Friday 9 December 2011

The fear of Ultimate Reconciliation

I think the fear so many feel from even looking at this subject with any sort of objectiveness is real and should be respected. I myself have read all the books about both sides (well, lots of them), been a christian for 40 yrs, gone to bible college, had the full gamut of teaching from every corner of christendom, and I can't escape a few glaring facts that refuse to go away no matter how much theology I throw at them.

The biggest one (which I posted on Facebook the other day) in a nutshell, is something along the lines of: why would God create billions of precious people in his very image, out of his heart of love, knowing full well that most of them would end up in unbearable, horrific torture for eternity with no hope of reconciliation? It not only makes no sense but makes God out to be a tyrant more cruel than any human could possibly be, let alone want to be! He has put his heart of love in each of us - we know what love is, he describes his own character in 1Cor 13. So its not only impossible to think that God would just say "oh well, you lost your chance - off to hell with you and no chance of redemption", it is incomprehensible, and loathsome on any level. We to easily fob it off by saying His ways are higher than ours and other stuff about his justice being pure etc, but how come our standards are higher than His?

So where does that leave us? I have wrestled with this for years, and my passion for Jesus has only grown as I discover more and more of his grace. As I let more of His love fill me this question becomes a bigger issue, something I can't just cover up with a bunch inconsistent scriptures. I'm not afraid to be wrong! But God gave me a brain and a heart, that I have used with as much integrity as I can muster. Something is wrong with this picture - and I think its time we stopped burying our heads in dogma and had sensible discussions knowing that we can trust Holy Spirit in each other!

5 comments:

  1. To show that Scripture explicitly connects salvation with personal faith (John 3:16; Rom. 3:28 ff., 4:5; etc.) and that unbelief precludes salvation (John 3:18, 8:24; Rom. 2:5 ff.; etc.) Fernando adduces texts from the selfsame Johannine and Pauline writings appealed to by universalists; the Johannine and Pauline sources, moreover, affirm man’s dual destiny in eternity (John 5:28 f.; 2 Thess. 1:7 ff.; etc.). Fernando shows that the proof texts used by universalists, whether from the Johannine or Pauline writings, in no way teach universalism. Texts that refer to general divine revelation, to Christ’s salvific mission in the world, to his death for sinners, or to a universal call to salvation, are not to be arbitrarily turned into the doctrine that no one is lost. Universalism can be found in the apostolic writings only by disregarding their logical consistency, a practice that would in principle render the writings useless for constructing any and all theological positions.
    Some interpreters disavow propositional revelation and metamorphose eschatological teaching into a call for internal decision instead of accepting it as a statement about objective realities. Nels Ferré calls the New Testament an “existential sourcebook”; rather than actually instructing humans about heaven or hell, we are told, it promotes human repentance (cf. Nels F. S. Ferré and Harold B. Kuhn, “Universalism, Pro and Con,” pp. 24 ff.). J. A. T. Robinson similarly subjectifies truth (In the End God, p. 128). That Scripture promotes personal faith and spiritual obedience is, of course, beyond debate. But this fact provides no basis for undermining the truth of biblical cognitive statements or for stripping predictive prophecy of validity. If consistently applied, denial of the objective truth-value of biblical teaching would erode even the universalists’ emphasis on repentance for sin and Christian obedience.
    In rejecting the finality and irreversibility of eternal punishment to support alien views of human destiny resourceful expositors use all manner of arbitrary Scripture exegesis. William Barclay, for example, contends that biblical references to future divine punishment do not indicate a final irreversible state: the Greek term aiōnios (“eternal”), he stresses, does not always mean “endless,” and secular Greek, moreover, uses kolasis (“punishment”) for suffering that is remedial (A Spiritual Autobiography, pp. 59 f.). Colin Brown implies the possibility of final extinction of the wicked (on kolasis, NIDNTT, 3:98 f.) and denies that Jesus’ teaching sustains a case for their endless punishment (Matt. 18:8, 25:41, 46; or passages like Hebrews 6:2 or 2 Thessalonians 1:9). But the New Testament connects the duration of heaven and hell; if hell is temporary, then so is heaven (Matt. 25:46). The same term aiōnios is used for both eternal life and eternal damnation. Our knowledge of hell, as Harry Buis says, is derived “almost exclusively from the teachings of Christ, who spoke emphatically on the subject on a number of occasions” (“Hell,” ZPEB, p. 115). In numerous passages the inference is unavoidable that Jesus is speaking of “endless” consequences (Matt. 12:32; Mark 3:29, 9:43–48). The New Testament uses the same term to denote the permanence of divine supernatural realities and the duration of hell. Aiōnios is predicated of the King eternal, the eternal purpose of God, God’s eternal power and deity, and eternal punishment.
    The punishment of the wicked, moreover, cannot be considered merely remedial rather than final (Matt. 26:24; Luke 16:19–31). The term kolasis appears only twice in the New Testament, once when Jesus refers to the final judgment (Matt. 25:46) and once by the apostle John who notes that sinners in their present fear already discern the merited punishment that awaits them in the future (1 John 4:18).

    Carl Ferdinand Howard Henry, vol. 6, God, Revelation, and Authority (Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books, 1999), 509-10.

    There's a lot more to this article if anyone is interested in research

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Just reading this response again and realising this guy has completely confirmed what I often speak about with paradigms. His comments are based on a strict set of core beliefs and assumptions, which he is unaware of (of course).

      Just one assumption he has made is the logic that if the word for "eternal" life is the same as "eternal" death, then that proves hell is endless like heaven. But the flaw is thinking that the word aiōnios (and its derivatives) can't mean an age when referring to heaven. But of course, there is nothing to say there aren't other ages to come when we finish our time in these bodies, and that the end of time itself is still past some future age. There are scriptures to support this if we consistently apply "ages" instead of "eternal".

      Its a very complex argument to undo this line of thinking, when in reality, if we start from scratch with no assumptions, its very simple, its in our hearts already!

      Delete
  2. Umm, yeah thanks for that Tim.

    I'm so glad that the gospel is really simple and we don't need a degree to understand it. In fact, we all really know the truth, we all really know love, and sin, and that perfect love never gives up. And I guess we all really know that God is the source of all good things - or at least we want him to be. But that's because we are created in his image - we understand the basics already. All we need is Jesus to pull it all together, and he WILL do that, for all of us, eventually, because thats who He is!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. Only takes the faith of a child to understand that God loves everybody the same, has the same plans of reconciliation for all, and has only chosen some ahead of the rest to be a part of that process. Awesome post, thanks Jim!

    Julie Ferwerda
    www.JulieFerwerda.com

    ReplyDelete