Once again, a beautiful use of analogy to facilitate discussion. I love Bobbie, and I'm glad you didn't let her out onto the street. Knowing her, she'd have likely survived by befriending your neighbors and convincing them she's an angel come to eat the contents of their refrigerator.
"An object in motion, surrounded by other objects in motion". The Proverbs would describe our volitional self as a river guided by its banks, which are God's hands (Prov 21:1).
I much appreciate the wholistic theology you bring here. There is no way to separate our belief in Hell with our understanding of God's part in putting people there. As you point out, there is a brazen boldness in the Calvinist movement that doesn't care to explain how a sovereign God would sustain the eternal life of a person just for everlasting torment (since eternal life is a miracle from God, even if your flesh is perpetually burning off and growing back). They don't recognize just how sociopathic of a God they've concluded. Likewise, the Free Willies (as I call them) assume God lets some of his beloved children walk out the door into the street, since free will (which isn't laid out anywhere in the Bible) is of primary importance.
You've acknowledged the flaw in both. And while I appreciate your brief reference to annihilationism, let's not pretend it's a commonly held Christian doctrine (I'd argue it's trailing universalism in the polls). It, however, really lets the air out of your balloon, if I may be so bold. Under Conditional Immortality, you are free to see God as sovereign over all (or not) without attributing an eternally heinous act to Him (to keep people burning in Hell forever).
I also love your wisdom on parenting and its connection to our relationship with God. It's not something I've yet experienced. But I am an artist, and I can relate my experience in that with God. I think your analogy of a parent only extends into our relationship with God incarnate - not with God eternal. Specifically, God entered time and space, and because of that, we mortals can have a relationship with Him. Jesus revealed that HE is, in fact, "I Am" - the incarnation of the unseen God. But there is still an unseen, eternal aspect of God that he called "The Father", who predestined his death on the cross. So while God the Son was praying for deliverance - that he wouldn't be thrown out onto the street in 37 degree rain - God the Father said, "my purposes are in it".
This is all to say that the actions of love from an eternal God who remains outside of space and time cannot possibly be fathomed by us, except in that He sent His son to die for us to have eternal life. And if we believe in Him, we get eternal life. If we don't, then the fire burns us into annihilation.
Sorry to hijack the comments with my full rebuttal of your substack. But I simply felt compelled to edge you one small step closer to annihilationism, since you've taken the big step away from free will.
I like a full rebuttal! A rebuttal is better than a refusal. I'll certainly grant your point that annihilationism lags in the polls, which surprises me. Well, on second thought, no, it doesn't surprise me. Many people are obsessed with "just-desserts", and gleefully delight in the idea of really bad people getting their full condemnation meted out.
I want to hear more about annihilation. I am reminded of how C.S. Lewis, in the closing scenes of "The Last Battle", treats the issue. There stands a door, through which nothing exists. The whole host of creation passes before Aslan and are free to choose whether to go on up with him into the high country, or to go through the door cease to exist. It's a sad scene to say the least.
Though I didn't tackle the topic head on in the above post, I see another crack in this approach. This view shares a fundamental compatibility with ECT in that both treat the relationship between God and man as being one of separation. God, eternally other, is out there (in fact, you say exactly this later tin the comment, saying that God is wholly other and unknowable, save for the incarnate Jesus). God still loves us, but he can't "get" to us because of our sin. Our sin created a separation between us. But, he had a backup plan. He sent Jesus that whosoever would believe in him would have eternal life.
I do believe I am steel-manning your point of you well enough to almost convince myself! But, there is a catch. Rather, there is a mystery. John 3:16 does seem to highlight through negative space the contrafactual. That whoever does not believe will not have eternal life. We run into a problem, now, when we read Romans 5:8. "... but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." and vs 10, "For if while we were still enemies we were reconciled to God...." We were all reconciled, and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord. All died in Christ, and all were already raised in Christ. We once considered Christ according to the flesh, but we no longer consider anyone according to the flesh. God has condemned all that he might have mercy on all.
As we've discussed in the past, there are many "all" passages relating to salvation. So, that's the mystery. Why do we see in some places declarations that "all" will be saved, but then in others that only some will?
I'll answer that in a later post, but, there is one more objection I will lob your way. You say that the parenting analogy only extends to Jesus, but that is at odds with what the Gospels reveal about Jesus purpose. Namely, that while the law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has at any time seen the Father, but Jesus, who is God, has made him (The Father) known. Jesus reveals the Father, God, as no one before, not even Moses or Elijah, had ever seen or understood. He is our Father.
Lastly, when Jesus asks the Father to accomplish mankind's salvation by any other method, he is of course identifying with our fear of death. Must I really suffer like this and die in shame and humiliation? But, for the JOY set before him, he willingly endured the shame of the cross, knowing that he was ultimately, finally, and completely stepping into OUR shame, fear, and death. God purposed it, and Jesus did as well. He would not be content without experiencing the full measure of our suffering. Why? Because he saves to the uttermost, even those who are in the deepest, blackest, most despairing pits.
Once again, a beautiful use of analogy to facilitate discussion. I love Bobbie, and I'm glad you didn't let her out onto the street. Knowing her, she'd have likely survived by befriending your neighbors and convincing them she's an angel come to eat the contents of their refrigerator.
"An object in motion, surrounded by other objects in motion". The Proverbs would describe our volitional self as a river guided by its banks, which are God's hands (Prov 21:1).
I much appreciate the wholistic theology you bring here. There is no way to separate our belief in Hell with our understanding of God's part in putting people there. As you point out, there is a brazen boldness in the Calvinist movement that doesn't care to explain how a sovereign God would sustain the eternal life of a person just for everlasting torment (since eternal life is a miracle from God, even if your flesh is perpetually burning off and growing back). They don't recognize just how sociopathic of a God they've concluded. Likewise, the Free Willies (as I call them) assume God lets some of his beloved children walk out the door into the street, since free will (which isn't laid out anywhere in the Bible) is of primary importance.
You've acknowledged the flaw in both. And while I appreciate your brief reference to annihilationism, let's not pretend it's a commonly held Christian doctrine (I'd argue it's trailing universalism in the polls). It, however, really lets the air out of your balloon, if I may be so bold. Under Conditional Immortality, you are free to see God as sovereign over all (or not) without attributing an eternally heinous act to Him (to keep people burning in Hell forever).
I also love your wisdom on parenting and its connection to our relationship with God. It's not something I've yet experienced. But I am an artist, and I can relate my experience in that with God. I think your analogy of a parent only extends into our relationship with God incarnate - not with God eternal. Specifically, God entered time and space, and because of that, we mortals can have a relationship with Him. Jesus revealed that HE is, in fact, "I Am" - the incarnation of the unseen God. But there is still an unseen, eternal aspect of God that he called "The Father", who predestined his death on the cross. So while God the Son was praying for deliverance - that he wouldn't be thrown out onto the street in 37 degree rain - God the Father said, "my purposes are in it".
This is all to say that the actions of love from an eternal God who remains outside of space and time cannot possibly be fathomed by us, except in that He sent His son to die for us to have eternal life. And if we believe in Him, we get eternal life. If we don't, then the fire burns us into annihilation.
Sorry to hijack the comments with my full rebuttal of your substack. But I simply felt compelled to edge you one small step closer to annihilationism, since you've taken the big step away from free will.
Love you, brother. Can't wait for your next one!
I like a full rebuttal! A rebuttal is better than a refusal. I'll certainly grant your point that annihilationism lags in the polls, which surprises me. Well, on second thought, no, it doesn't surprise me. Many people are obsessed with "just-desserts", and gleefully delight in the idea of really bad people getting their full condemnation meted out.
I want to hear more about annihilation. I am reminded of how C.S. Lewis, in the closing scenes of "The Last Battle", treats the issue. There stands a door, through which nothing exists. The whole host of creation passes before Aslan and are free to choose whether to go on up with him into the high country, or to go through the door cease to exist. It's a sad scene to say the least.
Though I didn't tackle the topic head on in the above post, I see another crack in this approach. This view shares a fundamental compatibility with ECT in that both treat the relationship between God and man as being one of separation. God, eternally other, is out there (in fact, you say exactly this later tin the comment, saying that God is wholly other and unknowable, save for the incarnate Jesus). God still loves us, but he can't "get" to us because of our sin. Our sin created a separation between us. But, he had a backup plan. He sent Jesus that whosoever would believe in him would have eternal life.
I do believe I am steel-manning your point of you well enough to almost convince myself! But, there is a catch. Rather, there is a mystery. John 3:16 does seem to highlight through negative space the contrafactual. That whoever does not believe will not have eternal life. We run into a problem, now, when we read Romans 5:8. "... but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us." and vs 10, "For if while we were still enemies we were reconciled to God...." We were all reconciled, and Jesus died for the sins of the whole world, and every knee will bow and every tongue confess that He is Lord. All died in Christ, and all were already raised in Christ. We once considered Christ according to the flesh, but we no longer consider anyone according to the flesh. God has condemned all that he might have mercy on all.
As we've discussed in the past, there are many "all" passages relating to salvation. So, that's the mystery. Why do we see in some places declarations that "all" will be saved, but then in others that only some will?
I'll answer that in a later post, but, there is one more objection I will lob your way. You say that the parenting analogy only extends to Jesus, but that is at odds with what the Gospels reveal about Jesus purpose. Namely, that while the law came through Moses, grace and truth came through Jesus Christ. No one has at any time seen the Father, but Jesus, who is God, has made him (The Father) known. Jesus reveals the Father, God, as no one before, not even Moses or Elijah, had ever seen or understood. He is our Father.
Lastly, when Jesus asks the Father to accomplish mankind's salvation by any other method, he is of course identifying with our fear of death. Must I really suffer like this and die in shame and humiliation? But, for the JOY set before him, he willingly endured the shame of the cross, knowing that he was ultimately, finally, and completely stepping into OUR shame, fear, and death. God purposed it, and Jesus did as well. He would not be content without experiencing the full measure of our suffering. Why? Because he saves to the uttermost, even those who are in the deepest, blackest, most despairing pits.