The Evangelical Universalist Forum

2009 Glenn and Tom dialogue -- gallery comments

Evangelical Universalism Comments on Featured Debates & Dialogues
#61

Since I don’t believe Revelation is scripture (not a word of it) I don’t believe there is a ‘second death (the only place it is mentioned).’ It’s a fiction - like the book itself. The Montanist’s here will disagree with that - but, hey, I have history on my side.

But it’s accurate to say that some people have their theology (which is their eschatology, and little else!) grounded on Revelation. Which is shaky ground at best.

So I see annihilationists building their argument on spurious text to begin with. When one responds back with something from the Gospels for example - they rule out the contradiction as being trumped by the ‘last word’ on the subject.

#62

I (still!) don’t have time for a detailed commentary on the latest moves in the dialogue; but:

1.) I was a little surprised to see Glenn apparently going for an elect/non-elect distinction similar to Calvinism. Is he Calv?? I hadn’t gotten that idea before–I need to go back and reread his posts, but he seemed to be pretty gung ho for libertarian free will. Not exactly the usual Calv move. :wink: (I’ve noted before that a Calvinist could theoretically be an annihilationist, though most of them aren’t. Glenn would be the first I recall meeting. Or sort of the first–again I’m not sure I’m properly understanding what he’s going for with the appeal to an elect/non-elect distinction in terms of God’s intentions.)

2.) I think Glenn has recently been setting up for something along the lines of, ‘It doesn’t matter whether my theology is coherent or not; it’s scriptural, yo!’ In my experience, people who try to fall back on that don’t end up having a very coherent exegesis either. But what’s weird is that Glenn is professionally a philosopher–isn’t he? Am I mis-remembering that??

3.) Even if spirits in the intermittent hades state are not annihilated (and I think there are good arguments that they are not, so that they could be totally annihilated later), Glenn is going to have trouble trying to make sense of the notion that God resurrects the evil as well as the good only to annihilate the evil persons. What could possibly be the point to that? (But see brief comment 2 above. :wink: )

4.) Not all people who accept the canonicity of RevJohn are Montanists, Ran. :unamused: Most of us could not even be considered Montanists by parallel; the closest would be the Pentacostals. Had the orthodox bishops thought RevJohn was something fadged up by the Montanists, they would have anathema’d the text at the time they censured Montanus (and later Tertullian, when he joined them late in life). On the contrary, they recognized that RevJohn predated Montanism, and that the Montanists were (let’s say) creatively interpreting chp 21 to apply to their own little sect. While the result was a reluctance to accept the canonicity of RevJohn across the church, even at that time, the text was never censured the way several other recent apocalypses were in the aftermath of Montanism–largely because the text was understood to be older and more widespread than the other censured texts. (Montanus kicked off his movement by creatively applying GosJohn to himself, too.)

Here is a page of details from NTCanon.org on the history of Montanism (as an early Christian heretical movement).

The Wikipedia entry. The OrthodoxWiki has a somewhat more detailed entry.

The Catholic Encyclopedia article.

These are all fairly balanced accounts; the Cath entry has the most scholarly detail and refs. The NTCanon article (connected to Metzger) talks the most (which isn’t much) about the connection to RevJohn (since that’s the point of the site to begin with, discussion of canon text issues.)

The spread, autographic date and authorship of RevJohn is testified less-firmly-enough (compared to GosJohn, as a pertinent example, the canonicity of which was never doubted despite its frequent use by non-orthodox groups) that anyone not under an autocratic church hierarchy might in good conscience reject its inclusion in the canon, if their standards for inclusion are stricter than that of the Church at large. Still, it ought to be pointed out that the text didn’t survive in the Church at large due to its popularity among the officials!–they seem to have somewhat grudgingly come to the inclusion that by their standards of criteria the text passed well enough to be acknowledged as valid canon.

#63

Got me. He uses the annihilist’s favorite passage to define ‘permanent’ but in only one direction as they always do. God CAN destroy the body and soul - or He CAN resurrect both as well. Both universalists & ETers claim that resurrection is the final and permanent state for all.

If the dead are not raised - then THAT (death) is the permanent state. Drink up! It’s over!

This, (from Tom’s latest post) - I found marvelous:

This harkens back to my argument that the resurrection is not MoreofMe - but a Me made anew. And, yes, it’s impossible for me not to apply that to every one of the resurrected.

#64

To Bobx3 from Bobx1,

I always enjoy your presentations and observations. As you may glean, I was heartily agreeing that Glenn’s definition of love is so bizarrely wide that it can be thought consistent with what is obviously unloving. What I am missing is why you’re surprised this his discussion would “go in the direction” of a fundamental disagreement. I personally perceive that if someone recognizes that the Almighty’s love would persevere in pursuing our best, then he would logically expect universalism to be true. But you make it sound like getting “anywhere meaningful” requires that Glenn wouldn’t reject our premises. Of course he does.

I guess that I find exposing these fundamental departures “fascinating” because most who reject universalism avoid such interaction that would clarify what our fundamental differences are. I think Tom has posed excellent clarifying questions that push Glenn to further acknowledge his strained definitions, and that tough interpretive choices remain about counter texts (e.g. does our interpretion of “love enemies” pivot on the Psalmist’s expression, “I hate enemies;” or what is the obvious implication about what we would desire if we loved them “as you love yourself”). As Jason observes, such insistence that he is certain what his own proof-texts require seems to reject a philospher’s desire for coherence (Glenn makes it sound as if his only forte is Greek exegesis; and logical reasoning has no place in that). My only fear is that Glenn will be so uncomfortable with what Tom wants to make clear, and desire to focus on his own exegetical confidence in certain ‘annihilation texts,’ that he will drop out, before coming to terms with the deep challenges that his own position implies. And I wish they would speed it up so that we could all see where it leads.

#65

Well, I for one, appreciate what Glenn is battling for - he’s not anymore satisfied with a rendition of God who tortures infinitely for finite ‘crimes’ - than we are.

He’s not the enemy - and Tom is far from bumping him off. I doubt if Glenn is ‘uncomfortable’ with the challenge - he’s certainly not backing down.

#66

Glenn’s few exegetical examples so far have not been overly impressive, though; certainly not how he has (so far) handled Tom’s observation about how apollumai is sometimes used in the NT!

Tom’s most recent post (a part 2 to his previous one) even includes an example I wasn’t yet aware of: he who loses/destroys his life shall save it!

I’d be willing to be a Coke Glenn’ll be back to metaphysical principles in the exegetical interpretations, soon enough. (Not that I blame him; as I’ve constantly noted, we all have to do that anyway. But then, by tautology, we’re back to the question of a logically coherent theology.)

#67

Ran,
I love what you wrote in reaction for my “fear,” and hope you are right that Glenn will continue.

#68

Me to! Annihilation is extremely difficult to defend, but I can see an ETer getting flame-broiled under Glenn’s attack. It’s been a tactical fight up to this point and probably a familiar one for Glenn because Tom has not taken him out of his comfort zone yet. I think that’s about to change…

#69

Hi Bobx1

Understood.
It’s not that I won’t find the discussion interesting as it evolves (I certainly hope it does) it’s just that I can’t help but read whatever Glen might say with the caveat that I am so far askew from his mindset (as evidenced by his underlying definition of something so central as “love”) that it will be very hard for me to give him the same weight as I give Tom T when (and if) they get much deeper. What I guess I mean is that I find myself unable to take very seriously the interpretations of one who has already demonstrated a bias so far distant from my own. Which is to say I cannot listen to the two debate as if on equal terms. Tom’s interpretations, having “won” (from my perspective) the debate on “love” will clearly have a decided advantage.

Does that make sense to you?

You must understand the irony and awkwardness of all this for me; for I have been, my whole life till now, an annihilationist! Not too many years ago I would have heard Glenn’s as a voice from heaven!!

But if Glenn comes to texts which he has already shared with us that he finds compel an annihilationist view, and in so doing sweeps away definitions of “love” which I find compelling, at this point I simply back off (as it were) and say “dude; we are reading off very different pages”.

It is in this sense that I used the words “anything meaningful”.

You clearly have a different way of approaching all this. If you will, I’d love to hear an alternative.

There is of course a sort of awkwardness in all this for the non-UR folks we debate with. For they must see that their own beliefs do not exclude them (ultimately) from our fellowship; but, on their theology, ours may well exclude us from theirs. (eg I’ve been assured by some that my adherence to UR assures me of annihilation… Hmmmm)

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#70

Bob,

I totally sympathize with your view, and my bias’ are the same. Indeed, I fear from my perspective that Glenn is over his head in presenting a view that will seem reasonable to most Christians. I suspect that he has been sharpened by exchanges with ECT folk, but has not until now been confronted by the unversalist approach and exegesis. To say that “destruction” as a means toward redemption sounds “bizarre” to him, and is unacceptable because it would contradict his annihilationist conclusions, seems strangely illiterate, overconfident, and illogical. It would have been more respectable to have recognized this traditon, and then simply present why he thinks appolumi cannot have any connotation that is redemptive. Likewise, to say that his annihilationist exegesis is as “certain” as it is that God desires to save anybody, sounds like he presumptuously doesn’t recognize that most Christians will be struck that all Christian traditions find the Scripture wants at least some to be saved, but those who perceive no painful judgments after death except annihilation are a small minority. Thus he bears a greater burden than just asserting that his view is certain.

Glenn’s view of “love” makes me think of my Fuller prof (from Calvin Seminary!), Lew Smedes and his memoir, My God and I, where he says that some people’s view that God loves everyone because of general grace such as rain, is tantamount to saying that God just fattens them (the non-elect) up for the kill! My perhaps naive hope is that through the contined tedious process of clarifying how he puts his view together, Glenn will better see the difficulties and tensions created by his position, and that he does not (and cannot) in fact come to the texts with no presuppostions, that arise from his grasp of love, and from the message of Scripture as a whole. Also as you point out, that he might see the “awkwardness” that his position tends to “exclude” more than ours does.

Grace be with you,
Bob

#71

Just wanted to comment that I’m appreciating people’s reflections on the most recent exchanges between Glenn and Tom.

I’m curious as to how people think Glenn’s view of love compares to the Bible’s most robust definition of love from 1 Cor. 13?

Andrew

#72

Andrew, I think it compares poorly and has little resemblance to the Pauline ideal about love.

#73

Bob, I tend to agree (but I need to spend more time reading his arguments). In the traditions I tend to be involved with, this subject might be approached as being one of those areas where God doesn’t do things as we would (Is. 55). I think that argument is applicable in some circumstances, but if the Bible defines love so specifically (1 Cor 13, again) should we really expect God to operate according to a different definition? Although, in reality, we (humans) probably don’t love as described in 1 Cor 13 very often - so maybe the Is. 55 argument would work in opposition to someone taking that position…

It seems that Glenn might have to take the position that love, as defined by 1 Cor 13, only applies to the elect…

Andrew

#74

Ditto, btw.

Andrew, yes I am often quoted Isaiah 55:8-9 by people who are defending one or another doctrine of hopeless punishment. Nowadays I ask them if they have read that chapter recently. :mrgreen:

It’s mostly about the awesome mercy, love and forgiveness of God and a call to repentance and salvation on that ground. The particular “My thoughts” verses are nestled directly in the middle of this, and lead consequentially into a promise that His word goes forth to accomplish the fertile salvation and prosperity of the earth, and shall not return without accomplish all God’s desire.

So it isn’t that maybe we should revise Isaiah 55 in light of 1 Cor 13. They’re pretty much in synch already topically. :smiley:

#75

Except Jesus himself said that God loves his own enemies, blesses those who curse him, rejects eye-for-an-eye mentality, and is a healer to the “poneros” (evil agents)…

I discuss those themes here: desertraindrop86.xanga.com/690840970/item/ (you may need to scroll up).

:slight_smile:

  • Pat
#76

Halt! Glenn speaks!
– we wait though…
Yet wow! does this pace offer a sobering antidote to the frenetic pace of some of our threads…

What we get so often here is reaction: impulsive, from the gut, words hurled – as if weapons…

Glen brings here, along with Tom T, reflection – not reaction.

The pace could not feel more different.

Reaction’s fun, to be sure…
Experience tells me however, that honest growth comes from reflection – not reaction. Reaction soothes the immediate beast within…
Reflection takes time…
Time…

Blessings upon our Tom T –
and upon Glenn P…

MAKE us think gentlemen…
slowly…
deliberately…
and in grace…

Appeal to our instincts to reflect
– not react…

TotalVictory
Bobx3

#77

TV, I love your last post. I agree the slow pace is nice and they are so cordial and precise in their discussion it makes me want to quit the public arena :slight_smile:

#78

March 11th - With Glenn’s latest post, we have come down to the capricious God of the Calvinists and determinists, and the superfluous Christ - the elect always being the elect - and redemption being the eternal side-note.

What’s the point? Believing something or other as proof of being among the elect.

So yes, there is a rejection of that god and the hope of annihilation replacing the hope of resurrection.

The problem is that annihilation is a hope every bit as much as universal salvation. Aquinas believed that the screams of the tormented would sound like music - that’s a hope as well.

If it turns out that Calvinism is true - and that God created most of humanity to hate them - then annihilation is an elegant way out of the nightmare.

#79

I think that we still need to answer Glenn’s specific points.

#80

I think the existential argument against the absurdity of Calvinism is the best one. I cannot find meaning in caprice. We can be as rigid or as loose as we wish concerning scripture as we search for meaning - but in the end we are all dependent on our individual understandings of grace.

Glenn’s understanding of grace is dependent on annihilation. Tom’s understanding of grace is dependent on love. Both understandings can be attacked as irrational because the moment one admits to an ‘interpretation’ is the moment one admits to the absurdity of ‘rationality’ being an appeal in itself.

The destruction of hope, then, becomes a matter of one will over another.