Divine Processual Synchronicity is How the World Works...

Divine Processual Synchronicity

Is How the World Works...

A Process Theology of Reality

as we know it and live it

by R.E. Slater

In the theology I've been developing over the years - most recently, process relational theology - I've added concepts which were foreign to my biblical training. One of these is what I call "divine processual synchronicity" (DPS).

Here, I extend the idea of a divine miracle to be a common, everyday, moment-by-moment experience of the would. Having read Mitch Albom's book on the five stones in the river, or William Powell's "Shack," (sic, the chapter entitled, "The Garden") or dozens of other titles old and new, it finally dawned on me that not only is our God everywhere present but also everywhere experiencing and reacting to not only ours, but creation's everywhere experience of the present.

DPS is different from the classic Calvinist idea of God "causing and directing" all things in that God doesn't cause or direct anything. Rather than saying God is "in control" it is more accurate to say God is participating with a wildly "out-of-control" freewill universe in all its chaotic, random, and consequential results in exercising the being of itself.

Synchronicity implies that the Creator God Redeemer does not abandon His creation but fully experiences and participates with it in every way possible by redirecting its urges and displays where possible towards beauty, benevolenvce, and generatively loving actions. This can occur when creation harkens to its Savior Redeemer's loving calls to learn to love and become love. It requires creational obedience in the theological arrangement described as the Divine-Human (sic creational) cooperative I here redescribe as the divine, processually evolving, experience and participation of God in our lives.

Synchronicity says we are not abandoned by God but have hope in evil and harm that God is with us, working about us as God can, and that even in death we are delivered from dark meaningless to processual goodness and beauty at its zenith. It extends the idea that God is 'with' us... not simply up there in the heavens judging and dealing out wrath... but genuinely, and lovingly, with us in the fullest of senses.

Without denying divine Otherness, or divine transcendence, DPS leans into divine immanence with extreme consequences - for a creation without a present and participating God is nonsense. But an uncontrolled - and uncontrollable - freewill creation WITH a present and participating God is a miracle. The kind which surprises, which can morph itself towards divine imagination and creativity, which utilizes the Imago Dei which is present everywhere in creation as its birthright. Which may redemptively re-enrgize a freewilled cosmos by God's more recent divine atonement in Jesus stating the obvious - that we were never alone nor would be left alone. That God is remaking the world, with the world's cooperative help, into become fully what it was meant to become rather than a future fireball aka dispensational teachings.

That is, God is spiritually healing a freewill creation to become what it inherently is having been birthed by God in God's Image and divine Self. Hans Christian Andersen, captured divine processual synchronicity perfectly by his simple phrase, "The whole world is a series of miracles but we're so used to them we call them ordinary things."

R.E. Slater

December 2, 2022

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 2

Clark Pinnock

Clark Pinnock’s Outrageous Doctrine

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/07/09/clark-pinnocks-outrageous-doctrine/

by Scot McKnight
edits to article by R.E. Slater

Jul 9, 2014

Comments

"Eternal Torment" Began with Augustine

Well-known evangelical — originally conservative and then more progressive — Clark Pinnock came to view eternal conscious punishment (ECT - eternal conscious torment) as an “outrageous doctrine” (Rethinking Hell, 60).

He begins his famous essay with Augustine upon whom he lays responsibility for the traditionalist view:

Augustine believed God would torment sinners/the wicked mentally, psychologically and physically endlessly — and when Augustine was challenged how that could happen without their being destroyed, Augustine believed God would ongoingly perform miracles to keep them alive.

Puritan Reformer Jonathan Edwards Continued Augustine's View

Quoting John Gerstner, Jonathan Edwards believed the same.

Pinnock thinks this is like the person who delights in watching a cat being tortured in a microwave and taking delight in it.

Pinnock sees no reason to soften hell into blaming the person or talking about diminishment (which seems to have CS Lewis in view). Augustine was enough of a determinist/predestinationist that human responsibility wasn’t the escape on this doctrine; God chose and God didn’t choose [sic, Calvinistic doctrine of Election], and those whom God didn’t choose are those God has chosen to torment endlessly.

"My, I just don’t know people can believe this sort of thing."

Pinnock says Edwards would simply respond that we “think God as more loving and merciful than he actually is…” and “torturing the wicked presents no problem to God” but he observes that Edwards himself simply did not say things that his system affirmed, so Gerstner — an Edwards student — clarified what Edwards taught.

To accuse the critics of the traditional view of sentimentality won’t work

Pinnock asks right back: “What drives my opponent? Is it hard-heartedness and the desire for eternal retribution?” (60). “Surely,” he says, “a God who would do such a thing is more nearly like Satan than like God” (60).... Here he appeals to ordinary human standards, which if we reject we tend to reject rational thinking.

He asks again, “Does the one who told us to love our enemies intend to wreak vengeance on his own enemies for all eternity?” (60).

Not a Matter of Sentimentality or Liberalism

This is not a matter of sentimentality or liberalism, in spite of what folks like J.I. Packer have said.

Notice this view is held by folks who, on all other doctrines, are considered straight-laced: J.W. Wenham, J.R.W. Stott, P.E. Hughes, S. Travis and E. Fudge.

That kind of knife cuts both ways. Truth is not determined by those who believe something but by what the text says. Pinnock thinks things went wrong from Augustine onwards, and [since] the man was wrong on a number of [other doctrinal] fronts perhaps [he also was] on this one.

[Thus,] we are back to the standard conclusions: the Bible’s emphasis is the idea of destruction, not eternal, conscious torment:

“At the very least it should be obvious,” - Pinnock concludes after marshalling the basics

on destruction-perishing in the Bible - “to any impartial reader that the Bible may legitimately

be read to teach the final destruction of the wicked without difficulty” (65).

I’d like to see how folks respond to this claim: Does the language of destruction at least suggest the possibility of reading the Bible as teaching final destruction? What evidence counters his view?

Pinnock thinks conditional immortality is not the best way to frame [the discussion of hell], but the Platonic theory of the immortality-of-the-soul is at the core of ECT.

[Hence,] Pinnock's view is one of annihilationism.

In review

1 - ECT makes God “a bloodthirsty monster” (67).

2 - Softening hell won’t solve the theodicy: it makes a theodicy hopeless (theodicy = why a good God permits evil). (Hodge and Warfield sought to minimize the numbers; CS Lewis focused on human responsibility).

3 - Unending punishment is pointless in a theory of justice. It is crude retribution.

4 - Does ECT not suggest an eternal cosmological dualism?

continue to -

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 1

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 2

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 3

Amazon Link

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 1

When Considering Hell, Which Position is

the most consistent with Divine Love?

Introduction

For myself, conditionalism (annihilationism) seems the most appropriate when considering the love of God. Why do I say this? Consider the following...

God is holy. God is good. God is love. But the greatest of these is love. Love is how God makes one holy and good through Jesus. Not of human will but divine.

God's love cannot be preached enough. All Christian doctrine must proceed on God's love. All missions of the church must go at this sublime thought. No other church dogma must be higher than the grace of God. And all church doctrine must revolve around this one thought.

The holiness of God is meaningless without the grace of God. The goodness of God has no affect if it isn't bathed in God's atoning grace. Holiness without grace is austere. It proceeds in judgment first, last, and always. Goodness is without effect if not given in love. It is wholly utilitarian and bare of God's mindful relation to His creation if not met in love.

The love of God is the most sufficient descriptor of the Christian faith, of God Himself, and God's relationship to His creation. None else may proceed above this thought.

- R.E. Slater, June 2, 2014

Three Views of Death

When considering the Christian view of death, we might think of these views as second-tier doctrinal discussions. The two most popular views are (i) eternal conscious torment (ECT) and (ii) universalism, and the very similar Catholic concept of purgatory. To these is mine own personal view of annihilationism (here termed conditionalism but inferring conditional immortality) for reasons that have been stated in past documents (do a Google search of Relevancy22 or read through the "hell" section on the sidebars).

However, as second-tiered doctrinal discussions, these may also be deemed Christian theologoumenon referring to theological statements or concepts which are made in the area of individual opinion rather than upon doctrinal authority. Primarily, the "authority" perceived within Scripture is usually the most "popular view" of hell within a given society or culture at the time of its usage. However, it is only authoritative based upon the prejudice of public opinion towards the idea of death at the time of its discussion.

But for myself, annihilationism (or conditionalism) seems the most appropriate biblical view to hold in consideration of the love of God, as opposed to the two more popular views. Which is an odd thing to say when thinking of God's love and then thinking of a mortal soul's immortal loss and destruction. Which is why the concept is referentially linked to the idea of conditional immortality. An immortality that is linked to one's actions, life, and circumstances, as well as to a sovereign God's wise judgment and outreaching love seeking for redemptive completion.

Consider what one universalist recently said to me: "Certainly there are children who die before they reach the ambiguous and unscriptural 'age of accountability.' As are there plenty of people living into their adult years who are incapable of understanding so they don't have the ability to respond to the Christian idea of salvation. Then there are people who never hear the Word of God, or are victimized in such a way that they could never respond positively...."

My response was to flatly state that this is what is meant by the sovereign wisdom and gracious judgment of a loving God who wishes to bring all creation into reconciliation with Himself. However, with regards to the Christian concept of accountability - as versus sin and evil (including the idea of antinomianism, referring to lawless living) - the Bible is clear that all men everywhere are held to the act of redeeming this life now as it is. Not later.

By this is meant that we are to:

• avoid wickedness, treachery, lying, unrighteous anger, debauchery, idolatry, murder, and on, and on, and on.

• That we are held accountable for our acts of morality and ethics towards others - and even towards thoughtless use of nature itself.

• That we are therefore to provide a goodness, a kindness, a gentleness towards all men and women and creation.

• And that there will be an spiritual accounting for these acts both in this life - as in death itself - while preaching Jesus' forgiveness for all sins made, committed, or affected.

• And finally, that none are beyond the forgiving reach of God's grace and mercy.

More importantly, all things - both in the heavens and in the earth - will be reconciled to the redeeming God of the universe as respecting human free will. Even the human will refusing submittal to  God's divine will and rule. But if, for all these many reasons and more, a human soul steadfastly refuses to redeem life, or to live in a lifestream of redemption (I am trying to speak ambiguously here to allow the fullest, least formulaic, least creedal, idea of God's gracious redemption in Christ), than that soul may continue to experience a mortification of body-and-soul until at the last, even in death, its mortification continues until extinguished completely by that soul's wont-and-will.

This then is fullest meaning of the word death. Within this meaning is the idea of destruction, annihilation, and cessation of life altogether. It is the opposite to the word life which bears the idea of blessing, continuity, community, redemption, and shalom. And it goes with God's forbearance (or allowance) at our insistence to die completely apart from His love and fellowship against the full weight of His persistence (or insistence) for the redemptive life of His creation.

Tenants of Annihilationism

So then, what does the concept of annihilation communicate then?

• It allows the fullest freedom of the human will to have its final say of abandonment from God, self, others, and creation (up-wards, in-wards, out-wards, eco-wards).

• It allows sin its final affects of separation (or death) in all these four areas.

• It allows divine justice to justly condemn sin will permitting divine love to give everything away to save the sinner from death's destruction and abandonment.

• It sees hell's final estate as one of extinguishment where divine wrath upon sin, and divine anguish for the sinner (by God and by loved ones for the sinner), finds completion and end.

• It grants a period to the end of the divine sentence of creation. A conclusion to the eternal play of salvation.

• It fulfills the testimony of Scripture re sin, death, life, and salvation. That sin will have its judgment. And that salvation will be completed even if by sin's annihilation. That is, even in death will God's word be attested as true, and sinful man be allowed to fully die in all the many senses of that word.

• And, it grants an eschatological completeness to divine creation and recreation. That in no realm of heaven will sin reign or be found. Even in hell itself, which will be put to a final death and destruction.

To me, the view of annihilation seems the most consistent with divine love, mercy, grace, and forgiveness, human freedom, and divine sovereignty. If I didn't follow this conclusion than I would have to move to a universalist, or purgatorial, position of death, which is inconsistent with the biblical demand for sin's judgment, payment, and need for redemption IN THIS LIFE.... Although I will grant to universalism its emphasis upon living a redeemed life NOW and not later, to the public at large, they would not be so attentive to this Christian idea and warning of "redeeming the time," preferring instead to mouth the mantra of Invictus:

Out of the night that covers me, 

Black as the pit from pole to pole, 

I thank whatever gods may be 

For my unconquerable soul.

In the fell clutch of circumstance 

I have not winced nor cried aloud. 

Under the bludgeonings of chance 

My head is bloody, but unbowed.

Beyond this place of wrath and tears 

Looms but the Horror of the shade, 

And yet the menace of the years 

Finds and shall find me unafraid.

It matters not how strait the gate, 

How charged with punishments the scroll, 

I am the master of my fate, 

I am the captain of my soul.

- William Ernest Henley

For myself, and apparently within the testimony of Scripture itself, God is saying that it is now - in this life - that we have the time to throw off sin and evil. To become reconciled to our Redeemer-Creator. To be reconciled with mankind and creation. Not later. Not in the next life (or death) to come. But now. Scripture is very clear in this warning to do all that one can to be ready for God and for death. That it is important how we live our life to come by how we live our life now. And to truly fear not living this life salvifically without the divine redemptive help and agency of our Savior God who is very Life Himself in all His councils and very being.

To be confident that in all things - even in death itself - that God will reconcile all things to Himself, even if to allow death - in the fullest sense of its meaning - to descend upon the shades of resolute souls too proud in their sins and hate. Misappropriating, misinterpreting, or unwisely misunderstanding, the steady guidance of God in the affairs of this life. Still, for all three Christian positions here mentioned, we do each rest upon the forgiving mercy and all gracious judgment of our loving God and Savior.

Conclusion

So then, to sum up the position of conditional immortality or annihilationalism:

• The life we have now is the life we have for God or for sin, for life or for death.

• That the time we have in this life is enough for God to effect His will and for us to respond regardless of our human circumstances (cf. synchronicity).

• That it is unnecessary to slip into death for further redemption to take place (contra universalism).

• That it forces the real issue of time for this life now, and not sometime later, after death (contra purgatory). 

Interestingly, this timeful position of annihilation is in parallel thought with the ECT position regarding the importance of the human act before God in this life now - for good or for ill. To not put that act off until later because what we do now matters before God, man, and creation itself. A thorough universalist will say the same thing though the worry here for that position is that life's extenuating circumstances may not allow God enough time for His redemption to occur. That it may have to be after death for God's redemption to occur. 

But with the accompanying view of Christian synchronicity (as mentioned above), whatever life's unfairness or extenuating circumstances, God will redeem fairly and wisely. That the life  we have now is enough for God to effect his will - and for us to respond - regardless of (or in spite of) our personal situations. I think this gives a truer view of God's sovereignty and the importance of our human responsibility towards obedience to God's affective will.

But the least tenable position for me is the ECT position. It is the least gracious. The least complete in terms of eternal redemption. And the most eternally vindictive by God; by the redeemed who wish to pursue eternal judgment and not forgiveness; and, even by the sinner themselves who are held in eternal agony/torment without recourse to any kind of salvific ending. For an ending each resolute sinner must be allowed his or her's free willed soul.

R.E. Slater

June 4, 2014
update June 6, 2014

* * * * * * * * * * * *

continue to -

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 1

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 2

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism (Annihilationism), Part 3

Amazon Link

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Old and Current Views of Hell (1/2)

Old and Current Views of Hell (2/2)

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Book Blurb

Most evangelical Christians believe that those people who are not saved before they die will be punished in hell forever. But is this what the Bible truly teaches? Do Christians need to rethink their understanding of hell? In the late twentieth century, a growing number of evangelical theologians, biblical scholars, and philosophers began to reject the traditional doctrine of eternal conscious torment in hell in favor of a minority theological perspective called conditional immortality. This view contends that the unsaved are resurrected to face divine judgment, just as Christians have always believed, but due to the fact that immortality is only given to those who are in Christ, the unsaved do not exist forever in hell. Instead, they face the punishment of the "second death"-an end to their conscious existence. This volume brings together excerpts from a variety of well-respected evangelical thinkers, including John Stott, John Wenham, and E. Earl Ellis, as they articulate the biblical, theological, and philosophical arguments for conditionalism. These readings will give thoughtful Christians strong evidence that there are indeed compelling reasons for rethinking hell.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

* * * * * * * * * * * *

Rethinking Hell: Evangelical Conditionalism

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2014/06/04/rethinking-hell-evangelical-conditionalism/#disqus_thread

by Scot McKnight

June 4, 2014

Comments

The beat continues, the beat that persists in probing one question: Is ECT (eternal conscious torment) the most consistent view with the Bible and with theology? Or, the beat keeps asking, Is it possible that maybe conditionalism (annihilationism) is the most consistent? I have pushed this topic on this blog a number of times because the books are worthy of consideration and the issues continue to press against what many of us believe. I’m not convinced yet by the arguments of the conditionalists, but I am convinced conditionalism is a legitimate option for those who want their theology anchored in the Bible.

The most recent beat is by C.M. Date, G.G. Stump, and J.W. Anderson, Rethinking Hell: Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism (Eugene: Cascade, 2014), with a potent foreword by the excellent scholar, John Stackhouse, Jr.. A couple clips from John’s foreword:

To this day, I have wondered why Christians prefer — as many seem to do — believing in eternal conscious torment (ECT). [This is a topic in itself, one worthy of someone to take up seriously -- with the tools of the social sciences in hand.]

Wouldn’t it be great to be able to believe that God did not keep the damned on a spit, rotating forever in the flames of eternal hellfire?

Wouldn’t it be a relief not to think of the saints getting on with with joyful business of the Age to Come without expending considerable energy trying not to think about their loved ones writing in everlasting agony?

Wouldn’t it be reassuring not to have to try to bend one’s mind and, worse, one’s heart into a shape that could somehow give glory to God for afflicting people forever, that could somehow call majestic what seems obviously monstrous? (xii).

But Stackhouse has enough Bible in his spine to know that “Wouldn’t it’s” will not be sufficient for theology. So he says,

Now, maybe, of course, the traditional view of ECT is right. If it is, if ECT is truly what the Bible teaches, then I’ll do my very best to believe it and teach it. I won’t like it, but that doesn’t matter: I love God and I trust him above my own reason and experience and more intuition. Despite whatever might be the theological sophistication I have acquired over the years, if the Bible says it, I’ll believe it, and that settles it (xiii).

The book collects singular pieces and can be an exceptional textbook for anyone who wants to study this topic seriously. The essays are by Peter Grice, Glenn Peoples, Edward Fudge, Stephen Travis, John RW Stott, Clark Pinnock, John Wenham, BFC Atkinson, EE Ellis, RG Bowles, HE Guillebaud, AC Thiselton, PE Hughes, H Constable, CD Marshall, NG Wright, RG Swinburne, Kim G. Papaioannou, LeRoy E. Fromm, the Evangelical Alliance, Roger Olson and Ben Witherington III.

* * * * * * * * * * * *

What is evangelical conditionalism?

Conditionalism refers to the biblical doctrine of conditional immortality, which holds that God alone possesses immortality innately and therefore any other being who is immortal (imperishable, deathless) is so extrinsically, that is, as the result of a positive act of God. No other being, human or otherwise, whether by creation or resurrection, possesses immortality innately but only as God’s specific gift.

Anytime the New Testament mentions immortality in connection with human beings, there are three contrasts which bear out as true: (1) that immortality is ascribed only to the redeemed and never to the damned, (2) that it is a gift of God in the heavenly body and never the natural body, and (3) that it is always in reference to the whole person and never a disembodied soul or spirit.

Conditionalists believe that since the damned are not immortal and never will be, they will actually perish in hell (annihilation). This is the punishment referred to in the Bible as destruction, by which one will perish in the lake of fire, the second death. Some Christians suppose that everyone innately has an immortal soul, redeemed and damned alike, which God will not or cannot destroy. But Jesus implied otherwise, saying that we should fear God because he "can destroy both soul and body in hell" (gehenna).

Immortality is a gift bestowed by God upon his children. To receive this crown, a person must belong to Christ. Such is the condition of this conditional immortality. And this conditionalist view is evangelical insofar as it is understood and articulated within a framework of evangelical Christian orthodoxy.

So this view, then—evangelical conditionalism—is what we explore and commend at Rethinking Hell, whereby we examine how those who do not belong to Christ will be resurrected to face both judgment and the punishment of their destruction in the lake of fire, "the second death."

What is annihilationism?

On the one hand, conditionalism emphasizes what awaits the redeemed, namely, eternal life and immortality. (See What is evangelical conditionalism?) On the other hand, annihilationism is about what awaits the damned, namely, the eternal punishment of destruction in hell. Such is their perishing, the permanent end to the conscious existence of the whole person.

There is some debate among evangelical conditionalists regarding finer eschatological details. For instance, some believe there is a consciously experienced intermediate state between physical death and judgment day, and others believe the intermediate state is not consciously experienced.

All evangelical annihilationists believe that the damned (those who do not belong to Christ) are raised bodily from their graves at an appointed day of judgment and are then finally punished?they perish with finality, suffering the eternal punishment of destruction in hell.

Why is it controversial?

Conditionalism can be controversial for a variety of reasons. For one thing, it has been affirmed historically by a minority of Christians, while the majority of the church has believed and taught the traditional view of hell since at best the time of Augustine. Furthermore, until the recent rise of conditionalism among evangelicals, it was popular to dismiss the final annihilation of the damned as a doctrine believed and taught only by pseudo-Christian cults (e.g., Jehovah's Witnesses, Christadelphians, etc.) and Christian denominations which some consider questionable (Seventh-Day Adventists, etc.).

It can also be controversial because there have been some outspoken evangelical proponents of conditionalism who have given the impression to critics that this view was arrived at on more sentimental grounds, as if they had interpreted scripture through a fallen sense of justice and a humanist view of love. Other proponents of conditionalism have represented arguably questionable views such as open theism and anthropological physicalism (or some other variation of monism, mortalism, or soul sleep), or denied substantive evangelical doctrines like the inerrancy of scripture.

For these reasons and perhaps others, conditionalism is a controversial view. But the climate is changing and an increasing number of evangelical lay people and professionals are becoming convinced of this view. And there are critics who suggest that it may be affirmed by a majority of evangelical scholars. But conditionalists come from a variety of backgrounds and theological positions; one can find conditionalists on virtually every side of virtually every theological debate within evangelicalism.

Continue to website to read additional topics on:

• Reasons
• Misconceptions
• Scriptures
• Proponents

http://rethinkinghell.com/explore/

Why an Emergent Christian View Seems Important When Thinking About Hell

This weekend a close friend asked me what heaven is like, but before I could answer he drew his own very literal conclusions. My hesitancy in reply was that I believed he needed a comforting answer, but not a pat answer. Listening to his further explanation I eventually replaced all the metaphors of his speech and spoke reassuringly that I believe heaven is a place where God’s love surrounds us, uplifts us, heals us, forgives us, and places us within a community of other similarly pained souls sharing personal hurts and griefs. It was an answer I hoped would bring comfort to his anxiety, while also avoiding "counting the deck chairs, the number of diamonds in a crown, or the largeness of a mansion" a faithful believer might expect to be awarded. Or, the "kinds and types of banquet feasts enjoined," or even if "one could see into hell like Lazarus was able to do in Jesus' parable".... (remember, I did say my friend's view was a literal one). His pictures of heaven were not unlike other popularly expressed evangelical pictures I've heard and read time and again. Opinions that seem to be far askew of the biblical idea of the Kingdom of God present both in this life, and the next, as discovered in the Spirit and work of Christ. A Kingdom made of flesh and blood for today's postmodern age of upheaval, injustice, self-absorption, and uncertainty. A Kingdom where love reigns, heals, forgives, provides, sustains, upholds, embraces, blesses, and creates.

 

Similarly, when thinking about hell, I suppose I would describe it as a place where God’s redeeming love cannot occur. And as corollary, leave unanswered whether the future of an unbeliever is (1) one of eternal torture and damnation (the Catholic and popular evangelical view), (2) one of annihilation (mine own position, but not necessarily the same as Edward Fudge with his minutia of extracted detail and biblical circumvention as reported in the  articles found below), or perhaps (3) of a later redemption from hell (a purgatorial and universalist position). Whereas "purgatory" by its description conceptualizes the universalist perception of redemption, the universalist position would not need a purgatory because hell itself is its own purgatorial experience. But should we entertain the universalist position than we must also admit that God's redeeming love must be able to reach across the divide of even hell itself (and yes, it can). And, I think, one must also ignore the evil and injustices caused against others at Jesus' provocative commands to live out God's love now in this life, or to suffer the judgments to come - both in this life and the next - if they are not. To fear evil, to do justice, and to love your fellow man, if you are to walk humbly before your God:

"He has told you, O man, what is good; and what does the LORD require of you

but to do justice, and to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God?"

- Micah 6.8 (ESV) (for further commentary go here)

And to those still considering the universalist position, I would further submit the position of Divine Synchronicity which asserts that each-and-every opportunity has been created by the wisdom and direction of God within  t-h-i-s  life of ours for the salvation of any soul. Regardless of personal context and historical conditions. Thus making any kind of purgatory in the next life unnecessary, if not placing its very form and concept within this current life of ours. Just as one could picture a heaven on earth, so one could also picture a hell on earth.... However, within this concept of divine sychronicity will also come the requirement of entertaining a much looser definition of our idea of biblical salvation. To which I think Jesus' atonement has already provided and made possible.... An atonement which still warrants the missional call to evangelize and redeem, but not necessarily the stricter evangelical requirements of salvation by formulaic proclamation in Jesus' name. Somehow God will justly enact the human hope for divine redeeming love at its broadest level of salvation despite even the mute witness of a surrounding denying world. Which is the other meaning carried by the term of universalism - the good side of its meaning.... That Jesus' atonement was universal in scope and application. That it would effectuate any seeking heart crying out to God for hope and salvation. Even to that soul in deepest despair lost upon the dimming seas of hopelessness. Never believing God's salvation could ever be their lot. Yes, to even this one God's atonement will come.

... Putting aside such things, when I first began this web blog I did so to address the rhetoric being directed towards Rob Bell's book, Love Wins, a book many misperceived as teaching a form of universalism (yes, true) when in fact it was a rant upon evangelicalism's loveless perception upon sinful mankind. It took the high pontifications of God's name proclaimed by the (evangelical) church and asked where is God in the plight of human misery and suffering that has been left unaddressed by the Christian societies around it? Where is the love of God that is sung each Sunday from the choir's high chancelleries to the homeless at the church's doorstep, the dereliction's of the city's slums, the abysmal schooling conditions whacking the inner city's impoverished? It said that God's Kingdom is now, but that you wouldn't know it by the churches who do not live it now, awaiting its more glorious return in the next life. It called to account Christianity as a religion to become a living faith of mercy and compassion. Actively seeking and listening for those unempowered and overlooked by fat, satisfied Christians too comfortable in their warm homes and measured lives. This was the real sin of Love Wins. To question the state of affairs of the today's church, refusing to give pat answers to the wrongs of society lying everywhere about. It wasn't a doctrinal book but a strident book seeking reform - poking at the very chest of Western Christianity asking the hard questions too long denied.

So that within the first six months of Relevancy22's growth as a website I found myself following dozens of different responses to Love Wins while attempting to discern the reasons for the vitriol created on both sides of the discussion. Largely, I was using these rhetorical debates as a way to begin the formal deconstruction of my own evangelicalism - both in its dogmas and inherent ideologies as a Christian religion. A religion that took a person's faith and restructured it into formal institutionalized beliefs combining Christian tradition with biblicized folklore. At the same time, I was also beginning a more formal, concentrated effort at reconstructing what an emerging Christian faith might look like if it were possible to step away from one's own heritage and look deep within it from the outside. A heritage that should at once be centered around Jesus and not around a set of dogmas or skewed beliefs - which in the case of evangelicalism was centered around its praxis of salvation. Which in my mind was putting the cart before the horse, rather than the other way around. So that, as respecting the Emergent faith, it is one that is Jesus-centric, not salvation-centric. Which then would create quite a different outlook similar to the one we've been describing here for some time. In its aftermath, everything changes when you begin to see yourself - and others around you - through the eyes of Jesus, and not through the eyes of religious criteria or formulaic conventions.

From there, I intended to move towards investigating what an emergent Christian faith might look like that was both biblical and postmodern. One stripped of Christian conservatism on the right, and progressive mainstream liberalism on the left. A faith for the 21st century that could uplift the orthodoxies of the church's historical past, while seeking a global, postmodern revisioning of its own Christian expression. At which point I understood that my task would require deftly listening to, discerning, and assimilating, a variety of Christian positions from both the right, left and middle. Not an easy task to do. Especially for an outsider to the teaching professions and academic institutions of the hallowed halls of the church. But one that has become a necessary task until such a time as Emergent Christianity finds its own doctrinal legs, showing a sensible balance of direction to match its passionate heart for a lost mankind. While also protecting it from the damning hounds of evangelicalism wishing to pursue it to its death and destruction as a very legitimate threat. One, that I think, is in unnecessary apposition with Emergent Christianity - should it be willing to deconstruct itself, just as I, and other emergents, have gone through at some inflection point in our lives. But to set oneself up as judge and jury is a task I would rather leave to the Lord, and not to ourselves. For a true emergent learns to distrust himself, to maintain a penitent heart, and to seek a wisdom not of this world, but from the Lord Himself.

 

That said, I've covered a lot of positions and thoughts about the biblical topic of hell and here submit Scott McKnight's observations on yet another published view - that of annihilation. A publication that seems to me to skew the facts towards the topic pursued, so that even though I would chose the viewpoint itself, I might not use the same historical premises or grammatical interventions that Fudge has used... in essence, there are ways to get there, and then there are more proper ways to get to the same position. However, my interest here is in showing how the Catholic/Evangelical view might not necessarily be the fullest, nor the completest view of hell, given to us today. That others will read those same scriptures with varying sentiment counter to the more popular pictures of hell we hear bantered about in the press. Statedly, I should also note that McKnight himself is a progressive evangelic, but one that I find is usually just and careful in his analysis. Who has a heart for a Christianity that can move beyond its present convictions, and thus, more allowing for one that may be more emergent in nature (not his words, but mine). So that, I thought we should use McKnight's observations and see where he goes with this subject matter. Personally, one usually can find in the Bible what one wishes to find... so for me, I'm always a bit cautious in presaging an idea beyond its context. In McKnight's review you see this occurring by Fudge, but perhaps it should occur to counter-balance some of the overheated arguments from the other, more conservative, sides of discussion, too harsh and self-confident in their biblical statements about hell and damnation. Anyway, for additional discussions please refer to the sidebars under "Hell, Love Wins, Rob Bell, and Universalism" amongst others. Thank you.

 

R.E. Slater
February 4, 2013

 

 

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * *



Hell and the Final Word
Part 1 of 8
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/03/hell-and-the-final-word/

by Scot McKnight
Dec 3, 2012
Comments
 

What do you believe about hell? And one more: Where did you get your belief about hell?

 

There are a number of typical beliefs about hell by people today, and one can read about these in Edward Fudge’s new accessible study called Hell: A Final Word. Here is Ed Fudge’s list of what most seem to believe:

 

1. Hell is experienced now in the results of bad decisions or injustices.

 

2. God is good; a good God and eternal conscious punishment in hell are incompatible. Therefore, hell must be diminished.

 

3. Hell is the just deserve for the wicked, like Hitler.

 

4. What one person thinks is hell is not hell for another; hell is too dependent on personal perception.

 

5. Hell is a ramped up expression for death; after death we are no more.

 

Where do folks get such views of hell? How do we decide? One person says “It’s speculation.” Which is fine unless one thinks what the Bible says, interpreted as it must be, about hell is what we are to believe. Then it’s not necessarily speculation.

 

Question for the day: What was hell like in the preaching/teaching of your church? your pastors? your parents?

 

Some observations for some early chapters — and they are short chps — in Fudge’s book.

 

1. Many people have responded to the gospel because of hell-fire and damnation preaching. For some such people — not all — hell becomes an important element in the gospel. Hence, some who pushback against my King Jesus Gospel are actually saying they think hell has to be involved or the edge for decision is lost.

 

2. Most people have not studied the “history of hell” (or the history of how hell has been articulated) in the history of the church, and do not know that there are four major contributing streams to what many today believe about hell (as eternal conscious punishment):

 

1. Ancient Greek Platonism/NeoPlatonism and philosophies,
 
2. Dante’s famous sections on hell,
 
3. Jonathan Edwards and other revivalist teachings about hell, and,
 
4. John Bunyan or spiritual formation writers’ perceptions/teachings about hell.

 

Add to this what you learned from parents and pastors or friends, and you’ve got what most people believe today.

 

3. Fudge sees five major themes: hell is real (not just fiction), hell is bad (real bad), hell is punishment, hell is separation from God, and hell is eternal. The issue for Ed Fudge is what kind of eternal, and here the issue is that most have believed hell is eternal and conscious. Where do these major ideas come from?

 

4. Most people have not studied what the Bible says in its context, which is what Ed Fudge has been doing for decades.

 

5. Some of the most respected people in history have firm views of hell, graphically firm, and those ideas may not be as biblical as their authority extends: Fudge looks at two statements, one by Charles Spurgeon and one by John Gerstner.

 

6. Some have penetrating issues with hell, including the character of God that comes to the fore/surface in one’s view of hell — whatever one’s view of hell. Rob Bell, folks, wrote a book about God’s character as much as he did about hell.

 

Ed Fudge has put all of what we say to a test and to the text of the Bible; he has constructed a biblically-constructed view of hell; Ed Fudge believes in what is traditionally called “annhiliationism”: hell is eternal, but eternal here means ceasing to exist.

 

Join us in this series of considerations about hell....

 

 

 

Questions about Hell

Part 2 of 8

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/10/questions-about-hell/

 

by Scot McKnight

Dec 10, 2012

Comments

 

The claim is bold. The claim is this: those who are “in Christ” will spend eternity with God; those who are not “in Christ” will go to hell. The claim, then, not only claims that there is an afterlife, one in which there is blessedness or destruction, but the claim is to know who goes to heaven and who goes to hell. Edward Fudge, in his accessible Hell: A Final Word addresses this claim and asks and seeks resolution to some important questions.

 

What are the two most important things you have concluded about hell?

 

What does hell mean to Jesus? It is often heard that Jesus talks more about hell than anyone in the Bible; that statement is both true but can also be naive. Yes, Jesus talks about “hell” if one means “Gehenna,” but if by “hell” one means “eternal torment” then one has to be more than naive. Fudge examines the term Gehenna to observe that Jesus is the only one in the NT who talks about Gehenna as final judgment (and some today would question if Jesus is talking about final judgment; I think he uses Gehenna as his trope for final judgment). Here are his observations about Jesus:

 

1. Gehenna is the place where God is able to destroy both soul and body (Matt 10:28). Total destruction is the idea.

 

2. Jesus never addresses “sinners” with Gehenna; he addresses his disciples and the religious leaders of Israel.

 

3. Who goes to hell? Jesus: those who abuse fellow humans (Matt 5:22), those whose eyes lead them into sin (5:29-30), missionary proselytes (23:15), those who see others suffering and turn away (25:31-46).

 

Fudge grew up thinking non-Christians and people in other churches were going to hell, as were those who lacked sincerity, commitment and genuine repentance.

 

So who will go to hell?
1. No salvation outside of Jesus (Acts 4:12).

 

2. Salvation comes by grace through faith (Eph 2:8-9).

 

3. Same salvation applies to all.

 

4. God judges on the basis of light (John 3:20-21; Rom 4:19-22).

 

5. We are not the judges (Matt 7:1).

 

6. The “many” and “few” of Matt 7:13-14 is about God’s wishes.

 

7. The first promise of salvation in the Bible — in Abraham — Gen 22:17 — speaks of the numbers of the sand grains on the seashore: an optimistic vision.

 

8. The near-closing visions in Revelation say the people are innumerable: Rev 7:1-12.

 

9. God is predisposed to save, not condemn (John 3:17).


Not reasons to go to hell:

1. God will not make people go to hell.

 

2. No one goes to hell because of Adam’s sin; Adam’s sin has been dealt with by Christ (Rom 5:12-21).

 

3. No one goes to hell because of location (Acts 10:34-35): God is at work with everyone.

 

4. No one goes to hell because they missed the true church.

 

5. No one goes to hell for accidentally misunderstanding some doctrinal point while sincerely seeking God’s will.

 

People go to hell who refuse to believe in God/Christ.

 

 

 

Eternal Conscious Punishment and Justice

Part 3 of 8

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2012/12/17/eternal-conscious-punishment-and-justice/

 

by Scot McKnight

Dec 17, 2012

Comments

 

Some contend that endless punishment for temporal sin is “intuitively and irreconcilably inconsistent with fundamental justice and morality.” Some contend right back that such a theological claim for that reason is arrogance, unsubmissive to God’s Word and rooting theology in our own moral perceptions. OK, I get that… but….

 

… anyone who claims humans don’t know justice and injustice, at some intuitive level, are standing on morally dangerous turf.

 

We are looking at Edward Fudge’s Hell: A Final Word, and Fudge (an annihilationist who wants above all to root his ideas in what the Bible teaches) contends that the pushback above fails to deal with some important themes taught in the Bible. What are they?

Here are our questions: Can we comprehend justice well enough to know when something is just or unjust? Is the accusation, rooted in our intuitive senses of justice, that eternal punishment does not square with temporal sin a good argument?

1. God’s laws to Israel assume Israelites and judges can determine the just from the unjust. Read Exodus or Leviticus or Deuteronomy and you will saw laws where God says the Israelite judges ought to know justice. Thus, “Do not injustice in judgment… but judge your neighbor in righteousness” (Lev 19:15).

 

2. Abraham bargained with God on the basis of God’s own theory of justice: “Far be it from you to slay the righteous with the wicked so that the righteous fare as the wicked!” (Gen 18:25). That is, it would be unfair, unjust, unrighteous. Abraham wins this argument because God is just.

 

3. Can God do whatever he wants? This is the cry from some today, and I’ve heard this more from the NeoPuritans than anyone else, but this makes God’s will, not God’s goodness or love or holiness or character, the ground of morality. God does not answer to creation; God is God. That God is God is what emerges, too, from Romans 9-11. Fudge admits that Paul’s argument in Romans 9-11 could suggest that God can do what God wants, and there is no one who can answer back — but “could” is not the same as “does.” The Bible, however, tells us that God will judge in righteousness and will do what is just (52; notice Acts 17:30-31).

 

At the bottom of this post is this question: Can we comprehend justice well enough to know when something is just or unjust? Is the accusation, rooted in our intuitive senses of justice, that eternal punishment does not square with temporal sin a good argument?

 

 

 

Providential Accidents

Part 4 of 8

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/03/providential-accidents/

 

by Scot McKnight

Jan 3, 2013

Comments

 

How someone decides to study something, and then that something becoming one of life’s consuming projects, is often a story worth telling. (Got any stories of what led to any of your major passions?) Ed Fudge, deeply submerged into the culture of the Restoration (Stone-Campbell) Movement as a Church of Christ family, got into trouble with some because he believed in the “grace-unity-fellowship heresy,” which essentially meant that he, though CofC, believed others are “in Christ” and worthy of fellowship in Christ, he lost his incomes at his local church (where he was the preacher) and at the publishing company (CoC), wrote an essay on hell for Christianity Today, and then got “hired” by Robert Brinsmead (of Australia) to examine the ancient sources on what Jews believed about the afterlife, heaven and hell. Ed tells this story in his Hell: A Final Word.

 

Of these four, which do you think is accurate?

 

Brinsmead’s offer led Edward Fudge to study 40 hours a week for a long time and it led him to see four facets of the traditional view of eternal conscious torment/punishment.

 

1. The Old Testament says nothing about hell.

 

2. Between the Old and the New Testaments the traditional view became traditional — it was the “Jewish view.” Jesus fits into this scenario.

 

3. NT authors follow Jesus in this teaching.

 

4. The immortality of the soul requires eternal conscious torment unless one believes in forms of universalism.

 

“Either these pillars are true or they are not” (65).

 

On #1: Does the OT say nothing about hell?

 

If we look at the OT asking what it says about hell? Nothing. If we look at what it says about Gehenna, nothing. But if we look at the “end of the wicked” — what appears? He dips briefly into Psalm 37 to find these kinds of terms: wither and fade and perish and destroyed and “they will not be found.” Fudge finds more than seventy similes of what happens to the wicked … and he asks this: Do they depict a “fire that torments forever, a fire that purifies, or a fire that consumes?” (69).

 

The Pentateuch provides two major images of what happens to the wicked: the flood and Sodom’s destruction. Peter makes an analogy between the water that consumed in the Flood and the fire that consumes in the final judgment (2 Peter 3:5-7). He does more or less the same with the fire and brimstone of Sodom.

 

Some more images: smashed pottery (Psalm 2:7-9), corpses on a battlefield (Ps 110:5-6), unburied dead bodies (Is 66:24). He sums up Isa with this: “They are dead. They are unburied. They are disappearing. They are disgusting” (77).

The Jewish Context for What Jesus Said about Hell

Part 5 of 8
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/07/the-jewish-context-for-what-jesus-said-about-hell/

 

by Scott McKnight

Jan 7, 2013

Comments

 

For many people today what one believes about hell is a matter of fidelity to orthodoxy. Most don’t quite want to contend that if you don’t believe in eternal, conscious punishment you are a heretic though some get mighty close. In fact, for some the gospel itself is shaped to get people out of (a theory for) hell that is about eternal, conscious punishment. In other words, change hell you might change the whole gospel for these sorts. So, when Edward Fudge, in his many writings, including Hell: A Final Word, contends the Old Testament only teaches consuming fire and not an eternal conscious punishment, some stridently warn him of falling off the “faithful cliff” [or even, of erasing hell - res]

 

Yes, I detect a genuine pursuit of truth on the part of Ed Fudge, and so when he examines each of the four pillars for the traditional view, and what the OT says is the first one, I am interested to see what he sees. The second pillar is the Jewish context. The simple contentions are these: (1) there was one Jewish view and (2) that view was eternal conscious punishment. [For hermeneutics, remember this: anyone who says "the" Jewish view on something is probably either exaggerating and uninformed. Except in the obvious -- murder, etc -- there was plenty of diversity among Jews.]

 

How often do you hear “the” Jewish view when it comes to eternal punishment or hell? Why do you think “hell” is so inflammatory of an issue (no pun)?

 

From the days of Malachi to the time of Jesus was about 400 years, the equivalent [time period between] the publication of the King James Bible and the NIV 2011. We are talking then about the end of the Old Testament and the production of the apocrypha, the pseudepigrapha, the Dead Sea Scrolls, and then writings that we find after the New Testament that draw on a deep history that goes back into the time before Jesus, in literature like the Targums, the Mishnah, the Tosefta, and various other Jewish documents.

 

In general, Fudge contends the Apocrypha agrees with the “fire that consumes” conclusion of the Old Testament but he finds an eternal conscious punishment in Judith 16:17: “Woe to the nations… the Lord Almighty will take vengeance against them in the day of judgment, to put fire and worms in their flesh; and they will weep and feel their pain forever.” Isaiah’s dead corpses here are revolutionized into living torment. From a fire that consumes to a fire that torments.

 

Rabbis: diversity rules. Some saw a fire that torments forever, some that torments temporarily, some a fire that purifies, and others a fire that consumes. Some experts on Jewish theology even think the torments forever language is an image for total annihilation.

 

Dead Sea Scrolls: “consistently expected the wicked finally to be destroyed and gone forever” (85). Fudge sees the Scrolls in general depicting a fire that consumes. There is no fire that torments forever.

Pseudepigrapha: Variety. A fire that consumes is found in Psalms of Solomon 13:11: the wicked “will be taken away into destruction, and their memorial will be found no more.” A fire that torments in 2 Enoch 10:1-6, where we see [and I quote from Charlesworth's edition] “a very frightful place; every kind of torture and torment is in that place, and darkness and gloom and there is no light there, but a black fire blazes up perpetually… places of detention and cruel angels and carriers of torture implements, tormenting without pity… for all these this place has been prepared as an eternal reward.” This is Dante-esque stuff.

 

Fudge: there is no such thing as the Jewish view at the time of Jesus, so we will look at Jesus’ view in the next post.

 

 

 

What Did Jesus Teach (about hell)?

Part 6 of 8
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/09/what-did-jesus-teach-about-hell/

 

by Scot McKnight

Jan 9, 2013

Comments

 

The traditional view of hell rests on four pillars: that the OT says nothing; that the Jewish view at the time of Jesus was one of eternal conscious punishment; that Jesus’ view was thoroughly Jewish; and that the NT authors follow Jesus.

Edward Fudge, in Hell: A Final Word , subjects each of these to examination in a readable, accessible format. The first pillar is wobbly; the OT does speak about the “end” of the wicked and the idea is one of a “consuming” fire (not tormenting fire).

The second? Wobblier. There were three views: a consuming fire, a purifying fire, and a tormenting fire. Third? Today we sketch Fudge’s short chps on what Jesus taught, and I shall sketch his sketch.

 

1. Gehenna, Jesus’ typical term, is a trope for the place of destruction/fire south of Jerusalem. It cannot be proven to have been the dump in the 1st Century.

 

2. What happens there? The wicked are destroyed, they perish there. Matt 10:28: “fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell/Gehenna.” The issue is if “destroy” means “destroy” or “preserve forever in a destroying state.” Fudge thinks traditionalists ruin the meanings of words on this one: destroy means destroy, not preserve forever. Had he meant preserve forever he could have said it that way. He then lists eleven uses of “destroy” in the NT and shows that each means “destroy”: why not in Matt 10:28? [Matt. 8:25; 12:14; 16:25; 21:41; 22:7; 26:52; 27:20; John 11:50; Acts 5:37; 1 Cor. 10:9-10; Jude 5, 11.]

 

3. Gnashing of teeth means anger, not pain. Cf. Acts 7:52-54.

 

4. Eternal punishment fits with other uses of “Eternal” as an adjective: salvation (Heb. 5:6), redemption (9:1), judgment (6:2), punishment (Matt. 25:46), destruction (2 Thess. 1:9). Big conclusions: the term refers to something in the Age to Come, it is endless and it refers to the result of an action. An action leads to something being permanent: one is not redeemed forever, one is redeemed and then lives forever; one is not judged forever, one is judged and then has consequences forever. [I sense a technicality here that is not as tight as Fudge says it, but there's a good observation here.] Eternal punishment refers to eternal capital punishment. The second death. 2 Thess. 1:9 says it is “eternal destruction” so that eternal punishment is eternal destruction — and eternal fire refers to fire that destroys forever.

 

5. Rich man and Lazarus: it’s a parable; Fudge sees Jewish folklore at work here; it’s Hades not Gehenna; this parable says nothing about hell; it’s not literal; it aims to motivate Jesus’ contemporaries to care for the poor with the threat of irreversible consequences. [There are negations here that are not necessary, but in the main I agree with much of what Fudge says in this section.]

 

 

 

Hell: From James to John

Part 7 of 8
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/23/hell-from-james-to-john/

 

by Scot McKnight

Jan 23, 2013

Comments

 

In a previous post we looked at what Jesus taught about hell. The traditionalists contend the rest of the authors of the New Testament tow the line alongside Jesus. Today we want to sketch what Edward Fudge, in Hell: A Final Word, summarizes about James, Acts, Peter, Paul, Hebrews, and 2 Peter-Jude say about hell.

 

James speaks of the end of the wicked five times: death (1:15), destruction (4:12), consumed (5:3), slaughter (5:5), death (5:19).

 

The Book of Acts does not motivate by fear. Four refs to final judgment, and they are stated by Peter and Paul, and Fudge turns to them.

 

Peter: the only reference to the kind of final judgment in the preaching of Acts, from the lips of Peter, is destruction (3:22-23). Paul’s preaching: Acts 17 we see from Paul that God will judge the whole world, his judgment will be just, Jesus Christ is the judge, God raised him from the dead, and in Acts 24 Paul mentions “future judgement.” Not a word on the nature of that final judgment.

 

Paul: What about Paul’s own writings? Paul talks about “hell” more than anyone, though he doesn’t use the word “hell.” Instead, he says the wicked will not inherit the kingdom (1 Cor 6:9-10); they will perish (Rom 2:12); they are anathema (1 Cor 16:22), they will be destroyed (Rom 2:12; 1 Cor 3:17) — sudden and everlasting (2 Thess 1:9). … it is marked by distress, fury, tribulation, and wrath. ”It is strange beyond understanding how anyone can read these words… and explain them to mean anything other than total extinction, unending cessation, and complete annihilation” (128). These words are countered by the opposite: eternal life. Paul teaches, Fudge argues, endless death.

 

Hebrews warns the apostate of worse than physical death (2:2-3) — of destruction (10:39), one created by a raging consuming fire (10:27-31; 12:29) — torments, purifies or consumes?

 

2 Peter-Jude: swift destruction and condemnation (2 P 2:1, 3), like those of Sodom [above image] (2:6); Jude 7 says Sodom illustrates “eternal fire.” They will experience blackest darkness, total darkness (2 Pe 2:17; Jude 13). The Flood — destruction again (2 P 2:5-7).

 

John: John’s Gospel speaks of perish and destruction and death (3:36; 1 John 5:16-17 too).

 

Next post… the Lake of Fire.

 

If the rest of the NT followed Jesus, then the emphasis is destruction. The evidence for endless torment is not evident to Edward Fudge.

 

What do you think? Any evidence for endless torment?

 

 

 

The Apocalypse’s Lake of Fire

Part 8 of 8
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/jesuscreed/2013/01/25/the-apocalypses-lake-of-fire/

 

by Scot McKnight

Jan 25, 2013

Comments

 

The almost universal traditional view of hell in the Christian church is that it is a lake of fire, that it will last forever and ever and that the wicked will be conscious and tormented endlessly. So Edward Fudge, in his Hell: A Final Word , sketches what we find in the lake of fire text in Revelation.

 

The Lake of Fire in Revelation in Revelation 20:14-15:

"14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire."

First, the lake of fire is probably related to Daniel 7′s river of fire, a fire that destroys evil world leaders (the Beast and the False Prophet).

 

Second, in Revelation the Beast, the False Prophet and Satan/Serpent are thrown into the Lake of Fire. The place for the unholy trinity of evil. They are “tormented day and night forever and ever” (20:10). Only they are said in the Bible to be tormented endlessly.

 

Comment: Yes, Fudge is right; no one else is said to be tormented forever. But wicked humans are tossed into the same Lake of Fire in the next chapter. But Rev 14 has humans with much the same finality — humans, the smoke of their torment, endless. More importantly, God is thereby now theologically and logically connected to endless torment. The unholy trinity may be upgradings of sin and evil and wickedness but they are still said to be tormented endlessly. Fudge appeals next to a human — Hanns Lilje — but this is an argument from a human or an authority or an experience. It doesn’t for me wipe away the glaring reality of an endless torment administered by God. The problem of endless torment is now officially connected to a theological problem.

 

Death is tossed into the Lake of Fire (20:14). Hades is tossed into the Lake of Fire (20:14).

 

The Lake of Fire is the Second Death. The death of the age to come. Lake of Fire is defined by Second Death, meaning that Second Death is the ruling image. The two options are life (eternal, city of God) and death (final, second death, Lake of Fire). Humans enter the Lake of Fire, the Second Death: Rev 21:8.

 

So for Fudge all texts dealing with endless torment are explained, destruction is seen as the ruling image, Death is the outcome, and the absence of life is the outcome for the wicked. For Fudge the emphasis — undeniable — in the Bible is a fire that consumes or destroys, not a fire that purges or that torments. Edward Fudge makes the best case of anyone alive today for the annihilationist viewpoint.