That’s not a bad way to approach it, although I still think that even conceding that much is ultimately based on the unbiblical assumption that it is “hell”, not death that we are being saved from. Remember that in the OT, they didn’t really have a concept of the afterlife, because death was largely seen as the end. It is sin and death that we are saved from, and from the annihilation of remaining in the grave. That was the whole point of the resurrection. Sin is extremely serious, because it is why we have death! But we know that death will be done away with in the end (it is the last enemy to be destroyed, because sin must be eradicated first).
Thank you that is helpful. I am willing to let Keller, or whomever, “let hell be the worst it can be”. But I think no matter what you will have to talk about the atonement. This seems to be what every reformed theologian tries to uncover (Wittmer, Chan, Galli, Keller). I tried to address this on the website. I invite more insight into this.
There are 2 things I am thinking:
One is the fact that it seems that the concept of ECT is sustained by the Penal Substitutionary Atonement since it is the eternal wrath of God that is viewed as being propitiated by either the cross or an eternal hell. And while I do not reject it as one of many metaphors of the atonement I think it begs the question of what about the view of the church for the first thousand to fifteen hundred years where the PSA view was either non-existent or in rudimentary form?
The early church as I understand had more of a Christus Victor model along with the Ransom theory until Anselm. Therefore considering all the power and influence the early church had it seems untenable that they had an inferior view of the cross. Did we really lag in our understanding of the cross for fifteen hundred years until the Reformers set it straight? I appreciate Scot McKnight on this where he talks about all the metaphors together and how it is in the final analysis actually very much a mystery (same with Leon Morris).
So if one must stand solely on the PSA to make a case for ECT then it leaves hanging the question as to what the early church was running on for power(!)
And I don’t like the way the Reformed arguments go that try to force the PSA above all the other atonement theories when in fact it wasn’t held by the early church and in all honesty the cross is a mystery in many ways. It is multifaceted and has perhaps as many facets as there are souls, since we all have unique needs. He is after all Jehovah Our Provider…meaning whatever you need.
The second reason I would contest the ECT view even hypothetically is because it changes the focus of the cross from being about delivering us from a condition to that of delivering us from a location. Fear of sin often gets eclipsed by a fear of hell. A terminal sin nature ending in death is very bad news indeed and enough to send the world to its knees before the Savior when they are given eyes to see.
Yes, I think this is a huge point that needs to be grasped–that the very nature of justice is righteousness or “right-useness”. I think in light of all the recent work on social justice as modeled in the Scriptures (by Colson, Justice that Restores and Keller, Generous Justice etc.,) this connection will become more and more obvious…that all justice in God must be redemptive.
Thank you for the conversation…
Phillip
godslovewins.com
Melchizedek & phillip macdonald : You have Good points worth considering.
My main point is that EU does does not necessarily preclude a concept of ECT in theory. Though I hesitated to use the word “torment” in my previous post, as it tends to conjure of images of God giggling with delight as He stretches people out on a torture rack, I also made sure to indicate I was using the term in a vague sense. I think we all believe that those separated from Christ are not happy campers, whether in this life or the next. This could also be termed a state of “torment”. It may not be because God is actively torturing the person … it may simply be the result of a person facing the guilt and consequences of their own sin … it may be because the person is sad to not be in God’s presence … but it will be torment nevertheless. But more importantly I was trying to point out that if theoretically one never repents, that person will necessarily remain in this place of torment. (EU offers assurance that such will never happen in actuality.)
I think it is interesting to discuss the various theories of the atonement in relation to EU and traditionalism. But as I have explained the concept of ECT above, could not ECT still be compatible with other theories of the atonement like Christus Victor? Put another way, could not Christus Victor also be used to support the idea of a place of conscious torment that exists as long as there are unrepentant sinners, which theoretically could be forever?
Rev 14 They are tormented in the presence of the lamb and his holy angels. I dont think the theory that the torment is being away from the presence of God holds up. This was my old pastors exPlanation btw.
Im not saying your whole idea is wrong btw firedup. Just the theory thats en vogue with evangelicals to try and lessen the horrible nature of ET that hell is away from the presence of God. There are many verses saying we cant get away from God
Gotcha, redhotmagma. That’s a good point about how we can never get away from God. In any case when I used the term “torment” I just meant that whatever it is, wherever it is, its positively “no fun”. Those who do not trust in Christ and His forgiveness are on the “wrong side” of God and it will be miserable for them. For that matter, we experience such misery (AKA “torment”) today when we sin against God and for a time refuse to repent. Those who die never having trusteed in Christ … as I said before … will not be “happy campers”.
Yes, and I think your point is well taken. It seems that as those who believe in UR argue against ECT we often swing the pendulum the other way downplaying or neglecting the very real threat of the judgment of God where no one will leave saying it was worth it, no one. Colliding with the God of the universe is certainly not going to be pleasant.
But on the other hand perhaps we feel like we are dealing with “abused children” who every time we raise our hand they flinch and duck. So also we are afraid to mention “judgment” because people auto-translate that to mean eternal damnation. I think that is sometimes why I back off at first when telling someone about the gospel. But at some point we must make clear the “severity” of the Lord.
Phillip
I totally agree. 