Another Merger Post

[mattrose]

I've read posts in this forum about the possibility of merging the various views of hell. I am interested the bring the subject up again. Knee deep in thesis writing, I am finding the possibility of a merged view somewhat attractive. Here's why:

1. I think the only version of everlasting misery that can be defended is the view that the wicked in hell CONTINUE to freely sin. But if they remain free, there must be the possibility that they could choose otherwise and be restored. Hence, there is the possibility of a merger between everlasting misery and eventual restoration.

2. I think the eventual extinction camp makes a strong argument that continuing in life depends on right relation to Jesus. But some argue that when one thing ceases to exist, something else must emerge. It has been suggested that the wicked may cease to exist as human beings but continue to exist in some other sense. Hence, there is a possibility of a merger between eventual extinction and everlasting misery.

3. I lean toward the eventual extinction position, but I've become more impressed by the argument that freedom may continue after death/judgment. Could it be that while on the road to nothingness some may turn around and move toward restoration? Hence the possibility of a merger between eventual extinction and eventual restoration.

I can certainly imagine it playing out in a sense that would legitimate, to some degree, all three views. Perhaps the wicked go to 'hell' and are in process of ceasing to exist as human beings. Meanwhile, however, they are free to respond to God's discipline and be restored. If they refuse, however, they do indeed cease to exist (but only as human beings, they are in some sense still in existence and separated from God).

Such a merger would seem to solve many of the weaknesses of the various views and, perhaps, account for why there are verses that seem to suggest all 3.

[steve]

I think there are scriptures that strongly support the two non-traditional views, but I have yet to discover a scripture that supports the traditional view, when subjected to rigorous exegetical cross-examination. I have long suspected that a merger between eventual extinction and eventual restoration may prove to be the most viable view. This is due to the strengths of these two views scripturally. It is not hard to contemplate a scenario wherein many or most people are brought to repentance after death, but wherein those who refuse to do so are annihilated. This would, to my mind, be invulnerable to exegetical disproof. It would also represent the perfect balance of both mercy and justice. The traditional view violates both.

[Homer]

Matt,

Your post is interesting, but it is also rather complicated. You've obviously put a lot of thought into it.

In Hebrews we find:

Therefore, leaving the discussion of the elementary principles of Christ, let us go on to perfection, not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, of laying on of hands, of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment. And this we will do if God permits” (Heb. 6:1-3).

It is a strange thing to me that the doctrine of eternal judgement is such a complicated thing to figure out when the writer of Hebrews thought it to be basic stuff. One commentator on the passage likened it to teaching children their ABCs. Yet we can't figure it out? Why is that? Steve has said he doesn't expect to ever know the answer. It seems to me emotions take over and "it isn't fair" blinds the mind. Most people who just read their bible seem to understand the doctrine rather easily. The earliest Christians didn't seem to have a problem with it so it would not be simply a translation problem.

And another thought just struck me as I was about to post this. How could it be said to be an "eternal judgement" if it was not final? Even Paidion's "lasting" translation of aionios would not make sense if judgement was reversible.

[john6809]

Steve,
Have you taught a series on the idea of a merged non-traditional view that is accessible for people to listen to? I would be interested in hearing your teaching.
God bless.

[Singalphile]

EM-ER merge: Doesn't make much sense to me. Seems the same as the just the ER view... accepting that some people will be really, really, really stubborn!

EM-EE merge: I can't think of a reason to accept the idea that the lost will live forever in any quasi or sub-human state.

EE-ER merge: I agree that it's not (too) hard to contemplate and it would seem to this mortal to be a good balance of both mercy and justice, but it doesn't seem to have much more going for it and...

Verses like Homer's (Heb 6:1-3) convince me that God's judgement will be final and everlasting/eternal (as we understand those words to mean today), and since the eternal punishment is often contrasted with eternal life (a gift), and since the result/nature of the judgement/punishment is defined as death or destruction or perishing (Rev 14:9+ being the only possible exception, I think), it is difficult to accept the view that people can repent and be saved after the first death/resurrection and God's judgement.

[jeremiah]

i don't think hebrews 6 gives us much to argue for or against as to the nature of the fated of the wicked. it seems to me more naturally speaking in general of the the day of judgment to come that we will all experience, whether in Christ or not. the ultimate fate of the wicked is not clearly laid out beyond the shadow of a doubt (imo). but what is clearly spoken of is the resurrection of the just and the unjust. and also that there is coming a day wherein we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, whether in Christ or lost. so given these two, i think the author of hebrews is speaking generally of the [day of] resurrection, and the [day of] judgment, which indeed are spoken of in elementary terms in scripture.

grace and peace...

[steve7150]

It seems to me emotions take over and "it isn't fair" blinds the mind. Most people who just read their bible seem to understand the doctrine rather easily. The earliest Christians didn't seem to have a problem with it so it would not be simply a translation problem.








Actually "it isn't fair" should make us think about the nature of what justice really accomplishes. "Most people" read a bible translation & see the translated word "eternal" and indeed have no problem in understanding the translated word as it is simple enough. However being that God is love and he told us "blessed are the merciful for they shall receive mercy" and many other commands about love and forgiveness it would incomprehensible that God would act otherwise, especially since Jesus told us to be perfect as out Heavenly Father is.
Fortunately the greek words for "justice" and "eternal" are being scrutinized more deeply then when the original KJV was published and terrorizing the masses into submission was a major priority for the church.

[steve]

(The above posts were added while I was writing this. This may account for any overlap of arguments.)

Homer wrote:

It seems to me emotions take over and "it isn't fair" blinds the mind.

If "fair" means "just," then I hardly see how the application of principles of justice to an important question of procedure can have a blinding effect on the mind. Justice is pretty clearly laid out in scripture—so decisions about final punishments do not come down to "What would be just?" so much as "Which of the just options will God choose?" It is reasonably clear what the most unjust option would be.

Most people who just read their bible seem to understand the doctrine rather easily.

I doubt if either you or I have personally known a large enough sample of the people who "just read their Bible" to enable us to speculate as to how most of them would understand this question from the Bible alone. Are there many who have access to a Bible and who do not receive any outside influence from traditional Christians? Would those people be primarily influenced by the 400+ passages that speak of sinners being "destroyed" or "consumed" (or some equivalent)? Or would they be more observant of the scores of passages that speak of God's unlimited grace and His commitment to seek and to save everything that has been lost? Or would they allow two verses in Matthew 25 and three verses in Revelation to overthrow the rest of the biblical evidence? I really don't know what most people would take from the scriptures on this, were they simply to be given Bibles and no instruction about what to see there. If they had a good grasp of what parables are and what apocalyptic literature is (how many people do?), they probably would not allow five ambiguous verses to cancel out the impression given by the entire remainder of the Bible.

The earliest Christians didn't seem to have a problem with it so it would not be simply a translation problem.

Do you mean, by "the earliest Christians", those who predated the church fathers? You certainly can't mean the fathers whose writings have survived. There are a number of beliefs expressed or alluded to in the writings of the fathers. We can't look there for consensus. The Greek fathers (the ones who would have the least vulnerability to a "translation problem") are not the main advocates of the traditional view. It was the Latin fathers—most notably, Tertullian and Augustine, whose knowledge of Greek was often minimal. Of course, the Apostolic Fathers were earlier than the Greek Fathers, and also seem to have written in Greek.

The Greek Fathers early adopted the Greek philosophical concept of general immortality of the soul (a doctrine clearly denied in Paul's writings). Thus, the idea of eternal torment is found (not exegeted from scripture, but extrapolated from the Greek doctrine of immortality) among Greek Fathers as early as Irenaeus (AD 170). It is not expounded in the earlier Apostolic Fathers before him.

Instead, annihilation seems to be the view of Barnabas (70-130 AD), of Hermas (150), and (possibly, but not clearly) of Diognetus (125-200).

Universalism appears in the Sybillene Oracles (prior to 185), and in the Alexandrian Fathers (195 onward). Phillip Schaff suggests that universalism was probably the majority view of the church in the centuries immediately following Origen (285).

Of course, Tertullian (210) is famous for his views on eternal torment (though few traditionalists today would agree with his specifics), and Augustine (400) was responsible for this view being generally adopted by the Roman Church, though other views continued to prevail among fathers outside of Augustine's influence.

So, when you say the earliest Christians found no difficulty deciding which view of hell was to be preferred, I wonder:

1. Who are you referring to as the earliest Christians?

2. Which view is it that you think they all agreed upon?

3. What leads you to believe that they enjoyed such unanimity as you suggest?

[wwalkeriv]

I think there are scriptures that strongly support the two non-traditional views, but I have yet to discover a scripture that supports the traditional view, when subjected to rigorous exegetical cross-examination.

I have been leaning toward the "EE" view for a while now, but I still have problems with certain verses which I think might support everlasting punishment. Namely: Mark 9:43-48 and Revelation 20:10-15. Mark speaks of the worm that dies not, how do you explain this? Revelation speaks of the lake of fire being a place where the devil is cast along with the beast and false prophet. They are said to be tormented day and night forever and ever. How is this to be understood? Death and hades are also cast into the lake of fire, so one could easily draw the conclusion that death and hades will be tormented day and night forever and ever. Even if death and hades are annihilated upon being cast into the lake of fire, what about the devil, the beast and the false prophet does torment day and night forever and ever violate "mercy and justice"?

[mattrose]

2 more thoughts

1. As to the suggestion that a merger of views is too complicated, I would suggest that at a basic level it still isn't. The choice in this life is still between submitting to God or not. The choice is still heaven or hell. The Scriptures are mostly concerned with this life, and nobody NEEDS to ponder what happens after death except that there will be a judgment. Just like the other issues in the list of elementary principles from hebrews, they can be as simple as you want them to be... but surely each of them can also be examined at a more complex level.

2. My combination of EE and EM (the wicked continue to exist, but not as humans) is basically the position of CS Lewis and NT Wright, as far as I can tell. I, myself, feel no need for it. But I also know that most of the people I'd be teaching will be very reluctant to give up EM completley. I see it as a transitional belief. Some might argue that we should just teach what we think is right, and I would do so. But I would list this 'continue to exist, but not quite as a human' idea as a possibility b/c I think transitional beliefs can serve a purpose.