"Reconciliationism", Blocher's ECT/P in a Hell without Sin??

[Alex_Smith]

Blocher attempts to overcome one of the significant issues with ECT/P (that it would imply God allows sin to continue eternally, albeit in a contained location where it’s being punished), without denying ECT/P

Anyway, I recently found an article that builds upon his work:

Hell without Sin — a Renewed View of a Disputed Doctrine

, Andy Saville"]First, I will briefly review the problem of dualism in ‘classic’ Traditionalism. I will then expound three interrelated elements of a modified Traditionalism:
]the damned do not sin;/]
]the damned are lucid;/]
]and the damned are reconciled to God in the sense of praising God for his justice while remaining in torment.[size=85]6[/size]/]

[size=85]6 I have coined the term ‘Reconciliationism’ to distinguish this position[/size]
Henri Blocher (Gunther Knoedler Professor of Systematic Theology at Wheaton College Graduate School & Professor of Systematic Theology, Faculte Libre de Theologie Evangelique, Vaux-sur-Seine, France) is quite popular in the Australian Evangelical circles (he’s done some lecturing in Australia & has a popular book on theodicy) so I think it would be worth thinking about how you’d respond to him (I’ve also asked Reitan, Parry & Talbott). I also emailed Blocher & asked him if he’d read The Evangelical Universalist but unfortunately he said he hadn’t.

Hell without Sin — a Renewed View of a Disputed Doctrine, Andy Saville.pdf (189 KB)
Revd. Dr. Andy Saville is Assistant Minister, All Saints, Fordham and Eight Ash Green in the Diocese of Chelmsford.

I noticed the article cites J. Bonda, The One Purpose of God (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1998 [1993]) pp. 227 - I’ll need to look that up later.

[revdrew61]

I have read Bonda pp 226-228, where he refers to Blocher’s thesis (that the damned eventually praise God for damning them and so stop rebelling but are not reconciled). Bonda does not just say “Blocher provides a carefully constructed answer”, as Andy Saville quotes him, he goes on to show, by asking three pertinent questions, the absurdity of Blocher’s suggestion and its incompatibility with the message of the Bible. Bonda points out that when ‘every knee shall bow, every tongue confess…’ this is with joy, not fear. Blocher’s is a worthy attempt to address one of the biggest problems with the doctrine of hell; the everlasting continuation of sin. But he doesn’t solve the conundrum, he merely creates another one, which only a universalist perspective can unlock. Don’t take my word for it though; read Bonda

[Paidion]

If I understand correctly, Blocher believes in the reconciliation of all to God, but that the lost do not get out of hell, and yet praise God for His “justice”.

I used to listen to a teacher, Charles Schmitt, who is one of the pastors in a church in Maryland. He also believed in the reconcilation of all to God, but that they wouldn’t be “saved”. However, Charles believed that their punishment would at some point cease. What happens to them after that, he doesn’t say. He seems to leave them in “limbo”.

[lotharson]

It seems to me that my landman Henry Blocher was clearly carried away for that particular issue.

He is quite progressive in other areas and has written a whole book arguing that Christians can accept human evolution.

“and the damned are reconciled to God in the sense of praising God for his justice while remaining in torment.”

I am kind of dumbstruck by this statement. How can anyone praise God and feel reconciled with Him if she knows He is going to torture her during the next billions of years?

What is more, if God Himself feels reconciled with that person, then why in hell does He not redeem her?

As Randal Rauser explained, almost all Christians accept the fact that God is much more satisfied if a human is in a communion with Him than outside Him.

I outlined the consequences of really seeing God as The Perfect Being instead of a capricious deity.

I don’t think this entails universal salvation but that the only people who won’t be in heaven and who will cease to exist are those having rejected God.

But if professor Blocher is right that all sinners will be reconciled with God at a certain point, universalism inevitably follows.

[Alex_Smith]

I have read Bonda pp 226-228, where he refers to Blocher’s thesis (that the damned eventually praise God for damning them and so stop rebelling but are not reconciled). Bonda does not just say “Blocher provides a carefully constructed answer”, as Andy Saville quotes him, he goes on to show, by asking three pertinent questions, the absurdity of Blocher’s suggestion and its incompatibility with the message of the Bible. Bonda points out that when ‘every knee shall bow, every tongue confess…’ this is with joy, not fear. Blocher’s is a worthy attempt to address one of the biggest problems with the doctrine of hell; the everlasting continuation of sin. But he doesn’t solve the conundrum, he merely creates another one, which only a universalist perspective can unlock. Don’t take my word for it though; read Bonda

Great to hear from you again. How is (was?) NZ?? I’ve started reading Bonda, but unfortunately have 3 other books on the go so it’s progressing slowly.

The angle I’ve been taking with Blocher is that his definition of sin is too narrow, that anything that isn’t saved (in perfect harmony/relationship with God) is sinning. That forced subjugation is, at most, a step towards God’s actual goal of joyful, wholehearted adoration, praise & enjoyment of Him. Even if he was an Annihilationist, it would still mean God missing out on the joyful, wholehearted adoration, praise & enjoyment of Him, of some beings created in His image.

If I understand correctly, Blocher believes in the reconciliation of all to God, but that the lost do not get out of hell, and yet praise God for His “justice”.

Something like that, which I consider falling short of what God wants & indeed deserves.

I used to listen to a teacher, Charles Schmitt, who is one of the pastors in a church in Maryland. He also believed in the reconcilation of all to God, but that they wouldn’t be “saved”. However, Charles believed that their punishment would at some point cease. What happens to them after that, he doesn’t say. He seems to leave them in “limbo”.

Yes, I think it waters down the definition of reconciliation.

It seems to me that my landman Henry Blocher was clearly carried away for that particular issue.

It’s encouraging he seems to at least partially grasp the significant problems common ECT/P introduces.

He is quite progressive in other areas and has written a whole book arguing that Christians can accept human evolution.

Cool

“and the damned are reconciled to God in the sense of praising God for his justice while remaining in torment.”

I am kind of dumbstruck by this statement. How can anyone praise God and feel reconciled with Him if she knows He is going to torture her during the next billions of years?

What is more, if God Himself feels reconciled with that person, then why in hell does He not redeem her?

Yes, it was a surprise to me when I first heard it stated Once someone can truly see that their thoughts/actions are sinful & God’s just in punishing, it’s very hard to see how that doesn’t imply repentance. If they don’t repent, then it seems to indicate they don’t truly see it yet.

As Randal Rauser explained, almost all Christians accept the fact that God is much more satisfied if a human is in a communion with Him than outside Him.

That’s my impression too.

I outlined the consequences of really seeing God as The Perfect Being instead of a capricious deity.

I don’t think this entails universal salvation but that the only people who won’t be in heaven and who will cease to exist are those having rejected God.

All people have rejected God & yet God doesn’t reject them (although He might helpfully demonstrate to them what that would feel like e.g. in the outer darkness).

But if professor Blocher is right that all sinners will be reconciled with God at a certain point, universalism inevitably follows.

I agree.

[revdrew61]

Great to hear from you again. How is (was?) NZ?? I’ve started reading Bonda, but unfortunately have 3 other books on the go so it’s progressing slowly.

NZ was awesome - sorry we didn’t make it across to Oz Nice to be back home and I hope I will have more time to join in on the forum in the New Year.
Bonda is a really good read. Strong biblical arguments from a man who had deep, insider knowledge of the reformed tradition.

[Alex_Smith]

Great to hear from you again. How is (was?) NZ?? I’ve started reading Bonda, but unfortunately have 3 other books on the go so it’s progressing slowly.

NZ was awesome - sorry we didn’t make it across to Oz Nice to be back home and I hope I will have more time to join in on the forum in the New Year.

Glad to hear it was a success! Shame we weren’t able to coordinate anything but God willing there’ll be other opportunities this side of Judgement

Bonda is a really good read. Strong biblical arguments from a man who had deep, insider knowledge of the reformed tradition.

I look forward to getting into it over the holidays hopefully.

The Gagging of God

, Carson"]are we to imagine that the lost in hell love God with heart and soul and mind and strength, and their neighbours as themselves? If not, they are breaking the first and second commandments. Are they full of spontaneous worship and praise?I agree with Carson on this one, but only while they are lost