GA resolution

[Hans Deventer]

I'm thinking about this one:

Amendment on Manual 22.

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost [shall suffer eternally in hell].

Reason

Considering the diverse historical views on hell, based on the various ways the Scriptures describe the concept, it seems wise to limit ourselves in an Article of Faith to the core of what orthodox Christian faith has always believed. Since this is succinctly expressed in our Agreed Statement of Belief, covering the essential point the Scriptures are making, aligning the two statements makes sense.

Any suggestions for improvement?

[Dave McClung]

I'm thinking about this one:

Amendment on Manual 22.

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost [shall suffer eternally in hell].

Reason

Considering the diverse historical views on hell, based on the various ways the Scriptures describe the concept, it seems wise to limit ourselves in an Article of Faith to the core of what orthodox Christian faith has always believed. Since this is succinctly expressed in our Agreed Statement of Belief, covering the essential point the Scriptures are making, aligning the two statements makes sense.

Any suggestions for improvement?

While you are making suggested changes, eliminate the word "savingly." I have asked several different people what it means to "savingly believe." No one has had an answer. It isn't the beliver who "saves"; therefore, it isn't possible for a person to "savingly believe."

[Ryan Scott]

While you are making suggested changes, eliminate the word "savingly." I have asked several different people what it means to "savingly believe." No one has had an answer. It isn't the beliver who "saves"; therefore, it isn't possible for a person to "savingly believe."

I'd submit those as two resolutions. You're going to get two different battles, I suspect.

[Dennis M. Scott]

While you are making suggested changes, eliminate the word "savingly." I have asked several different people what it means to "savingly believe." No one has had an answer. It isn't the beliver who "saves"; therefore, it isn't possible for a person to "savingly believe."

It would be interesting to know how that word is translated into other languages. How is that concept explained - since it doesn't explain in English?

[Eric Frey]

I move to adopt both resolutions...

[Eric Buell]

22. Creemos que a los que son salvos por creer en Jesucristo nuestro Señor y le siguen en obediencia se les asegura la vida gloriosa y eterna; y que los que permanezcan impenitentes hasta el fin, sufrirán eternamente en el infierno.

"saved by believing"

[Hans Deventer]

Dutch: "22. Wij geloven dat voor allen die in Jezus Christus, onze Heer, geloven als hun Redder, en Hem gehoorzaam volgen,.... "

We believe that for all who believe in Jesus Christ, our Lord, as thei"r Saviour, and follow Him obediently .......

[Wilson Deaton]

While you are making suggested changes, eliminate the word "savingly." I have asked several different people what it means to "savingly believe." No one has had an answer. It isn't the beliver who "saves"; therefore, it isn't possible for a person to "savingly believe."

I would bet that the term is there to differentiate the concept from mere intellectual assent.

That is, to "savingly believe," is to believe differently than the demons of James 2:19 ("You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.")

Whether that is the reason or not, I agree that we would be better off without it.

Note that John didn't say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever savingly believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If John didn't need the word, "savingly," then we don't either.

Wilson

[Steven Martinez]

I would bet that the term is there to differentiate the concept from mere intellectual assent.

That is, to "savingly believe," is to believe differently than the demons of James 2:19 ("You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.")

Whether that is the reason or not, I agree that we would be better off without it.

Note that John didn't say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever savingly believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If John didn't need the word, "savingly," then we don't either.

Wilson

That is because in Greek the word "savingly" is not needed because the emphasis is not the form of belief but rather what the belief is in. In other words, the Demons believe in Jesus as Lord, but their actions of that belief are to shudder and submit out of fear rather than love. I agree that we do not need that word in the Article because our Articles on Salvation and Sanctification already define the level of belief necessary.

I'm thinking about this one:

Amendment on Manual 22.

22. We believe that glorious and everlasting life is assured to all who savingly believe in, and obediently follow, Jesus Christ our Lord; and that the finally impenitent are hopelessly and eternally lost [shall suffer eternally in hell].

Reason

Considering the diverse historical views on hell, based on the various ways the Scriptures describe the concept, it seems wise to limit ourselves in an Article of Faith to the core of what orthodox Christian faith has always believed. Since this is succinctly expressed in our Agreed Statement of Belief, covering the essential point the Scriptures are making, aligning the two statements makes sense.

Any suggestions for improvement?

As far as this...
I think we could go along with that. At the same time I think I would rather go a slightly different route by perhaps adding a statement like:

While the Biblical witness offers several pictures of Hell (Sheol, Gehenna, Hades, Lake of Fire, etc) we believe that they all draw the conclusion of eternal separation from the Love of God.

[Craig Laughlin]

G.A. Resolutions in Post Traditional Theology. Hmmm. It did make me laugh this morning. (not in a bad way)

I would be in favor of updating the the language of the manual. (In English, have no idea about other languages) There is a lot of of it that is outdated and therefor does not communicate, which is kind of the point isn't it?

The article on homosexuality could lose a lot of the "Fire Breathing" rhetoric in my opinion. Something more along the lines of we are called to love all people and treat them with respect but we believe that the Biblical witness does not support a homosexual lifestyle. - I grow tired of explaining to new folks that we are not affiliated with a certain church in Topeka.

[Hans Deventer]

If John didn't need the word, "savingly," then we don't either.

And the same goes for "holy love". If John didn't need the word "holy" to qualify love, neither do we

[Hans Deventer]

G.A. Resolutions in Post Traditional Theology. Hmmm. It did make me laugh this morning. (not in a bad way)

Well, I thought about it. Though by no means universal, there is a broad tradition that depicts hell in medieval concepts. I felt we need to move beyond those concepts and hence, post traditional.

[Craig Laughlin]

Well, I thought about it. Though by no means universal, there is a broad tradition that depicts hell in medieval concepts. I felt we need to move beyond those concepts and hence, post traditional.

Yep, I agree. It was just one of those "at first blush" sorts of moments.

[Ryan Scott]

G.A. Resolutions in Post Traditional Theology. Hmmm. It did make me laugh this morning. (not in a bad way)

I would be in favor of updating the the language of the manual. (In English, have no idea about other languages) There is a lot of of it that is outdated and therefor does not communicate, which is kind of the point isn't it?

The article on homosexuality could lose a lot of the "Fire Breathing" rhetoric in my opinion. Something more along the lines of we are called to love all people and treat them with respect but we believe that the Biblical witness does not support a homosexual lifestyle. - I grow tired of explaining to new folks that we are not affiliated with a certain church in Topeka.

I was looking at the language on human life as well. While we're quite nuanced when it comes to abortion, we have no caveats on our opposition to stem cell research - which seems like a very broad category.

[David Troxler]

I would bet that the term is there to differentiate the concept from mere intellectual assent.

That is, to "savingly believe," is to believe differently than the demons of James 2:19 ("You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that—and shudder.")

Whether that is the reason or not, I agree that we would be better off without it.

Note that John didn't say, "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever savingly believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."

If John didn't need the word, "savingly," then we don't either.

Wilson

If we are going to retain "savingly" then we might do well to add Romans 10:9-13 to the Scripture listing, even though we do not make the references part of the doctrinal statement.

dave t

[Kevin Rector]

I vote for Hans' Resolution and will gladly submit it to my district resolution committee when the time comes.

[Michael Flowers]

Hans' idea seems like a good one to me. Although, I also like the recommendation about adding language to it regarding separation from God (or the love of God).

Definitely some great ideas and points coming up in this thread.

[Benjamin Burch]

While the Biblical witness offers several pictures of Hell... we believe that they all draw the conclusion of eternal separation from the Love of God.

Although, I also like the recommendation about adding language to it regarding separation from God (or the love of God).

I don't like this. What about those who are persuaded by the EOC view, where those who suffer eternally in hell are not at all separated from the Love of God, but instead experience the love of God as hell?

I think that view is firmly rooted in Biblical imagery, as well.

[Steven Martinez]

I don't like this. What about those who are persuaded by the EOC view, where those who suffer eternally in hell are not at all separated from the Love of God, but instead experience the love of God as hell?

I think that view is firmly rooted in Biblical imagery, as well.

My honest opinion is that I do not care. I am not EOC nor are the Articles written to be their understanding. The question of the Articles is not do they fit every tradition but do they reflect our tradition. We have to draw the line somewhere. The EOC certainly draws lines or they would fail to be the EOC. Penal Substitution is a valid doctrine in the Reformed Tradition and to some extant in the RCC but it has no place, as far as I am concerned in the CoTN. I honestly think the EOC view as not being honest to the Biblical text. The EOC view is actually rooted in Greek philosophy more than anything else. It is highly based upon the omni
traits of God and therefore there can be no place where God isn't because God is everywhere. Even so, the Greek Orthodox Church does not have an issue with Hell as separation. So even the EOCs do not all agree.

[Dale Cozby]

While you are making suggested changes, eliminate the word "savingly." I have asked several different people what it means to "savingly believe." No one has had an answer. It isn't the beliver who "saves"; therefore, it isn't possible for a person to "savingly believe."

I think it could be worded "believe unto salvation" to mean the same thing. I think Wilson is right, in that it was added to emphasize the difference of a saving form of belief from a mere mental acknowledgement. Removing it entirely would weaken the statement, but it could be substituted with another more clear phrasing.

[Todd Erickson]

While the Biblical witness offers several pictures of Hell (Sheol, Gehenna, Hades, Lake of Fire, etc) we believe that they all draw the conclusion of eternal separation from the Love of God.

This is problematic, because Sheol isn't actually ever presented as hell. It's where EVERYBODY goes when they die. This is also true of Hades.

[Steven Martinez]

This is problematic, because Sheol isn't actually ever presented as hell. It's where EVERYBODY goes when they die. This is also true of Hades.

I did not say it was perfect. I was hesitant to include such terms but overall I think it is faithful. This is the scandal of using English. Sheol has been translated as Hell in several translations and the OT use the phrase to speak of separation from God (a good example is Numbers 16 and many of the Psalms express Sheol as the abode of the Wicked as a punishment for sin). The same can be used for the word Hades. Honestly we can argue that there is no concept of what we call Heaven in the OT, yet we can draw images from the OT that allude to what we call Heaven even though the OT writers had no idea of Jesus as the Christ or salvation as we see it today. At the same time, these images of Heaven are different than the images used to describe Sheol. This is why I personal included Sheol and Hades because they are not direct translations of Hell but there are certain allusions gained about separation from God that these images convey. Overall we are always going to fall short in describing a doctrine that no one has experienced first hand and came back to share. I for one do not see Post-Traditional theology as a pursuit to avoid potential conflict in words and language but to be bold in actually defining classical terms in the most biblical, theological and Christological ways possible.

[Benjamin Burch]

My honest opinion is that I do not care. I am not EOC nor are the Articles written to be their understanding.

I completely agree with that, but this doesn't make an option which is on the table in Christendom automatically not an option for us.

The question of the Articles is not do they fit every tradition but do they reflect our tradition. We have to draw the line somewhere.

This seems fair.

The EOC certainly draws lines or they would fail to be the EOC. Penal Substitution is a valid doctrine in the Reformed Tradition and to some extant in the RCC but it has no place, as far as I am concerned in the CoTN.

Again, seems fair. This is why I said "I" don't like this, and asked "what about." You seem to be answering my "what about" with, "they should probably find another church where this works better." I'll take that as a fair answer.

I honestly think the EOC view as not being honest to the Biblical text. The EOC view is actually rooted in Greek philosophy more than anything else. It is highly based upon the omni
traits of God and therefore there can be no place where God isn't because God is everywhere.

Here, though, I think you're completely wrong. I don't think it has anything to do with "omni" traits at all. I think it's firmly rooted in what Paul says.

See this post.

Even so, the Greek Orthodox Church does not have an issue with Hell as separation. So even the EOCs do not all agree.

Agreed. Never meant to say they were one, or that we should hold that view. I was just curious as to whether you'd really want to exclude the idea. It seems you do, and that's okay. Thanks for the dialogue.

[Steven Martinez]

Ben,
I do respect the EOC and I would not shy away from debating the merits of the EOC view. However, I think that is another thread and not this one. I just want to make sure that this thread does not become what every Christian believes about Hell but stays true to Hans' intentions. So lets start a new thread. That would be a fun thread in this forum because we can become creative.

[Benjamin Burch]

Ben,
I do respect the EOC and I would not shy away from debating the merits of the EOC view. However, I think that is another thread and not this one. I just want to make sure that this thread does not become what every Christian believes about Hell but stays true to Hans' intentions. So lets start a new thread. That would be a fun thread in this forum because we can become creative.

Well, I want to be clear that I was in fact trying to stay true to Hans' intentions. That's why I tried to deal a bit with what you had amended. Thus:

Agreed. Never meant to say they were one, or that we should hold that view. I was just curious as to whether you'd really want to exclude the idea. It seems you do, and that's okay. Thanks for the dialogue.

[Steven Martinez]

Well, I want to be clear that I was in fact trying to stay true to Hans' intentions. That's why I tried to deal a bit with what you had amended. Thus:

Well it is obvious to me that your intentions were clearly to be part of the thread as intended by Hans. To be clear, I could live with Hans' suggestion with no problem. I am merely suggesting an alternate path because I truly believe that the opening suggestion would not pass the GA because it would be deemed as too radical from the norm. Sadly, it is harder to give up concepts or words we are familiar with rather than it is to change the definition of the term. At the same time, I would like to see your suggestion added in a way that could be presented as a GA resolution.

As a side note to all participants, perhaps the best method is to present any objections or additions as part of a resolution rather than to simply say, "I do not like it."

[Benjamin Burch]

Well it is obvious to me that your intentions were clearly to be part of the thread as intended by Hans. To be clear, I could live with Hans' suggestion with no problem. I am merely suggesting an alternate path because I truly believe that the opening suggestion would not pass the GA because it would be deemed as too radical from the norm. Sadly, it is harder to give up concepts or words we are familiar with rather than it is to change the definition of the term. At the same time, I would like to see your suggestion added in a way that could be presented as a GA resolution.

As a side note to all participants, perhaps the best method is to present any objections or additions as part of a resolution rather than to simply say, "I do not like it."

Sorry, I spent the whole day working through Dan Marino and other QB playoff stats, records, and team stats, etc. My brain is too fried to actually offer something constructive.

[Michael Flowers]

I don't like this. What about those who are persuaded by the EOC view, where those who suffer eternally in hell are not at all separated from the Love of God, but instead experience the love of God as hell?

I think that view is firmly rooted in Biblical imagery, as well.

Ben, that is actually why I stopped with separation from God and then added the previous suggestion in the parenthesis. I'm not sure that I would ever want to say that God does not love a part of His creation, even in the end. I think that God will continue to love those who are eternally lost, but they will still be separated from him by the sin which they have allowed to have hold of their lives.

Thus it seems to me that perhaps just a slight rephrasing to the last part of the statement (along with the clarification already mentioned for the beginning part) would suffice: "the finally impenitent shall be hopelessly and eternally separated from God [lost]".

[Todd Erickson]

Those who refuse to turn from the illusion death brings to their life will be allowed to remain within it forever; having turned their faces from the true reality of our Lord.