From: D. F. Siemens, Jr. (dfsiemensjr@juno.com)
Date: Sun Apr 13 2003 - 19:54:33 EDT
On Sun, 13 Apr 2003 17:15:20 -0400 "Howard J. Van Till"
<hvantill@chartermi.net> writes:
<delete most>
Hmmm. Perhaps persons who are fully alive and whose life experiences,
when candidly examined, lead them to sense the presence of the Sacred.
But such people may, for a variety of personal, cultural, historical, and
philosophical reasons, come to express their understanding or belief in
the Sacred in a bewildering variety of ways. How willing are we to accept
and respect that variety? Most of us were taught that there was only one
correct way, which just happened to be our way. Too bad for those blokes
born into another religious community.
Howard Van Till
I have a different take on this. The correct way is not "our way." Unless
we take the Jesus Seminar approach and revise the scriptural text to
suit, this is our Lord's declaration (John 14:6; cf. Acts 4:12). It runs
directly counter to the normal human demand of "I'll earn it" or "I'll do
it myself."
The objection to this narrowness springs partly from the modern notion
that anything sincerely held deserves equal respect (which no science can
operate on) and the repeated declaration, "God is love" (I John 4:8, 16),
with the notion that love requires unqualified acceptance. But Isaiah, a
good man, quailed at the vision of the thrice holy God. Think what a
not-so-good person would feel. I know that I cannot face God as I now am.
Only the promise that I will be like Christ, perfected, gives me joy in
anticipating God's unfiltered presence. Those who have not accepted the
promise of transformation would be most miserable in his presence.
Therefore, I conclude that hell, where his presence will not be felt, is
his loving provision for those who cannot stand his presence. Those who
have never heard the gospel but have lived as much as possible by the
light of nature will have no regrets, and will be comfortable. Those who
have deliberately done evil will have much to regret, but will be in the
place where they suffer the least. Those who deliberately rejected God's
offer of salvation in Christ will have the greatest regret.
There are other views which take scripture seriously and think to
mitigate the horror of hell. I don't find any of them consisted with
"ages of ages." I believe that God's gift of human life is so precious
that those who have it do not want to relinquish it, except when they do
not see relief for extreme pain. I believe that God respects that which
he has granted, and will not take ultimate life from any person.
Annihilationism denies this last. Universalism denies that God respects
our decisions and does not take all of scripture seriously. Everybody
will be whacked so hard they will accept rather than endure the whacking.
But this is a denial of freedom. We recognize that whenever a decision is
made under compulsion.
Dave
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.4 : Sun Apr 13 2003 - 23:28:53 EDT