Showing posts with label Eternal Conscious Torment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Eternal Conscious Torment. Show all posts

Saturday, March 30, 2013

Masters Thesis, and The Sheep and the Goats


31 “When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. 32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. 33 He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.
34 “Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. 35 For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, 36 I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’
37 “Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? 38 When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? 39 When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’
40 “The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’
41 “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. 42 For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43 I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’
44 “They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’
46 “Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.”

I've decided that writing over 50 pages per verse (Romans 5 and Matthew 25) that it would result in writing a thesis over 700 pages long. So that is a tad ambitious for a Masters Thesis. 

However, my tentative Masters Thesis would be on a reinterpretation of Matthew 25:31-46. So, yeah.

--Nick

Wednesday, February 20, 2013

To What End Hell? A Brief Discourse

I think the most interesting part of the entire "hell" debate is how often everything devolves into proof texts and theological quandries. Specifically, "people choose to go to hell" or "all means all" or "God is too nice" and so on and so forth. My thoughts on this topic have been hinted at elsewhere but for the moment I want to conduct a little exercise.

I'm going to list a series of passages that I believe at face value support each view. This is not to say advocates of each view appeal to each verse, but these are the common verses I would appeal to if I was to defend each view.

Universalism --

Philippians 2:5-11. Romans 5:12-21; 11:32-26. Colossians 1:15-20. Ephesians 1:10-11; 20-22. John 3:16. 1 Corinthians 15:22-28. 2 Corinthians 5:17-19.

Annihilationism/ Conditional Immortality --

John 3:16-17. Matthew 10:28; 25:41, 46. Ecclesiastes 9:5. Jude 7. Romans 6:23. Malachi 4:1-3. Revelation 20:10-15. 2 Thessalonians 1:6-10. Isaiah 66:24. Matthew 18:8.

Eternal Conscious Torment --

Revelation 14:9-11; 20:10-15. Matthew 25:46. C.S. Lewis (yes, this is a joke).

You will notice that save for the Universalist position, Conditionalists and Traditionalists share common texts, often engaged in systemic discussions over tenses and the like. The Universalist has two issues to address: how to engage the "negative" texts in a faithful way, and how to build a positive case.

The Conditionalist and Traditionalist have an easier job, in that they appeal to varying interpretations of many of the same texts, thus not needing to answer the set of "positive universalist" texts.

In short, the three views are overlapping but there is a strong disconnect between Universalism and the other two views. Certainly Conditionalists and Universalists share a common view of the final victory of God, but the similarities are slim. Same with Traditionalists and Conditionalists regarding "final and irrevocable" punishment.

One of the few flaws in Edward Fudge's masterful The Fire That Consumes was in regarding his treatment of Universalism. Though I know Edward to be a generous soul and love his ministry, he never tries to explain the Universalist texts that seem to contradict his own interpretation. In my eyes, this is a missed chance to incorporate various prima facie contradictory verses.

This is in some ways indicative of the entire modern hell debate: Universalists react strongly against Traditionalism while more or less ignoring Conditionalism, and so on and so forth. To be fair, you do have a little bit in Thomas Talbott's The Inescapable Love of God addressing annihilationism but it is brief and doesn't do the contradictory perspective justice. Each side seems to react more towards a specific view at the exclusion of another view.

Conditionalists and traditionalists, in order to answer for themselves, need to bring Universalism into the dialogue in order to not only understand their point of view, but how to speak up. I know Edward Fudge and Robin Parry are friends, so this may have happened in private but I am looking forward to a massive anthology that incorporates all views in multiples voices that allows for dissention and dialogue.

Let's get Thomas Talbott, Robin Parry, David Congdon, Edward Fudge, Glenn Peoples, I. Howard Marshall, Robert Peterson and Christopher Morgan all together and duke this out. No more speaking past each other. Each side must explain the other texts.

Of course, I may be speaking to the choir but this is an issue that has bugged me since the beginning.

Thoughts?

--Nick

Wednesday, November 28, 2012

Three Views on Hell: A Universalist response to Eternal Torment

Jason Pratt:

Num 16:30: if the "literal" fire killing the same rebels in verse 35 isn't literally hell (and I agree it isn't), why is the pit in verse 30?

Matt 3:12: the verse 11 fire Christ baptizes with, is regarded as salvific. The threat and the result parallel Christ's explanation for the unquenchable fire at Mark 9:49-50.

Matt 5:22: important contexts include a get-out-of-prison clause (v.26) and the rationales for each punishment (hating, and not reconciling with one's brother).

Matt 5:29-30 parallels a saying from Matt 18/Mark 9. In GosMark Christ explains everyone will be salted by the fire into peace. GosMatt includes a repeat of the 100th sheep, and a warning (to the apostles!) against insisting on hopeless punishment (yet with a get-out clause: be merciful!)

Matt 8:12 warns the kingdom's sons (Matt 13:38) who don't want others saved. Christ admonishes someone for asking if only few are saved (Luke 13:29); and punishes someone trying to flatter the king as a thuggish tyrant (Matt 25:30). Christ also warns His chief followers who abuse others (Matt 24:51).

(Ditto Matt 25, per my own essay.)

I take such warnings seriously!--they affect how I interpret material such as the wheat and the weeds!

Jude 7 doesn't end the scriptural story, or there would be no judgment for those spirits later, much less a resurrection for at least the human sinners.

Rev 14:9-11 verbally involves refining gold (scripturally tough but saving love), so long as people continue (per the Greek grammar) worshiping the beast and accepting the mark. John afterward (15:1-4) reports a time when everyone gratefully glorifies God (which rebels cannot acceptably do). Loyal souls have (per the Greek) come out from the beast and from his image and from his number, so were in those things before; to stand on the fiery sea of glass before the throne (which in Temple typology was for cleaning sacrifices to be a pleasing burnt aroma to God). Being victorious over sin elsewhere in RevJohn involves sinners ceasing to sin.

Rev 20:15 doesn't indicate the lake of fire and brimstone is hopeless. (Fire and brimstone were ancient remedies to save a person from infection, as were maggots, not-incidentally.) Subsequent chapters show people after the lake of fire judgment being seriously and successfully evangelized by the sanctified Church (cooperating with God). Another flashforward (21:1-4) reveals there will be total success, even though impenitents must suffer.

Luke 16:19-31 doesn't say the rich man will never repent; it only shows him not penitent for his sins. The chasm isn't "broad" enough to prevent communication, and certainly cannot be "broad" enough to prevent God's omnipresence: especially if the fire, per other scriptural evidence, is the Holy Spirit Himself! RevJohn's final chapters show the Church evangelizing and bringing to salvation such people after the fiery judgment; and 1 Peter 3 & 4 arguably indicate Christ Himself doing the same in hades. "Then who can be saved!?" "With God all things are possible!"

What does TKJ suggest in place of annihilation's "one size fits all" punishment?--any hopeless punishment is still equally hopeless for everyone being so punished! Neither Chris nor I am suggesting impenitent sinners ever escape: even annihilation may follow ages of punishment. How does ECT avoid TKJ's appeal to the punishment being proportionate to the crime? Anyway, universalists don't regard sin's severity as being greater than the omnicompetent God's grace: where sin exceeds grace hyperexceeds, for not as the sin is the grace.

I certainly agree that 2 Thess 1:9's referential context indicates St. Paul isn't talking about annihilation; but I find the grammar and referential contexts do indicate Paul is talking about eventual salvation of those so punished.

"If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?" No one primarily concerned with salvation from their sins, instead of only from inconvenient results, would ask such a question. Until such people seek salvation from sin, God will lead and teach them, by punishment as necessary, even into the eons of the eons.

Are universalists mistaken that retribution means bringing rebels back under loyal tribute to proper authority? I think non-universalists have the greatest challenge to show Godly retribution means making sure rebels never return to loyal tribute to God!

If (as I agree) Romans 1 represents a free, informed decision about rejecting God, I think TKJ will have a difficult time showing support that even God's presence wouldn't be enough for such people (namely all of us) to change their minds; since then God would be impotent to save any sinner at all. I routinely find in the scriptures that God can save sinners despite sinners already having a perverse view of God. Calvinists and universalists typically agree that God is competent enough to save sinners no matter how perverse they are. (Sometimes Arminians, too, at least rhetorically in evangelism.)

As to Satan and rebel angels, my soteriology isn't based on what rebels insist on (although as a rebel and chief of sinners myself, like St. Peter, St. Paul and the publican, I am well aware of how people sin against what light they can see); but rather on what God does and is capable of.

Moreover, any argument hinging on God insistently respecting creaturely free will, has basically refuted itself if God allows creatures to permanently lose, or never to have, freedom to repent (much less freedom to ever do righteousness).

Last, I'm amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with "His people" (never saying to those who are not His people "You are My people" for example); and even more amazed that TKJ thinks God only reconciles with repentant people (instead of loving us first to send Christ to reconcile us through the blood of the cross while we are still God's enemies.)

I have usually found Calvinists and Arminians both agree with me (and St. Paul in Romans for that matter) on this!

Editor:

For the longer responses, enjoy them here.
For Kurt's original post.

Saturday, October 20, 2012

Three Views on Hell: Eternal Conscious Torment

INTRODUCTION

I don’t believe that Hell will have literal fire.  I side with the Eastern Orthodox Church on this issue.  Hell is a place where either separation from God or the power of his presence is punishment.  The way to understand biblical passages on hellfire is to understand them in a metaphorical manner (given that there are other instances of fire where literal fire is not meant [Exodus 15:7, Isaiah 42:25, Zephaniah 1:18, John 15:6, 10:26-30, 1 Corinthians 3:12-15]).


A REAL HELL


A). The Scriptures say eternal conscious punishment is real, and that it is a place you really don’t want to be in. This is the data supporting hell as a real place: Numbers 16:30, Matthew 3:12, 5:22, 29-30, 8:12, 13:41-42, 50, 18:8-9, 25:41, 46, Jude 7 Revelation 14:9-11, 20:15, 21:8 and Luke 16:19-31.  Luke 16:19-31 is perhaps the most detailed account of hell.  It is the parable of the rich man and Lazarus.  Jesus’s teaching here is that all men have enough knowledge accessible (the Law and the Prophet) to be held accountable for their eternal residence.  Interestingly enough, the rich man is in Hades is conscious, and is holding conversation (contrary to what we might think happens when we are in excruciating pain) with Abraham, who is in paradise.

ETERNAL DESTRUCTION

A) Annihilationism doesn’t make sense of the biblical data or seem consistent with our knowledge of the character of God.  Verses used to support annihilationism such as Philippians 3:19 and 2 Peter 2:7 don’t refer to the cessation of existence, but rather the wasting of a thing (the same word is used in Matthew 26:8 but refers not to the cessation of existence).  1 Thessalonians 5:3 and 2 Thessalonians 1:9 are also used in support, but it seems the conclusion must be presupposed to gather that Paul is referring to the ceasing of existence.  Aside from the biblical data, annihilationists must show they have a full understanding of the severity of sin.  Annihilationists believe that the soul ceases to exist.  But how do we really know that annihilatoinism will be a punishment that fits the crime?  It seems that very evil men like Hitler and Stalin will get off the hook here, and perhaps men who were unrepentant, but not sinful to such an extreme (perhaps like Ghandi) would be given a punishment they didn’t deserve.  This one-size-fits-all punishment also seems to deny Paul’s words that God will judge “each man according to his deeds” (Romans 2:6). 

NO SECOND CHANCES


A) Universalism has, I think, the greatest challenge of the three views.  It faces a large task to reconcile the biblical data on eternal punishment.  It faces the challenge of the Gospel, in the sense that ‘If all will be saved, why not just do what I want because even though the punishment will hurt, it will stop eventually and I’ll be in bliss?’  I think universalists are mistaken on the difference between retribution and reconciliation. 

B) It is often that universalists want to show verses to illustrate God’s reconciliation with his people (both in the OT and NT).  However, this is to miss the point: reconciliation is with God’s people.  These people are already repentant; the lost are unrepentant and not considered part of God’s people.  Last, universalism faces the difficulty of human freedom.  If it is true that humans are free, and also true that some humans reject God on sufficient knowledge (Romans 1), then they are making a free, informed decision about what they think of their Creator.  And if the mind and heart has rejected God, then it will already have a perverse view of who God is.  The universalist must show enough support that God’s presence would be enough for people to change their minds.  And if Satan and his demons can continue in their rebellion, having a better-than-human knowledge of who God is, then I don’t see why humans might be any different once we see more fully.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, I believe eternal conscious punishment is the best view that fits with the biblical data both explicitly and implicitly (meaning, compatibility with our biblical knowledge of the character of God).

AUTHOR

T. Kurt Jaros is the Founder of Real Clear Apologetics and a Master’s student at King’s College London studying Systematic Theology

OTHER ESSAYS

Annihilationism

Universalism

CRITICAL RESPONSE

Annihilationism

ADDITIONAL RESOURCES

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Orthodox_Christian_theology#Concept_of_Hell

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology, “Hell,” (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2000), pgs. 1148-1153.

Murray Vasser, http://murrayvasser.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/biblical-view-of-hell.html

Three Views on Hell: Introduction

http://www.rethinkinghell.com/
I have the pleasure of hosting an extended debate on this most contentious topic. I selected several up and coming theologians, and requested from each an essay to describe their views of the nature of eternal punishment.

A few things first.

COMMUNITY 

All three essays are written by professing Christians, and as such, I expect the utmost respect to be shown to one another. Disagreement is encouraged, but condescension and a lack of charity are discouraged.

FORMAT

The goal isn't to provide an exhaustive commentary on all bible passages or philosophical arguments. Instead, this is more an attempt to boil things down to bite-size chunks that are more easily expanded upon. 

Each writer has 700 words to make their case. Their responses may be as long as they would like, but since I am moderating this series, I have the right to delete a comment or request a rewrite.

Likely, since we are all good boys and girls, this shouldn't happen.

FINAL THOUGHTS

I may add a follow up post to this series, offering links to various responses by the contributors. I know the annihilationist contributor plans on offering a response or two.

Thanks to each author!

THE ESSAYS

Annihilationism

Universalism

Eternal Conscious Torment

THE RESPONSES

These responses are much longer than the actual essays. Which is nice. Enjoy.

Annihilationist response to Universalism.

Universalist response to Annihilationism.

Annihilationist response to Eternal Conscious Torment.

May this debate continue in far greater respect than has been conducted elsewhere. Please engage and enjoy. May He be glorified.

--Nick