https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PqqVwzMkiPcI’ve only just started listening to it, but it’s interesting so far (I think Justin Brierley is a good/fair presenter) 
Cool! I quite like this show, and Justin (he’s an anni isn’t he?) 
Nice link.
Map for “Hellbound: 3 Views” radio debate at Unbelievable with Justin Brierly as host.
0:00 – Justin’s intro.
0:35 – promo for the “Unbelievable” yearly conference, this year on Lewis’ Trilemma (or Quadrilemma rather), plus a 3 DVD set of last year’s conference.
2:25 – basic intro of three guests and topic.
4:14 – intro with Kevin Miller on Hellbound.
6:15 – was Love Wins an inspiration for the film?
7:35 – Kevin definitely holds to a form of Christian universalism. References Robin Parry’s film interviews.
8:45 – audio version of film trailer.
10:50 – Peter Sanlon introduced (reluctant assent to ECT).
12:45 – what Peter thought of the film. Has some good things to say about it. Doesn’t think the rhetorical strategy of the film (i.e. people who believe in hell are unwilling to question it) is very fair. Do universalists question and explore their own beliefs?
14:05 – Kevin replies that his point (in this regard) wasn’t so much that ECT don’t question and explore their own beliefs but that not questioning and exploring one’s own beliefs (regardless of what the beliefs are) leads to major problems in society. Doesn’t matter if the beliefs are Kath, Anni or ECT, if the position is that someone must hold it or not be a Christian that’s “really problematic”.
15:15 – intro with Glenn Peoples. Connects anni back to conditional immortality.
16:05 – what Glenn thought of film. Has a vested interest in a lot of what the film has to say, though disagreeing with conclusion of course. Notes that anni wasn’t represented a lot in the film. (Greg Boyd is in the film but his interviews don’t talk much about anni per se.) Thought ECT wasn’t treated entirely fairly, too much low-hanging fruit (i.e. straw men).
Commercial outro/intro (call for phone or net comments).
19:30 – Kevin responds to “low-hanging fruit” criticism. Says underlying message is same although packaging is different. Traditional view produces these types of people.
21:20 – Peter inquires whether Kevin really thinks common belief of ECT is what leads Westboro to unloving, unChristlike attitude? Kevin replies the Calvinism shared by Westboro, John Piper and Mark Driscoll was the connection he wanted to draw. Peter asks how does Kevin account for gracious Calvs then? Kevin admits not a 1:1 correlation. What is held, how it’s held.
23:38 – Justin asks why Rob wasn’t included? Kevin says he repeatedly refused interview (but allowed footage from trailer).
24:50 – Justin asks what Glenn would have done differently to represent ECT. Glenn says if the point was about dogmatism maybe he would have done much the same. Has empathy and sympathy for universalists vs. dogmatism. Far too many traditionalists treat attacking doctrine as attacking God personally.
Commercial outro/intro. Promo for Unbelievable conference.
29:40 – What does Peter think about Driscoll’s analogy of state vs. nation boundaries? (Mark was saying another kind of hopeless punishment like annihilation was state boundary but still same nation; but universalism was nation boundary outside Christianity.) Peter says it depends on context: if church organization (like Church of England) has doctrine of ECT (as he thinks CoE does), then church leadership (if they’ve vowed to pass on teachings of organization) should follow that or resign. Thinks he’s too effeminate to be invited to preach in Mark’s church. 
But agrees with what he sees as Mark’s underlying point: doctrines are interconnected so changing one affects others. Thinks universalism makes it difficult to uphold Biblical teaching about Jesus on the cross. Annihilation, not so much of a problem.
33:00 – Kevin jumps in on universalism and Biblical teaching about Jesus on cross! Points to Robin Parry (also Richard Beck and Thomas Talbott by name) as example of universalists who are compatible with any view of atonement including penal sub. Also, every universalist interviewed for film (so far as he recalls) believed in hell. (JRPNote: I seem to recall at least one or two ultra-us who denied any punishment whatever, but yes most were purga-u.)
34:40 – Glenn says big difference between universalism and hopeful universalism. Peter (or Justin?) agrees, one is statement of fact, one is possibility. Turns Rob’s rhetorical question back around, “Really? You’re saying you know that for sure?” Says he himself is hopeful universalist in the sense that he acknowledges it’s possible everyone will be saved, but he’s agnostic about the outcome. (JRPNote: so, wait, he’s agnostic about anni, too?!?)
35:35 – Justin points out post-mortem salvation is necessary for universalism to be even possible. Glenn agrees that anni and ECT in and of themselves don’t commit to scope of salvation nor question of post-mortem chances. (JRPNote: of course from a Calv standpoint Kath is “about” question of scope of salvation. Glenn is Calv anni. An Arminian, whether ECT or anni, wouldn’t think scope was in question but persistence.) Glenn thinks he could be universalist (apparently meaning hopeful universalist, or maybe he means Arminian for scope) and still believe impenitent sinners will be annihilated after second chance. (JRPNote: Glenn is a bit confused here!)
36:55 – Peter reminds Kevin (and Glenn) that conclusion of AthCreed is very exclusivist hell statement. Uphold or ought to leave a post where called to uphold. Justin mentions minister in Hellbound who was required to leave. (JRPNote: before the film was released same minister confessed he abandoned belief in hell as part of talking himself out of guilt for serial adultery, took hell belief back as part of reconciling with his wife and returning to church membership.)
38:53 – Kevin agrees that leaders should maintain group beliefs, but this is not the same as basic question of whether universalism is state or national border issue. Moreover, exclusivistic doctrine leads to seeing people outside drawn borders as threats to be opposed. Kevin doesn’t think that’s healthy, Christlike or loving.
Commercial outro/intro. Justin says check out other eps for more detailed theology discussion on ECT vs. Anni vs. Kath.
42:00 – Justin notes that everyone believes evangelism is at stake; Kaths say hopeless punishment reduces acceptance of evangelism, non-Kaths say no hopeless punishment reduces evangelism period.
42:55 – Glenn on evangelistic implications: prefers theological realism, find out what is true, go out and proclaim that. Not anti-realism where doctrines are chosen for results in people. Kaths or non-Kaths can go either way.
44:10 – Back when Glenn was Catholic, and he first heard of annihilationism, he rejected it for not being harsh enough. So it depends on where people are already at.
45:20 – Justin asks if Glenn thinks punishment/hell should feature in evangelism at all? Glenn says Christians (JRPNote: after Christ!) in NT don’t include hell in evangelism, that’s reserved for after people enter church.
46:35 – Peter’s reply, same question (Justin brings up Jonathan Edwards): Christians and Christ use many different motivations, including fear of judgment and hell. Wrong to say that hell is not used at all in Bible as motivation. Uses that himself sometimes, but not all the time.
49:00 – Kevin, same question sort of: has there been a significant shift? He says songs indicate people don’t really think hopeless hell exists; actually thinks people like Ray Comfort (in film) are behaving consistently with belief, out trying to save people from hell. But Kevin thinks gospel is salvation from self-destruction. Allows that urgency isn’t as great in one way, but people need saving from sins and horrible situations now. Traditional doctrine of hell has done more harm than good in church history.
51:40 – Asks Peter if there has been shift in private belief about hell. Peter says problem is that too many don’t believe in God, not that too many don’t believe in hell. Westboro over-emphasizes ECT so harms witness by not emphasizing other things, too, like humility and grace.
54:55 commercial outro/intro, promo for next week’s show and Quadrilemma Conference (Liar, Lunatic, Legend or Lord)
57:50 – Glenn says they don’t have to preach two options. (JRPNote: but then he says it’s eternal life or nothing. Annihilation is the other option!) Still thinks “Biblical evangelism” didn’t make appeals to hellfire. (JRPNote: but he knows Jesus did, he uses that against universalists! – except he’s apparently a preterist and thinks what Jesus said doesn’t apply to afterlife at all?? No, he thinks some of what Jesus said does apply to afterlife punishment. Then why isn’t that an appeal to hellfire?) Thinks universalists are reacting in error off the other way than ECT by going to other extreme.
1:01:00 – Peter says people should read and judge for themselves whether Jesus and apostles used judgment of hell, and whether traditional interpretation of what they actually say is too extreme.
1:01:50 - Kevin says at first glance all three positions have texts, so stacking up texts doesn’t work. But he agrees with Glenn (and Peter) in being theological realist, so the question is how best to account for everything in light of reason and experience? Many many people don’t come to ECT conclusion while still being very faithful readers of the text. So not a matter of overreacting, just different interpretative principles.
1:03:05 – Peter doesn’t really tell people “just read the Bible”, he doesn’t think that’s all there is to say about it. But in the space of a minute or two that’s all he can say. Acknowledges metaphorical imagery seem contradictory, but that they refer to something terrible for people to flee not nothing. Kevin agrees metaphors refer to something terrible for people to flee and be saved from, but debate is over best way to interpret them.
1:04:02 – Justin calls back to Glenn’s charge that universalists try to get rid of scary texts focusing on love to exclusion of other passages. Kevin admits true of some Kaths, not true of himself or most universalists he knows.
Justin thanks guests, reminds listeners no time for much depth, check other sites and radio shows, see movie, etc.
Great summary Jason - I hardly need to listen to it now
On a side note, I’m pretty sure that the CofE doesn’t require their priests to believe or teach ECT anymore. The Athanasius creed is hardly ever used, and the CofE Declaration of Assent is:
“I, [name], do so affirm, and accordingly declare my belief in the faith which is revealed in the Holy Scriptures and set forth in the catholic creeds and to which the historic formularies of the Church of England bear witness; and in public prayer and administration of the sacraments, I will use only the forms of service which are authorized or allowed by Canon.”
edit: It seems like a lot hangs on how one interprets ‘revealed’, ‘set forth’, ‘catholic creeds’ and ‘bear witness’
Not to mention that there’s quite a few well known universalists and annis amongst the CofE clergy (going right to the top)
Hey Pog -
Yes you are right. The C of E, since the time of Elizabeth 1, has not made belief in eternal damnation an article of faith - and the authority of the damnatory clauses of the Athanasian Creed have been hotly disputed from late Elizabethan times too.
Well, that’s why a topical map isn’t a total information summary. Peter knows the CoE doesn’t (in practice) require priests to believe or teach ECT anymore. He’s just saying as a matter of moral principle, if you promise to teach the Creeds, and that’s technically one of the Creeds you promised to teach, then teach it or voluntarily resign.
We had an interesting thread a while back about just how married to the AthCreed the Church of England (and Reformation theology more generally) really was; which also involved an argument (mostly from me) on what structurally even counts as the Creed. (My argument was that the “wrapping” statements at the beginning, middle and end are not the Creed itself, but are comments about the Creed. What we profess or believe, the credo, are the two large halves on the Trinity and on Christology.)
Sobornost or [tag]Alex Smith[/tag] may be able to remember where that thread is.
But I’d challenge whether or not the CofE does get priests to promise to teach the creeds. If you do promise to teach it (as in teach it as a matter of faith, rather than a historical document that you disagree with) then it does seem that Anglican clergy have a moral duty to sort that out …
As to that I don’t know. I’m inclined to think that an Anglican priest actually serving at the moment has a clearer idea than I do about what he swore to teach when he took the position.
is the link for the discussion on the Creed of Athanasius Jason refers to above (it’s a very good discussion Pog)
Agree (none of this has been about the accuracy of your/Jason comments at all - only Peter’s) - though I’m not sure there’s any real consistency in the CofE regarding almost any doctrinal position, let alone the true extent, interpretation, use and validity of the Athansian Creed. I really wish it was clear, but it isn’t - either on the CofE website or in books about them or amongst their theologians or history.
I have a vested interest as I am considering joining the CofE as no other denomination (that I know of, or which is represented anywhere near me) seems close to being able to accept my theological views (I’ve already been called a heretic in my current church). OH well
thanks for link, sobornost
Pog,
Is it necessary to actually join? Can’t you just attend and participate? My husband and I elected not to officially join the last church we attended (even though we were active) because the ‘covenants’ we would have had to sign were in many places just plain silly, and we knew we weren’t going to abide by them. The pastor protested that no one was expected to abide by those covenants (or the silly bits, anyway). But neither of us were prepared to sign a document promising (for example) not to shop on Sunday and then stop on the way home from church to buy gasoline, or not to watch movies and then pop in a disk of some old or new favorite on a cold evening. If they don’t expect people to abide by the silly bits, then take them out if they want people to join. It’s ridiculous to expect (in effect) that their prospective members be willing to falsely promise to do or refrain from doing this or that when everyone fully expects these rules to be ignored by 99% of new members.
Of course not joining would be a problem if the CoE has a closed communion . . . none of the churches I’ve ever attended have restricted who could take communion. But I don’t for a moment believe you have to be ordained by people before you can have communion with your believing friends, or baptize a new believer, etc. Scripture doesn’t teach that.
I hope you can get it sorted, Pog. Community is important.
Blessings, Cindy
Sort of. The problem is that my wife and I wish to be quite active in the church (my wife sets up Sunday schools) and In previous churches I’ve been part of leadership, deaconate, bible teacher, lay preacher, and all kinds of other stuff … And I intend to become involved in ‘ministry’ in some way. Trouble is, as I’ve gradually become more qualified for the role, I’ve also become increasingly removed from the theology of most (seemingly all) churches … The CofE was really a last ditch attempt at finding somewhere where I could train for ordination, as they seem broad enough to welcome even oddities such as myself
If I wanted to just attend and worship, then I’d be content to go almost anywhere (for myself - I’d still be looking for somewhere my young son could enjoy, a very great difficulty in England where about 40% of churches have no kids work whatsoever, and those that do are mostly pants). Not that I’d go very often, church is often a very depressing experience here.
I’ve had little luck with churches for almost all my time as a Christian, so I might just have to get used to the idea of being forever a ‘fringe’ attendee.
[tag]revdrew61[/tag] knows a lot more about C of E’s stance on UR. I was recently talking to him about it:
I’ve also started reading an article by James Gould who discusses this further.
Hmm, okay . . . how about this? (In case it’s interesting to you at all.) lk10.com/ I wouldn’t even consider a regular church at this point, but not out of malice or anything. It just isn’t for everyone.
Thanks for the info and comments, Alex and Cindy.
The history of UR in Anglicanism is certainly interesting ( and complex), and it’s pretty clear that the Athanasian creed is largely ignored by a lot of modern clergy (witness the number of annis and universalists in CofE). The link you gave, Alex, is dripping with info - it’ll take a while to go through all that
But my problem is that it is unclear whether you’re ‘supposed’ to be ECT if you sign up to be an Anglican priest. The CofE Declaration of Assent seems to imply that you must believe and accept the Athanasian Creed - even if ordinands promptly ignore it afterwards. If that is the case then I’m not prepared to say I believe something I don’t, even if its accepted that no one really means what they’re saying.
That’s an interesting link Cindy. I’ve certainly considered house church before, but it really didn’t go anywhere. I’ll take a look at that site - very interesting . Thanks for the info.
I’ve e-mailed the CofE direct about this issue, if I get a reply ill let you know. Not that I expect one, but …
I found it interesting when Peter was talking about the end of the Athanasius Creed. I don’t think that it is biblical to say that unless you hold to every single facet of that creed (including ect) you cannot be saved. the only qualification that Jesus made was that we believe in Him.
I’ll be interested in how the CofE responds to that email enquiry. There has always been a struggle for influence and power between those who want to keep the CofE broad and open to different perspectives and those who want to narrowly define who is in and who is out. Currently I would say the broad open lot are winning the struggle and there seems to be more mutual generosity across the church’s traditional divides than I have seen before. I really think it is a move of the Holy Spirit. Pog, I’d encourage you to pursue your vocation by speaking to your parish priest and through him/her arranging to see the Vocations Adviser or DDO.
It was an interesting discussion. I look forward to the movie release in DVD. I thought Kevin did a good job explaining why he presented the material as he did. And I thought Peter’s negative reaction to the Hell House presentation was off. I mean, preachers describe Hell and seek to influence people to follow Jesus to avoid Hell, so a group doing a graphic drama communicating their beliefs in Hell only seems reasonable.
Yeah, one of the things that I really like about being in the CofE is the variety of opinions allowed and the encouragement of questioning.
I think because he reluctantly holds to eternal conscious torment, he wouldn’t bring it up all the time. The idea of a hell house seems almost like turning the whole concept into a pantomime/fairground ride, which, he may see as irreverence to the reality of eternal conscious torment.I am closer to Glenn’s view, but I think that you don’t need to and shouldn’t frighten people into converting. For one thing, it is God that converts and I am unsure how effective the fear of hell is for bringing people to God. However, I know that God reached me through my fear of hell, and while it became a real issue in my faith later on, I think that God can work with any part of you that trusts Him, even if it comes from a place of fear or self preservation.