The doctrine of ECT - how did it come about?

[Paidion]

The GOOD NEWS as proclaimed by the apostle Peter:

“Repent and be baptized each of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the forsaking of your sins, and you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. For the promise is to you and to your children and to all who are far off, whomever the Lord our God calls to himself.”


The BAD NEWS as proclaimed by many modern "evangelicals":

"Unless you accept Christ as your personal Saviour, you'll spend eternity in hell!"

[jriccitelli]

I am a 'post' modern evangelical, as opposed to a post-mortem evangelical.
"Unless you accept Christ as your personal Saviour, you'll spend some time in hell before your annihilated in hell!"
Thats how I try to warm up my unbelievers!

Oop's i was too hasty when i made a word play out of 'post mortem' and i forgot the common meaning of pm, i am rather a 'pre' modern evangelical, I am certainly not post modern, i am in fact very anti-post modern. oh well.

[Paidion]

I am a 'post' modern evangelical, as opposed to a post-mortem evangelical.
"Unless you accept Christ as your personal Saviour, you'll spend some time in hell before your annihilated in hell!"
Thats how I try to warm up my unbelievers!

How will you respond if one of your unbelievers challenges you to find a verse in the Bible about "accepting Christ as your personal Saviour" ?

[RickC]

Ian, (a tad late replying here),

Thanks for your reply, RickC. Where ya bin?

Punch in rush the weapon grace under pressure in youtube.
It`s a dig at God and Christians over the issue of hell which is why I posted it.

Oh, um, well . . . .
I've been busy since Sept.
That is, I got a job.
After being unemployed for 23 months!
Rest Area Attendant.
(Where trucks (lorries) and cars stop so people can um, rest).
Great job!

I watched the Rush vid.
Checked the lyrics too.
Had never really noticed them.
I don't usually even pay much attention to the words anyways.
(I play guitar & listen to it, mainly).
As to the lyrics: I couldn't really tell if it was Rush (and/or Neal Peart) who said what they said. It was almost like the words portrayed what an individual was thinking. Either way, I see your point. And was a tad surprised. I saw Rush on the 'Grace' tour, but was staring at Alex Lifeson's left hand during the whole concert, LOL

Thanks, Ian
===============================

Rich (another late reply),

A lot could be said here about context. Namely, that no one speaks or acts in a vacuum. Including Jesus and the Apostles.

I have a theory that I haven't really followed up on: That Jesus (or other NT characters) may have spoken different concepts to differing people. In other words, to Sadducees, e.g., Jesus had so much to say. And on to Zealots, and so forth. He never seemed to say 'everything' about what all 'judgment' might or could entail. Yet His warnings were very real.

I'm also wondering if no character or writer of the NT really knew the details. (This would fall under 'the kenosis theory' -- that Jesus emptied Himself of certain divine attributes. In the case of the 'end times', a coming judgment, and/or of a judgment (after death), He simply may not have known details <--- just a theory.

Btw, I used to lean toward Conditionalism (as it is traditionally presented).
These days, I'm stronger toward a kind of preterism, but not of the 'full' variety.
I'm wondering if the evil dead will actually be raised.

I had another thread on this that Paidion and others replied on not long ago.
I hope to *bump* it in a day or so.

Take Care

[RICHinCHRIST]

I'm also wondering if no character or writer of the NT really knew the details. (This would fall under 'the kenosis theory' -- that Jesus emptied Himself of certain divine attributes. In the case of the 'end times', a coming judgment, and/or of a judgment (after death), He simply may not have known details <--- just a theory.

I have also pondered this. I've wondered sometimes if I could have a meal with the apostles (before they died) and ask them a bunch of questions and find out the answers to controversial topics. Perhaps they would give me clear-cut answers. But perhaps they would also be unsure themselves of the answers. Regarding hell, maybe they'd be also unsure how everything would work out. Then I've thought that they might say, "let's not think so much about this but let's focus on doing the Father's will".

I haven't thought about Jesus having limited knowledge in this area. I suppose it's very possible since He did not know the exact timing of His return, either.

[RickC]

Rich (right quik) --

Here's an old link I thought you and others might be interested in, by Glenn Miller (1996):
Messianic Expectations in the First Century

Otherwise, I, too, have wondered what the Apostles or even the Apostles with Jesus talked about during their down time. Like if they had a certain "secrets of the trade" kind of thing going on. I'm sure they did. Thinking: Peter, James and John & how they went to Jesus privately (cf. Matt 24). Of course, Matthew let us in on this little secret.

I have to git!
Take Care

[backwoodsman]

- how has this become the prevailing doctrine of the Christian Church since at least the Middle Ages? ... Are cynics right in calling it a power tool for the medieval Catholic Church?

I've been doing some reading on universal reconciliation, and a book I'm currently reading has a chapter that explains the origins of ECT. The book is, "Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years," by J. W. Hanson, 1899. You can read it online or download in PDF here:
http://www.archive.org/details/universa ... 00hansgoog

Look for chapter 3, Origin of Endless Punishment, starting on page 53 of the PDF (page 36 of the book).

Apparently it was originally a "power tool" for the ancient Egyptians, which was adopted from them by the Greeks and Romans, from them by the Jews during apocryphal times, and in turn by early Christians, along with other pagan ideas. Several pre-Christian Greek writers point out that its purpose was to allow the leaders to control the ignorant masses. In the church, it really gained traction around Augustine's time, as the center of Christian thought and power shifted from Greek language and culture to Latin, and from then on was the dominant view.

[Homer]

I've been doing some reading on universal reconciliation, and a book I'm currently reading has a chapter that explains the origins of ECT. The book is, "Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church During its First Five Hundred Years," by J. W. Hanson, 1899.

If it was the prevailing doctrine for the first 500 years that is surprising. Justin Martyr and Irenaeus were clearly not universalists. And the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious knowledge says "the doctrine made its first appearance with Clement of Alexandria". Schaff Herzog goes on to say:

But the writers defending the "apocatastasis" are decidedly in the minority; and so bad was the repute of Origen for sound thinking that any theory known to be derived from him was looked at askance by the sober-minded.

One might well ask where the universalist doctrine originated. The universalists themselves say its originator was Zoroaster.

There seem to be many questionable historical claims made. We hear that the Anabaptists are universalist, but here is a quote from the Anabaptist - Mennonite Encyclopedia:

Article 17 of the Augsburg Confession (1530-Lutheran) assumes that all Anabaptists held this doctrine, when it says, "Therefore the Anabaptists are condemned, who teach that the devil and damned persons will not have eternal pain and suffering." But this belief of Denck's was never really accepted in Anabaptist circles. It is found nowhere else except perhaps in Jakob Kautz and Hans Hut. In more recent times, however, some Mennonites in Baden and Württemberg, under the influence of the theologians C. F. Oetinger and Michael Hahn, accepted the doctrine of the restitution of all things and organized a separate church group, the "Hahnische" Mennonites. But even this movement did not reach any considerable proportions. However, a few Mennonite preachers in the German Verband and in Switzerland have occasionally leaned toward this view. (See the polemic written against it by Jakob Vetter, Warum ich die Wiederbringung aller Dinge ablehne, 1911.)

In Russia and America, Mennonite bodies have stood firmly against universalism, and the doctrine is practically unknown, although disciplinary action was taken against an elder on this ground in a Canadian conference (General Conference Mennonite) in 1950. A curiosity is the fact that the refusal of Joseph Stucky to discipline a member in his central Illinois congregation in 1871 for propagating this view was the occasion for the schism that led to the formation of the Central Illinois Conference.

Historical information does not appear to be worth much. The Gnostics are said to have taught universalism 50 years before Clement. Do they count as introducing the doctrine to the church?

[steve7150]

One might well ask where the universalist doctrine originated. The universalists themselves say its originator was Zoroaster.







My vote is that it originated with Paul.

[Homer]

Hi steve7150,

My vote is that it originated with Paul.

Jesus didn't know?

You might want to check this out:

http://www.universalist-herald.net/2Interf.html

Here is a quote from the article:

Both a spiritual afterlife of the soul and a physical resurrection at the end of time are concepts
of Zoroaster. Humanity can fall prey to evil, but after “purification” in Hell, ALL are saved at the
end of time. When the victory over evil is complete, the end of time will come where nothing
ever dies or decays, and there is no darkness – only LIGHT.

May God bless you in the coming year!

Homer