Is God Equally Judge and Equally Father?

Slowly but surely, I am making my way through the list of questions I think are birthed when we believe in the God of eternal conscious torment that Chan talks about in his book Erasing Hell. 
Throughout the book, Chan emphasizes the legal/courtroom/God as judge concept when he uses phrases such as….

After Jesus looks at the evidence
He gives His verdict: Believers are awarded everlasting life, while unbelievers are awarded everlasting punishment.
But Jesus goes on to say that God’s courtroom will be much worse, for here the Judge has the power to sentence you to the “hell [gehenna] of fire”
The legal context of this statement ensures that Jesus is referring to the consequences of judgment day.
When Jesus uses stock phrases like “gehenna of fire” in legal contexts like this one, He means a literal place of punishment after judgment. He means hell.
The phrase sentenced to hell is once again reminiscent of something you would hear in a courtroom.

So…is God mainly judge or is God mainly father?
William Barclay, in I Am A Convinced Universalist explained it this way:

Further, there is only one way in which we can think of the triumph of God. If God was no more than a King or Judge, then it would be possible to speak of his triumph, if his enemies were agonizing in hell or were totally and completely obliterated and wiped out. But God is not only King and Judge, God is Father - he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

And John Gavazzoni, a favorite kingdom minister of mine, says it this way in his article “My Dad, God”:

One thing stands out clearly to me when I compare my father's relationship with his children to the way our Heavenly Father is presented in conventional orthodox theology. It is simply this: Lou Gavazzoni's relationship with me was paternal, not legal. Whatever factors came into play, all was built on a familial, not a forensic foundation. There may at times have been a friendship element, associate-in-business element, fellow-musician element, boss-employee element, even lord-servant element and yes, the element of judgment came up as well. But, I never stood before one who was essentially a judge, who might, after legal matters were settled, then allow himself to be fatherly.
I stood before my father who might, as necessary, act in a firm, unyielding and corrective judgment as part of his love for me. Yet, it seems clear to me, that most of Christianity assumes that a relationship with God is only possible after legal matters are settled. Our minds are so entangled with what we perceive to be legal, judicial and forensic necessities that we miss the Father-heart of God.

So is God really everyone’s father…or does he only become Father when we “pray the sinner’s prayer” and “ask Jesus to come into our heart”?
More on that….in my next post…..

And the third mindset spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell

Psalm 16:11 

You make known to me the path of life;
in your presence there is fullness of joy;
at your right hand are pleasures forevermore.

You couldn’t prove this verse by the Christians who default to the third mindset I've come across in believers of ECT.

A begrudging acceptance and a keen awareness of everything they are missing to toe the "I don't want to burn in hell" line fuels their beliefs and behavior. There is no joy evident in their lives…other than the “joy” that comes from knowing they are (probably) not bound for hell.  At least not if they continue to toe the line. 

Their quiet anger carries over into everything they do and permeates their entire life style. You will usually find them in very fundamentalist churches....conforming their lives to a strict set of rules and regulations they don't want to follow. But they do...

They totally miss the the pleasures and fullness of joy that can only be found at the right hand of the Father. 

I came across the following excerpt a few years ago on the website of a good, Bible believing, home schooling, King James only, submissive wife and mother. The article is called "Hell is Real." Scientists have proven it after all....yes.....it is in the earths core. Proven fact.

I think this excerpt clearly shows just how much this doctrine is stealing from them.

Do you really believe in Hell?  I should hope that if I walked into any fundamental church and ask the question, “Do you really believe in Hell?" that everyone would say, "Yes."  I mean after all, that is supposed to be a point of our doctrine, that we believe in a Hell that has fire.  That is what good fundamentalists believe.  But do you really believe in Hell?

If you don't believe in Hell, then there is no point. 

Then she poses the rhetorical question…

But if we don't believe in Hell, why then do we go to church?  We could be down at a park where they have a festival going on.  We could be eating Tostitos, burritos and all that other stuff. 

If we didn't believe in Hell, we could sleep in on Sunday mornings.  We could watch football in the afternoon, drink an Old Style, eat lunch, sit back at a pool, and enjoy ourselves.

If you do believe in Hell, you need to go soul winning.  If you do believe in Hell, you need to work on a Sunday school bus, maybe kicking in some money to buy a few more busses.  If you do believe in Hell, you need to find a street corner and preach on the subject of Hell. If you do believe in Hell, you need to find a room somewhere in church and start a Sunday school class and fill it.  Knock on doors, preach on street corners, go to the neighborhood and bring them.  Build a Sunday school class.  Build a bus route.  Build the church.  Get people saved.  Get them baptized.  Get them serving God, so that they can win others. Do you really believe in Hell? Then it is time to get busy.

You tell me….is there even a hint of fullness of joy in what she has to say?

I’m going to close this post with a quote from Derek Flood…from his article How Can a Loving God Sent People To Hell.

 It is often said that without the threat of Hell that no one will repent, and no one will evangelize. I would propose that the opposite is true. If you come to God because you are afraid of going to Hell, or if you evangelize out of a fear of Hell, then your motivation is based on fear and not love, And that is wrong. Fear of punishment is a selfish motivation, and if that is your motivation you need to change it. We do not love God or our neighbor because of what we can get out of it - maximizing our self-interest. We love because it is right. Period. If you find that you no longer love God, or your neighbor after the weight of a motivation of guilt and fear are lifted from over your head, then I would question whether you ever really loved them at all.

What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

Okay...so let's tackle some of those questions I brought up in my last post (quite a while back)discussing Chan's Erasing Hell book.

? What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

I think this twisted belief can affect us in several different (equally disturbing) ways.  One of the ways  is demonstrated in the attitude of those gleeful folks I mentioned in the last post.  They embrace hell with a vengeance.  Hell makes perfect sense to them. They are the "yes, God is love BUT God is also JUST" fan club. 

If hell doesn't exist, then neither does justice.  The Living Church, vol. 130

And not only does it turn the God they serve into a monster, it makes them pretty creepy too. 

“Consider that all these torments of body and soul are without intermission. Be their suffering ever so extreme, be their pain ever so intense, there is no possibility of their fainting away, no, not for one moment … They are all eye, all ear, all sense. Every instant of their duration it may be said of their whole frame that they are ‘Trembling alive all o'er, and smart and agonize at every pore.' And of this duration there is no end … Neither the pain of the body nor of soul is any nearer an end than it was millions of ages ago.” Sermon 73 John Wesley

And Jonathan Edwards was probably the creepiest of them all....

For ever harassed by a dreadful tempest, they shall feel themselves torn asunder by an angry God, and broken by the weight of His hand, and transfixed and penetrated by mortal stings, terrified by the thunderbolt of God. So that to sink into any gulf would be more tolerable than to stand for a moment in these terrors.”

"The world will probably be converted into a great lake or liquid globe of fire, in which the wicked shall be overwhelmed, which will always be in tempest, in which they shall be tossed to and fro, having no rest day and night, vast waves and billows of fire continually rolling over their heads, of which they shall forever be full of a quick sense within and without; their heads, their eyes, their tongues, their hands, their feet,their loins and their vitals, shall forever be full of a flowing, melting fire, fierce enough to melt the very rocks and elements; and also, they shall eternally be full of the most quick and lively sense to feel the torments; not for one minute, not for one day, not for one age, not for two ages, not for a hundred ages, nor for ten thousand millions of ages, one after another, but forever and ever, without any end at all, and never to be delivered."

This belief so perverts the image of our Heavenly Father that there is rejoicing  when they consider the fate of their friends, their relatives...even their children! 

Martin Luther, when questioned whether the Blessed will not be saddened by seeing their nearest and dearest tortured answers, “Not in the least.”

“…the Blessed will see their friends and relations among the damned as often as they like but without the least of compassion.” Gerhard The sight of hell torments will exalt the happiness of the saints forever. . .Can the believing father in Heaven be happy with his unbelieving children in Hell. . . I tell you, yea! Such will be his sense of justice that it will increase rather than diminish his bliss.   Catholic Truth Society

What will it be like for a mother in heaven who sees her son burning in hell? She will glorify the justice of God. - Pamphlet from the late 1960s, part of a catechismal teaching [cited in an essay by the English poet, Stevie Smith, "Some Impediments to Christian Commitment"

And we can't just chalk these comments up to a yesteryear mindset. On a popular reformed blog, on a post about hell, I found the following comment...

The fact that my father might be in hell does not cause me grief because God is sovereign. He decides - His justice is absolute. By grace has He rescued me. Whether He chooses some and not others is to His glory. What makes my father special to other who face the same fate? Billions will be condemned, is that sad? In a sense there will be grief but will it last? I cannot see me being grief struck in a new heaven and new earth. This is the position that holding to a Reformed worldview must reach…..DavidM

And I don't disagree.  This is the position that holding to a Reformed worldview(that includes ECT) must reach. Take note that he is pretty sure he is among the few God has chosen.  "By grace He rescued me" and so...quite literally...to hell with the rest of you, including dear old dad. 

This is sicko selfish on so many levels....

So these guys seem to get into this eternal hell stuff.  At the very least, they don't make a fuss about the billions who will be suffering for all eternity. Next post will be about the folks who struggle to see the justice in an eternal hell. 

Could you believe in Chan’s God?

From Erasing Hell: What God Said about Eternity, and the Things We've Made Up (p. 22).

Do you want to believe in a God like this? Here’s my gut-level, honest answer: No. No way. I have family and friends who reject Jesus. I do not want to believe in a God who punishes non-Christians. Okay, maybe He should punish extremely wicked people—that makes some sense. But punishment in hell for seemingly good people, or those who simply chose the wrong religion? That feels a bit harsh, at least according to my sense of justice.

But let me ask you another question. Could you? Could you believe in a God who decides to punish people who don’t believe in Jesus? A God who wants to show His power by punishing those who don’t follow His Son? Now that’s a different question, isn’t it?

You may not recognize the difference immediately, but read them again and you’ll see that these two questions—do you want to? versus could you?—are actually miles apart. The problem is that we often respond to the second question because of our response to the first. In other words, because there are things that we don’t want to believe about God, we therefore decide that we can’t believe them.

Chan dismisses the want to aspect of belief in a God who punishes unbelievers....eternally....to display his great power and emphasizes the "COULD you" part.  As if that is somehow an easier question to answer than the "do you want to?"  And he admits that, of course, none of us WANT to believe in this vengeful God filled with retributive wrath for all those who do not believe in his son Jesus Christ.  (although a few Christians come to mind that seem a bit too relieved at the prospect of their enemies burning....and try....just try....to take hell away from them)

So could you?  Could you believe in the God Chan describes? 

But "could you/would you/do you" is not really the most important question for his readers to ponder.  I can think of a much better question.

Could you LOVE this God? 

You know....love him the way Jesus told us we should when he summed up the Law...in two parts...as loving our God and loving our neighbor? 

Matthew 22:36-40 ³⁶ “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” ³⁷ Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ ³⁸ This is the first and greatest commandment. ³⁹ And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ ⁴⁰ All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” (NIV)

So....could you love this God with all your heart, mind and soul? The way Jesus tells us to.  Or is what we call love for this God merely a survival instinct, a twist on Stockholm Syndrome?

And there are more questions this book brought to mind.  Some of the questions are asked in the text....others piqued in my thoughts as I read. 

? What kind of mindset is spawned by a belief in the ECT God described in the book Erasing Hell?

? Is God equally Judge and equally Father?

? What does true justice entail?

? Does He dole out His mercy and His wrath in equal portions?

? Does His mercy and grace end with our last breath?

? Are there levels of hell?  Are some parts of hell "hotter" than other parts?

? What about the Cross....? 

? When the Bible talks about the wicked being obliterated, is it referring to wicked people...or the wicked aspects of our being? You know as in old nature/new nature.  Old Man/ New Man.  Adamic Man/Carnal Man?

? At the end of Revelation when the Spirit and the Bride bid someone....come and drink....who is it they are talking to.  Do the gates of the city really never shut?

? What about the meanings of some of the proof texts in the original language? Is everlasting really forever?  Does all mean all?

I want to deal with some of these questions in upcoming posts.  I've read a lot while pondering this series. I've come upon some quotes and insights that are gems. Too good to tuck away in my quotes file in Evernote.

I didn't need convinced, of course, because I have no doubt that everyone will eventually be reconciled to God.  Every. One. I am one of those folks  Chan refers to as the least cautious of the universalists.  The dogmatics.

It may take a long time....”aions”....but pit God and a naked soul (no matter how rebellious) in a spiritual "stare down" and guess who looks away first.  God is omnicompetent. All will come.  All will bow.  All will joyfully proclaim to the glory of God the Father. 

More to come in this series....slowly but surely.....

The Three Categories of Universalists

Chan divides universalists into categories….

There are the pluralists.

these people believe that Jesus is one of many ways to salvation. Pluralists believe that all religions present equally valid ways of salvation—Christianity is simply one among many.

There are the “hopefuls”

They believe that Christ is the only way, but they hold out hope that God will end up saving everyone through Christ in the end. But they go beyond simply hoping this will happen (don’t we all?). They’re hopeful, and they see strong biblical support for this view, though their view is often tempered with caution.

And then there are those spiritual daredevils…the “dogmatics”….

The least cautious Christian Universalists call themselves dogmatic Universalists. Like the previous group, they believe that Christ is the only way, but they go a bit further and say that the Bible clearly teaches that all will be saved. They find the view not just possible, but the most probable: They believe that the Bible clearly teaches that all will be saved through Jesus in the end.

So I’m guessing that someone who writes an essay and calls it “I Am a Convinced Universalist” would fit in the dogmatic category?  The guy who wrote those words….in his autobiography… in a chapter entitled just that ….I Am a Convinced Universalist…was William Barclay.

Professor of Divinity and Biblical Criticism at Glasgow University and the author of many Biblical commentaries and books, including a translation of the New Testament, "Barclay New Testament," and "The Daily Study Bible Series."

Very. Mainstream. When I typed his name into the search engine at Christianbook.com, about 90 or so results came up.  He was a prolific writer and his books line the book cases of many mainstream Christians worldwide.  Many (most?) aren’t aware of his pronouncement of a “dogmatic” belief in universalism since many of them….no way/no how would read the writings of a universalist. Universalism is one of the biggest, fattest heresies there is…

Brian McLaren said:

In my theological circles, universalism is one small step removed from atheism.  It is probably more feared than committing adultery, and to be labeled universalist ends one’s career.  Decisively. 

But William Barclay declared it…flat out.  He didn’t skirt the issue or talk around it….or make vague references to it.  He wasn’t coy about it.

I am a convinced universalist. I believe that in the end all men will be gathered into the love of God.

And he gave several reasons for his beliefs….

First, there is the fact that there are things in the New Testament which more than justify this belief.

Coming from a New Testament scholar/Bible translator/Professor of Divinity…that should carry some weight. 

Second, one of the key passages is Matthew 25:46 where it is said that the rejected go away to eternal punishment, and the righteous to eternal life. The Greek word for punishment is kolasis, which was not originally an ethical word at all. It originally meant the pruning of trees to make them grow better. I think it is true to say that in all Greek secular literature kolasis is never used of anything but remedial punishment.

And to be fair…Chan did include this quote in his book.  Okay…so it was in the footnotes….but it was there if one was inclined to dig a bit.  But he never mentioned Barclay’s popularity, or prolific writings…or the…you know…Convinced Universalist part. 

Third, I believe that it is impossible to set limits to the grace of God. I believe that not only in this world, but in any other world there may be, the grace of God is still effective, still operative, still at work. I do not believe that the operation of the grace of God is limited to this world. I believe that the grace of God is as wide as the universe.

There is of course the verse that (in my mind) definitively declares that death cannot separate us from God….

For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God that is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

And the fourth reason…

Fourth, I believe implicitly in the ultimate and complete triumph of God, the time when all things will be subject to him, and when God will be everything to everyone.

Then Barclay goes on to muse about God as Father…and how it might be considered a triumph to wipe out His enemies or to torture them in hell forever if God were simply a judge or a king but God is also a Father

..he is indeed Father more than anything else. No father could be happy while there were members of his family for ever in agony. No father would count it a triumph to obliterate the disobedient members of his family. The only triumph a father can know is to have all his family back home. The only victory love can enjoy is the day when its offer of love is answered by the return of love. The only possible final triumph is a universe loved by and in love with God.

So will God be able to pull this off? 

Chan describes this belief in his book:

At the heart of this perspective is the belief that, given enough time, everybody will turn to God and find themselves in the joy and peace of God’s presence. The love of God will melt every hard heart, and even the most “depraved sinners” will eventually give up their resistance and turn to God

So….will God be able to turn the hardest heart back to Himself?  To bend the stubbornest knee…and loosen the most reluctant tongue?  Will all mankind bow and joyously proclaim that Jesus Christ is Lord?  It says so….three times no less…in scripture.  (And…it is a joyous proclamation that is implied in the original language.  Not a grudging concession before being cast into hell or obliterated…but a joyous proclamation)

And surely God has ways that I cannot even begin to fathom. Is anything too hard for Him?  Is His arm to short to save?

"I am the LORD, the God of all mankind. Is anything too hard for me? Jeremiah 32:27

Surely the arm of the LORD is not too short to save, nor his ear too dull to hear. Isaiah 59:1

I don’t know how he will accomplish it but as I ponder, I am reminded of a quote by Anne Lamott. I saved it in my files a few years ago when I read through all of her books, one right after the other.

The quote was in a book (name escapes me) that was written after 9-11.  She was very upset with the war and the political atmosphere.  She was very angry.

My Jesuit friend Tom once told me that this is a good exercise because in truth, everyone is loved and chosen, even Dick Cheney, even Saddam Hussein. That God loves them because God loves.

This-- more than anything does not make sense to me,” I said.

“Because you are a little angry,” Tom explained. “But when people die, they are forgiven and welcomed home. Then God will help them figure out how to clean up the disgusting messes they have made. God has skills and ideas on how to do this.”

So God has skills and ideas on how to do this. Is that just too simple?  Somehow it seems that there will be at least an era of ”weeping and gnashing of teeth” for some of us.. as God works on us and in us and makes us willing to clean up the disgusting messes we’ve made in this life. 

Or perhaps after we die and leave these fleshly bodies behind…when death has taken off the mask (William Penn) we will be able to see clearly.  It won’t be the same playing field we find ourselves in here, in this life. 

More on God as Father (not Judge) in an upcoming post.  And more thoughts on whether our last breath is indeed our last chance. 

More about the churches-1600 years ago to present

So…the majority of the (very) early churches were universalists. 

The Early Churches:

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa) The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

What about now a days. Ahhhh….not so much.  There are, of course, exceptions, but the overwhelming majority buy into the big lie…(ECT) or the smaller lie (Annihilation)

There are some exceptions…but the vast majority of churches do not believe in universalism.  And…the stakes for a belief in UR are usually high. There are some mighty big consequences.

Witness Carlton Pearson’s ousting….and the Rob Bell controversy….and other lesser known folks who were shunned or fired when they came to believe the “heresy” of universalism.  

At one time…for over 90 years…there was a whole denomination…The Christian Universalist Church of America. Their blending into the melting pot of the Unitarian Church was their demise. 

From Wiki:

The Universalist Church of America was a Christian Universalist religious denomination in the United States (plus affiliated churches in other parts of the world). Known from 1866 as the Universalist General Convention, the name was changed to the Universalist Church of America in 1942. In 1961, it consolidated with the American Unitarian Association to form the Unitarian Universalist Association.

There is a fairly new organization called The Christian Universalist Association that has been on the scene five years or so.  There is a lot of info on their website.  There is a list of some churches that openly proclaim a belief in UR on their site…the process for ordination and history/facts/opinions about universalism.  Check them out HERE.

I’ve also been to some universalist churches for conferences…small…Pentecostal feel to them.  Bob Torango’s House of the Lord Fellowship in Dickson, TN…Shalom in Ontario….and others that, while not overwhelmingly Universalist see it as a valid belief option. I’ve been in home bible studies…and met some of the well known universalist preachers/teachers.  Bob Torango….Gary Amariult, Gary Sigler…and other lesser known folks who preach that God will reconcile all of his creation. 

Mainstream denominations?  I find it interesting that the United Methodist Church’s official stand…though not well known…is “dunno.”  On the official website…now relegated to the archives, their official statement is this:

The Confession of Faith of the Evangelical United Brethren Church echoes the beliefs stated in the doctrinal statements of The Methodist Church (see particularly Articles VIII, IX, XI, and XII).

While these statements of doctrine state that salvation is AVAILABLE to all persons, they stop short of saying that salvation is GUARANTEED to all persons. There is the stated or implied condition that, while God's grace is necessary for salvation and that humankind cannot in any way attain salvation without God, that there is certainly an element of awareness and cooperation on our part to order our lives after the image of Christ if we have the capacity to do so.

There are persuasive arguments that include the faithful, thoughtful, and respectful use of Scripture on both sides-- affirming and denying universal salvation. The Book of Discipline, which is the only official printed voice of the UMC, does not make a statement specifically about universal salvation. This places the question in a possible gray area, but the Discipline says what it says. One must read the doctrine there and attempt to understand it as well as possible.

Rev. Dr. Diana Hynson
Director of Learning and Teaching Ministries in the Congregation
General Board of Discipleship

And any UM readers here on this blog are going…nuh-uh.  Does it really say that?  Yes, it does indeed say that.  And it didn’t used to be in the archives.

Another denomination proclaims their belief in the name of their denomination…a (small) group of Primitive Baptists known as the No-Hellers.  Although that is kind of misleading because they do, indeed, believe in a hell.  They think hell is where we find ourselves right now.  In THIS life. Official name -- The Primitive Baptist Universalists.  A down home, no nonsense group of people from Appalachia.

And there were three seminaries that were universalist. 

Crane Theological School in Medford, MA.  1869 to 1968

Theological School of St. Lawrence University in Canton, NY.  1856 to 1965

They Ryder School of Divinity at Lombard College in Galesburg, IL.  1853 to 1930. 

So…while far from the status quo belief of most Christians…to dismiss it with a statement like “almost no major theologians for the past 1600 years” is quite misleading. 

More in my next post about preachers/teachers and authors who, in varying degrees, believe in and teach universalism. 

The Creeds, the Churches and the Catacombs

In my last post I said that I would be taking a look at the time period BEFORE the 1600 years Chan referred to in his “almost no major theologian” statement.

A look at the creeds, the churches and the Catacombs of very early Christianity show that universalism was an accepted…perhaps the most accepted…belief of the very early Christians. 

The Creeds:

An examination of the earliest Christian creeds and declarations of Christian opinion discloses the fact that no formulary of Christian belief for several centuries after Christ contained anything incompatible with the broad faith of the Gospel--the universal redemption of mankind from sin. Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church its First Five Hundred Years

None of the earliest creeds…the “Teaching of the Twelve Apostles,” the Apostles Creed, The Nicene Creed, The Niceo-Constantinopolitan Creed…contain any statements that would eliminate the possibility of universal reconciliation.  ECT (Eternal Conscious Torment) cannot be found in any of the early creeds.

Thus the credal declarations of the Christian church for almost four hundred years are entirely void of the lurid doctrine with which they afterwards blazed for more than a thousand years. The early creeds contain no hint of it, and no whisper of condemnation of the doctrine of universal restoration as taught by Clement, Origen, the Gregories, Basil the Great, and multitudes besides…... Neither the Concilium Nicæum, A.D. 325, nor the Concilium Constantinopolitanum, A.D. 381, nor the Concilium Chalcedonenese, A.D. 451, lisped a syllable of the doctrine of man's final woe.  Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Christian Church its First Five Hundred Years

The Early Churches:

According to Edward Beecher, a Congregationalist theologian, there were six theology schools in Christendom during its early years - four were Universalist ( Alexandria , Cesarea, Antioch , and Edessa ). One advocated annihilation ( Ephesus ) and one advocated Eternal Hell (the Latin Church of North Africa) The Salvation Conspiracy: How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

The Catacombs:

It seems I’ve written about the Catacombs before…HERE. 

There were eighty years between Paul's latest epistle and the first of the writings of the Christian fathers. Besides the writings of Tacitus and Pliny, the long hiatus is filled only by the emblems and inscriptions of the Catacombs. What an eloquent story they tell of the cheerfulness of primitive Christianity!

I came upon several (free ) Google books about the Catacombs.  The following quote came from a book called The Catacombs of Rome and Their Testimony Relative to Primitive Christianity. It appears in a section of the book that deals with the many drawings of the Good Shepherd throughout the Catacombs…

Sometime the shepherd is represented as leading or bearing on his shoulders a kid or goat instead of a sheep or lamb.  This apparent solecism has been thought a careless imitation of pagan figures of the sylvan deity Pan, who frequently appears in art in this manner.  It is more probable, however, that it was an intentional departure from the usual type, as if to illustrate the words of Our Lord, “I am not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance,” and to indicate his tenderness toward the fallen, rejoicing more over the lost sheep that was found than over the ninety and nine that went not astray. 

Tertullian is believed to be the first person to write about an eternal hell.  Then, influenced by Augustine in AD 430(ish) the concept of eternal conscious torment in hell became an accepted belief in the Catholic Church in the west.  And it was all downhill from there.  This is roughly…give or take a decade or two… the beginning of the period of time Chan alluded to….the past 1600 years. 

He should have gone back a bit farther.

Following are links to some of the books I’ve mentioned in this article…and a few others that take a closer look at the beliefs of the very early Christian. 

Hosea Ballou II's Ancient History of Universalism (1842)

Edward Beecher's History of Opinions on the Scriptural Doctrine of Retribution (1878)

John Wesley Hanson's Universalism, the Prevailing Doctrine of the Church for its First 500 Years  (1899)

How Hell Became Eternal by Dr. Ken R. Vincent

No Major Theologian for 1600 Years?

In fact, for over 1,600 years, hardly any major theologians argued that everyone will be saved.

Perhaps this statement, more than any other in Chan’s book, is a blatant sales pitch. It galls “the hell out of me.” And I have so much to say about it, I’m not sure where to even start in my rebuttal.

The last 1600 years sounds pretty impressive, yes?  “Hardly any” major theologians have argued that everyone will be saved. 

Wow…universalism must not be true then. 

But let’s think about this for a bit. The last 1600 years? Why pull that figure out of the “there is an eternal hell” hat? How many years is that after the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ? Four hundred-ish?  So why start 1600 years ago? Why not go back closer to the beginning? You know…closer to the actual life…and death…of Jesus.

Wouldn’t there be less chance for errors and inaccuracies in the storyline?

The time period immediately following the birth of Christianity…the spread of Christianity…the early church days..wouldn’t that be the place to start looking?

And what coincides with the 1600 year thing?  Roughly around the time Constantine got the ball rolling and Christianity became the dominant religion of the Roman Empire.  The Edict of Thessalonica made Christianity the official religion and started the perversion that led to the Christian persecution of the pagans.  The Dark Ages.  And the Inquisition.  And the Witch Hunts.  And the Crusades.  Major theologians burning other theologians at the stake over theological disagreements…..using green wood, no less.  All in the name of Jesus. 

So he picks as his starting point, the darkest era of Christianity…possibly the darkest eras of human history to cherry pick theologians’ opinions about hell. 

Does that seem like a Kirby Sweeper sales pitch to you?  Does it seem disingenuous? 

I think he picked 1600 years ago as his starting point because, before that, the farther back you go, the closer to the actual life of Jesus and the early church, the more accepted and the more prevalent the doctrine of universalism was. 

Which will be the subject of my next post….

What about the scary stuff Jesus said?

So…even though Jesus never used (and apparently avoided) the common phrases that described unending, retributive punishment….he did issue some pretty stern warnings and “if this then that’s” in his earthly ministry.  So what’s up with that?

I’m not sure.   

Perhaps he was talking to the Jews…the Jews in Jerusalem…about the coming destruction in 70AD. He did state that his ministry was to the Jews…the lost sheep of the house of Israel. Of course, he expanded that ministry and included “other sheep in other pastures” and gave the disciples the command to go and preach the gospel to all nations.  But initially, his ministry was to the Jews. 

Could his warnings about destruction and judgment have been to them about upcoming events? Many (most) Christians relegate the events to some future time (even though Jesus stated this (THAT) generation would by no means pass away until all the doom and gloom stuff he talked about happened.  THAT generation…not a generation 2000 years plus and still waiting)  So some believe that way. 

Richard Wayne Garganta does a great job of explaining this position in his rewrite of “Bible Threatenings Explained”  It was originally part of a book containing four essays…written in the 1800's by J.W. Hanson…in that flowery…wordy style of that time period.  Kind of off-putting to those of us who live in the twitter generation.  Check it out HERE… It addresses many (all?) of the “threats” Jesus issued…and most of the other “but what about” passages in scripture that are oft used to “disprove” universalism.

And check out his other “oh my God is this universalism” writings HERE.

And another way of explaining the dire warnings of Jesus…

Some believe he is talking about a most unpleasant place of “remedial chastisement.”  Origen believed that. William Barclay believed that. George MacDonald believed that.  Williams Barclay said it this way….

Origen believed that after death there were many who would need prolonged instruction, the sternest discipline, even the severest punishment before they were fit for the presence of God. Origen did not eliminate hell; he believed that some people would have to go to heaven via hell. He believed that even at the end of the day there would be some on whom the scars remained. He did not believe in eternal punishment, but he did see the possibility of eternal penalty. And so the choice is whether we accept God's offer and invitation willingly, or take the long and terrible way round through ages of purification.

George MacDonald said it this way:

I believe that no hell will be lacking which would help the just mercy of God to redeem his children

I have more to say about Barclay and MacDonald…in response to Chan’s statement…

In fact, for over 1,600 years, hardly any major theologians argued that everyone will be saved.

Barclay and MacDonald are two of the “hardly any.”

Erasing Hell – What Did Jesus Preach?

In Chapter 3, Chan talks about what Jesus said/believed about hell. In the preceding chapter, he takes a look at the commonly held beliefs of first century Jews concerning the afterlife.  His conclusion

In the last chapter, we took a tour of Jesus’ world and saw that, without a doubt, first-century Jews believed in hell. They believed that hell was a place of punishment for the wicked after they faced God’s judgment. They used various images to describe this hell, such as fire, darkness, and lamentation. Some Jews believed that the wicked would be annihilated after being cast into hell, while others described hell as a place of never-ending torment.

He only mentions the Sadducees in the footnotes. They did not believe in any afterlife....and thus, they did not believe in hell.  Some info about the Sadducees.....

"The Sadducees were a small party of very wealthy and influential aristocrats. Most Sadducees were priests, and the high priestly families (those families from whom the high priests traditionally came) controlled the sect and its membership.(Robinson, The Gospels, pp. 24

The only two solidly established traits of the Sadducees are that they were members of the ruling class, and that they did not believe in resurrection" (Murphy, The Religious World of Jesus, pp. 239).

So it is is a bit misleading to simply say that “without a doubt, first-century Jews believed in hell." Let’s just edit that statement a bit....

"without a doubt SOME/MOST first century Jews believed in hell....

But it was definitely not unanimous....yes?

And then he goes on to say that.....

Jesus grew up in the world of beliefs described in the last chapter. He would be expected to believe the same stuff about hell that most Jews did. And if He didn’t—if Jesus rejected the widespread Jewish belief in hell—then He would certainly need to be clear about this.

Says who? Frances Chan?  Because the Bible...and Jesus....are crystal clear on everything? There is no ambiguity? There is only one way to interpret, understand, comprehend the words and actions of Jesus?  Uh-huh.  That's why there are so many different interpretations....leading to so many different denominations and creeds and "this is what we believe" statements.  Because the Bible....and Jesus.....are totally clear on everything.  Yep.....God said it, I believe it, that settles it. Perhaps we all read the same written words in scripture but we all interpret what God mean through our own particular filter.

Then he says....

That last line is very important. Better read it again.

Okay then...let's read it again:

if Jesus rejected the widespread Jewish belief in hell—then He would certainly need to be clear about this.

Okay....we read it again....go on.....

In other words, if Jesus did not agree with the view of hell presented in the last chapter, then He would have had to deliberately and clearly argue against it.

Really?  Says who? Frances Chan?  But wait a minute.  Jesus = God, right?  And God can do whatever he wants.....right?  Earlier in the book (in a section that I will talk about later) Chan declares.....

God has the right to do WHATEVER He pleases

And so....since we aren't "the boss of Jesus" he didn't HAVE to do anything. 

I don't think Jesus believed in hell...at least not as in ETC...Eternal Conscious Torment.  And I certainly don't believe he preached it. 

Many preachers/teacher smarter than me believe that his warnings of destruction were to the folks living and breathing during that generation, the first century Jews.   (as in "...this generation shall not pass, till all these things be fulfilled") Maybe Jesus was warning THAT generation about the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD if they (THAT generation) did not straighten up, fly right and heed his warnings..

So the Pharisees and the Essences....Jewish sects in the time of Jesus....believed in a hell like place of unending torment. Did Jesus endorse those beliefs? I don't think so....and I think Jesus articulated his beliefs in a way that was very clear to his contemporaries.  More on that tomorrow/soon......

Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell….2

LONG. TIME. NO. SEE.  I have been AWOL for a few weeks now.  What can I say….a big chunk of those days were spent getting ready for….and going on….my first cruise.  Reluctantly, and with much trepidation, I went.  And I loved it. 

We sailed out of New York….two days at sea…stop offs at Grand Turk, Half Moon Cay and then Nassau.  I drank pina coladas on the beach….on a lounge chair….nestled under the shade of a coconut tree…looking out at cream colored beaches and water that was several shades of aqua.  Beautiful….lovely…..amazing.  Then two more days at sea on the way back to New York.  I waved to the statue of liberty on my way to Pier 90 last Sunday morning at 8 am…told her I would be seeing her again sometime…and then four hours later…. home and back to real life. 

I had planned to spend so much time reading and writing blog post drafts.  But alas…the only thing I read was a Christian novel(surprisingly not hokey) Very unusual for me to read fiction. I did next to no “blog” reading or research. 

But now it’s a week and then some since we arrived back home…and this Erasing Hell nonsense has been on my mind since I read the book….time to put cyber pen to cyber paper. 

I was kind of spurred on by a blog post I read last night….a post that showed up on my FB feed…..from a blog called “What God Does.”  While I was goofing off, the author of the What God Does blog was writing….a series no less….presenting long, well thought out counter arguments to Chan’s conclusions about hell.  Check out the series HERE.

Perhaps one of the reasons I’ve been lolly gagging and putting off getting on with this series is because there is so much to say about the subject. I don’t know where to begin. As I mentioned in the first post about Erasing Hell, Chan comes across as disingenuous and manipulative.  Like he’s selling me a Kirby vacuum for goodness sakes!!! Important pieces to the puzzle are left out, skimmed over or hidden in the appendix in the back of the book.  He’s not playing fair….and he seems to have a severe case of confirmation bias. 

He says so many things I disagree with….not sure where to throw my two cents worth first. 

Tomorrow….yes…TOMORROW…or at least soon…I’ll address one of his arguments proving hell….a biggie….since it came “right from the horses mouth” From Jesus no less.  And since we all know that “Jesus talked more about hell than he did about heaven.” How can you argue with Jesus?

 

Job Security? Not Unless You Believe in Hell…

Rob Bell recently made a big splash with his book Love Wins.  Firestorm might be a more appropriate way to describe the ensuing reaction. 

He was lambasted by fundamentalists like Justin Taylor in a blog post written before Taylor even read the book.  The post was linked to via Twitter by John Piper….with the sentiments

“Goodbye, Rob Bell.” 

Take note. That is how quickly some Christians will kiss your ass goodbye if you don’t share the beliefs they hold the nearest and dearest. 

People wrote books refuting his book.   Francis Chan’s Erasing Hell, Mark Galli’s God Wins: Heaven, Hell, and Why the Good News Is Better than Love Wins, Is Hell for Real or Does Everyone Go to Heaven written by a group of theologians including J.I. Packer. 

None of the ensuing controversy seemed to affect Bell’s employment status.  Even though he resigned from his church near Grand Rapids, Michigan to move to L.A…..and peddle his wares on a broader scale, it was his own choice.  He wasn’t handed a pink slip for his beliefs.

Others have lost their ministries….their jobs….for questioning the status quo.  

Most everyone knows about Carlton Pearson….former megastar of the charismatic chuch and Azuzu Street fame.  One day while watching a program on TV, God tapped him on the shoulder and changed his entire belief system.  He naively thought that if he simply educated the church folk, they would skip along in lock step belief.  Ah….no. 

He lost a huge chunk of his membership….lost his church and finally ended up in a mainly gay congregation.  Now he is the pastor of a mega new thought church in Chicago. 

Another pastor, Chad Holtz, posted a supportive note on Facebook about Bell’s book and ended up fired over it.  From Marrow’s Chapel…a United Methodist Church no less.  Perhaps his congregation missed the official United Methodist stand on the very question Bell raises in his book….right there on the official United Methodist website for all the world to see…..

There are persuasive arguments that include the faithful, thoughtful, and respectful use of Scripture on both sides-- affirming and denying universal salvation. The Book of Discipline, which is the only official printed voice of the UMC, does not make a statement specifically about universal salvation. This places the question in a possible gray area, but the Discipline says what it says. One must read the doctrine there and attempt to understand it as well as possible.
Rev. Dr. Diana Hynson Director of Learning and Teaching Ministries in the Congregation General Board of Discipleship

And now today, an acquaintance on Facebook, Jackson Baer, posted a video on his wall talking about how he was fired from a church where he ministered for 3 1/2 years as a youth pastor.  How come? Because he refuses to renounce his belief in universal reconciliation.  He has a new book out called “What the Hell”….and he is wondering that exact thing….what the hell just happened?  He loved his church, he loved the people there….and now he is on the outside looking in.  

Christians are loathe to let go of their hellfire and brimstone….and they are quick to kick to the curb anyone who doesn’t share their beliefs about an angry, vengeful God who is more monster than savior…..

Next post, I’ll include links to several other books I’ve come across that discuss the nonexistence of an eternal hell.  It’s a question God settled in my heart a long time ago, shortly after I became a Christian at the ripe old age of 40 something.  Once you see it, you can’t unsee it….and like William Barclay, I Am a Convinced Universalist…..

Body, Soul and/or Spirit?

This body, soul, spirit thing ....as in whether we are two dimensional beings (dichotomy) or three dimensional beings (trichotomy) ....has been a controversy for quite a while.  How come I didn't know that?

It goes way back.  Way, way back.  As far back as Plato who toyed around with theories about the "tripartite soul." And St Augustine who identified 3 Laws....Divine Law. Natural Law. Temporal Law. Or his 3 Characterizations of the "Soul"...Memory, Understanding, Will.  Clement of Alexandria, Origen, and Gregory of Nyssa, Luther, Oswald Chamber,  T.Austin-Spark, Watchman Nee all came down on the trichotomy side of the debate. It is also one of the main "go to" beliefs in kingdom ministries.

Two verses in scripture came to mind when I stumbled across this subject this morning. 

1 Thessalonians 5:23
Now may the God of peace Himself  sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.

Hebrews 4:12 -
For the  word of God is living  and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit,  of both joints and marrow, and able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.

Far too often, in far too many versions of the Holy Bible, the English word chosen to convey the meaning of the word in the original language is....ah....way off.  Sometimes when you check the Strong's Concordance it doesn’t even come close.  I’m obviously not a Biblical scholar but it doesn't take a Biblical scholar to check out what the King James says a word means against what the Strong's Concordance says a word means….and come to your own, hopefully spirit led, conclusion.

 

Sometimes the translators will use the same English word to translate different Greek or Hebrew words.  Or visa versa.  Sometimes they will use different English words for one word in the original language.  Sometimes this accurately conveys the meaning….other times….not so much.

But in both verses above, the word translated spirit is the Greek word Pneuma.  The word translated soul is the Greek word  Psuche.

The Scofield Study Bible says this about the distinction:

Man a trinity. That the human soul and spirit are not identical is proved by the facts that they are divisible.

…the distinction between spirit and soul may be traced. Briefly,that distinction is that the spirit is that part of man which "knows" 1 Corinthians 2:11 his mind; the soul is the seat of the affections, desires, and so of the emotions, and of the active will, the self.

“Because man is ‘spirit’ he is capable of God-consciousness, and of communication with God (Job 32:8; Psa. 18:28; Prov. 20:27);

because he is ‘soul’ he has self-consciousness (Psa. 13:2; 42:5, 6, 11);

because he is ‘body’ he has, through his senses, world-consciousness” (The Scofield Study Bible, page 1270.

So....man, a triune being, has the potential to bridge the gap between the two realms, the physical and the spiritual.  He is linked to the visible realm....the earth....the material world with his body and he is linked to the spiritual, "other worldly" realm, beyond the veil…. by his spirit. The soul is sort of the swing vote.  I can submit to be ruled by the spiritual man and be "seated with Christ in heavenly places"....or allow the carnal man to "be the boss of me." (My friend “Kansas Bob” wrote a post a while back that talks about how we can cooperate with the Holy Spirit to accomplish this)

I found the following quote in an article called "Discovering Your Identity."  Disclaimer...there are parts of the article that I don't agree with....like the spiritual warfare kind of view about "the enemy"....and there is a rather blatant altar call toward the end of the article....but he has a really interesting way of explaining the body, soul, spirit concept. 

 

MAN'S SOUL
With the union of man's body and spirit, he became "a living soul." The soul is that aspect of man's being that, like a photographer's dark room, develops the impressions of the external world around him, which have been gathered by his physical senses, into distinct expressions of thought, emotions, and desire.

1. Man's spirit is the seat of his God-consciousness - where God dwelt!
2. Man's soul is the seat of his self-consciousness - where self dwelt.
3. Man's body is the seat of his world-consciousness - where his senses dwelt.

 

Makes sense to me…….

Especially…

Non universalists...those who do not believe that God is going to save/reconcile/restore everyone.... often dispute the clear logic set out in 1 Timothy 4:9-10

9 This saying is reliable and worthy of complete acceptance by everybody. 10 With a view to this we toil and strive, [yes and] suffer reproach, because we have [fixed our] hope on the living God, Who is the Savior (Preserver, Maintainer, Deliverer) of all men, especially of those who believe (trust in, rely on, and adhere to Him). Amplified

9 You can count on this. Take it to heart. 10 This is why we've thrown ourselves into this venture so totally. We're banking on the living God, Savior of all men and women, especially believers. 11 Get the word out. Teach all these things The Message

The naysayers, think…and often vehemently argue… the verse somehow excludes all of those who don't believe NOW.  Only “real time, right now” believers qualify. But that’s not what is says at all. It says especially those who believe....as in...I love cookies...ESPECIALLY white chocolate macadamia nut cookies.  Or I like to drink coffee....ESPECIALLY Columbian.  The other varieties of cookies…sugar, oatmeal raisin, Oreos....chocolate chip (can’t forget chocolate chip!!!) and the other types of coffee...espresso, mocha java, hazelnut…are not excluded.  They just don't qualify for the "especially" category.

I have a song on my MP3 player that explains this “especially believers” concept pretty well...

One day every tongue will confess You are God
One day every knee will bow
Still the greatest treasure remains for those,
Who gladly choose You now

Did you catch that? The greatest treasure remains for those who gladly choose you now. The “especially” folks.  They get the greatest treasure.

And what might that "greatest" treasure be?? Why, a relationship with the living God, the Savior of all people, of course. A relationship....Now.  Not off in the future...but now, right now.  Today, as we go about our daily lives as believers, he will be our refuge and strength.  Our ever present help in times of trouble.  Our wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace. And there is no greater treasure....

 

 

A Tony Campolo Video

I went “you tubing” yesterday morning. Two of the videos I happened upon are worthy of a blog post….so today video number one.  Tomorrow…video number two.

Video Number One...a snippet from an interview with Tony Campolo answering the question "what would happen if more Christian people, no matter what their theological perspectives, actually got to know the gay people in their neighborhoods" 

Tony replied that for someone who is very “unaccepting” of homosexuality, the turning point often comes when they find out someone they know is gay. A friend, a sibling....a child.  He said the plea of many homosexuals is: 

Would you please get to know us beyond the label. You may find the same Christ that you love, is waiting to be encountered in me.  When you get to know me, perhaps we will feel a spiritual connectedness in a way that transcends the categories.

Then he told a story about a “right before bed” phone call he received...at 10:00 at night… when he was very tired and very ready to call it a day. The caller was a woman he didn't know with a deep theological question.  

Her question....?

Do people get judged immediately after death or does the Lord judge everyone together...at the same time? 

Tony explained his beliefs....and long story short...his answer was that we all get judged together.  Then he said....

Friend, you called me at 10:00 at night.  I don't even know how you got my phone number.  But I have to ask you a question.  Why, at 10:00 at night, would you call up a tired guy like me and ask a heavy question like that?"

She replied,

"well, 3 weeks ago my homosexual son committed suicide...and when he stands before the judgment seat, I want to be next to him and try to tell Jesus what a good and loving boy he was."

That's brought tears to my eyes several times. There is so much pain condensed into that one paragraph.  It contains the pain her son must have endured....until he couldn't endure it anymore and he took his own life.  It conveys the pain she felt at the loss of her son....a son she obviously loved very much.  And most of all, the pain of believing she would have to plead her son’s case to Jesus and talk him into letting her beloved son "into heaven"...that she would have to somehow convince Jesus to forgive him.

And there is a lot of blame condensed into that short snippet.

The church's status quo teaching that homosexuality is the mother of all sins....and that suicide is even one up on that....has brought so much pain and heartache to so many people.  To so many hurting sons and daughters who have assimilated the teachings of the Christian community and translated the message as one of condemnation and rejection. To so many grieving mothers and fathers...mourning the loss of….or the sexual orientation of...their children.

Even more damaging is the church's status quo teaching about judgment...and that Jesus, who was partial to those who were ostracized....society's outcasts....would somehow change into a stern, rigid taskmaster. A judge...quick to condemn and hard to convince, deeming someone worthy of hell for failing to live up the stereotype of a "good Christian." 

Jesus came to seek and save the lost.  He is still seeking and saving the lost.  On both sides of death.  In this earthly realm and in the spiritual realm.

No mother's son will slip through his hands.

I hope that mother has come to believe Jesus already knows what a good and loving boy her son was.  Jesus knows every nuance of the pain and confusion that drove him to take his own life.  And now, without the confines of the flesh...his spirit freed of carnal compulsions....in a realm where there is no male or female or taking in marriage, he will be whole and healed. 

More “tubing” tomorrow….

Which Reality?

Back to the Starcke Interview.  In the snippet below, Starcke mentions that during sleep, "consciousness"...as in egoic consciousness (carnal reasoning/adamic mindset...whatever you choose to call it) has been off guard.  I wonder if perhaps it is not more than that...if perhaps God communicates with our spirit as we sleep?  As our "flesh" saws logs...as we slumber...are we refreshed and revitalized more than on just a physical level?  Perhaps?

I find that for me the best time of the day to meditate is when I first wake up in the morning. It's like taking a psychic bath. I've taken on a degree of personal sense in the previous day, and my consciousness has been off guard during sleep, so my morning meditation is the time when I let go of the personal sense, get rid of it all, and open myself to the experience of the presence. This is when I am most likely to experience that inner "click" of realization.

I've seen the shadow side of this...the con rather than the pro.  Our consciousness may be off guard when we sleep...but when we wake...it can come swooping back in with a vengeance. During times when my life was in shambles, I have wakened in the morning (or the middle of the night) and within moments my worries and fears come flooding back.  Heavy, frightening, hopeless.  Ahhh-ha...the egoic mind has me in its clutches yet again. 

But I've also experienced the reverse.  The quiet, almost pristine time in the very early morning shortly after waking (after, perhaps, a sip or two of coffee) when His Presence fills the room and I am keenly aware that he is there...with me. 

But doesn't His Presence still fill the room (an us) on those mornings when we are drowning in a sea of vain imaginations? When we are lost in the throes of carnal angst? Is he any less with us?  Isn't he ALWAYS with us?

If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. (Psalm 139:8 NIV)

Perhaps it's all a matter of perspective...

Who Sinned? The Blind Man or His Parents?

The evidence for pre-existence is the Bible passages about the blind man...blind from birth.. if not immediately apparent, seems pretty darn plausible upon further contemplation. The following excerpt from a LDS writing, explains it very well.  Excerpt follows.... 

Perhaps the most salient to consider at this point is the exchange between Jesus and his disciples recorded in John 9:1–2:

"And as Jesus passed by, he saw a man which was blind from his birth.

"And his disciples asked him, saying Master, who did sin, this man, or his parents, that he was born blind?"

Was this a rhetorical question on the part of the disciples? No, the question indicated that the disciples thought one possible answer to the blindness of the man was that he had sinned. Since he was born blind—a fact the record indicates that both Jesus and His disciples knew—then the wording of the question indicates that the sinning must have taken place before the birth of the man, by the man himself. How could the man have sinned, resulting in a punishment of being blind at birth, unless he had lived before he was born?

If the concept of a premortal life was in error, then the Master Teacher had a perfect opportunity to correct His students. His answer is recorded in John 9:3:

"Jesus answered, Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him."

Jesus then proceeded to heal the man, foregoing any opportunity to correct the concept of the man having lived before birth. Instead, He acknowledged the concept by saying that the man had not sinned. In the words of one non-LDS scholar:

"The question posed by the disciples explicitly presupposed prenatal existence. It will be also noted that Christ says nothing to dispel or correct the presupposition. Here is incontrovertible support for a doctrine of human preexistence.

"It is perfectly reasonable to surmise on the basis of this episode that Jesus and his followers accepted preexistence and thought so little of it that the question of prenatal sin did not even call for an answer."

And that does, indeed make a pretty good case for pre-existence...

Did Jesus Talk About Pre-existence?

While reading through the gospel of John, the gospel that leans more toward the mystery of Christ than the history of Christ, I came upon two verses that, when pondered deeply, may mean more than meets the eye. They both struck me as verses hinting of pre-existence, even before the conversations geared up about such things on EU.

In John 15:26-27 Jesus is talking to his disciples and says:

"When the Counselor comes, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father, he will testify about me. And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning.

At face value, that seems to mean from the beginning of Jesus' ministry.  But couldn't it also mean from the beginning...the origin..in God, in the spiritual realm...in "eternity"?  Keith said something about that a while back.  I rediscovered it while scanning some of the files I've saved on my computer about pre-existence:

If someone wants to contend for the belief that eternity means unending time, then my support for pre-existence would be that which is eternal is eternal then in both directions of time. It would have no beginning and no ending. Something that has a beginning MUST have an ending. Which is why God always was, and so must we, having come from Him.

Among the Strong's definitions for the word "beginning" are the following:

beginning, origin/that by which anything begins to be/ the origin, the active cause/the first place, principality, rule, magistracy

Nothing there really disproves a more awe inspiring definition of the "beginning" (as in "before the foundations of the world").

Another verse that struck me is found in another conversation between Jesus and his disciples.  In John 14 Jesus says:

¹"Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. ²In my Father's house are many rooms; if it were not so, I would have told you. I am going there to prepare a place for you. ³And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. ⁴You know the way to the place where I am going."

Did you catch that? 

You know the way to the place where I am going."

Did they know the way because...perhaps...they had been there before?  Had they already traveled that path to "where Jesus was going"? 

If that is what Jesus meant, they weren't getting it

Thomas said to him, "Lord, we don't know where you are going, so how can we know the way?"

So the question is, did they really not know or did they know but couldn't remember? (because they drank from the river of Unmindfulness...on the Plain of Forgetfulness?)

And later, in the chapter, when Jesus assures them:

But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.

The King James translates it as:

he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance

So the next question is...things from their earthly time together...or from before that...in the spiritual realm?  This is not an original thought birthed in my own head (although the possibility of an alternate meaning of first verse I mentioned did occur to me,myself and I).  I've heard Willie Hinn talk about the remembrance thing...and Keith, too...probably Preston Eby....perhaps Ray Prinzing.  But it is an intriguing thought, no?

And tomorrow...another intriguing thought....

The Myth of Er...

I came upon Carolyn Myss' website, Sacred Contracts last summer.  It is a very interesting site...very detailed explanation of the concept that we choose our lot in life while in the spiritual realm...and in keeping with the reincarnation theme of late, there is the possibility of choosing that lot and that life again and again and again.  So it was brought back to current status from the archives stored in my head by all this talk of reincarnation and also because Dena happened upon the site the other day and posted about it on one of the lists that we cohabit.

Interesting concept about different archetypes, with a detailed description of 70 of them, including attention grabbing names like

Avenger (Avenging Angel, Savior, Messiah)

Healer (Wounded Healer, Intuitive Healer, Caregiver, Nurse, Therapist, Analyst, Counselor)

Prostitute

Rebel (Anarchist, Revolutionary, Political Protester, Nonconformist, Pirate)

Trickster (Puck, Provocateur)

Vampire

Seeker (Wanderer, Vagabond, Nomad)

According to Myss, we all share four basic archetypes:

Child, Victim, Prostitute, and Saboteur

And then, if I am not mistaken, we each get 8 more...of our choosing.  We pick these along with our lot in life as part of a "sacred contract."  We are living out our very own sacred contract right now...perhaps for the umpteenth time in an endless stream of life spans.  But I am digressing. 

Is that an archetype, I wonder?  The Digressor?  The Divagator? The Meanderer?  Seems like it should be :) 

But back on topic, here is a snippet of what Carolyn Myss has to say about Sacred Contracts...and The Myth of Er.....

 I believe that we each agree to the terms of our Contract before entering the physical realm of this world. This applies whether you accept the concept of reincarnation, or believe in a single lifetime followed by heaven or hell -- or neither. I go into the background for my beliefs in much greater detail in "Sacred Contracts", but one fascinating parallel occurs in the writings of Plato. In the tenth and final book of his great work The Republic, Plato relates the Myth of Er.

In brief, the story concerns a Greek soldier named Er who is left for dead on the battlefield. Twelve days later he awakens on his own funeral pyre, and later tells a remarkable tale of what he observed while he was suspended between life and death. Er found himself in a kind of way station between heaven and earth where souls were passing from one plane to the other. Dead souls were waiting to be judged and assigned to their reward or punishment, while other souls prepared for their journey to earth. Some were old souls returning for another go-round; others were freshly minted and awaiting their first life on Earth.

At one point the waiting souls are presented with many possible life scenarios, and are advised to choose from these "samples of lives." Plato informs us that "there were many more lives than the souls present, and they were of all sorts. There were lives of every animal and of man in every condition," including tyrants.

Before entering life on the Earth plane, however, the souls were led to the plain of Forgetfulness, a barren waste with no vegetation, where they were required to drink from the river of Unmindfulness. They then promptly forgot everything that had just happened to them. The reason should be obvious: if you know in advance exactly what's going to happen in your life, you would have great difficulty making decisions or taking actions that are intended to teach you something, often through painful experiences. You might naturally be reluctant to begin a relationship with someone who you knew would hurt you, even though you needed to learn a valuable lesson from that person.

Whether we take this myth literally or simply as a teaching device of Plato's, we can use it to gain a higher perspective on our life. If you think of your life's direction as something to which you have agreed, then what formerly seemed like arbitrary or even absurd conditions can be seen in another light. They are part of the roadmap that you've agreed to follow. Each event, each person of any significance whom you encounter, has an agreed-on role in your learning experience. Sometimes the learning is difficult because you don't always surrender to the situation. It may take time for you to see the reasons for it. But the sooner you do, the less painful it becomes. In time, you can learn to accept each event as it happens without struggling against it and prolonging your psychic -- and physical -- suffering.

Intriguing, no?  The Plain of Forgetfulness. The River of Unmindfulness?  Have we roamed that plain in the spiritual realm?  Did we drink from that river before we were born in this life? 

More to come....