The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Hellbound debate: Peter Sanlon, Glenn Peoples & Kevin Miller

Evangelical Universalism
#21

Thanks for the comments revdrew, given that I seem to have inadvetanly run the thread off-topic I’m gonna start a new thread on whether Anglican priests can (in good conscience) be universalists. I too look forward to recieving a reply from the CofE, but I doubt whether they will.

I too am a little confused as to the substantive difference between scaring people into the Kingdom via the visual means of a hell-house, and the auditory and verbal means of a hellfire sermon. If one is wrong, surely the other is also? Or does Peter think that hell should only be discussed in careful, hushed tones?

I’m also a bit confused as to how people can say they are repulsed and scared by the topic of hell, yet also claim that God’s will is always perfect, holy and good. Surely they should rejoice in the just judgements of God (as did many earlier theologians). I can understand the psychological and cultural reluctance to glory in hell, or to talk strongly of hellfire, but it doesn’t seem to work theologically.

#22

I think the difference is that if eternal conscious torment is to be preached, then the horrors of it need to be reflected in the minister’s reactions (I think there was a quote about never speaking of hell without tears in your eyes). A hell house seems like the wrong medium to convey hell in any way that would be taken seriously.

#23

I look forward to joining in on the new thread :slight_smile:

#24

Your input will be welcome, revdrew :slight_smile: It’s a tricky and complex topic …

[Universalist Anglican Minister: Contradiction?)

#25

It seems to me that if Hell were true then communicating the reality of that would be important, whether that be communicated in a play, Hell House, movie, documentary, or graphically preaching on it - if it were true - whatever the then emotional expression of the minister. And IF Jesus’ warnings concerning Hinnom Valley really did convey ECT, then one can see Jesus doing just that. “Eternal flames” and “worms that die not”, outer darkness, weeping and gnashing of teeth are very graphic terminology that should effectively scare anyone. (Of course, I think these did not imply ECT, but spoke of the terrible devastation of sin in this life and potential shame, regret, and remorse in the life to come.) But if Hell were true, I could see Jesus participating in a “Hell House” to effectively communicate the message of fear that the doctrine of Hell is meant to illicit.

So to me, affirming belief in ECT and yet thinking of communicating that “truth” via such graphic means as a Hell House or play seems contradictory. But of course, Hell is not “Good News” and no one likes to be the bearer of “Bad News”. It’s no wonder that relatively few Christians speak of it except in passing.

#26

Hmm, if hell is God’s will, and we love God and desire for His will to be done, then why would we speak of hell with tears in our eyes? It doesn’t follow for me. And I don’t believe hell is possible unless it IS God’s will as He is clearly, from scripture, omnipotent. Nothing He desires to do can be denied Him. No one has successfully required anything of Him, and certainly nothing against His will. He is not obligated to stop working in the unbeliever’s heart simply because we say that physical death is the cut-off line. HE never said that. Why should we expect Him to follow OUR lead?