Beautiful post, Jonny. Thank you for that.

Blessings,
Patty

Guys, guys: Warren understands the theological/philosophical arguments.

It’s the scriptural arguments he wants to put on hold, though with a current weight toward anni (in his estimation), until he goes to seminary and gets much more training in how to read the languages, hermeneutics, etc.

Jason-

Thank you!

Not if he thinks it is more loving for God to ‘oblige’ us in our preference to be put out of existence than to continue saving us from our sin.

Jonny,

I don’t think it’s more loving. I was grasping at straws to try to explain the Arminian position. I think you guys are right theologically/philosophically. And when I look at the issue in a few years I wouldn’t at all be surprised if the Bible teaches universalism, or at least hints at it.

But right now I don’t have enough knowledge of the biblical texts to say that I’m a universalist. If someone asked me, what about such-and-such a verse that seems to be imply some will be lost or such-and-such a verse that implies annihilation, I couldn’t answer them. I know what I think in my heart but my knowledge of scripture has to catch up to that or else I won’t be able to explain my view except in terms of philosophy and emotion. And as a biblical Christian and someone who believes God is calling him into ministry, I cannot claim to believe something if I can’t back it up scripturally yet. It would be “epistemologically irresponsible”.

I totally understand.

I face (d?) a similar issue. Still, to some degree, unresolved, in that in seems clear (if anything is clear) that the bible is so ambiguous that it can easily be interpreted in a hellist, Anni or EU fashion, and that there’s no single, right, super-strong exegesis that blows the others out of the water.

What will you do if you find that the exegetically stronger position is Anni, yet this position is riddled with logical, ethical and theological inconsistencies?

That’s absolutely fine mate, I totally understand. It’s just that if you know that there’s a clear error in your explanation (as you obviously acknowledge when you say you were at grasping at straws) then I wouldn’t try and defend such a position. It’s probably just best to say that you don’t know, rather than try an explanation that you don’t really believe in your heart.

Pog,

If I find that Anni is the exegetically stronger position then I will have to teach it as a minister, while also acknowledging its inconsistencies. That’s the best I could do as a bible teacher I guess, Annihilationist but hopeful universalist (which is what I am already).

Jonny,

It’s true that I don’t know, but who does, except God? I guess I can believe something in my heart, but not advertise it because I wouldn’t have the tools to defend it biblically (although I certainly could philosophically or emotionally). And I don’t talk about this subject AT ALL in my everyday life, not even with other Christians. I’ve spoken with my parents about it but that’s pretty much it. I guess I just want to have some sort of answer so that when I’m in seminary and church ministry, it never comes up that I truly don’t have an answer at all.

“What will happen to people who rejected Jesus?” “The Bible seems to teach they will be annihilated, but there are some passages that suggest all could be saved, and that view has a lot going for it philosophically. We should hope for the salvation of all, but beyond hope I’m not sure we can be dogmatic”

That is a much better answer than “I don’t know.” At least to theologically-minded church leaders and seminary professors.

Oh well. What do I know?

I guess therein lies the biggest difference between us, and the likely reason why am I EU rather than hellist or Anni. I cannot accept a God who is illogical or immoral, or believe that which is incoherent or unethical is reflective of a perfect being. I would not have come to Christ if He was a murderer or torturer or if he said that the earth was flat or that up was down.

I understand how you could feel that way, Pog.

However, at this time, I do not feel that Annihilation is patently immoral or unbecoming to God. That is why I’ve made peace with it… for now.

I will make sure to do more ethical reflection on the implications of conditional immortality. But I hope that if I don’t find CI morally offensive in the way that you do, that you don’t write if off as a character flaw of mine. That is to say, I hope you don’t think I’m immoral for believing it.

Warren

No worries, warren. I was both a hellist and an Anni previous to being a EU. Was I deluded and immoral to hold to that? I think I was, yes. But then I’m still immoral now in all kinds of ways. . I was a sad hellist and Anni because I thought I had to be … I wasn’t strong enough to resist what I was taught, and I didn’t know then what I know now about reasoning. Note, it’s not just the immorality but also the logical inconsistency which evidences its ‘wrongness’.

All the best warren, I hope I’m right about EU, and if so, then I wish you could be what I am now, minus the chains of sin which bind me. Just spend time thinking about annihilationism … Really thinking and praying about it. It will become obvious that no morally good being would ever do that to anyone. Just keep asking yourself hard, emotional, ethical questions - pull no punches with yourself - and let your heart answer. It will become as clear as day that Christ is better … Always better. And that heavens joys will not be marred by a single lost son, or daughter, or wife, or parent …

Yeah I understand, when I said that it’s better to say “I don’t know”, I wasn’t saying that you shouldn’t have any answer. I was saying that your reasoning for God ultimately annihilating some people should be “I don’t know”. I say this because you seemed to be saying that God merely hands people their wish or preference and that He does this out of His love and then you followed that up by admitting that you were grasping at straws with that reasoning. All I was saying is if you know that you’re grasping at straws with that explanation, then you should maybe just admit that you don’t particularly know what leads God to ultimately annihilate some people. That doesn’t mean that you stop believing the annihilation of the impenitent sinners, only that you shouldn’t use that particular explanation, the explanation that you don’t really seem to believe.

Dear Warren
Firstly, let me be clear from the start (to you AND to Jason) that I am NOT wanting to post in order to get you to think again or to try to persuade you to convert to UR so please rest easy.
On the contrary I believe that your view that you

seems IMO extremely sound AND, as far as I can see that until that moment in time your belief in Anni (or even one’s belief in ECT) need NOT require anything less than a God of Love nor need it involve logical inconsistency nor any other defect.
It simply revolves around whether an omnipotent God has any constraints. My answer to that is that an omnipotent God may WELL be constrained and may WELL find certain scenarios impossible to achieve.
For example, an open theist believes that it is impossible for God to know the future. Hence, for an open theist, an entirely unceasingly loving God may (through love alone) have gifted humanity with free will NOT certain of whether some of humanity would choose to reject His freely given Love.
There is a possibility that God CANNOT (post mortem) change the fate of a lost soul. Who are WE to pretend to know the constraints/laws governing post-mortem reality? We know nothing of that realm.
So, for me as well as you, the decision on whether UR is tenable depends entirely on scriptural evidence. You have given sound reason why you should not ‘convert’ regarding such a serious and fundamental position as UR and I fully respect, even endorse that. God bless you and your ministry.

Although I’m in the paddock next door to universalism these are my reflections shared elsewhere on what I see as the anathema of annihilationism…

When one understands “eternal destruction” in qualitative terms of the TOTALITY of devastation, then annihilation can rightly be understood biblically as referring solely to the “physical demise” of one’s being – nothing more and nothing less; that is – annihilation has absolutely NOTHING to do with mankind’s post-mortem condition. Such destruction in scriptural terms is relative to temporal and corporeal judgement and in most cases pertinent to God’s covenant people. This is seen either in terms of punishment for disobedience, or punishment befalling those who mistreated God’s covenant people. Thus when it comes to annihilation a “post-mortem” application is invariably read into the text – and yet there no texts of Scripture actually showing this to be the case.

It should further be noted that the New Testament writers when using the word “hell” gehenna] do so to describe the fate of the lost only in the Gospels, and only in speaking to Jews, and thus only when addressing such people as are familiar with the topography of Jerusalem. James’ epistle may be the only exception to this, but even then his audience is also wholly “Jewish”.

“Annihilationism” as a doctrine fails to explain HOW it is ultimately any different from the “endless torment” dogma. Typically used, “annihilationism” fails just as miserably as “eternal conscious torment” to identify any purposeful meaning to life for the vast bulk of humanity, in that most do not or cannot come to a deeper or richer understanding of life as found in Christ. Both views ultimately and utterly being bereft of reason are as pointless as each other.

Example: a small child grows up struggling in a poor destitute dirt-swept village somewhere on the backside of the planet. She is ravaged with hunger and choked by thirst. Those around her are similarly plagued with pestilence, pain and starvation. Eventually this little one succumbs to the claws of death and dies. Then finally when Jesus returns from Heaven assuming popular futurism] Jesus raises her up only to then set her ablaze, and with the most cavalier of waves from the royal hand dismisses her to a final oblivion…

What then was the point and purpose of such a pained and pathetic life and that of countless millions just like hers? The answer – NOTHING!! Her torturous and meaningless existence becomes nothing but an absurd tragedy starved of any purposeful value, save that of satisfying the whims and wants of some supposedly “angry God”. What a cruel hoax of a “gospel” if that is what you could call it – this is no good news at all. Fortunately however such is NOT the case at all for all are embraced by grace regardless of circumstance or knowledge, for all are God’s children.

IF your own children whom you love have come to a place where they hold you in contempt and so reject you, will their rejection of you override your love and acceptance towards them? – how is it then that we could possibly conceive that we have more love and acceptance in our hearts than does God?

Jonny- Ok, that makes more sense. It really is true that I don’t know what would lead God to annihilate someone, especially given my heavy Arminianism. You’re right that instead of giving what might be the standard Arminian response, I should just say I don’t know.

Pog- I hope you’re right about EU too.

Pilgrim- Thank you for your kind words. I ask that you and and everyone who sees this thread would pray for me and my present ministry, as well as my future ministry in the Anglican Church.

I’m praying for you all too.

Warren

On a total side note, warren, I recently considered pursuing ministry in the C of E, but I was not able to be assured that it was acceptable to be a universalist and an Anglican priest. I contacted the relevant office but got no reply. There’s a thread somewhere on this …

The problem is the affirmation regarding the so-called Athanasian Creed. It’s a bit of a sticking point. You may want to look into that, as it probably scuppers Anni as well.

Pilgrim: on a side note, it’s also possible to hold to open theism and think it is possible for God to know the future (but choose to instantiate a universe where He doesn’t), and FWD, and yet also believe that UR is guaranteed, and that both hellism and Anni are immoral and logically inconsistent. After all, I do.

Will do mate

Pog,

Thanks for the heads-up re: C of E. I’m here in the states so the policies regarding those doctrines may be different in the Reformed Episcopal Church than they are in the C of E.

But I do know that John Stott, John Wenham and Glenn Peoples (who is now in the early stages of pursuing Anglican ministry) are all Annihilationists. I have heard an Anglican cleric preach on the subject of Hell, saying that the Lake of Fire is the destination of impenitent sinners, but we don’t know exactly what will happen to them. Perhaps they will be separated from God or perhaps they will just be annihilated.

I think the major commitment in the Athanasian Creed is to orthodox Trinitarianism, not a specific view of Hell.

If anything, my major worry about the Anglican Church is not my view of Hell, but that I’m too Arminian! I’m not sure classical five-point Arminianism is that common in Anglicanism or the Reformed Episcopal Church. But then the REC is one of the only American Anglican churches that has not succumbed to extreme liberalism (Episcopal Church USA) or Anglo-Catholicism. That’s actually an issue I’m going to ask my rector about, so we’ll see how that plays out.

Warren

Warren, yeah, absolutely there’s loads of Anni and universalist Anglicans in the C of E, perhaps even the last ?Archbishop of Canterbury. It’s just that there’s a disconnect between their theology and the declaration of assent they were required to make when they were ordained - which, faulty as it is, seems to require them to agree with the damnatory clauses of the Athansian creed (at least in word). I wasn’t happy with that so I sought clarification and didn’t get any, so I cannot in good conscience affirm what I actually strongly disavow!

Yeah, Arminianism might be another tricky one - but perhaps not one that comes into direct conflict with the declaration of assent (just the Calvinistic bits if historic formularies which can be pretty much ignored). Again, there’s even open theist anglican priests - but there’s mismatch between what people believe and official doctrine.

Perhaps I’m overly scrupulous, but that sort if disconnect bothers me. I’d be interested to see how it plays out in the episcopal church - let me know

You know, philosophically and theologically, I can get along with those holding Annihilationism and universalism views. Either one would make more theological and philosophical sense than traditional views of hell.