CONSISTENCY'S SAKE, a theologian CANNOT apply the conservative evangelical hermeneutical principle that HB is using...and believe in any of the above as a viable theological option.
Let me throw my position in. I realize that there IS a slippery slope and negotiation to be made on such. However, I am NOT willing to believe in a literal 6 day creation, a LITERAL eating from the Tree by Eve or anything like that. For various reasons. But especially not just to hold together a hermeneutical system like the one suggested.
Therefore, I cannot hold to the hermeneutical method that HB holds to.
What say you other people?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
| | Back to Top | | |
|
Starkman
Registered Member
Date Joined Oct 2001
Total Posts : 1747
| Posted 8/4/2005 4:45 PM (GMT -6) | | Meph:
1) the story of Adam and Eve was literally true, as Jesus and Paul most likely believed.
2) death truly DID come from Adam's first sin, as Paul obviously believed.
3) Jonah REALLY DID spend 3 days in the belly of a whale, as Jesus most likely believed.
4) Creation REALLY DID take place in 6 24 hour days, as Jesus and Paul most likely believed.
5) The underworld really IS a place that DOES have eternally enduring darkness, fire, smoke, etc, were people are tormented forever as Jesus may well have believed.
I'm still not so sure that we can be certain that just because the above theologies are "taught" in scripture that they are taught in the context of literal historical grammatical, "It really happened this way, by god!" As Scott Jorgenson has pointed out, it is the style of the Ancient Near East to talk as if something really happened because the theology is created via this illocution. As has also been pointed out (and I can't remember that site you quoted, Meph, where teachings on the concept of Adam were given from old Rabbinic, and older, sources), there wasn't a pure, ace-in-the-whole unified teaching about Adam, Eve, creation and other Old Testament theological matters.
I contend, therefore, that it isn't as simple as confining Jesus, Paul or New Testament theology to such a conservative literal, historical and grammatical context. This does leave questions open about the origin of sin and the nature of creation, but that's beside the point.
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 | | |
|
One Love
Registered Member
Date Joined Jan 2003
Total Posts : 13888
| Posted 8/4/2005 7:36 PM (GMT -6) | | Tom:
Jesus lived his life out of his beliefs and theodicy. If he believed that Adam was a historic figure, that Jonah spent three days in a whale, and that people will suffer eternal conscious torment, then hey, BELIEVING those things obviously didn't screw up his LIVING. So I guess, Mephi, what I'm wondering is, why CAN'T you get closure over theodicy in your head and heart on the assumption of Jesus' belief in these things? See my point? I'm don't care what's ACTUALLY true and false about these beliefs AT THIS POINT; just that Jesus lived SO FRIGGIN SUCCESSFULLY with a theodicy that INCLUDED the belief that these things were true (and which you seem to feel really undermine your ability to live with closure on the problem of evil).
The problem has NEVER been one about living a faithful life. Heck, man. One could be a double-predestinationist 5 point Calvinist and live a life of loving faithfulness to other human beings and faithful love towards the Triune God. I distinctly remember saying something like this a LOOOOONG time ago. If the issue was just about figuring out a way to show unconditional love to other people and to live in faith, hope, and love in God, that's not a problem. The problem is the same thing that it's always been for me...
Coherence and CONSISTENCY!
I look at theological presuppositions and follow them out, as much as I can, to what I believe their logical conclusions are to be. That's why I lay things out like I do. Don't tell me something that presupposes X and then come to some conclusion where the whole thing ends up NECESSITATING ~X. That drives me friggin crazy. Don't tell me that God is PURE UNADULTERATED LOVE such that God would go to ANY POSSIBLE LENGTHS to get all people saved...and then talk about an eternally burning underworld of suffering where MANY (if not MOST) people end up going when there are other possible avenues open to God that could have been taken.
SyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcomputeSyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcompute
SyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcomputeSyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcompute
SyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcomputeSyntaxerrordoesnotFRIGGINcompute
I can deal easier with affirming that God being very, very loving (as evidenced in the ChristWork), but still intent on doing what God intends to do, including creating a burning hell even though said hell isn't necessary...than with the BS that keeps getting spouted as excuses. It would MAKE SENSE to say, as Piper does, that God's love is a FUNCTION of God's self-glorification or self-pleasing such that God is loving but does so only in the context of what God wishes to do such that if God just doesn't save some people for whatever reason, God just doesn't. Limited atonement stuff. But then, even PIPER doesn't stay consistent with the fundamental assumptions of his "Christian hedonism" (or with that of original sin when it comes to dead babies!!) Everywhere I look, it feels, things end up in INCONSISTENCY or nonsensical contradiction. It's so frustrating!
Do you know what started me on the universalism track? Do you REALLY wanna know? This one thing...
Somehow, I got convinced that God loved his creations so much REALLY would do absolutely EVERYTHING in his proper ability to save as many sentient beings as he could to enjoy relationship with Him.
Actually, this is how my thought went...
Man, if God truly went through all the trouble of incarnating Godself, living, dying, and resurrecting for the restoration of God's creation...laying the SINS OF THE WORLD upon Godself...If God loves us THAT MUCH...if God really means it when God says that he doesn't want anyone to perish...I can't see ANYTHING this God wouldn't do within God's power to see as many people saved as possible!
And things went from there. Thus started my exploration of the possibility of universalism. Basically, I asked myself...is there a possible world where the Triune God, LFW, and universalism could be FEASIBLE? Where moral autonomy wouldn't be negated. Where gradations of eternal punishments and rewards MADE SENSE. Where sin, hell, and death would truly be no more. Where divine judgement would be severe, utterly painful, AND just; punitive, retributive, AND restorative. Where people WOULD be destroyed, but yet redeemed IN the destruction. Once I found out that there WAS a compossible world where such a thing could take place...things seemed natural. I friggin worked it out...at least in my mind.
Bottom line: I can't make sense of the following statements.
1) The Creator and Sustainer God REALLY, REALLY wishes that all people could end up having a loving relationship with God...and would do all God could do such that it could happen.
(Note: This is a summary sentence of my 7 amended ideas about God:
--God IS love. Not God is "loving" God IS love. Complete omnibenevolence.
--God is completely omnipotent. God can accomplish whatever God wants to accomplish that doesn't a) violate the laws of logic (including the metaphysics of love) and b) does not go against God's necessary essential existence.
--God REALLY wants display His glorious nature to beings OTHER THAN God and have it represented back to God by that something.
--God REALLY wants those "others" to participate with self-determination in their OWN moral existence.
--God REALLY wants all sentient beings in Creation to embody and reflect God's glorious nature to God and each other forever...extending the "dance of the Trinity"
--God REALLY DOESN'T WANT any sentient being to experience eternal destruction. Not only because it's bad for the sentient beings...but because that would TAKE AWAY from God's own aesthetic experience of contingent reality.
--If there is ANY POSSIBLE WAY that God can actualize God's own divine disposition and intentions, God will do so.)
and...
2) The majority of people who have ever existed WILL endure eternal destruction (either ECP or annihilationism)
Catch this clue. All of the current incarnations of the free-will argument do...not...work! They just don't. Doc's theodicy, IMHO, came the closest to making it work, but it was a wash. Even HE thinks so!
So...
I can believe #2 easily...as long as I deny #1. Gimme a reason WHY I should deny #1. It's not that I can't do that. I can. Just give me a really good rason why I should.
****************************
Tom:
Now, if you in fact don't think that Jesus believed in ECP but that he was a universalist, that's cool. But WHY feel the need to justify the rightness of universalism by appealing to Jesus on this score when you already believe he was wrong about other things of a theological nature? Why would you care what Jesus' beliefs are on this? It's not his beliefs that seem to be determining your own beliefs. You already disagree with him on other matters. This is where I can't figure you out. Just how do you decide WHICH beliefs even require exegetical justification? How do you decide when the fact that Jesus believed in X limits you AS A FOLLOWER OF JESUS to believing in X? How do you decide which of his beliefs have AUTHORITY and which don't? I really wanna know. Don't come back (like you did earlier) by ASKING ME this or that. I wanna know how YOU do it.
1) The only way I would use Jesus to "justify" my hope for universalism would be the ChristWork itself and what it supposedly symbolizes: A God willing to go ALL-FRIGGIN-OUT for people who honestly couldn't give a damn! For God to go SO FAR for us. Doesn't that SAY something?? I feel like I do the same thing other people do...look at this whole thing from a Christocentric lens and try to make sense of it all.
2) Get something straight first. The ONLY reason this is even possible for me is because I believe Jesus was a FULLY HUMAN BEING along with being God. This means I believe Jesus could have been used by God even while having certain possibly inaccurate ideas. This means, for me, that if Jesus believed something and taught from it...I have a good reason to evaluate it. In Jesus, God is speaking AS A HUMAN BEING. Jesus was no superman, but a real man who had an incredible relationship with God...and WAS God. So, if I see something that I have reason to have critical thoughts about, I feel ok in doing so...without diminishing the idea of Jesus being LORD. For example, it may well be that Jesus believed in a literal Adam and Eve and 7-day creation...AND a 3-tiered universe. Am I going to just shove away all the findings that we know have about our world...to dogmatically hold to a 7-day creation...JUST to keep up some artificial hermeneutical principle? Nope. I'm not.
Bottom line: Anything that I don't have VERY, VERY good reason to think Jesus may have been inaccurate about, I take it as is. Things I do have some reason to think that, I get critical and think about what TRUTH could have been conveyed through the HUMAN lens that Jesus had. I never just say "Oh, well THAT's a lot of BS!" I look at all the stuff and try to say what truth came out of this.
3) Question I ask myself: Is this thing I'm being critical of FUNDAMENTALLY questioning the idea of Jesus not being the resurrected Messiah and Lord. If it ain't, it's fair game. Why? Because I believe I have very good historical reasons to believe that Jesus a) was the Messiah to come and b) rose from the dead. So that question for me is pretty much settled. Now how to interpret some of what Jesus may have believed, that's another matter. So, how would this deal with the Gospels view on hell? Jesus believed what some OTHER Jews in his day and age would have believed in a certain way. Perhaps he believed in eternally-burning darkness under the ground where people would suffer eternally as punishment for not trusting God. He also believed in his divine assignment to take upon the sins of the whole world as the Messiah. Is it even POSSIBLE that Jesus was alltogether correct about the heart of God as demonstrated in Jesus's life and ministry and spoke TRUTH about divine wrath burning against those who refuse God... but was inaccurate as he used the understandings of the underworld that would have been available to Him? Is it even possible that there were OTHER THINGS besides the "day and hour" of his return that Jesus didn't know...but the Father DID know? Is it even friggin POSSIBLE?? [Side note: Do we REALLY think that C.S Lewis's view of hell was in any way similar to the utterly PAINFUL, HORRENDOUS one painted in the gospels???] Can I be wrong about my approach? Heck, yeah. And if I am, I suppose God will deal with me on that. I'm still working all that out...just like everyone else. And I'm teachable. However, if I'm living a life of faith and dependence in God's Spirit and love, I can't see how I can go THAT far off. Again, if I'm given a reason to deny my #1, I'll do it and that will be that. We'll see. Does any of this answer your question, Tom?
To all heresy-hunters and general lames...
"I'm connected nationwide, but from the South...
Respect game, and keep my name outcha mouth!"
--adapted from T.I. From P$C's "I'm a King"
Post Edited (MephEternal) : 8/4/2005 7:43:51 PM (GMT-5) | | Back to Top | | |
| 67 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2 3 |
| Forum Information | Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:33 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 |
|
|