The doctrine of ECT - how did it come about?

[Ian]

I thought Steve fired a strong philosophical and scriptural broadside at the doctrine of ECT.
If he`s right, it begs two questions:
- how has this become the prevailing doctrine of the Christian Church since at least the Middle Ages? (the Muslims would find it hilarious to be informed that their chief rivals were wrong about this for so long). Are cynics right in calling it a power tool for the medieval Catholic Church?
- why does God allow himself to be so represented by what is supposed to be his body after all? Non-Christians are not all stupid. They find this morally incomprehensible too.

Such is the power of tradition that even as late as his "Eternal judgement" lecture, Steve was fearing that this doctrine might nonetheless be true. It has had a mighty hold therefore even on bright Christian men who are able to "think outside the box" and who have no professional post to lose by challenging orthoxody.

[Ian]

I deleted the link to the anti-Christian song by Rush, together with its lyrics. Perhaps some of my posts are impetuous, not "responsible" even. But I do feel for unbelievers sometimes. I wish Christian doctrine was more clear-cut and it`s a source of vexation to me that it`s not. Sorry folks.

[Paidion]

I'm glad Christian doctrine is not "clear-cut" on the matter of ECT. If it were (and it is believed to be "clear-cut" for a LARGE number of Christians), it would be a great deterrent for most people to give any serious thought toward becoming a Christian.

In talking about the reconciliation of all people to God to non-disciples, I have often received the response: "Oh! If only that were true!"

[Ian]

Interesting perspective, thanks for your reply Paidion.

I guess if ECT were true it would be vital that it would be clear-cut, unambiguous and irrrefutable from anywhere else in Scripture. The stakes would be too high.

If UR were true then yes, I see your point.

[RickC]

Ian,

The "three views of hell" originated with Jews. All three are represented in Jewish literature and are recorded in the Mishnah/Talmud, as well as in earlier Intertestamental literature (contemporary to Jesus & the Apostles). From what I've been able to find, the views had more variations than we see in the 'debate' today---with a lot more speculation as well.

This went across the board on other eschatological themes too, such as with the 'Interregnum' (intermediate messianic reign). Depending on what you read, the messiah was seen to reign from heaven, on earth, from heaven then back to earth, over Jews only (with all Gentiles having been destroyed forever), and over Jews and repentant Gentiles. The length of the reign alternated from one week, to forty years (which I believe Paul may have foreseen), to 400 years, and 1,000 years (as in Revelation 20).
========================

Btw, I'm something of a Rush fan. Their music is 'spiritual' and much of it, I feel, is 'compatible' with a Christian worldview, so to speak. By this I mean it's not against Christianity. However, I know Geddy Lee and Neal Peart are atheists (and maybe Alex Lifeson, I'm not sure if he's agnostic or not).

Anyways, I was curious as to what tune you had in mind that was anti-Christian. But I realize you may not want to say (and you could PM me, but only if you want).

The last Rush CD I bought was "Roll the Bones." I was backslidden at the time (and/or doing some serious spiritual questing too!). I was put off (even then) with Rush's pro-homosexual stuff on the CD. Of course, I knew I couldn't expect them to be Christian-compatible across the board--they aren't Christians.
=========================

Back to your questions (which I really didn't address, but) . . . .
Yep.
Lots and lots of variations in Jewish views at the time of Jesus, and just before, and after.

Thanks!

[Ian]

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.

[Homer]

I'm glad Christian doctrine is not "clear-cut" on the matter of ECT. If it were (and it is believed to be "clear-cut" for a LARGE number of Christians), it would be a great deterrent for most people to give any serious thought toward becoming a Christian.

Yes, the gospel itself is a stumbling block to many and always has been. The cross, resurrection, judgement and all that stuff. In addition to hell we could get rid of a lot and be much more popular!

[RICHinCHRIST]

The "three views of hell" originated with Jews... From what I've been able to find, the views had more variations than we see in the 'debate' today---with a lot more speculation as well... Depending on what you read, the messiah was seen to reign from heaven, on earth, from heaven then back to earth, over Jews only (with all Gentiles having been destroyed forever)...

I don't mean to hijack this thread and make it all about UR (since I've been speculating about it lately). But I find it interesting that the speculating Jews at this time figured that the Gentiles were all lost and gone for, without any hope of restoration. God did tell Abram that his seed would bless the whole world, but I guess they saw that as only a "material blessing" (which many Jews still interpret this way). It's clear that the Jewish Christians had a rude awakening when they realized salvation was freely offered to the Gentiles too. If the world ends up getting reconciled to God through hell, then I'm sure the majority of Christians in the resurrection would not have seen that coming either. Why should we expect to know exactly how everything will end up?


It's true that the Jews speculated about eternal torment in the intertestamental period, and that they referred to the eternal torments of hell as "Gehenna". This is a reason that many give to prove that Jesus referred to eternal conscious torment in hell by using this term in its cultural context. I think this is probably an unlikely thing for Jesus to do, since He was often saying that what He taught superseded and was more authoritative than what even the most respected rabbis taught (You have heard it said.... but I SAY TO YOU from the Sermon on the Mount...). I also think it's interesting that the eternal torment view came into existence at a time when there was no prophet in Israel. Why should we trust what they hypothesized? I think Jesus' words could easily reference the Conditional Immortality position, and I lean that direction, but I don't see why the UR position could not be understood through Jesus' words either (perhaps just as strongly, considering the other biblical evidence in its favor).

[Ian]

RichinChrist,
You have my permission to hijack any of my threads with posts like that. I assume these are your own philosophical musings. If so, you`re amazing, and quite an original.
I can`t help but notice though, that no one`s budging an inch on this issue. People will believe what they will believe it seems.

[steve]

Yes, the gospel itself is a stumbling block to many and always has been. The cross, resurrection, judgement and all that stuff. In addition to hell we could get rid of a lot and be much more popular!

Homer,

It is interesting that Paul spoke of the offense of the cross, but never of the offense of hell. If he had been preaching about hell (as our preachers do, but Paul apparently never did) it would no doubt have raised the same resistance in his day as it does in ours. Yet, he never said what you did, namely, that hell may be offensive, but that's just a part of the offense of the Gospel itself.

Some moderns seem to think they are being more faithful to the biblical message when they insist upon offending audiences with subjects that we have no biblical precedent for bringing up. It is as if, to them, unless the message is "bad news" to sinners, it must be a compromised message. How opposite the New Testament teaching, which says that the Gospel is "Good tidings of great joy...to all people!" Where in scripture is the Gospel ever represented as including "bad news"?