CU has been called a dangerous heresy because it presumably gives unbelievers an excuse to not bend the knee to Christ since they will end up in heaven anyway. Adam and Eve were warned yet they disobeyed God anyway and since the 5th century the "eternal torment" view has dominated Christianity yet very few have really been true disciples of Christ because man by nature is rebellious,selfish and driven by immediate gratification. The fear of eternal hell may terrify him to yield to Christ for awhile but he soon forgets and according to Paul it's the goodness of God that leads men to repentence. During his ministry Jesus did warn of "gehenna" and this word has traditionally been translated as hell but just as in the OT context i think it means destruction and judgment, which is no small thing and is something to fear yet this does allow for restoration at some point in the ages.
After Jesus death and resurrection we start seeing various statements regarding the "restoration of all things" and since man is a created "thing" there is no objective reason to exclude him from this group. Here is an example of one of the numerous statements regarding restoration.
"Consequently then, as it was through one offense ,for ALL mankind for condemnation, thus ALSO it is through one JUST, award for ALL mankind for life's justifying. For even as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were constituted sinners, thus also through the obedience of the One, the many shall be constituted JUST" Rom 5.18-19
I think the "one" in each case plus the "many" equals the "all" Paul had just referred to in the previous verse. The group of "all" being sinners is contrasted against the same "all" being justified since the word "thus" means "therefore" which connects the two groups.
It has been said that verses like this can be understood "in a different way" , which is true if you add pre-suppositions to these verses like the word "potentially" , but of course once you go down that road you can simply write your own bible. So considering the track record of the "eternal torment" doctrine throughout the church age and considering that Jesus said you will know a tree by it's fruit , i think the dangerous heresy is the eternal torment doctrine.
Dangerous Heresy
Dangerous Heresy
Last edited by steve7150 on Tue Sep 20, 2011 1:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Steve7150,
And you can write your own bible if you leave out a verse here and there. Such as verse 17, immediately preceding the verses you quoted. Seems to me the all justified and all made righteous are those that have received the gift in verse 17.
The biblical teaching about a final judgement naturally has no effect on anyone who does not believe the message. Seems to me every threat and every promise in the scriptures are addressed to those who believe there is a God.
And you can write your own bible if you leave out a verse here and there. Such as verse 17, immediately preceding the verses you quoted. Seems to me the all justified and all made righteous are those that have received the gift in verse 17.
The biblical teaching about a final judgement naturally has no effect on anyone who does not believe the message. Seems to me every threat and every promise in the scriptures are addressed to those who believe there is a God.
Re: Dangerous Heresy
I think there are very few people on earth who believe there is NO God. Atheism has always commended itself only to a tiny minority. However, there are a diminishing number of people who believe in a God who is said to love His creatures, but who has set up a system where all those who displease Him ultimately will be tormented endlessly. Even earthly fathers do not treat their rebellious children that way, and Jesus said that His Father was much more merciful than are earthly fathers, whom He described as "evil."
It is true that a man's refusal to believe separates him from God, and prevents him from receiving mercy—just as my own son might make choices that would require him to be hanged for his crimes. However, as his father, I would do all in my power to lawfully redeem him from that fate. This is what I understand God to have done in Christ. It is now possible for all sin to be forgiven to those who trust in Him. If I were God, in such a situation, I would do everything possible to get all of my children into that state of trust, and would even give them opportunities after death, if their lifetime was not enough to do the job.
Of course, I am not God. But according to scripture, God is a Father more merciful and more committed to save (not less so) than myself.
It is true that a man's refusal to believe separates him from God, and prevents him from receiving mercy—just as my own son might make choices that would require him to be hanged for his crimes. However, as his father, I would do all in my power to lawfully redeem him from that fate. This is what I understand God to have done in Christ. It is now possible for all sin to be forgiven to those who trust in Him. If I were God, in such a situation, I would do everything possible to get all of my children into that state of trust, and would even give them opportunities after death, if their lifetime was not enough to do the job.
Of course, I am not God. But according to scripture, God is a Father more merciful and more committed to save (not less so) than myself.
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Steve,
We like to put "God in the dock" and determine sentimentally what He must or must not do in order to be considered good. Our problem is that we (inluding myself) have a serious deficiency in our view of the seriousness of sin.
When Jesus referred to God as "Father" I do not think the people of that era formed the kind of idea we have today about what that meant.
Not sure of what you are saying there, but is sounds to me as though you believe if either CI or EP is true that you are more merciful and more committed to save than He is. I think that whatever He does is right and just.But according to scripture, God is a Father more merciful and more committed to save (not less so) than myself.
We like to put "God in the dock" and determine sentimentally what He must or must not do in order to be considered good. Our problem is that we (inluding myself) have a serious deficiency in our view of the seriousness of sin.
When Jesus referred to God as "Father" I do not think the people of that era formed the kind of idea we have today about what that meant.
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Probably not. The Father that Jesus described is not like most fathers, in that "He is kind to the unthankful and evil" (Luke 6:35).
We don't know everything that God might do, but we know we most resemble Him when we "love [our] enemies, bless those who curse [us], do good to those who hate [us], and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute [us], that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matt.5:44-45). If that is the way to "be merciful, even as your Father in heaven is merciful," then this must be the way He treats His enemies, who curse Him, hate Him, spitefully use and persecute Him. Astonishing, isn't it?
I guess that is what is distinctive about our God, as opposed to all other gods. He is a just God, but He delights in showing mercy. It shouldn't surprise us, though, who have for decades enjoyed that mercy upon our own miserable, sinful souls.
Of course, this does not mean that universalism is correct, since annihilation might be regarded as an act of mercy upon those whose souls are irreparably bent in such a way that their continued existence could never be made suited to life in God's presence, but whom God could not bear to see tormented eternally.
One conclusion that this information does appear to require is that a god who would set up a system of endless torture for those who are foolish enough to rebel against him could hardly be the same God as that Father described and modeled by Jesus.
We don't know everything that God might do, but we know we most resemble Him when we "love [our] enemies, bless those who curse [us], do good to those who hate [us], and pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute [us], that you may be sons of your Father in heaven" (Matt.5:44-45). If that is the way to "be merciful, even as your Father in heaven is merciful," then this must be the way He treats His enemies, who curse Him, hate Him, spitefully use and persecute Him. Astonishing, isn't it?
I guess that is what is distinctive about our God, as opposed to all other gods. He is a just God, but He delights in showing mercy. It shouldn't surprise us, though, who have for decades enjoyed that mercy upon our own miserable, sinful souls.
Of course, this does not mean that universalism is correct, since annihilation might be regarded as an act of mercy upon those whose souls are irreparably bent in such a way that their continued existence could never be made suited to life in God's presence, but whom God could not bear to see tormented eternally.
One conclusion that this information does appear to require is that a god who would set up a system of endless torture for those who are foolish enough to rebel against him could hardly be the same God as that Father described and modeled by Jesus.
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Steve,
It sounds to me like you are still thinking through CI and UR, but have somewhat discounted ET.
I think the only way the ET makes sense is if people are somehow eternal by nature. If they cannot cease to exist and free will remains an option, then maybe ET is a necessary reality. But I don't think a strong case can be made biblically for the idea that people are naturally immortal or eternal. So that's where I'm at.
I am currently researching for my thesis where I intend to prove that although the Wesleyan Church has traditionally accepted ET, we should re-think this in light of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (using Scripture as our primary source with tradition, reason & experience as checks and balances).
It sounds to me like you are still thinking through CI and UR, but have somewhat discounted ET.
I think the only way the ET makes sense is if people are somehow eternal by nature. If they cannot cease to exist and free will remains an option, then maybe ET is a necessary reality. But I don't think a strong case can be made biblically for the idea that people are naturally immortal or eternal. So that's where I'm at.
I am currently researching for my thesis where I intend to prove that although the Wesleyan Church has traditionally accepted ET, we should re-think this in light of the Wesleyan Quadrilateral (using Scripture as our primary source with tradition, reason & experience as checks and balances).
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Yes, I have had difficulty with the traditional view for several years now. I once justified it as you suggested—namely, that people are naturally immortal and have to be someplace forever. It turns out, of course, that this suggestion (innate immortality of man) is not only absent from scripture, but even the scholars who support eternal torment reject man's immortality. The books I have read supporting the traditional view actually acknowledge the natural mortality of man, but they say that God will supernaturally sustain their lives through eternity, simply to permit them to suffer eternally. Just like a Dad, that!
Re: Dangerous Heresy
I am reminded of a quote that Talbott uses in his book:
"To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?" ~John Stuart Mill
I have pretty much given up on the ET view, simply because I cannot understand how a "good" and "loving" God, as we define these terms, would create people who He knew would be sinners(really through no fault of their own because they cannot help but sin), and also that the great majority of them would not "accept Jesus as Savior" in their lifetime for whatever reason, and therefore consign them to torture for trillions of years, and that is just the beginning of the torture.
Now, as the quote above states, a person who holds to ET could say that God's goodness and his love is of a different kind than that which we are familiar, but for me personally that is little comfort. If that is true, for all I know I could stand at the judgment seat and hear God say with a sneer in his voice.. "just kidding... mu ha ha ha."
TK
"To say that God's goodness may be different in kind from man's goodness, what is it but saying, with a slight change of phraseology, that God may possibly not be good?" ~John Stuart Mill
I have pretty much given up on the ET view, simply because I cannot understand how a "good" and "loving" God, as we define these terms, would create people who He knew would be sinners(really through no fault of their own because they cannot help but sin), and also that the great majority of them would not "accept Jesus as Savior" in their lifetime for whatever reason, and therefore consign them to torture for trillions of years, and that is just the beginning of the torture.
Now, as the quote above states, a person who holds to ET could say that God's goodness and his love is of a different kind than that which we are familiar, but for me personally that is little comfort. If that is true, for all I know I could stand at the judgment seat and hear God say with a sneer in his voice.. "just kidding... mu ha ha ha."
TK
-
RICHinCHRIST
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Apr 12, 2010 11:27 am
- Location: New Jersey
- Contact:
Re: Dangerous Heresy
Although I can't support some of the following comments from Scripture (and perhaps my illustrations do not properly convey the truth), I was struck by something I had thought about today.
If we were to see a man who was born paraplegic, blind, deaf, and mute... we would surely not expect that man to function very much in society. Most of his senses would be useless due to the condition he was born with. Now, think about the unregenerate man. He was born under sin, incapable of exercising his spiritual senses in any real way (hence, his need to be regenerated). Although he could hear the gospel and be saved if he embraced it, there is a good chance he hasn't received a genuine explanation of what Jesus' message actually was. If he heard bits and pieces of the truth (over the course of his entire life which was filled with distractions and temptations which come naturally to succumb to), he still finds himself spiritually handicapped. When we see a handicapped person, we by nature feel compelled to help such a person as much as we can. How much more does God want to heal the spiritually handicapped (even if it is after death)? And, to be honest, to assume that God will banish a man to an eternity of torments because he was born into this handicapped position and didn't find the way of healing seems cruel to me. The handicapped man was given a small amount of explanations of the way of healing (albeit through imperfect vessels), and fell to many snares (some of which were beyond his control). And I think the biggest issue of all is that God knew all of this in advance. If He knew all of this in advance, I could not see why He would want to create such a scenario given His character which is revealed in Scripture. Could He not have created a different scenario? Perhaps one with less horrendous results? These questions lead me to think there is a greater eternal purpose God has in mind (and makes me sympathetic toward the CU position--one year ago I was not sympathetic at all with this view). When my previous pastor (Calvary Chapel) confronted me about my doubts about the traditional view, I laid out a lot of my thoughts before him. You know what he said? He said, "Every Christian who has been touched by the Spirit of God has these kinds of questions about the traditional view". I thought about his response and realized that he must have also had similar thoughts but didn't have a reason (from Scripture) to doubt the traditional view. I must ask: If every man or woman touched by the Spirit of God questions the idea of eternal torments, is it not possible that the Spirit of God is trying to reveal to us that He would not do such a thing?
I also thought something else today (in regards to conditional immortality). I met a man today who was 96 years old. I tried to be friendly with him, but he was so bitter and unfriendly. I thought to myself: "Wow. This man has been so hardened by sin". I could see that he was, in a sense, dehumanized due to his sin. In other words, the light of life (which is a mark of the image of God that we bear) was missing from his countenance and his words. This is what sin does. I could see that God must rid this terrible disease from the human race. I'm not opposed to the idea of Him totally wiping out its effect on His creation. If hell is forever, then this dehumanization will continue for eons and eons. What will be the end result of this disease? (or should I say, neverending result?) Would God tolerate the ramifications of this (being all in all)?
If we were to see a man who was born paraplegic, blind, deaf, and mute... we would surely not expect that man to function very much in society. Most of his senses would be useless due to the condition he was born with. Now, think about the unregenerate man. He was born under sin, incapable of exercising his spiritual senses in any real way (hence, his need to be regenerated). Although he could hear the gospel and be saved if he embraced it, there is a good chance he hasn't received a genuine explanation of what Jesus' message actually was. If he heard bits and pieces of the truth (over the course of his entire life which was filled with distractions and temptations which come naturally to succumb to), he still finds himself spiritually handicapped. When we see a handicapped person, we by nature feel compelled to help such a person as much as we can. How much more does God want to heal the spiritually handicapped (even if it is after death)? And, to be honest, to assume that God will banish a man to an eternity of torments because he was born into this handicapped position and didn't find the way of healing seems cruel to me. The handicapped man was given a small amount of explanations of the way of healing (albeit through imperfect vessels), and fell to many snares (some of which were beyond his control). And I think the biggest issue of all is that God knew all of this in advance. If He knew all of this in advance, I could not see why He would want to create such a scenario given His character which is revealed in Scripture. Could He not have created a different scenario? Perhaps one with less horrendous results? These questions lead me to think there is a greater eternal purpose God has in mind (and makes me sympathetic toward the CU position--one year ago I was not sympathetic at all with this view). When my previous pastor (Calvary Chapel) confronted me about my doubts about the traditional view, I laid out a lot of my thoughts before him. You know what he said? He said, "Every Christian who has been touched by the Spirit of God has these kinds of questions about the traditional view". I thought about his response and realized that he must have also had similar thoughts but didn't have a reason (from Scripture) to doubt the traditional view. I must ask: If every man or woman touched by the Spirit of God questions the idea of eternal torments, is it not possible that the Spirit of God is trying to reveal to us that He would not do such a thing?
I also thought something else today (in regards to conditional immortality). I met a man today who was 96 years old. I tried to be friendly with him, but he was so bitter and unfriendly. I thought to myself: "Wow. This man has been so hardened by sin". I could see that he was, in a sense, dehumanized due to his sin. In other words, the light of life (which is a mark of the image of God that we bear) was missing from his countenance and his words. This is what sin does. I could see that God must rid this terrible disease from the human race. I'm not opposed to the idea of Him totally wiping out its effect on His creation. If hell is forever, then this dehumanization will continue for eons and eons. What will be the end result of this disease? (or should I say, neverending result?) Would God tolerate the ramifications of this (being all in all)?
Re: Dangerous Heresy
It makes one re-think, doesn't it?