i have been believing (and doubting) in the god most high - the creator/redeemer of the universe, the god of israel, of scripture - since i was a small child. since i am over 40, this amounts to several decades of deep intellectual wrestles and inexplicably miraculous experiences. i am a fiction writer and a scriptwriter, a storyteller not a theologian, and my favorite way to conceptualize the impossible idea of god is within the stories of cs lewis, jr tolkein, madeleine l’engle and others. i post here, uncertain as to whether i belong in this conversation, being an artist not a theologian, but am rather desperate to have someone to walk with in the questions i feel the “church” has told me not to ask.
about two years ago, i began to meditate or muse over the act of jesus descending into hell to set the captives free. if jesus is/was eternal, so is/was this act, performed outside of the constraints of time and space. this led me to begin to question our extremely limited understanding of eternity and wonder if jesus set the captives free, would there really be eternal damnation for any of the humanity god created. jesus is the way still, but perhaps it is truly an act of grace, regardless even of the merit of faith.
i understand that i now sound like a universalist, perhaps i am? but i went to look again in revelation and romans to see. i discovered that by a literary reading, the text could support this as well as not. “so all might be saved” is a repeated phrase, and the character of god portrayed in the stories of all of scripture certainly reveals a deity who goes to great lengths to rescue his children, even the ones who despise him.
as a storyteller, i see a mythological book in revelation where all sorts of realities are explained outside of time and the limiting constraints of our finite world. (while i tend to view them as stories, i see that even in andrew’s statement of faith on this site, there seem to be doctrines of damnation based on “names written in the book.” so, i too, will use specifics from this revelation story to propose my muse). certainly there are horrors that await those that bow to the beast and not the lamb, but consequences occur in a cyclical way until perhaps, by the moment when hades and the beast are thrown into the eternal lake of fire this prophesy has been fulfilled: “every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that jesus christ is lord.” perhaps then, only evil, the beast, and hades are eternally damned, and the sea of humanity, fully redeemed by god alone, from “every tribe and every nation” stands in the sea of glass beneath the throne of the lamb.
any thoughts?
I want to hear what you have to say.
Stacy, the first thing you have to do is to relax.
I don’t run this site. Many thanks to Andrew who does. I am one who has benefited tremendously - just go ahead and express yourself. The general guidelines are there and beyond that, the ‘worst’ that can happen is that many may disagree with you, yet the chances are that there are a number of readers and contributors who will appreciate your input. In interacting with you, we will all grow. Take it as given, you are both accepted and respected.
Live to serve : Serve to live
hmmm
i can only guess that you took my uncertainty over whether i should be in this conversation to be some sort of lack of confidence, i think it was just an honest wondering. is your admonition to “relax” out of concern for me or for the culture of this site? i am an excitable artist, with passion and a sense of urgency about most things. that is part of my offer.
artists should express
God has given you the gift, please share it with us. I don’t know how many “theologians” are in this crowd. I’m not one! Andrew and Peter and the other theologians here don’t seemed to mind the rest of us and our half-baked musings - so welcome to the club!
I do not intend to infer that you are (1/2 baked that is) !!!
Live to serve : Serve to live
ha!
i wonder if the definition of a good muse is that it is only 1/2 baked. otherwise it would be a completed dish and without the opportunity to adjust the recipe.
may we keep stirring the pot.
God is Love
“a deity who goes to great lengths to rescue his children, even the ones who despise him” I would love to have that be true. Even while I was a “Calvinist” every bone in my body protested against the L in TULIP - limited atonement.
Somehow, I have become sceptical of my ability to reason this one out. What I am left with is faith. God is love, and a love so incomprehensibly total, and He is also just and merciful to that great an extent. Far more than I can imagine or understand.
Live to serve : Serve to live
George Macdonald
Hi Stacy,
I’m also new here, and am also a writer (albeit not a very good one,) but I what I found interesting is George Macdonald - who was a writer and artist in many ways - also came to similar views as yourself. I don’t know if you know of him? Anyway, he had a large influence over CS Lewis - and although Lewis never really accepted MacDonald’s particular view of hell (or, universalism) I think Lewis himself had a pretty good explanation too. He comes (I believe) more from the angle of seperation - that God, always respecting the will of man, and showing Him love in that way, respects the CHOICE of some to actually go to hell and be seperated from him. Lewis also doesn’t tend to believe in a eternal conscious hell in the traditional sense, but more like a mix. For a modern idea of this, check Greg Boyd’s ideas of hell. I think this is a good mix.
It’s really OK to question all of this, and even be a Christian and come to a (relatively) unorthodox position - much like MacDonald. Perhaps you should check out his views, you may find them quite interesting and in line with what you’re thinking here.
Anyway, with regards to Calvinism - I hold to the Calvinism view, while holding to the Arminian view. This whole thing has been debated for like 400 years or something, so I doubt whether I will be able to work it out logically- I’m far less intelligent than the likes of Calvin or Wesley or Lewis or Macdonald, and none of those guys could really come to a final conclusion that everyone was happy with. I enjoyed a quote I read by someone - sorry that I don’t know who they were - who said that “The answer to Calvinism or Arminianism is not one or the other, or even somewhere in the middle. The answer is to live and believe both at the same time.” This has helped me tremendously. Personally, I think it works, because as you said we don’t really have much of a clue about the nature of eternity - and, the way I see it, predestination doesn’t have to be a linear-time thing, but appears to be an ‘eternal’ thing - which means, you can be predestined right now for salvation when you make a choice to follow Christ. I tend to believe that, perhaps - just perhaps - God’s sovereign choice is not ALWAYS to decide or know the future, but his Sovereign Choice is to let us make the choice, and then after we have made the choice to be all sufficient and all able to achieve his purpose for us, no matter what happens. In a way, I am beginning to hold more and more to Open Theism, while at the same time affirming that the traditional sovereign way is also right. The argument could simply be over the nature of eternity, and not the interpretations of the Bible.
Ok, I said I was a writer, and so I have written way too much here again. Anyway, I just wanted to encourage you to ask as much as you want - God’s not afraid of your asking, and I don’t think anyone here (or similar websites) would be either. I’ve been asking about hell for years now, and have come to some conclusions - mainly that our presuppositions of certain Bible verses are actually the problem.
I’ve also come to some new conclusions about logic - a lot of our systematic theology has sacrificed the relational for the logical. I don’t think that statement probably makes much sense, but I can’t write a book here so I hope you can kind of get the jist of what I mean.
william blake?
i have not read george macdonald much, although i know of whom you speak, and yes i am familiar with cs lewis’ view of hell seen in his book, “the great divorce.” just yesterday i was thinking about reading the book he wrote it in response to, william blake’s, “the marriage of heaven and hell.”
i too think that this statement you wrote may be the key to the quandry: “The argument could simply be over the nature of eternity, and not the interpretations of the Bible.”
eternity
Stacy—welcome to OST, and thanks for your input.
I personally think the view of ‘eternity’ you and Ryan have implicitly espoused is really not necessitated by Scripture. Augustine, who held the same view (that God is atemporal), held to it not because of Scripture, but because of his Neo-Platonism (I remember reading somewhere in the confessions something along the likes of ‘I was taught by the Platonists to see the superiority of stability over change’—or something like that, which essentially meant that for God to be ‘in time’, he would have to be less than ‘perfect’).
As we (thanks to people like Andrew and Tom Wright) rediscover Scripture, and especially the Pauline epistles, I think a lot of the puzzles and paradoxes that arose from ‘modern’ concepts of time, eternity and predestination become irrelevant. Framing sovereignty (surely a biblical concept) in terms of absolute control (as the Reformers did and the Reformed do) should be seen as extra-biblical and unnecessary—and this doesn’t require throwing sovereignty out, but rather recovering what it meant for the biblical writers who appealed to it.
I also think Andrew might have something to say about the traditional formulation of Jesus ‘descending into hell’. Again, the emerging church’s conceptions of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ differ significantly from those of traditional evangelicalism, so while your ‘universalism’ may be perfectly understandable, it may stem from an incorrect understanding of judgment talk in the new testament.
If we must insist upon talking about people’s ‘final destination’, two guidelines should probably be followed (and these may stand in tension): God’s boundless grace MUST be emphasized (through the prism of Jesus’ work on the cross, of course), and the ability of humans to say NO must not be compromised. I’m not particularly comfortable with talk about ‘free will’ (not because it’s incorrect, but because it puts the focus in a weird place), but I think we can’t afford to underestimate how stubborn all of us can be. That this should have ‘eternal’ consequences seems pretty straightforward.
Any thoughts?
Cheers,
-Daniel-
completely new here
thanks. i am completely new to this “emergent” reality and am extremely quick to recognize that my thinking is informed not only by my previous thought (both yesterday or a decade ago) but also by the thoughts espoused around me throughout every age that has preceded me.
that said, i am quite eager to re-examine our interpretation of scripture, its history and the formation of the church. as an artist i thrive in the risk of new. however, as a 40-year “believer” i cannot always recognize where my old influences, or perhaps faulty logic lay, and am aware of the danger of isolated musing over such a communal act as the following of christ. so i am grateful for interaction.
here are some thoughts:
HA! that made me laugh out loud. i myself have been quite puzzled over my seemingly sudden obsession with this, as i have never been particularly troubled by it before. but as i cannot seem to change my state, i hope you will bear with me as i wrestle what (today) seems to have me in a crisis of faith. i am curious why it seems a sort of non-issue for you. a good curious.
yes i wondered about that, since - while potentially biblically supported - it is really from a creed.
Again, the emerging church’s conceptions of ‘heaven’ and ‘hell’ differ significantly from those of traditional evangelicalism.
here my newness shows, i am trying to comprehend this. what exactly does this emergent view hold? that hell was the judgment that jerusalem and/or rome already saw? is there no eternal then? or is this what you were refering to when talking about redefining eternity outside the modern understanding of time? i am sorry if i seem dull or unread. just trying to gather it in.
what is this incorrect judgment talk?
i understand that there are a variety of words that have been translated into “hell.” however, i have yet to find a place - within catholic or protestant doctrine (with the exception of the universalists who seem to have been swallowed up by the unitarians - something entirely different than it was in the 1800s) who do not proclaim something like “eternal torture of souls who do not profess christ in this life.”
although i have a community of believers gathered around me, i have been outside organized “church” for quite some time. as i try to love again the bride of christ, to not scorn her, to find a place i might belong, i find a block in this “eternal torture” that causes me to stumble with god himself.
thanks for letting me in.
eternal tortures
Somehow, more than the tortures, for some reason, I have always been more horrified by the “gnashing of teeth”.
I seem to recall that just recently, John R.W. Stott, a much admired stalwart of evangelicalism (that’s a very inadequate accolade) was denied the pulpit at an American seminary precisely because did not espouse eternal damnation. That’s just my recollection, so I may have some details wrong but the gist is right.
Live to Serve : Serve to live
damnation
Very briefly, let me try to express my views on the issues you brought up Stacy:
1) The question of ‘eternal destination’ is definitely a valid and interesting one. My understanding is simply that it was not a particularly pressing one for the NT authors, and so my views in this realm are necessarily be somewhat tentative. The most concrete thing the NT says is that there will be a final bodily resurrection from the dead and a final judgment.
2) Andrew—do you know of any threads that touch on that old creedal phrase of Jesus ‘descending into hell’? If not, what are your thoughts on the subject?
3) Speaking for myself, I take ‘heaven’ to be God’s realm (in contrast not with hell, but rather, with Earth—the realm of humanity). So I would say that God is ‘in heaven’ right now. I would not say that ‘heaven’ is ‘where we go when we die’—I’m a physicalist, so I believe that when we die, we’re dead. Period. The hope of Christ-followers, as has been said elsewhere, is not some disembodied bliss, but rather embodied, resurrected, existence on the ‘new’ Earth, where the veil separating heaven and earth will have been done away with (‘God’s dwelling will be with humankind’). As for ‘hell’… I tend towards something like annihilationism, or some modified version of it (cf. Lewis or Boyd)—certainly not some kind of ‘eternal conscious torment’. The best we can do Scripturally speaking is extrapolate from Jesus’ parables about outer darkness, or being outside of the city (though this is an extrapolation, I’m sure Andrew will remind us).
4) All I meant by ‘judgment talk’ was that the emerging church movement seems to be informed by scholars who are grappling with the apocalyptic genre, and arguing that cosmic language can be put to use in a very immediate context—rendering obsolete dispensational (read ‘Left Behind’) takes on 2nd Thessalonians or Revelation (for example). For many of us here, this will result is some kind of modified, partial preterism (or partially-fulfilled eschatology in some way). Andrew’s talk of ‘eschatological horizons’ here is quite helpful—I’m sure there’s plenty to be found on eschatology if you just poke around the site for a little bit.
I’m quite new to this as well, so these are tentative views (but just because they’re tentative doesn’t mean that they can’t already be far more satisfying and logical that more traditional views… of course). But anyway, those are my two cents.
Your thoughts?
-Daniel-
revelation as Story
thanks again.
for what its worth, the last time i read through revelation (this summer while working on a novel) it struck me that it could very well be a story of all of “life” (or since the “fall” perhaps?).
in that sense i feel myself to be “in and around” the stuff of the revelation story in much the same way i feel inside the lord of the rings trilogy. not as a didactic allegory like pilgrims progress, but storytelling that speaks truths in ways epistles never can.
in this way i can imagine “cosmic language in a very immediate context.” am i following you at all? (and please dont make me read “left behind,” my literary sensibilities simply couldnt bear it).
story
It does certainly seem like there’s a widely applicable story that can be drawn out of John’s vision.
However, (and I realize that this is not what you’re saying) I doubt its original readers read it as (merely) some sort of nice universal story, or even a very powerful story. For it to make any sense (and to do justice to the genre), I think it had to be immediately applicable and understandable (and of course, this complicates a reading of the text for those of us who no longer share the context).
Don’t worry, I won’t make you read Left Behind. :-)
As far as the human ‘no’ is concerned, varying intuitions here will lead to different conclusions. If one feels (as I tend to) that humans are (or at least can be) some of the most obstinate creatures on Earth, then ‘eternal’ separation/exclusion from a fully-consumated Kingdom seems possible. If one is more optimistic about the human capacity for change, then perhaps God will win everyone over—but it would be a wooing, and not a coercing, of course.
A lot here hinges on our view of the new creation. In my view, the ability to reject God requires a sort of ontological separation from him—it assumes the separation of heaven and earth. But when heaven and earth are united in the new Jerusalem, where do people who want out go?
Random thoughts on a Friday evening. Have a wonderful week-end!
Maybe it's just a letter
Stacy, if I may just suggest simply that Revelation is just simply what John claims in the very beginning of the book, that is, a letter written to seven churches written at a specific time for a specific purpose. This properly contextualizes the book and makes it harder for the Left Behind folks to put it in a framework that makes all the dispensationalist application difficult to grasp.
The cosmic language did have an immediate context to the audience since there is enough evidence to suggest that it was written shortly before the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem in AD 70.
The final implications of the book and the consequences of the fall of the temple are cosmic and crucial to the Christian faith, soteriology, understanding of the Kingdom, politics, environmentalism, etc.
i missed this one
virgil, somehow i missed this posting of yours.
yes, just a letter. i too have thought this. and the concept of preterism, although still somewhat new to me as a formal thought, makes sense as well. so if this “letter” closes the “canon” and comes with a strong warning to not add or detract from it, does it merely finish “the story of christ and the early church?”
could you expand this statement of yours a little for me?
that too
any kind of endless punishment for god’s creation does not seem to coincide with the god i know who forgave the ones who killed him even as he hung, splayed and bloody, on the cross. punishment, clearly, consequences yes, but endless, eternal, never-to-cease, now that you have seen the lamb of god in glory? it is enough to make me determine that this is a belief without enough integrity to bother with. may as well name god myself and dance under the stars.
i sometimes wonder about the human “no” - as daniel said it is an integral part. perhaps it is as simple as the fact god will allow (as in revelation) as many experiences as will cause every soul to say yes, so that “every knee will bow and every tongue confess that jesus christ is lord.” (i believe cs lewis said something to this effect - something about god asking as many times as it takes a soul to say yes). it is the “you only have this life until your body dies to make this choice” that puzzles me.
do i keep saying the same thing over and over? sorry.
The same ol' story
Humanity stratifies. Like as we might to have homogeneity, some take control, and others cede it. One might mistake homogeneity for “justice” — and work toward some ideal akin to “from each by abiltiy, to each by need”. But I reckon that justice is that the (temporarily) powerful people don’t do all that’s in their power. They pay their workers at the end of the day, for example. They don’t harvest to the edges of the field. They use true weights and coins which are not debased. They don’t go send Uriah out to the front of the battle because he’s married to some hottie.
And then there’s the jubilee… which I don’t much understand.
Anxiety over “what comes next” — is one means by which a group of people can use guile and deception and manipulation to control groups of people. One of the big distinctions between the cult of YHWH and all the pagan cults of the time of Patriarchs forward, was that the YHWH cult was not a death cult. Elaborate funerary was explicitly forbidden in the Torah. And certainly was augery and communication with the dead.
This grasp for power that pagan priests held was denied the priests of YHWH. As was sexual ritual. Still, the worry about the harvest and battle and “acts of God” — but much of the content of the prophets was either an exploitation of that fear, or a repudiation of those who exploit that fear, again assuring people that, despite the capriciousness of life and its many perils, the divine Protector was exactly that — not One to be appeased through ritual.
I see Christ, and to a lesser extent Paul giving some relief from the “what comes next” anxiety. Any church which crafts purgatory from whole cloth, is serving the institutional needs of the church more than serving the sheep it was commanded to feed. I’ve no idea how things will end up. Some people obsess on Daniel and Ezekiel and the Apolcalypse of John, and select quotes attributed to Jesus and think of little else but what might come next — how it will all end up. But I think that’s just going back to the flesh pots of egypt — all this “book of the dead” type speculation.
Just celebrate the person of Christ, and act toward others as He toward us. And let the end times happen according to a plan we cannot change or influence, nor be any more ready for diligence — despite stories of watchmen and such.
Judge the stories we are told by who they serve. That’s a post-modern teaching, and a Christian teaching. Stories that pretend sight of the unseen — they are not of the spirit of He who rent the curtain to the sanctum sanctorum.
A puff away from 3 packs a day
my dilemma then
might i say that to come home after a grand performance of “sweeny todd” and find more thoughts on matters of the spirit, is to me, a most blessed form of church.
to “puff away” i must say, i feel as though i ought to go and look up entire phrases of your comment :o) and yet i also think i follow you.
here is my dilemma: let us say, then, that the problem with our community of faith, is not god or christ or scripture, but the errant theology and tradition of 2 thousand years of protestant and catholic church. if this is so, is there not some fear that we are merely a passing fancy? certainly other movements have come and gone in this time? dont get me wrong - I WANT SOMETHING NEW - but i am also endowed with at least a smidge of wisdom that says - “hey a lot of people for a lot of centuries have concurred on this stuff.” or is that what this site, and you fellas with more books beneath your belt than i, is for? to say “hey wait a minute we have so construed this stuff over the last 50-100 years that everyone is completely misunderstanding the hundreds if not thousands of years of teaching.
this little playwright is in way over her head. so just use me as your “jane on the street” to test your communication skills :o)
timeless theology
On general principle, I believe that theology is secondary to the gospel. We have, from day one, as the “called out” people of God, been called back in to sharing our faith, our relationship, with others. That is the gospel. God reaches in and grabs our attention and we are never the same.
Subsequently we do try to understand what is happening and that reflection results in theology.
So, I believe that theology has to be contemporary. That means that as each generation tries to understand, they (have to?) create some theology. Because we are all human and because we all have the same Lord, there will be similarities but because we live in uniquely timebound, cultural, historical, and linguistic situations, expressions of theology must also change and adapt.
The theologies of the past and those that now surround us, have had to ultimately serve as handmaidens to the gospel. by the same token, theology is not an absolute, it has to be contextually relevant to the time of its creation and to its own millieu. By looking at past theologies within their contexts, as with any historical works, will certainly be informative, but there is also no good reason to take it as normative for today unless you or I personally find it to be useful!
Calvin’s “Institutes” helped to drive the Reformation, but I doubt that they will have the same effect now.
At the same time, theology cannot be purely our speculation, for we would not have any useful theology without God’s self-revelation!
God has been working with mankind in and through history. Foolish to ignore that the theologies of the past are also a result of what God with His self-revelation (and the demands of His gospel) meant to real people in real situations.
Live to serve : Serve to live
oh hell
Good morning all. This is my first post on OCT and an appropriate one for me. I have found myself straying further and further from my evangelical roots, and the biggest diversion has been in the unraveling of my beliefs on eternal concious torment. Currently I hold an annihilationist view and really appreciate folks like Edward Fudge, Pinnock (my vote’s still out on open theism, though), John Stott, Lewis and others.
On the grander scale I’ve been thinking about praxis. You don’t have to be a genious to notice we have a lot of broken praxiz in the church. Look at divorce rates, lack of involvement in social justice, teen pregnancies IN the church, general malaise about spiritual development…..on and on. Anyways…what frightens me most when I start to unravel bad praxis is that it invariably leads to some theological construct, which then begs the question “could that theology be flawed, wrong, or worse…abusive? Take the theology of ECT….the number of atrocities commited because we believed various groups were already “going to hell” is disgusting. Nazi Germany and “How the West was won” come to mind. It’s so easy to dismiss people you don’t like, or who don’t believe like you do, and just dismiss them to their eternal “doom”.
I think faster than I can write so my threads are a little piecemeal at times.
Well I think of something more educated to say later.
Dissident
what, then, is the quality of a soul?
i too have found it a struggle. but i dont find what little i know of this annihilationist view to satisfy. for what, then, is the quality of a soul? how can a soul just cease to be, if its substance by definition, is some sort of essence or spirit outside of limited earthly time? i am not referring to a simple “after life” state of being, but my own essence - or soul - even now.
on the soul
Personally, I take the word ‘soul’ to be more or less synonymous with ‘mind’ or ‘personality’. I see no reason to believe that humans are ‘in their true nature’ some kind of ethereal spirit.
Biblically speaking, as Andrew has oft argued, resurrection from the dead is resurrection from the dead. That is to say, when we are dead, we are no more. To ask ‘where does the soul go?’ is like asking ‘where does the lifeforce go?’ or ‘where do thoughts go when you’re not thinking them?’. The questions assume that who we are is divorceable from our body. I see no biblical or philosophical reason, however, to assume that this is the case.
Am I making sense?
earthly soul
I pretty much concur. I was brought up to believe that the soul was your: mind-will-emotions. Well I’m pretty sure that all of those things are bio-chemical reactions in my brain…as such they are physiology…which means those three items are actually….hold on….the “flesh”????? Oohh scary!
Plus I have often wrestled with John 3:16 “would not perish, but have everlasting life”. Is the opposite of “everlasting life”…everlasting pain? Or could it possibly be that the true opposite of “everlasting life” is “everlasting un-life”? Could the gift that is “life”…. that precious gift of existance, that chance to experience and share in creation….be revoked? It sort of makes sense to me. You stand before God (whole different thread) and if there is no evidence of a “Jesus life” in you….then you have no life and are NO MORE!!! Trust me, upon recognizing that this is to be your fate….there will most definately be “wailing and gnashing of teeth” as you are….quite literally….throne into outer darkness. That ultimate darkness we “knew” before we ever were created, before the gift of a temporal life…and the potential of eternal life in Christ was ever a reality.
This is why even as an anihilationist, evangelism…or missionalism is so vitally important to me. To know Jesus, to be in the Kingdom, is still one part about the “here and now”….and one part about the “not yet”.
D
more on the soul
okay hang on. help me hear you here. was not physical death a result of adam and eve’s disobedience? wouldn’t that indicate then, that death, an “ending,” was not in the original design, making the true nature of humans, “without end,” created in the image of god? is there not some spirit-like quality there? i do not believe i am just a body and mind, not because of some doctrine, but because of my own awareness of myself.
i dont even think GOD is some sort of “ethereal spirit,” some magical, substance-less, puff of air. he became man, and that man received a new body after resurrection. but jesus was more than his body, his essence was before and after that - are we not also this way?
i do not know what andrew has said about ressurection, i am happy to read, so i shall hunt about on this site, but i am not certain how being raised from the dead has impact on the definition of a soul. i do see, perhaps, how you might argue that a lot of superstious bunk may have been created around a man-made doctrine of “souls.” i just dont know that i see the validity of doing away with the spirit quality of man.
have i misunderstood you?
souls and genesis
Stacy—you raise some excellent questions. I will try and respond as best I can. Others can certainly feel free to voice their opinions on these matters, as I am undoubtedly of the least qualified to speak on this.
First, on the question of Adam and Eve: I am not particularly inclined to think of these characters as ‘historical’ in the traditional sense. However, regardless of how the historical question is answered, the Genesis narrative portrays their initial immortality in bodily terms. That is to say, the narrative assumes they would have lived forever in their bodies. So I don’t think that the writer assumed ‘souls’ were non-physical things. To the contrary, Adam and Eve’s ‘lifeforce’ was the ‘breath’ (or wind, or spirit) that God breathed into their nostrils: a thoroughly physical kind of a thing.
Second, self-awareness needn’t be seen as requiring a non-physical soul. The nervous system is a complex enough creation to ground consciousness without having to ‘add’ something extra.
Third, whatever can be said about God and Jesus, we are here at the borders of language. In any case, whatever made Jesus God, I see no reason to assume we possess anything like it. And the Scriptures certainly don’t assume we do.
I think that touches on your main concerns (though it may not have alleviated them—in which case I apologize). My thought on this subject is simply that the ‘physical’ world is beautiful, intriguing and complex enough on its own to explain the vast majority of human experience (and yes, even the ‘spirit-like quality’ of human beings). I am simply wary of what I sense as being a ‘god of the gaps’ approach to the human spirit. Smarter people than I disagree however (e.g. Peter W.), and so if I haven’t convinced you, that’s quite alright. :-)
Cheers,
-Daniel-
to "D" and Daniel
oops read below, after both of your comments. sorry, still figuring this thing out.
souls and genesis (2)
And also, I want to emphasize that this issue is certainly not a central tenet of our faith. I do think, however, that it avoids some of the problems associated with a more dualistic view of human nature.
My two cents…
really great stuff
Hey all, I know I’m new here but…..what great questions/dialouge! I have been on a number of forums and find that they can be tedious and bland….not the case here. I can’t wait to chew on a few more threads.
In line with this thread. The idea of Adam and Eve being eternal in the “here and now” and in “eden” which somehow represents a reality not quite the “here and now” seems very balanced. Their death came in the breaking of their link with God who gave them life. I really must say that as I do some study on ancient Jewish thought I don’t see a lot of evidence for an eternal “soul”. Their concept of death….”sheol” or “the grave” is pretty final. Now add that to their understanding of some sort of post mortem salvation (David speaks alot of this in the Psalms) really points to something quite different than what we often imagine and what has been propegated in greek infulenced “western” christian thought (that was one hell of a run on sentance so you might want to read it twice!!!) Edward Fudge and others (Pinnock?) use the term “conditional mortality”.
I find it interesting that during the canonization of the new testament that books like “The appocalypse of Peter” were left out. That book and a few others like it would have sealed the deal on an eternal concious torment view of the afterlife for the lost…..yet our scriptures do not contain them. Say what you want about the cannon, but I for one don’t think it’s an accident.
Sorry for the stream of concious writing style…..I’m smarter and more coherent in person (at least that’s what my mommy tells me….she says I’m handsom too!…..hahah)
D
breath of god
i’m new too “D,” and find it fascinating myself. and i follow you as well as anyone, so no worries, i’d say. curious about this “apocalypse of Peter” now.
Daniel - how is this not a central tenet? i am not being obstinate, i’m seriously asking. i think i was taught that our eternal salvation was the central tenet of our faith. how is this not of import when understanding and/or defining that concept? why would we need his salvation except for eternity? otherwise, what we have in christ is merely a great model for conduct. then we can simply line him up with other great men and enjoy our “beautiful world.”
i see no reason to disagree that adam and eve were expected to live forever “in their bodies.” but when they were not able to, because of their disobedience, what happened to them? if they were sent from the garden so that they could not eat of the tree of life and remain forever separated from the creator, what does that say about where they are now? is that ‘forever’ quality dormant in the dust of their bodies until the resurrection of the dead? and then they will arise with new ones? interesting thought. but what arises then? where is the essence of who they were? where did god’s breath go? it was of him and he is without beginning or end. mysterious, elusive with no earthly way of describing. i love your words: “whatever can be said about God and Jesus, we are here at the borders of language.” but i would differ on the second statement: “In any case, whatever made Jesus God, I see no reason to assume we possess anything like it.” i would say it is the “breath of god” that qualifies us as being “like.” not the same, god and jesus are clearly “other,” but we are above the animals because god breathed himself into us.
keep speaking to me, i am ready to be shown how i cling to faulty thought or misrepresented history.
breath of God
Hi Stacy. Thanks for hangin’ in there with me.
What I meant to say was that the physicalist/dualist debate is not central to the Christian faith. Both physicalists like myself and dualists like yourself hold to the hope of New Creation. The only detail that changes is the ‘in-between’ of after death and before resurrection.
I was raised to believe that Christianity was primarily about being saved from hell. Like you (if I’m hearing you right). However, I think it might be better to say that we are saved from sin (this is also a more biblical formulation). Sin has both immediate and long-term consequences, and the Spirit’s transforming power has an effect on both. Have you heard of Willard’s distinction between the ‘gospel of sin management’ and the ‘gospel of the Kingdom’? I’m trying to make essentially the same point. The Reign of God announced by our Lord is an inbreaking of God’s reality into the present. This inbreaking will certainly have future consequences, but it is most definitely primarily about the here and now.
As far as the ‘breath of God’ is concerned. The Genesis narrative doesn’t portray God’s breath itself as particularly ‘special’—it is rather a simple giving of breath (divine CPR if you will). This results in life, so it is ‘miraculous’ or ‘special’ in that sense, but I see no reason, from the text to assume that it is a non-physical substance.
As far as the fall is concerned, the Genesis narrative assumes that Adam and Eve’s freedom from death was dependent upon the fruit of the tree of life (and not some innate force, or soul). Having been removed from that tree of life, death is an inevitable consequence of living. Again, the Genesis narrative nowhere assumes anything like an eternal non-physical soul, and I don’t think we should either.
Am I making sense?
I am glad you seem to be profitting from the content of this site. I wish you the best as you think through the questions you are wrestling with. God bless you.
-Daniel-
ponderable, all
both helpful articulations.
however, i am still perplexed by the “breath of god” issue. i have never heard of that moment spoken of as “divine CPR” - i never considered it a physical act, but rather the final act of “being made in the image of.” i suppose i was taught this way, and will certainly examine the text and those who understand its original language better than i, but i dont know that i can go so far as you have with the idea of it being merely the moment humanity began to take air into their lungs.
breath
I guess when I read that passage (Genesis 2:7: “The Lord God formed the man from the soil of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being”-NET), it plays out kind of like a scene from Frankenstein (only less creepy—maybe Pinocchio is a better example) in my mind. The man is formed from the dust, but is lifeless and limp, and so God breathes the breath of life into him—and the man springs into action.
The commentary on this passage at http://www.bible.org/netbible/ indicates that the word for ‘breath’ used in this part of the narrative is unique to human beings (and is tied to having a conscience). I see no reason however, to read more into that than the common-sensical observation that humans are more mentally complex than animals: we are spiritually inclined, and do in fact have consciences. I maintain that these are possible without seeing the soul as non-physical. The fact that only resurrection (vs. some sort of disembodied ‘heaven’), of some kind, is on the uttermost horizon of the OT writers’ worldview leads me (and others) to think that our traditional (non-physical) view of the soul owes more to Platonism than to Scripture.
But I could be wrong. :-)
i just wonder...
…if there is a “yes and” in here somewhere.
i come from the world of the theater and one of the rules of improvisation is called “yes and.” in order for a scene to continue, you want to make sure no one blocks the forward motion of the “story”…this means that the response to the offer of anyother player is always “yes and…” you take in what they give, and add to it.
of course tomorrow i may argue wildly, but tonight it doesnt seem so important. how funny.
Eternity - Aionian and Aion
I’ve been spending some time at the tentmaker.org website, and found some interesting articles on the word Aionian or Aion (The greek words that are translated at eternal or everlasting in our Bibles.) What I found interesting is that, at least tentmaker.org claims, is that the word actually means AGES, or AGES OF AGES - an age, in ancient greek, meaning a particular period of time that cannot be measured.
In other words, it does not necessarily mean ETERNAL because only God is eternal. Time isn’t. Time has a beginning and and end, and it lives / exists in God who is eternal. The issue may be QUALITY, not QUANTITY.
According to tentmaker.org (and similar websites I suppose) the word indicates that there IS an end to punishment, that hell is used for correction not for endless (and rather pointless) punishment.
Personally, I’m quite happy to accept God as good whether he sends people to hell for all of eternity or whether he sends them to hell for an age only. I also think that he would be perfectly good if he simply annihilated those who did not accept Him. The reason why I say this is because I believe God IS good, and we are unable to comprehend what is good or not because of our stupid sinful nature. Only God knows what is TRULY good, and TRULY just, and TRULY loving.
As far as eternal seperation goes, I’ve thought that perhaps a life of sin leads to complete rebellion even after death to God - that even, when faced with God’s judgement, some would rather CHOOSE hell over being with God - because of His holiness, and also because of their own hearts. Also interesting to note, is that the word ‘lake’ in ‘lake of fire’ seems to mean a ‘hedge of protection’ (According to Strongs) and I’ve always asked - protection from what? Who is God protecting here? Just some random thoughts. Is he protecting people from his holiness, because it may consume them entirely?
But, What this means for me, with regards to the meaning of the word, is that even if hell is only for a duration of time, we have no means of speculating exactly how long that period of time is. The greek word is usually placed in the context of what it is referring to - in other words, a dog’s Aionion would be like 10 years or something. So, when it refers to the Aionion punishment, it refers to a time that we cannot measure - or we are not given the measurement from. That, in itself, is a scary thought!
The bottom line for me is : we can’t know FOR SURE, and that is why it is important to take the Gospel to every man and woman and child! Because, there is definately a punishment coming, and there is definately a wonderful life to be had and experienced and enjoyed starting now. A life no longer under the slavery of worthless sin and idols! A life where we can KNOW God!!
I’ve never paid much attention to the universalists, thinking that they were WAY off but recent studies that I’m doing shows me that they may have A LOT to add to the picture here - and I believe that traditionalists and Annihilationists also have a LOT to add. There’s bound to be truth in all these views somewhere, I pray that the Holy Spirit will guide us all into it!
God is good man.
thoughts on your thoughts
i had read some of this myself and actually love the concept. and it does not contradict my sense of being made for some kind of life that cannot be measured.
this seems in line with the character of god i see in scripture and the being who both allows pain and intervenes with grace in my life to correct and guide me. i am a parent and this is true disciple - to allow fitting consequences to chosen behavior in order to guide the heart.
my issue is not with the being that i interact with on a spiritual plane, or even that christ is his shining example of love, but rather whether or not the church, theology, (even perhaps scripture) and the principles of man are so skewed that i cannot trust them. it is like when your checkbook balance is off by a penny - it could also be off by a thousand dollars.
facinating that one. i had not heard this. he also put a mark on cain to protect him and there is some other scripture i believe from which we derive a prayer of a “hedge of protection” around those in rebellion. perhaps this was merely a tradition in the circles i have run in, but i still find it comforting. in that context it was a prayer that god would keep them from greater evil until they turned to him. interesting?
i grow calmer with each interaction here. many blessings on each of you.
Alive in the mind of God?
The Race is Run http://www.raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/
Hello again all,
Hope you don’t mind if I intrude here and say I’ve always been mystified as to why Jesus’ teachings on the subject of ‘eternal life’ haven’t received more attention from theologians. To me, at least, they provide answers to age-old questions.
Jesus taught that to ‘live’ was to live in the ‘mind’ of God. For instance, this passage in Mark 12:26-27:
“But about the dead, that they are raised; haven’t you read in the book of Moses, about the Bush, how God spoke to him, saying, ‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead, but of the living. You are therefore badly mistaken.”
So Jesus is saying that Abraham, Isaac and Jacob are not dead - they are living in the ‘mind’ of God.
He also taught that ‘raising from the dead’ meant being born again in the flesh. Almost the last words of the Old Testament are: “Behold, I will send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord…” (Malachi 4:5).
In Matthew 11:14, Jesus describes John the Baptist:
“And if ye will receive it, this is Elias (Elijah) which was for to come. He that hath ears, let him hear.”
And again in Mark 9:10-13:
“…They kept this saying to themselves, questioning what the “rising from the dead” meant. They asked him, saying, “Why do the scribes say that Elijah must come first?”
He said to them, “Elijah indeed comes first, and restores all things. How is it written about the Son of Man, that he should suffer many things and be despised?
But I tell you that Elijah has come, and they have also done to him whatever they wanted to, even as it is written about him.”
Also in Daniel 12:13 we read:
“But go you your way until the end; for you shall rest, and shall stand in your lot, at the end of the days.”
Comments, anyone?
not sure
happy to have you join in, vynette, they let me in :) but other than the concept of living “in the mind of god” i’m not sure what you are saying. what do these scriptures lined up together mean to you?
A new body?
stacey
We know that we can be ‘born again’ by putting the ‘earthly’ person to death and raising up a new ‘spiritual’ person but, to me, this is more in the nature of ‘turning over a new leaf’ during our lifespan.
What Jesus appears to be talking about, however, is the opposite - being ‘physically’ born again as the same person in a new body.
His proposition seems to be that the ‘creator’ God can ‘re-create’ any individual, at any time and in any place, for a particular purpose.
I also find intriguing the passage in Acts 1:9-11.
“When he had said these things, as they were looking, he was taken up, and a cloud received him out of their sight.
While they were looking steadfastly into the sky as he went, behold, two men stood by them in white clothing,
who also said, “You men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who was received up from you into the sky will come back in the same way as you saw him going into the sky.”
The traditional interpretation is supposed to lie in the similar references to Jesus “coming in the clouds with great glory and every eye shall see him.”
I don’t think this is the correct interpretion because (a) the disciples were told NOT to look into the sky, (b) the ascent was witnessed only by a handful, (c) as his return was to be in like manner, it would be unheralded and unsung, except by a handful, and (d) Jesus ascended as a man of flesh and blood (Luke 23:39) and will come in like manner.
If he were indeed to make a re-appearance in this manner, it would go some way towards explaining the apparent contradiction between “coming as a thief in the night” and “coming in the clouds with great glory and every eye shall see him.”
Of course, then we are faced with two ‘comings’ in addition to 30 AD. But…Jesus was the ‘unexpected’ Jewish Messiah so should we also expect the ‘unexpected?’
The ‘parousia’ passages are also interesting, especially Jesus’ reference to the ‘dead body’ in Matthew 24:28.
I’ll be interested in your thoughts.
i want to hear your point
i am sorry, i am still having trouble understanding what idea you are putting forth. i guess from the title - it is the concept of receiving a new body. yes, i believe this. jesus, you, me.
what are you wrestling with? what are you excited about? i do want to hear you, but am getting confused by all the verses you are using to make your point and what i want to hear is your point.
i hope i am not being rude. if you could see me, i would be looking at your face, trying to take you in.
My point of view then
The Race is Run http://www.raceisrun.typepad.com/weblog/
stacy, of course you are not being rude. It requires such a mountain of scriptural evidence to support my view that I despair of ever getting my thoughts across in just a few sentences but, here goes…
When I quoted those verses I was not referring to the ‘general resurrection at the last days’ or speculating on what may happen after the ‘judgement’. I was referring to the situation as it exists now, and has done for at least the last two millennia.
Simply, if you or I were to die tomorrow, and if God so chose, he can recreate us the next day, or the day after that, or in a thousand years time - born with a new body, as a baby.
As the agent of every birth, God is able to do this, indeed has done this, as in the case of Elijah-John the Baptist.
We are told that we are all ‘alive’ in the mind of the God who is a god of the living, not the dead. That concept leads me to wonder if ‘eternal’ life really means being brought into existence again and again, for specific purposes, as Elijah was…and that leads me to wonder what physical death really means…is it a sort of ‘time-out’ from earthly cares as the Old Testament says?
I have argued elsewhere on this site that there is no reward or punishment after death; that when Jesus talked about ‘hell’ he meant spiritual isolation from the God of Israel; and that the grave is merely sleep. This argument ties in with the above.
Yes, I realise that these are extremely radical views. But I also realise that Christianity needs a radical rethink.
not so radical
there we go, i get it. you speak it well. and to me no less radical than all the other theology floating around! rather than specific texts to prove a thought, an understanding, i prefer to consider the whole of the god-story and see if a thinking aligns with that. (although your reference to elijah-john the baptist did help me see your point)
so are you describing an essence, a soul, that god recreates in multiple bodies until the new heaven and new earth? or do you not see a specific time this new heaven/new earth occurs? are you talking an endless regeneration, verses a finite now and eternal later? how do you think your views are influenced by reincarnation?
that the grave is merely sleep
is this a hebrew concept? i think i have heard it before.
the 'first' resurrection
This comment has been moved here.
over and over?
That’s a very interesting thought but I am not sure that the verses that you base it on will really support the line. Even in the OT there is Jer. 15:1 though it’s generally considered that popular belief in life after death came pretty late to Judaism.
Acts 1:9-11 does not imply that Jesus is therefore now going back to being ‘alive’ in God’s mind. I think the NT as a whole shouts out something different.
Math 24:28 should not be taken as an isolated “odd man out” statement for it fits within its context envisioning the stark truth of opportunism taking greatest advantage when people are most vulnerable (as they would be in a tribulation). The two metaphors, ‘thief in the night’ and ‘in the clouds with great glory’ do not require multiple parousias (though I agree with you that that may indeed happen) but simply could be that one saying stresses the surprise element while the other highlights the triumphal aspect.
Coming to Elijah-JTB, Jesus is spoken of as a prophet like Moses, a high priest like Melchizidech, the second Adam…I just think that these are a Hebrew way of expressing fulfilment and need not have any more ‘literal’ meaning assigned to them.
A more supportive conversation is found in Mk 8:27-28, where the disciples report that many people believe that Jesus could be John, Elijah, or “one of the prophets”, indicating that people believed that these men could indeed reappear.
Live to serve : Serve to live
some of my thoughts,
some of my thoughts, stacy…
1) When you refer to ” the act of jesus descending into hell to set the captives free”, I assume you’re thinking of Eph.4:9, and perhaps conflating that with the historic version of the Apostle’s Creed, in which it is affirmed that Christ “descended into hell”? W. Grudem has done an interesting historical study of this particular statement in his systematic theology, and has articulated concisely a case that the original credal affirmation was a descent into Hades, i.e., the grave (functioning much like the Hebrew concept of Sheol). Calvin had a different understanding of its significance. More importantly, it is generally accepted that Eph.4:9 is NOT an affirmation of a descent into hell. It literally reads, “he descended into the lower parts of the earth”, though “parts” is a contested reading of the Greek text. Thus the NIV renders it, “he descended into the lower, earthly regions”. If “parts” is to be kept, it is probable (in my mind) that it refers not specifically to “the earth” but to the entire cosmos as understood by the ancient world, and as contemplated in this context, of which the earth was the lower portion. Hence, the NIVs rendering would be accurate, irrespective of the textual question regarding “parts”. The reference then is to the incarnation ala Phil.2:6ff.
Jesus set captives free not in hell, according to Scripture (Lk.4:18), but on earth in the redemption he accomplished there, and there, in that terrestial arena, was preached (cf. 1Tim.3:16).
2. Regarding your suggestion that “…perhaps then, only evil, the beast, and hades are eternally damned, and the sea of humanity, fully redeemed by god alone, from “every tribe and every nation” stands in the sea of glass beneath the throne of the lamb.”… The problem is the judgment scene in chapter 20 would explicitly contradict this (e.g., 20:14-15). Moreover, it is clear in chapters 21 and 22 that there will be those who will NOT be welcome into the eternal kingdom (e.g., 21:8), having been cast outside of it (e.g., 22:15), just as Jesus had solemnly warned his audience (e.g., Mt.8:12). Indeed, there are literary cycles in Revelation, but it would seem that in the culmination of chapters 19-22, there is a singular climax to the book, with (at least) chapters 20, 21 standing as a coherent, narrative unit (though I would be prepared to argue that 19:11-21:8 is part of one ‘cycle’, of which 21:9ff. is a digression, reflection on, or elaboration of the new Jerusalem introduced in 21:1-2).
I am honestly sorry to hear that your experience has led you to feel that such questions are unacceptable within the ‘church’. I hope you’ll find that such need not be the case.
thanks
thanks for your thoughts. i will certainly look up (in their context of course) the places you suggest. but how do you personally, experientially reconcile the idea of god damning people who have been so hurt by the church that they reject him? especialy when christ said on the cross “father forgive them for they know not what they do?”
more on the apostles creed
a white stone...
i’ve really enjoyed reading thru some of the comments on this thread/post. for me it serves to underline the diversity in unity that exists both here - within a virtual community - and in the wider body, which i trust will become realised more and more.
as an artist and someone who feels comfortable in the right brain, i have often felt that the realms of theology and church have been dominated by the masculine, analytical, linear, left brain realm - i’m talking from the perspective of a guy with my own set of presuppositions, experiences etc.
jewish mystical tradition teaches that ultimately, G-d is beyond discreet, easy & logical categories of either/or. the great christian mystics say the same thing. the poet, the storyteller, the musician - we love to explore G-d with our imaginations as well as with rational logic.
so when we imagine our theology from a cosmic-timeless-nonlinear-intuitive-imaginative perspective, our more analytical-logical-left brain-linear members often fail to see what we’re getting at, wondering if at best we’re “making it all up” or at worst, fabricating fresh heresy.
ultimately i sense our deepest and most meaningful theologies get written on the walls of our hearts and at their heart, should serve as an articulation of our view of our Creator. to me this suggests we should be careful about becoming too clinical & either/or about this.
i love to imagine myself as a labyrinthine temple, with a holy of holies, on the walls of which my deepest hopes, fears, visions are etched - and that G-d, the Lord of the Cosmos, meets me there & whispers to me.
a mysterious verse - Rev 2:17 - states that “I will also give him a white stone with a new name written on it, known only to him who receives it.” i’m sure theologians could explain what this stone “is”, but personally i’m not interested and block my ears to any attempt to define it logically.
to me it suggests a G-d who has a desire beyond imagining to be intimate with us, a Lover of mystery who is both hidden and revealed. i mean, why give us a stone with a secret name on it, that only G-d and ourselves will know?
why not give us a book with the ultimate theology of everything all laid out with liner notes and suggestions for further reading?
the map is not the territory and for some sublime majestic reason, G-d ultimately seeks to eat with us rather than be dissected BY us.
wow.
Re: some of my thoughts,
kingjames1 said:
“Moreover, it is clear in chapters 21 and 22 that there will be those who will NOT be welcome into the eternal kingdom (e.g., 21:8), having been cast outside of it (e.g., 22:15), just as Jesus had solemnly warned his audience (e.g., Mt.8:12).”
Assuming the lake of fire represents a cutting-off from the people, separation from New Jerusalem (being outside the gates), which in turn entitles that the unrepentant remain conscious, despite Scriptures which seem to support the notion that God kills those unrepentant off, we most notice how God has dealt with situations like that in the past.
The Gentiles once were on the outside of the gates. However, by working through the Israelites, he included them into the New Covenant. So then, if we view these unrepentant as “outsiders,” how can we then say God will not eventually do exactly what he did for the Gentiles in the past—that is, incorporate them into his Kingdom?
NT Wright pointed something out that I never had noticed:
“In the midst of the street of it, and on either side of the river, was there the tree of life, which bare twelve manner of fruits, and yielded her fruit every month: and the leaves of the tree were for the healing of the NATIONS” (Rev 22:2).
Notice that though the repentant remain inside New Jerusalem, there are rivers flowing outward, and trees for the “healing of the NATIONS.” Ironically, the word translated “nation,” agamos, is the same word translated Gentile elsewhere. So, assuming those in the lake of fire—lake of fire representing a cutting-off—are conscious and outside the gates, these leaves would act as healing them.
So, if we are to assume all of the following above, the Bible leaves us with hope for the restoration of the unrepentant “nations” (Israelites and physical Gentiles alike).
However, it is hard to harmonize the above observations with the fact that it seems God will indeed kill these unrepentant off.
Re: some of my thoughts,
nice post, thanks