Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Let’s solve the problem of evil > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 9:44 AM (GMT -6)

I would really like to talk about hell. THere's annihilationism, traditionalism, universalism... but I don't think any of them cut it. I've got my own alternative similar to Doc's and C.S. Lewis'. Would anyone like to go at it with me? I would like to put my view to the test.

let me know...

handcarved

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

BJS
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2001
Total Posts : 587

Posted 10/21/2002 10:00 AM (GMT -6)

I'm in. I've recently been rather persuaded by the annihilationist position. I'd love to hear some other perspectives.

Brett

"Siste viator et memento mori."

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 12:10 PM (GMT -6)

Cool, thanks for the interest. I too was very convinced of Annihilationism, until I thought about further possibilities. The following is an introduction to the basics of my Hypothesis. From this, we can branch off on the details of my hypothesis.

After an extensive study on Hell and many other chapters of theology related to it, I think I have come to the tentative conclusion that Hell is not Annihilationism or eternal undying conscious torment... it's both. Annihilationists have to skew over the passages that speak of the eternality of Hell; Traditionalists (eternal conscious punishment) have to skew over the TON of passages that refer to the wicked being utterly consummed. Why do we do this when we don't have to fudge over anything? Are they intrinsically imcompatible: complete destruction/death and eternal duration?

No.

I offer the Dream Hypothesis.

C.S. Lewis has some very interesting things to say about Hell (Problem of Pain)...
o When a table is consumed by fire, it is completely destroyed, but there is something that remains...ashes.
o So what happens when a soul is destroyed? Could there not be ashes? And since we are talking about another form of reality than what we now experience...could those ashes not have a form of consciousness? Hmm...

In essence, my hypothesis (and I call it that because my "jury" is still out as to whether its really conclusive) states that "Hell" could possibly be briefly described as the following...

o It is the punitive destination of the unrighteous
o God sends each occupant of hell to hell
o It is a dream-like state of post-mortem consciousness in which each person experiences a unique and solitary reality of unreality
o God can control this unreality as He deems appropriate
§ Some may endure an eternity of a miserable unreality
§ Some may endure an eternity of a neutral unreality
§ Some may endure an eternity of a pleasant unreality
§ The rest will enjoy an eternity of the ultimate reality
o It is the final destination of that person with no possibility of exit.

My hypothesis is based on multiple conclusions I found in my research on the topic, among those:

Hell and Sheol are almost the same thing...
o The only real difference between "Sheol" (i.e., "the first death" and "Hell" ("the second death") is...
o It is the punitive destination of the unrighteous only
o God sends each occupant of hell to hell
o It is the final destination of that person with no possibility of exit.

So what is Sheol??? Call it "soul sleep" if you wish...
o Sheol is the intermediate state between death and the resurrection to which both the righteous and the unrighteous "go" when they die.
o Sheol (i.e., the state of being dead) is described multiple times throughout OT and NT as being "sleep," although modern theologians dismisses it as a mere euphemism.

What is a dream???
o During repose, a person dreams.
o Dreams can be pleasant, neutral, and they can also be quite hideous at times, described as "nightmares" an "night terrors."
o The contents of a dream is determined (according to a modern theory) to hold both message from the unconcsious (as Frued suggests) as well as mere "brain farts" or regurgitations of the events of the day which your brain tries to make sense of (as another theory claims).
o If a person has unpleasant experiences in the state of wakefulness, they are often reflected in "nightmares" and "night terrors," and thus the state of being asleep is unpleasant.

The state of being dead is like a dream-consciousness...
o The experience of Sheol is determined by the events of your life - the righteous have a pleasant experience in Sheol and the unrighteous have an unpleasant experience in Sheol.
o Similar to Freud's dream theory, the experience of those in Sheol can also be affected by communication of God (be it positive or negative) to Sheol's occupants.

After Sheol/Intermediate State - Heaven and Hell...
o The occupants of Sheol are raised at the judgement. Some are sent back to the state of being dead by God, others enter into His eternal kingdom - the ultimate reality - of joy in His presence.
o Those who are sent to the Second Death also experience being destroyed by whatever means God destroys them.
o Even in our life, we think of some deaths as being "preferable" to other deaths, (i.e., being burned alive by fire is about the most unpleasant way to die I could imagine).
o There seem to be degrees of punishment in Hell just as there are degrees of reward in Heaven.
o The deaths of each person who doesn't receive the atoning sacrifice of Christ may each be different degrees of "preferability."
o The experience of dying would be echoed throughout your "dream" in eternity just as experiences of life "echo" in a dream and the experiences of life and of dying "echo" in Sheol.

Now, I have left out pretty much all of my textual "evidence" for my theory for the purpose of brevity. However, I would be happy to elaborate whereever anyone would like for me to.

I'm working toward putting this into an actual paper, but I would really like to get some feedback on this theory before doing so. I have not yet seen a place in scripture that seems to refute this notion. Also, I've shared it with a number of people, and I've not yet heard a criticism of it. That really baffles me! I'm most certain I will receive some criticisms now, however, which is my goal of posting this. An unqualified theology is a pointless one.

I welcome all comments, and I hope to respond to all of them. I would like to take <b> one question at a time,</b> however. I'm scared to start this thread because these things usually end up completely consumming my time, and I'm going to do my best to avoid that while answering questions the best that I can.

Again, my whole hypothesis remains to be a "what if." I don't hold it as doctrine, and probably never will. However, my goal has been to come to an understanding of what Hell and the afterlife *might* be like, expanding the way we think about it, and hopefully bringing some solace to the questions such as "What of the fates of those who have never heard the Gospel?"

So...please tell me what you think!

Many blessings...

hand_carved

P.S. - Greg Boyd (Satan and the Problem of Evil) and C.S. Lewis (The Problem of Pain) have views somewhat similar to mine, primarily in regard to post-mortem consciousness and the integration of "Annihilationism" and "Traditionalism." However, they do not make the connection to the dreaming consciousness.

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/21/2002 12:56 PM (GMT -6)

I have always been intrigued by the sould sleep theories to explain the "in-between" time from our death to the final judgment. I really like the ideas you have put together here and I am sympathetic to them. I can see the soul-sleep thing working nicely between physical death and final judgment, but why after the judgment? Surely there is a universal "call to attention", of sorts, at the judgment. From there I think of a temporary punishment in proportion to the injustices committed. From there into a sort of annihilation/final destruction. I don't think we are promised eternal life unless we are united with God through Christ. So, I am not motivated to postulate things for the souls of the damned to be doing (sleeping or dreaming) after the punishment meated out at the judgment is completed.

One thing I'll throw in here for fun: Romans 8 seems to indicate that heaven is much like earth only redeemed and "new" in all the right ways. It is physical and we will be physical as well as spiritual beings. Does this say anything to us about Hell or not? I really don't know. I do think that there are some bare minimums for hell in my thoughts:
1. it really is to be feared
2. it really does involve just punishment
3. it really does result in a second and final death (both the body and soul die)
4. Therefore: it is not describable as an "eternal life" since this is the promise of salvation, not damnation.

Just rambling. I am sure you have thought through these things. But this is a place to start.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/21/2002 12:56 PM (GMT -6)

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 2:27 PM (GMT -6)

Thank you very much for your response and for taking the time to read my thoughts. I think I agree with you on all of your main points, but I look at things just a little differently.

You asked, “Why after the judgment?” I would say there is “soul sleep” (or, more appropriately, “soul death”) after the judgment because of a number of factors.

First of all, the argument for an eternal conscious punishment in Hell (the Traditional view), though insufficient, is compelling to the effect that there is an aspect of eternality to the punishment of Hell that I haven’t found Annihilationists been able to explain sufficiently. I will, in my next post, paste an excerpt from a paper I recently wrote on this discussion regarding what I perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses of the traditional and annihilationist standpoints, and then textual evidence of a synthesis of the two views.

Secondly, as I stated above, the similarities between Sheol (“The intermediate state”) and Hell are astoundingly similar. I need to prepare a post pinpointing the textual similarities between the two because it is very much the crux of my argument for the “Dream Hypothesis.” In essence, however, as the first death is described by the Lord and many others in the Bible as “sleep,” the second death could very well carry on some of the implications of sleep such as that of the dreaming consciousness. One explanation for the fact that the second death isn’t referred to as “sleep” could very well be because of its restlessness, forever in a nightmare. This sleep would not be a restful sleep, and since the purpose of sleep is rest, a restless sleep would be no sleep at all.

Third, my aim for the Dream Hypothesis (or I guess I could call it the “Dream Synthesis”) is to create a construct that helps people to catch a glimpse of the possibilities of the afterlife. We tend to be very constricted in our thinking as mortals, and rightly so since we are three-dimensional beings. Because of this, we get into these lengthy spats between to theologies (I.e., Calvinism vs. Arminianism, Annihilationism vs Traditional Hell, etc.), thinking that it HAS to be either/or. My goal has been to use my imagination in order to broaden my mind to the infinite possibilities of God, especially concerning the afterlife. My hope is that, if this “construct” is not unbiblical, people can more easily put their “problems” with Hell to rest in the arms of an infinite Father (e.g., the question of the fate of those who have never heard the Gospel, the question of how a just God could allow their to be eternal torture for temporal sin, etc.).

In this construct of the Dream Hypothesis, we can see that God is not limited in His options. If the unrighteous are to endure an eternity of suffering, they can certainly suffer in the state of a dream consciousness: a type of consciousness that is an unreality, but yet to that person it is very real. If our idea suggests that even an eternity of that would be unjust, then you might find solace in the idea that God could control the “dream” of the person to include whatever is right, stopping the anguish whenever He sees fit. If your question is “How could God send those who have never heard the Gospel to Hell?” It might help you to think of the possibility that those who have never heard will spend eternity in a pleasant or even neutral state of consciousness. Whatever the case, it is possible in the Dream Hypothesis. I hope that, if the Hypothesis is biblical, it can help people to trust the justice and goodness of God.

I agree with you that Heaven will be physical as well as spiritual. I also completely agree with your 4 “bare minimums.” I do believe both the body and soul are destroyed in Hell. I would not say that the dream consciousness and the soul are equivalent. I would say, rather, that the Dream is somewhat like the remaining ashes of a body and soul and spirit that has been destroyed. Though I don’t actually think this is really accurate, I am tempted to equate the spirit with the mind. I believe a holistic anthropology, that the body, soul, spirit is all intimately connected. It is an interesting thought that the physical experiences of a person affect their spiritual experiences. Likewise, what would be the “remains” or “ashes” of a dead human (body, soul, spirit) if not a kind of dream consciousness, echoing the physical and mental and spiritual experiences of the person throughout eternity?

Thank you for your insight.

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/21/2002 2:43 PM (GMT -6)

Very cool.

I really like the idea of physical ashes as an analogy to the "spiritual death dream" (you didn't say this, but its what comes to mind).

In terms of this being a mediating position, I can see how it is one step closer to teh traditional than the annihilationists, but it is still not mediating so far as I can see. Your use of the term "sleep" avoids the "eternal conscious suffering of the wicked" language of the classicalists. You are proposing an "eternal unconscious suffering of the wicked" with dreams moderated by God. Right? How then does this help solve the either/or?

Don't take this as critical, so far, I am tracking with you and I like your ideas. I am just questioning whether they are going to accomplish your goal of overcoming the either/or of classical vs. annihilation. Yours is a middle way, but not a synthesis that adequately accounts for the language of both. Classicalists are asked to give up the "conscious" qualifier, and annihilationists are asked to give up the absoluteness of the death. I think from an annihilationist perspective, that's not such a big jump (since no one worries too much about the fate of their ashes these days), but it is a bigger jump for the classicalist.

Good work so far. I definitely like what you are doing.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 3:14 PM (GMT -6)

***For those who need to be convinced that Annihilationism and the Traditional view are inadequate in and of themselves. This is an excerpt from a paper I recently wrote on my theory of Hell. It is lengthly. I hope I've arranged it to where you can read only what you need to.

Introduction:
In conclusion to chapter seven of volume nine of The Fundamentals, Rev. William C. Procter writes:

"Finally, the doctrines of heaven and hell seem to stand or fall together, for both rest upon the same Divine revelation, both are described metaphorically, and both have the same word “everlasting” applied to their duration. If the threatenings of God’s Word are unreliable, so may the promises be; if the denunciations have no real meaning, what becomes of the invitations?"{1}

It is the consensus among evangelical theologians that this general statement is true to the scriptures. However, only within the last twenty years has the evangelical theological circle been noticeably divided when interpreting just what Jesus meant by the word “eternal” (Gk. aionios). On one side of the line stand the majority who hold to the “Thesis” of the traditional view of Hell as being a place of eternal torment where the occupants never die, but instead are “burned” without being consumed by the (metaphorical or not) fires of Hell. On the other side stand the Annihilationists/Conditionalists who hold to an “Antithesis” of the Traditional view. These say that the Bible describes Hell as not being a place of an eternal life of torture, but rather a place of destruction and death where the impenitent endure only a time of torment in the “fire” until they are eventually consumed.

There have been a number of “stand-offs” between the Traditionalists and Annihilationists published over the last ten years, three of which include Four Views on Hell{2}, Two Views on Hell{3}, and The Nature of Hell{4}. Each side argues from a biblical basis. Each side disagrees with the other’s exegesis. Within the last year, a third option has been put forth by Gregory Boyd{5} as a kind of synthesis between the two views that agrees with the Annihilationists in the destruction of the wicked, yet holds that there is a kind of post-mortem consciousness that remains for eternity, aware of its separation from God.

It is my purpose in this paper to argue a case for the third option mentioned above. We will first take a brief look at the primary strengths and weaknesses of the Thesis – the Traditional view – the Antithesis – the Annihilationist – and then present a case for the Synthesis – what I will call Post-mortem Consciousness.

Thesis – Traditional Eternal Hell:

The Traditional view of Hell has a long history of many noteworthy advocates, and although it is folly to base a doctrine on its pervading presence in history, a strong pedigree does seem to put a considerable burden of proof upon a challenger.{6} However, the Traditionalists argue that their position is based ultimately upon the scriptures, namely upon the word “eternal” that is used to describe the punishment of the wicked in a number of texts.{7} Some Traditionalists take the imagery given to us of Hell literally.{8} However, most Traditionalists{9} hold to a more metaphorical interpretation of Hell believing the imagery given is not a literal description but a device to convey to us what we need to know about punishment in the realm of eternity.{10} I will now discuss one of the strongest arguments the Traditionalists use to defend their position.

Strength – “Eternal Punishment” and “Eternal life”:

One of the most convincing “proof texts” the Traditionalists use to show that the punishment of Hell is an eternal conscious punishment is Matthew 25.46, which states “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”{11} It is frequently pointed out by Traditionalists that the same word “eternal” (Gk. aionios) to describe both the reward (life) and the punishment.{12} The natural reading suggests that an everlasting experience of punishment is endured by the wicked just as an everlasting experience of life is lived by the righteous. This idea of an eternal duration of punishment is reinforced by the previous description of the fire of Hell as “eternal” in verse 41.{13}

A better understanding of the nature of the punishment described will obviously come from looking at the passage in context. The context of the passage seems to indicate that the nature of the punishment described here is separation and privation. In his commentary on Matthew, Leon Morris states “Whereas he had invited those on the right with ‘Come,’ the king begins his address to these sinners with ‘Go away from me.’”{14} Hence, the goats will be separated form the glorious presence of the King.{15} Further, the goats are eternally deprived of the good things that the righteous inherit. As the goats deprived the King of good things, the King will deprive them of good things. The goats will not “inherit the kingdom prepared for [them] from the foundation of the world” (v. 34),{16} but instead are sent to the “eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels” (v. 41).{17} Hence, the punishment of the wicked implied in Matthew 25 is that of eternal separation and eternal privation.{18}

An understanding of the nature of the punishment in this passage is not unimportant. If the nature of the “eternal punishment” is separation and privation, it logically implies a conscious awareness of being deprived and separated. If one were not conscious that he was deprived of something, there would be no punishment experienced. Likewise, if a person were not aware of his separation from God, how then would that be punishment at all? Finally, all things considered, when the word “eternal” is used to describe the punishment of privation and separation the argument of the Annihilationist seems to falter. If they concede that the nature of this punishment is privation and separation, they must – in order to maintain their position – conclude that it is a temporary privation and separation, which exegetically renders the word “eternal” both impotent and meaningless. However, if they say – as they do – that the word “eternal” means “irrevocable”{19} or simply “gone forever,”{20} they ignore the context of the passage. Therefore, with all things considered, the Traditional understanding of this passage to imply an everlasting conscious punishment (separation and privation) of the wicked seems to be the most natural reading and the best interpretation of this passage.

Weakness – Inconsistent Exegesis of “Destruction”:

The major problem with the Traditional view is that of apparently inconsistent exegesis. They insist on taking the word “eternal” literally to describe the duration of the torment experienced in Hell. Although this seems to be the most accurate exegesis of those few passages that speak of the suffering or privation experienced by the wicked, the Traditionalists seem to overlook the numerous texts that point to the fate of the wicked as destruction. There are far more texts that clearly point to the final destruction and death of the wicked than there are texts that support the idea of conscious torment for eternity. In essence, the Traditionalists demand that a few texts be interpreted literally at the expense of interpreting literally at very least more than twenty texts that, if taken literally, suggest Annihilationism. The Traditionalists seem to pick and choose what they will interpret literally, and for some reason they chose the position that has far less scriptures to support it. Their failure is to ignore the obvious aspect of destruction. {21}

Antithesis – Annihilationism:

Although there is a convincing biblical argument for eternal conscious torment, as posited by the Traditionalists, the argument for Annihilationism poses, on very biblical grounds, a great threat to the Traditional view. Some Traditionalists have retorted with “fire and brimstone” even questioning the salvation of those who hold to Annihilationism.{22} Others contest that Annihilationism “may contribute to the gagging of God by silencing the severity of his warnings and by minimizing the awfulness of the punishment….”{23} However, many Traditionalists do not look so harshly on Annihilationism, and think the debate a secondary rather than primary issue.{24} Even some who think it to be a primary issue disagree that it determines one’s salvation. {25}

There are a number of foundations to the Annihilationist-Conditionalist argument. First we will define the terms. “Conditionalism” or “Conditional Immortality” is defined in the Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms as:

The belief that the human soul’s eternal existence is dependant on God’s gracious act of sustaining it. Those who hold to conditional immortality suggest that the human soul is given eternal life only as a gift and that those who do not receive the gift of eternal life (the unsaved) will cease to exist sometime after death, either immediately or at the final judgment.{26}

Conditionalism is very closely related to Annihilationism which is defined as is “The belief that all the wicked will be judged by God and thrown into the lake of fire, where they will cease to exist.”{27}

Thus, Annihilationism{28} is biblically founded upon two primary concepts{29}: (1) that the wicked will be destroyed and (2) that the soul is not inherently immortal. The first premise is likely to be the strongest of the two,{30} so we will focus our attention on that strength of Annihilationism.

Strength – Destruction of the Wicked:

If one set out to determine which one of the two views (Traditional Hell or Annihilationism) on Hell had the most biblical support, one would almost have to choose Annihilationism – that is if you had to chose between either Annihilationism or the Traditional view. To argue that Annihilationism has no biblical support is indeed almost laughable, and I can see how Pinnock would get agitated.{31} The notion of destruction is evident throughout the Bible. Fudge, in Two Views on Hell, traces the destruction of the wicked from the Old Testament, to Jesus sayings, to Paul’s writings, to the other epistles, and finally to the Revelation of John.{32} There are a number of “proof texts” for Annihilationism that rather directly describe the absolute destruction of the wicked. I will mention a few of the most obvious.

Matthew 3.12{33}: “His winnowing fork is in His hand, and He will thoroughly clear His threshing floor; and He will gather His wheat into the barn, but He will burn up the chaff with unquenchable fire.” It seems rather obvious that the “chaff” (indicating the wicked) are consumed wholly by the fire (He will “burn up” the wicked). This leaves no room for an “eternal life of torment” that the Traditionalists argue. They are clearly destroyed.{34} Traditionalists tend to skip over the “will burn up” part of the verse and proceed directly to the “unquenchable fire” part, which they claim supports eternal conscious punishment. However, Fudge rightly contends that “unquenchable fire” is reminiscent of the Old Testament usage in such passages as Ezekiel 20.47-48 which indicates not “everlasting torment” but “inescapable destruction” resulting in complete consummation.{35}

2 Peter 2.6:{36} and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter. Sodom and Gomorrah are used here as examples of the ultimate fate of the wicked. Jude 7 also uses Sodom and Gomorrah as an example of those who “undergo the punishment of eternal fire.” It is obvious that Sodom and Gomorrah no longer stand today. It no longer exists as it did before because it has been consumed by fire; it has been reduced to the form of ashes. To set Sodom as an example of the ultimate fate of the wicked clearly indicates that the destruction of the wicked is utter consummation.{37} The Traditionalist retort given by Peterson is (of course) to take Peter’s (and Jude’s) words non-literally. “Taken in isolation it is possible to understand Peter’s words as teaching annihilationism. Nevertheless, we ought not to do so. It is better to take Peter’s words as more generally predicting the downfall of the wicked than to understand them as foretelling their precise fate – reduction to ashes.”{38} Larry Dixon, a Traditionalist, conveniently passed over the implications of Annihilation in both Jude 7 and 2 Peter 2.6 in his 187-page book, The Other Side of the Good News.{39} It is evident that the Traditionalists have no valuable word to say about the implications in these passages, which leaves the Traditional view wanting rather than wholly convincing.

Weakness – Inconsistent exegesis of “eternal”:

However, “For many critics, the word ‘eternal’ forms the Achilles’ heal [sic] of annihilationism’s biblical apologetic.”{40} As mentioned above in our discussion of Matthew 25.46, the same word for “eternal” is used to describe both the reward and the punishment. The Annihilationist response to this is that “eternal” describes not the duration of the punishment but rather the irreversibility of it. Yet even Annihilationists seem to concede that the more natural reading of it implies duration.{41} The difficulty of the Annihilationist exegesis is that it seems to be inconsistent. On texts that refer to “destruction” and “death” and “finality,” they insist that it be taken at face value.{42} However when texts such as this are considered, they seem to bend their exegetical method to their newfound presupposition of Annihilationism, the wicked are destroyed with no remaining consciousness.{43}

Biblical Implications of Both/And:

Hitherto, we have established a biblically-based argument that neither view is without its faults, yet both views hold some truth. The primary weakness of both views is an apparently inconsistent exegetical method, “picking and choosing” what fits with their presuppositions. Most would agree that this has no value in biblical theology.{44} Even the main theologians involved in this debate often concede on various points that the opponent’s view could be seen, but then they say that based upon the other texts, we should not read it that way. Yet, for some reason, this apparent “picking and choosing” has remained the case for the last twenty years of debates concerning Hell.{45}

There are at least three texts that rather clearly indicate that there is going to be both a real destruction and a real eternal consciousness of unrest. We will now turn our attention to these texts.

2 Thess 1.8-9: “…dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.”

If the most natural reading of this text is taken,{46} one would conclude that the wicked are penalized for their deeds with destruction, a destruction that is eternally irreversible. So, the wicked are destroyed – never more to be. However, this penalty of destruction seems to be connected with being “away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” Naturally, for a person to be punished by being “away from” the Lord and the glory of His power, that person must somehow be conscious of that absence. Otherwise, the punishment of eternal exclusion is a charade. It is no eternal punishment at all from the perspective of the punished ones – the annihilated (if they are unconscious of their punishment) – rather it is only seen as eternal punishment from the eyes of the righteous who do consciously exist for eternity. Therefore, if the punishment of eternal exclusion and eternal punishment is to have any real meaning, there must be some form of consciousness that remains after an actual death and destruction.

Rev 14.9-11: 9Then another angel, a third one, followed them, saying with a loud voice, “If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11“And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.

Anyone attempting to interpret the words of John’s apocalypse is up for a task. As Leon Morris states, “The Revelation…is by common consent one of the most difficult of all the books of the Bible.{47} There are a number of methods that have been used to approach this book,{48} so this certainly adds a deal of difficulty when interpreting the passages that describe the fate of the wicked. Nonetheless, one should certainly not ignore the book and what is described in the book – especially in regard to the ultimate fate of the righteous and unrighteous, which is a central purpose of the book.{49} If we are to look anywhere for the meaning of man’s ultimate end, this book seems to be the most significant. Imagery and pictures are used not to literally describe, but to say “this is like….”{50} However, we should heed the words of Duvall and Hays in Grasping God’s Word: “Reading with a humble mind means that we are willing to admit that our interpretation could be wrong and to change our view when the biblical evidence points in a different direction.”{51}

With this said, we turn to the text. In general terms of what John is describing, the worshippers of the beast are said to (1) incur God’s wrath (2) be tormented in the sight of the “holy angels” and the “Lamb,” (3) the evidence of their torment will remain forever and ever, and (4) they will receive no rest “day and night.”{52} Traditionalists take this to obviously prove their point that the wicked will be tormented forever and ever. They also imply that they will not be destroyed forever and ever, but rather will live in torment forever, and thus “they receive no rest day and night.” The Annihilationists in turn point out that it does not say that the wicked are still alive and not consumed, rather it simply states that “the smoke of their torment will go up forever.” This does not mean that they will be alive forever, but rather the “smoke” of torment will go up forever. They further argue (unconvincingly, I think) that “no rest day and night” simply means while they are in their period of being tormented and destroyed. However, if they were destroyed and yet some form of post-mortem consciousness of unrest and privation remained, the strong points of both Annihilationism and the Traditional view can exist in harmony: torment while being destroyed, being eventually destroyed, never experiencing true peace and rest for all eternity.

Rev 17.8: “The beast that you saw was, and is not, and is about to come up out of the abyss and go to destruction.”

Rev 20.10: And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.

The third evidence that seems to directly suggest both destruction and eternal conscious torment is the description of the beast’s fate being “destruction” (Rev 17.8), and yet this “destruction” entails being “tormented day and night forever and ever” (Rev 20.10). Annihilationists, to my knowledge, have no response to this passage except for an appeal to the mystery of Revelation. The “false prophet” is described by many exegetes as being an actual human (although this is debatable). Thus, if this interpretation is taken, there will be a human in Hell that is tormented forever and ever leaving Annihilationists without the plea that “It is not talking about humans.” Nonetheless, the Annihilationist cannot deny that the “destruction” of the beast still allows for being “tormented day and night forever and ever.” Traditionalists, then, reply that humans are given the same fate as Satan and his angels as evinced by Matt 25. Additionally, they claim that the similarity in the language between Rev 20.10 and 14.9-11 further support that the fate of the wicked man will be the same kind of torment, though to a varying degree.{53} Thus, the Traditionalists define “destruction” completely in terms of this passage, coming to the conclusion that “destruction” simply means “undoing.” However, this definition of “destruction” cannot stand with all of the passages that refer to the fate of the wicked being destruction: the Annihilationist definition is the most adequately defended.

Therefore, it seems obvious that there are strong biblical arguments for both Traditionalism and Annihilationism: both sides concede at certain points that the natural reading yields the opponents interpretation; both sides suggest that the natural reading be stretched in light of the other arguments of their position. However, should natural readings be so stretched if a synthesis can be made between the two views that is both biblical and rational?
____________________________________________________

1 Procter, William C. The Fundamentals, Vol. IX. Chicago, Illinois: Testimony Publishing, [no date on publication], p 94.

2 Crockett, William V. ed., John F. Walvoord, Zachary J. Hayes, and Clark H. Pinnock. Four Views on Hell. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 1992.

3 Fudge, Edward William and Robert A. Peterson. Two Views of Hell: A Biblical and Theological Dialogue. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 2000.

4 Evangelical Alliance’s Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals. The Nature of Hell: A Report by the Evangelical Alliance’s Commission on Unity and Truth among Evangelicals. London, UK: Evangelical Alliance, 2000.

5 Boyd, Gregory A. Satan and the Problem of Evil: Constructing a Trinitarian Warfare Theodicy. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity, 2001.

6 Robert Peterson lists and discusses a number of notable Traditionalists in history including Tertullian, Augustine, Aquinas, Luther, Calvin, Edwards, Wesley, Pieper, Berkhof, Chafer, and Erickson in Two Views, 118-128. Fudge rightly responds to Peterson’s argument saying, “His theory is not called the ‘traditionalist’ view for nothing” (Two Views, 182).

7 Matt 18.8; 25.41,46; 1 Thess 1.9; Heb 6.2; Jude 6, 7.

8 For example, John F. Walvoord in Four Views, 11-28.

9 Crockett gives a brief bibliography of those who hold to a more metaphorical view: Four Views, 44.

10 See Crockett’s explanation of the metaphorical view: Four Views, 54-61.

11 The Traditionalists also use two sets of texts to argue their position: Rev 14.9-11 and a combination of Rev 17.8-11 and Rev 20.10. Because I interpret these texts to more accurately describe a post-mortem conscious kind of torment, I will discuss these below under the “Synthesis” heading of my paper. Due to the nature and limitations of this paper, I cannot give an exhaustive study of the strengths and weaknesses of both Annihilationism and the Traditional view, but I will discuss the major points to the best of my ability.

12 See Morris, Leon. The Gospel According to Matthew. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1992, 641. “The same adjective is applied to both the punishment and the reward. Jesus is not speaking of some small experience that would be but for a moment, but of that which has no end.”

13 For more detailed arguments from Traditionalists regarding this see:

14 Morris, 639.

15 Robert Gundry argues that the word used for “punishment” (Gk. kolasis) suggests the idea of separation because it is derived from the Greek kolazo which he translates “prune off.” Gundry, Robert H. Matthew: A Commentary on His Handbook for a Mixed Church under Persecution. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1994, p 516.

16 One could interpret this passage to say that the reward of the righteous is the being in the presence of the King for eternity.

17 It should be noted at this point that Hell was not ever meant for man to visit. I suggest that the punishment in this passage is directly connected with the punishment of the Fall. Man began his existence in perfect fellowship in the presence of God, but when he rebelled, he inherited the fate of the rebellious angels which is being cast out from His presence into darkness (Gen 3.24; see also 2 Pet 2.4 and Jude 6).

18 Other texts that indicate the nature of punishment for the wicked is privation: 2 Thess 1.8-9 “dealing out retribution to those who do not know God and to those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power.” See also Matt 22.11-14 and Luke 13.25-30.

19 Pinnock, “Destruction,” 253. Also in his argument presented in Four Views, 156.

20 Fudge holds to this position. He does not even attempt to exegete the passage in its context, but rather looks only at the two words “eternal” and “punishment” themselves. He writes, “The word punishment does not tell us the nature of the penalty, however, or of what it actually consists.” Indeed the word itself does not indicate the nature of punishment, but if it is looked at in its context it seems to be obvious. Fudge, 46.

21 I will speak more on destruction below.

22 This is mentioned in Robert Peterson’s article “Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire” page 30. Evidently John H. Gerstner “went so far as to question Stott’s [an Annihilationist] salvation.”

23 Peterson quoting D.A. Carson, “Worm,” 37.

24 See concluding remarks in the Evangelical Alliance, Nature of Hell. Mentioned in Peterson, “Worm,” 36.

25 Peterson, “Worm,” 37.

26 Grenz, Stanley J. Pocket Dictionary of Theological Terms. Downers Grove, Illinois: InterVarsity Press, 1999, p 28.

27 Ibid., 10.

28 Although Conditionalism and Annihilationism are not technically the same concept, they both refer to the wicked as being destroyed and non-existent after the judgement. Thus, for the purposes of this paper, I will use “Annihilationism” to refer to the general belief that the wicked will cease to exist after the judgement.

29 I will not go into detail about the philosophical arguments of
Annihilationism both because I do not have the space and because I think they are too unconvincing.

30 This is my opinion. Grenz argues that the argument of conditional immortality is the strongest of the two: Grenz, Stanley J. Theology for the Community of God. Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2000, 639. However, even Pinnock states, “Nevertheless, I do not call my position conditional immortality. It is a necessary, but not a sufficient condition of my view. Conditional immortality has to be true for a negative reason – to make the destruction of the wicked conceivable, but it does not positively establish annihilation simply because it would still be possible that God might give the wicked everlasting life and condemn them to spend it in everlasting torment. Conditional immortality…does not prove that annihilation is true. The key issue remains in my first argument: the Scriptures suggest the destruction of the wicked.” Pinnock, “Destruction,” 252-3.

31 Pinnock, “Destruction,” 250.

32 See Fudge, 24-79 for a very thorough presentation of the destruction of the wicked made evident through the scriptures.

33 See also “to burn them up” Matt 13.30

34 Morris, a Traditionalist, skips over the evident utter consummation implied in this verse in his commentary: Matthew, 62. Gundry does not even recognize that God will “burn up” the wicked, but rather skips to the “unquenchable fire” part and concludes “unending punishment” from that; Matthew, 49. I have not seen a Traditionalist respond to this argument in my own studies.

35 Two Views, 38.

36 See also Jude 7 “just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.”

37 For Fudge’s argument, see Two Views, 69-70.

38 Ibid., 156. While I would agree with Peterson’s comment that we ought not to take a text “in isolation,” I would redirect that argument back to him, petitioning him to recognize these passages as they are naturally read, describing actual destruction of the wicked. Again, this is picking and choosing based on his own presuppositions that the “two views” are mutually exclusive.

39 Dixon, Larry. The Other Side of the Good News. Wheaton, Illinois: BridgePoint: 1992, 81, 86.

40 Grenz, Theology, 639. Larry Dixon believes the Achilles’ heel is “degrees of punishment,” 95. Grenz seems to hold a stronger argument.

41 Clark Pinnock says, “I admit that the interpretation of everlasting, conscious torment can be read out of this verse if one wishes to do so. Such a meaning is not at all impossible from the wording, especially if one smuggles the term ‘conscious’ into it as is very common. …. He just says there will be two destinies and leaves it there. The text allows for both possibilities and only teaches explicitly the finality of this verse in respect to our subject here will depend upon other considerations. In the light of what has been said so far, I think it is better and wiser to read the text as teaching annihilation.” Pinnock, Clark H. “The Destruction of the Finally Impenitent,” Criswell Theological Review 4, 1990, p 253.

42 See Peterson, Robert A. “Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire.” Christianity Today. October, 23, 2000. p 33.

43 This interpretation is, of course, applied out of the additional presupposition which both the Annihilationists and Traditionalists have that says “eternal conscious punishment and final destruction are mutually exclusive and contradictory ideas.” I will argue the fallacy of this presupposition later in this paper.

44 I say this, however I do not mean that every word of the Bible should be taken literally, including figurative language, as John Walvoord would argue (though he does not “practice what he preaches,” Four Views, 11-28). What I am saying is that we should not be so quick to compromise the meaning of a word or an image just because it does not fit within our rational presuppositions. We should at least give the apparent natural reading of a text a chance to stand. If, then, weighed against the other texts the natural reading has obviously no merit, that is the time to bend the natural reading to our best understanding. What I will argue below is that there is no valid reason to dismiss real death and real destruction as incompatible with some form of post-mortem consciousness.

45 To my knowledge, no one besides Greg Boyd and C.S. Lewis have argued the case that Hell could be both destruction and eternal torment. However, there could be others I am unaware of that have argued this case. The view I am going to express below is only a couple “short hops” away from the Metaphorical view as expressed by Crockett in Four Views, but it is nonetheless a different view.

46 This is my unprofessional opinion.

47 Morris, C. Leon. The Book of Revelation: An Introduction and Commentary. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Eerdmans, 1999, 17.

48 For more details on the approaches to Revelation, see Keener, Craig S. Revelation. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2000, 27-29. See also the interpretive approach described in Duvall, J. Scott and J. Danny Hays. Grasping God’s Word: A Hands-On Approach to Reading, Interpreting, and Applying the Bible. Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001, 271-289.

49 See Keener, 21 and Duvall and Hays, 289. Pinnock argues somewhat against by somewhat diminishing the value of the Revelation description of the afterlife. Regarding the present text, Pinnock states, “This text comes closest in my mind to confirming the traditional view. It would be ironical if the issue came down to the interpretation of a single verse in Revelation….” (Four Views, 157).

50 “We insist that picture language with its symbols, images, and figures is capable of conveying literal truth and describing literal events.” Duvall and Hays, 280.

51 Ibid., 278.

52 Due to time constraints, I will have to make the rest of this paper undesirably terse.

53 For a discussion of this argument, see Peterson “Undying Worm, Unquenchable Fire.”

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Edited by - hand_carved on 10/21/2002 8:28:21 PM

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 3:31 PM (GMT -6)

If anyone would like for me to e-mail my paper to them in Word format, just let me know. It's a little easier to read that way (with all the footnotes and everything).

Many blessings...

Hand_carved

e-mail me @

Slapstick@aristotle.net

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/21/2002 3:52 PM (GMT -6)

You have a very good understanding of the hell debate.

“Your use of the term "sleep" avoids the "eternal conscious suffering of the wicked" language of the classicalists. You are proposing an "eternal unconscious suffering of the wicked" with dreams moderated by God. Right? How then does this help solve the either/or?”

I guess it is kind of an issue of psychological semantics. The state of dreaming is somewhat of a phenomenon we don’t completely understand. A person experiencing a dream experiences a sort of “reality” all their own. It is VERY real to them…terribly frightening in some cases and very pleasant in other cases. So to say that it is “unconscious” in the sense that they are not *aware* of suffering would not be a true statement. They would be aware, and to them it would be just as if it was a *true* reality (even though it is not one). Thus, the Traditionalist argument would still hold somewhat in my synthesis. It is just a different kind of consciousness.

I’m hoping to do some more study on the psychology of dreams very soon. It is very interesting. Other interesting implications are those of neo-physics and the idea of “curled-up dimensions” other than our 3 spatial and 1 time dimension. The way they figure, there are at least 10 or 11 dimensions other than the ones we experience. It stirs my imagination to think of the possibilities of spiritual dimensions, heaven’s dimensions, and possibly even Hell’s.

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/21/2002 4:51 PM (GMT -6)

Here's an article, ran across surfing. Haven't read it.
"The Very Idea Of It," By Michael Horton
www.modernreformation.org/mr02/mayjun/mr0205idea.html

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/21/2002 4:52 PM (GMT -6)

hand_carved, are you interested in views that place hell NOW?

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/22/2002 3:06 AM (GMT -6)

Al2Si2H4O9 says…
“hand_carved, are you interested in views that place hell NOW?”

Honestly, Al2Si2H4O9, if you are speaking of “Hell” as we understand it – the punishment of the wicked by God in “The Lake of Fire,” “The Second Death,” “Gehenna,” etc. – it would be next to impossible (as far as I can see it) to conclude that “Hell” is “now” in the terms of reality as we understand it. However, if you branch into thoughts of different time dimensions, ideas of the “eternal now,” and other such complex notions…the idea of a “hell now” could possibly be squeaked out. But I really don’t see why one would see such a notion as necessary.

However, I do believe, according to my theory, that the wicked may certainly be experiencing unrest in Sheol/Hades even now. It would be an error to call that “Hell” in the strictest terms, but the degree of agony may certainly be equal to that of Hell. For example, the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus where the Rich Man is in “agony” in the fires of Hades. Some equate “Hades” and “Sheol” with “Hell,” and I find this very implausible, exegetically speaking.

Hope that answers your question.

By the way, that looks like an excellent article on Hell. I’m going to save that in my files. Fudge did a much better job than Pinnock, in my opinion, of defending Annihilationism…of course he had a lot more room to argue too.

One weakness I see in my position even now is that I haven’t done the historical background to see if there is anyone in history that agrees with my theory. I know that there is historical backing for both Annihilationism and (of course) the Traditional view, and apparently some around the same time period. And, ultimately, that is not the final arbiter - scripture is. But I do need to do some more research in that direction.

Blessings…

handcarved

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/22/2002 3:10 AM (GMT -6)

BTW, I didn't read all of the article either, but I just said that it looked good because it seems to be very informative. I don't know what conclusion it reaches. Anyway...

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/22/2002 4:01 AM (GMT -6)

hand_carved, today is a day of LOTS of out-of-the-house work. So I'll just drop this here and run. Sorry.

quote:
hand_carved

..................................
Al2Si2H4O9 says… “hand_carved, are you interested in views that place hell NOW?”
..................................

Honestly, Al2Si2H4O9, if you are speaking of “Hell” as we understand it – the punishment of the wicked by God in “The Lake of Fire,” “The Second Death,” “Gehenna,” etc. – it would be next to impossible (as far as I can see it) to conclude that “Hell” is “now” in the terms of reality as we understand it. However, if you branch into thoughts of different time dimensions, ideas of the “eternal now,” and other such complex notions…the idea of a “hell now” could possibly be squeaked out. But I really don’t see why one would see such a notion as necessary.

A LINK that I put on this board a few times provides a longstanding view, COUNTER to the discription you have above.

God's "wrath" and the "fire" are real and true. But God loves us all -- even Satan.

THE RIVER OF FIRE

www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

The point, as you will see, is that the Light and the Fire are one and the same, God's unrelenting Love. But, as C.S. Lewis has in some of his stories in the Great Divorce, it is experienced differently. Click the Link!

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/22/2002 4:21 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
..................................
Al2Si2H4O9 says… “hand_carved, are you interested in views that place hell NOW?”
..................................

A iew of "hell now" that is consonant with C. S. Lewis, and the EO is this, from Paul Evdokimov (Rus. Ortho.):

quote:

IN THE WORLD, OF THE CHURCH, by Paul Evdokimov

Chapter: God's Absurd. Love and the Mystery of His Silence
(pages190-191)

Freedom and hell

To the atheistic formula, "If God exists, then man is not free," the Bible responds, "If man exists, God is no longer free." We are able to say no to God, but God is no longer able to say no to us, for according to St Paul, "there is only yes in God," (2 Cor 1:19) the yes of his Covenant which Christ has given on the Cross. Then, "I am free" means "God exists." It is God himself who guarantees the freedom of doubt, so as to not violate human conscience.

God has created the "second freedom," and he takes the supreme risk of a freedom which is capable of stopping him, of obliging him to descend into death and into hell. He freely allows himself to be assassinated in order to offer pardon and resurrection to the assassins. His omnipotence is to make room for human freedom, to veil his presence in order to be in dialogue with "the other," to love with an infinite patience which waits for the free response, a free creation of a common life of God and his child. A patristic saying states it this way: "God can do everything, except constrain us to love him." The omnipotence of God is to become the life-giving Cross, the unique response to the case of atheism on freedom and evil.

"The Kingdom of God has come among you," means that hell has also come among us. Marcel Johandeau puts it in his own way: "On my own, I am able to set up before God an empire in which he can do nothing, and this is hell...if we do not understand hell it is because we do not know our own hearts...." It is the hell of all those who despair and who explore the depths of Satan and cast towards heaven their empty blasphemies.

Now even the despair of hell is wounded by Christ, who as a person has experienced God's silence: "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" (Mt 27:46). Here we see the connection of hell with the freedom of loving God. Human freedom can create hell because we are always able to say: "May your will not be done," and not even God can control these words.

The freedom to refuse God is his wish for us, without limits. The suspended power of human choice renders our destiny conditional. And it is hell, therefore, to speak of divine love, the heavenly dimension of hell, the divine vision of humanity immersed in the night of solitude.

It is of the greatest urgency to correct the "terrorist" and "penitentiary" ideas of God. It is no longer possible to believe in a heartless God incapable of suffering. The only message which could reach atheism today is that or Christ descending into hell. As deep as the hell in which we find ourselves, it is even more profound to nnd Christ already there waiting for us. God does not ask of us virtue, moralism, blind obedience but a cry of assurance and of love from the depth of our hell. We ought never to fall into despair. We can only fall into God and it is God who never despairs. St Anthony the Great said that hell surely exists, but only for himself, which is to say that hell is never "for the others," that it is never the object of our discourse.

The powerlessness of an all-powerful God

The idea of an omnipotence blocks every passage to the future. Evil becomes an inevitable corruption of creation that God tolerates, without being responsible for this evil. Darkness, it would seem, is allowed to overshadow the light.

It is the passage from Philippians 2:6-11 which is the key, the one which speaks of the veritable alienation of God himself: "He lowered himself, taking on the form of a servant...making himself obedient even to death on a cross." God's omnipotence is freely annihilated. God renounces all power, above all the will to power. 1 am among you as one who serves expresses a total otherness with respect to our human conceptions of God.

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/23/2002 9:09 AM (GMT -6)

I’ll put this in my articles on fire and take a look at it ASAP. I’m a terribly slow reader (my thorn in the flesh!), so it may have to wait for a while. If you could summarize the points you feel to be true that the Dream Synthesis contradicts, that could help further our discussion. Until then, I’ll begin working on a few exegetical posts concerning Sheol and Hell.

The second article, I will also be sure to read. It’s not quite as long and should be easier for me.

Blessings…
Handcarved

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 10/23/2002 11:38 AM (GMT -6)

quote:
hand_carved: I’ll put this in my articles on fire and take a look at it ASAP.

I'd catagorize it differently, if you were refering to the LINK that I posted. But maybe you are addressing someone else. For THAT link I'd recommend a few choice footnoted quotes.

quote:
THE RIVER OF FIRE
www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Such as...

quote:
1 "This is evil: estrangement from God." St. Basil the Great, That God is Not the Cause of Evils, "ELLHNES PATERES THS EKKLHSIAS" [Greek Fathers of the Church) 7, 112 (hereafter cited as EPE). "As many... as stand apart in their will from God, He brings upon them separation from Himself; and separation from God is death." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27.2. "Men, rejecting eternal things and through the counsel of the devil turning toward the things of corruption, became the cause to themselves of the corruption in death." St. Athanasius the Great On the Incarnation 5 (Migne, PG 25. 104-105). "For as much as he departed from life, just so much did he draw nearer to death. For life is God; deprivation of life is death. So Adam was the author of death to himself through his departure from God." St. Basil the Great (PG 31. 945).

quote:
8 "'For God so loved the world as to give His Only-begotten Son unto death for it.' Not that He could not have redeemed us by another means, but He wished to manifest to us His boundless love, and to draw us near Him through the death of His Only-begotten Son. Indeed, if He had anything more precious than His Son, He would have given it for our sakes, in order that through it our race would be found nigh to Him. Out of His abundant love, He was not pleased to do violence to our freedom, although it was possible for Him to do so; but He let it be in order that we would draw nigh to Him with the love and volition of our own will." St. Isaac the Syrian, Homily 81.

quote:
12 "The devil is evil in such wise, that he is evil in disposition, but not that his nature is opposed to good." St. Basil the Great, EPE, 7, 112. "Since God is good, whatever He does, He does for man's sake. But whatever man does, he does for his own sake, both what is good and what is evil." Philokalia, vol. 1, chap. 121, St. Anthony the Great.

quote:
13 "For God made not death, neither hath He pleasure in the destruction of the living; for He created aIl things that they might have their being, and the generations of the world were healthful; and there is no poison of destruction in them, nor the kingdom of Hades upon the earth." Wisdom of Solomon 1:13-14. "For God created man to be immortal and made him to be an image of His own eternity. Nevertheless, through envy of the devil came death into the world." Wisdom of Solomon 2:23-24.

quote:
15 "For as much as he departed from life, just so much did he draw nearer to death. For God is life; depriva-tion of life is death. So Adam was the author of death to himself through his departure from God, in accordance with the scripture which says: 'For behold, they that remove themselves from Thee shall perish.'" Psalm 72: 27.

quote:
16 "Thus God did not create death, but we brought it upon ourselves out of an evil disposition. Nevertheless, He did not hinder the dissolution on account of the aforementioned causes, so that He would not make the infirmity immortal in us." St. Basil the Great (PG 31. 345).

quote:
17 "But as many as depart from God by their own choice, 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,... It is not, however, that the light has inflicted upon them the penalty of darkness." St. Irenaeus Against Heresies 5. 27:2. "But others shun the light and separate themselves from God...." Ibid., 5. 28:1.

quote:
21 "The tree of knowledge itself was good, and its fruit was good. For it was not the tree that had death in it, as some think, but the disobedience which had death in it; for there was nothing else in the fruit but knowledge alone; but knowledge is good when one uses it properly." Theophilus of Antioch To Autolycus 2. 25. "The tree did not engender death, for God did not create death; but death was the consequence of disobedience." St. John Damascene Homily on Holy Saturday 10 (PG 96. 612a).

quote:
23 "It is not God who is hostile, but we; for God is never hostile." St. John Chrysostom (PG 61. 478).

quote:
29 "The soul without the body can do nothing, whether good or evil. The visions which some see concerning those things that are yonder are shown to them by God as a dispensation for their profit. Just as the lyre remains useless and silent if there is no one to play, so the soul and body, when they are separated, can do nothing." St. Athanasius the Great.

quote:
47 "'The end of the world' signifies not the annihilation of the world, but its transformation. Everything will be transformed suddenly, in the twinkling of an eye.... And the Lord will appear in glory on the clouds. Trumpets will sound, and loud, with power! They will sound in the soul and conscience! All will become clear to the human conscience. The Prophet Daniel, speaking of the Last Judgment, relates how the Ancient of Days, the Judge, sits on His throne, and before Him is a fiery stream (Dan. 7:9-10). Fire is a purifying element; it burns sins. Woe to a man if sin has become a part of his nature: then the fire will burn the man himself. This fire will be kindled within a man; seeing the Cross, some will rejoice, but others will fall into confusion, terror, and despair. Thus will men be divided instantly. The very state of a man's soul casts him to one side or the other, to right or to left.

"The more consciously and persistently a man strives toward God in his life, the greater will be his joy when he hears: 'Come unto Me, ye blessed.' And conversely: the same words will call the fire of horror and torture on those who did not desire Him, who fled and fought or blasphemed Him during their lifetime!

"The Last Judgment knows of no witnesses or written protocols! Everything is inscribed in the souls of men and these records, these 'books', are opened at the Judgment. Everything becomes clear to all and to oneself.

"And some will go to joy, while others -- to horror.

"When 'the books are opened,' it will become clear that the roots of all vices lie in the human soul. Here is a drunkard or a lecher: when the body has died, some may think that sin is dead too. No! There was an inclination to sin in the soul, and that sin was sweet to the soul, and if the soul has not repented of the sin and has not freed itself from it, it will come to the Last Judgment also with the same desire for sin. It will never satisfy that desire and in that soul there will be the suffering of hatred. It will accuse everyone and everything in its tortured condition, it will hate everyone and everything. 'There will be gnashing of teeth' of powerless malice and the unquenchable fire of hatred.

"A 'fiery gehenna' -- such is the inner fire. 'Here there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.' Such is the state of hell." Archbishop John Maximovitch, "The Last Judgment," Orthodox Word (November- December, 1966): 177-78.

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/23/2002 12:05 PM (GMT -6)

Cool. Thanks for that. I'll take a look.

--Adam

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Modes of Thought
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 817

Posted 10/24/2002 5:41 AM (GMT -6)

I hope to be back over here in about a day or two. After I read through Adam's paper.

"Christianly understood, truth is obviously not to know the truth but to be the truth. Despite all modern philosophy, there is an infinite difference here..." SK

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/24/2002 7:12 AM (GMT -6)

Please note that the only thing I am really trying to accomplish in my paper that I posted (and sent to some of you) is to prove that Annihilationism and Traditionionalism in and of themselves are insufficient; rather it must be something in between the two. I try to prove this on exegetical grounds. This can also be done on philosophical grounds...but I'll save that for something else.

My next points will be to explain Sheol (through scriptures), and then Hell (through scriptures), and then the similarities and differences between the two. Then explore the dreaming state...and see what else needs to be done from there. But first things first, and that is to see if Traditionalism and Annihilationism are intrinsically insufficient.

Many 'Appy Returns!

Handcarved

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 10/24/2002 7:13 AM (GMT -6)

Whoa! I'm an Abecedarian now! I even have a STAR! This is too much for me to handle emotionally...

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

Springs
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 636

Posted 10/24/2002 9:40 AM (GMT -6)

Congrats on the star! And the title!

I am interested in reading your paper too. Could you send me a copy also?

thanks,
Springs

MrIndifference
Registered Member

Date Joined Jun 2001
Total Posts : 144

Posted Yesterday 9:58 AM (GMT -6)

If we look at the trinity of man (Spirit, Soul, and Body), first of all we know that the body is bound to this world, so when we die, it dies. The Soul is the part of us that can be saved or lost, depending on our choice to follow Christ or not. The question I have is... What about the Spirit. Is that simply reclaimed by God, or is that what you consider to be the ashes.

The spirit has to have a place in this, but where?

MrI. :|

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted Yesterday 12:04 PM (GMT -6)

That’s a very relevant question. The anthropology of man is quite confusing. There have been attempts in theology to distinguish “soul” “spirit” “body” “flesh” etc., but even the distinctions seem to be much of a blur (especially between “soul” and “spirit”) because their functions/descriptions overlap in many areas.
So, “Where is the spirit?” Well, I think that I’d have to answer in very abstract and obscure terms that wouldn’t really mean or say much to our finite minds… however, I think that something can be said about neophysics and space and time dimensions. As physics has recently discovered, there have to be at least 11 dimensions (including our 3 spatial and 1 time dimensions) total in order for quantum mechanics and electromagnetism to be simultaneously true. Well, how do we describe these dimensions? Imagine a 2-spatially dimensioned civilization… How would you explain to them a 3rd dimension? We could interact with these 2 dimensions and do things to them that they couldn’t explain within the realm of their scientific understanding, but it would be nonetheless real. In this same kind of way, I think the spirit or soul is involved with our being. How to explain it… I really don’t know. Where it is and what happens to it when it is destroyed or the body it is attached to is destroyed… I can only guess based upon the experience reality that I have.
In essence, I think that it is in another kind of dimensional reality that we can’t explain in our terms of our reality. But yet it is somehow part of who we are. Indeed, it is how we relate to God.
It might also be helpful to think of the “spirit” in terms of “breath” or “wind” because that is essentially what “spirit” means both in the Greek and in the Hebrew. When God created Adam, He “breathed” into him, and thus Adam had “breath.” When we die, we release our last “breath” back to God.
I don’t know if this really answers your question. Let me know if I’m way off from what you were looking for.
Blessings…
Hand_carved

"I'm beside myself!" C-3PO, Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones.

41 posts in this thread.
Viewing Page : 1 2

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 3:52 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

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual