Seeing this is the hot topic on my blog right now let's continue.
Video 3 -- Greg Boyd and Eternal Punishment
Greg is wrapping up and drawing his conclusions to their final end:
1. His final conclusion is one of 'annihilation' that is anything that does not line up with God's will has its ultimate and complete end. The punishment still is eternal -- that is once a person gone they are gone for eternity.
2. Regardless of what way you interpret these things there are three things that are true:
a) We were created for eternal life, b) The consequence of rejecting god is hell -- regardless of what you mean -- and it is not a good thing. c) The sure way to avoid hell is to completely submit to the Lordship of Christ and thus join the church which is predestined for salvation.
Now, I am going to admit that Greg Boyd's view has a lot of merit. It considers the more common uses of eternal punishment and uses a lot of Scripture. It's one weakness overall is its treatment of Luke 16:19-31 as a parable. It certainly has given my cause for pause to rethink the merits of the annihilist position. As I have done osme historicla research -- the fact si that the early church supported both views. The nature of hell was a big debate.
Next: The Nature of Hell -- Biblical Considerations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The nature of Hell was indeed a big debate in the early church, and I'm sure that debate will continue until there's no more room for debate. Currently I've been reading some theories which conclude that Hell may actually be a place where the unregenerate will prefer to be. Interesting stuff!
ReplyDeleteYeah, it is and it is also the most perplexing. That's probalby why Iam studying it. ;-)
ReplyDeleteNo, I'm sorry, but it really does matter what you mean by Hell. To just say, "Oh, well, 'rejecting God' is Hell, and whatever happens to you after that is all the same," is just plain non sense!
ReplyDeleteNow, if want to redefine "Hell" as some symbol for not getting to exist in the afterlife (annhilation, in other words) or going to some place where the only downside is that you can't see or talk to God (a place just like the current world in other words) is a FAR CRY from a place where you are subjected to horrific, endless torture!
If you haven't done it yet, please check out my free ebook at www.thereisnohell.com. I explain, in detail, why there is nothing perplexing at all here because Jesus could not have believed in Hell.
When you say the "early church," you're only considering what was believed after the really, really early church was flooded with Greeks who ALREADY believed in Hades, a place where those who were thought to have offended the gods were TORTURED endlessly! And the gospels, sadly, were adulterated by their influence, such as the story in Luke 16. Remember, even the original manuscript of Luke was a collection of vignettes that he just strung together, many of them, just oral traditions, and then it was subjected to adulterations after that!
But if you'll look carefully, you can distill the original teachings of Jesus that pertain to the topic of Hell, such as Luke 9:51-56, in which Jesus was quite upset just at the notion that God might BURN a FEW people for a FEW horrific minutes! Right there it's clear he would go ballistic were he to hear believers today talking about him/God burning BILLIONS of people indefinitely!
Rick,
ReplyDeleteSorry sounds' like you have created a belief about the Bible that suits your purpose. There is very little evidence for Greek influence on the gospels seeing that four of them were written by the disciples of Christ and one by a close associate of Paul.
Luke 9:51-56 is authentic but 16:19-31 isn't on what basis? Why can't it be the other way around? Sorry no evidence for this -- go to Bible colelge and take a basic course on textual criticism. You ahve no EVIDENCE of Greek influence. You jsut want their to be so you can dismiss hell.