One of my friends, who is currently studying in a seminary, wrote this interesting reply to my denial of this doctrine. Some of the questions raised are indeed pertinent, especially the free choice of hell:
It was interesting also to see your comment that you find the teaching of eternal damnation difficult. It is something that certain Western minds find difficult also, including Christians. Maybe there is some underlying effect from how human nature is viewed. In those cultures where human nature is seen as essentially good, thinking to Socrates who thought "no-one does wrong knowingly", and today's liberalism thinking that no-one is responsible and everyone is good enough to go to heaven, no wonder some find it hard. This doesn't mean that the view of some Protestants of human nature being perverted is accurate or the answer to the problem. Human nature is essentially good, but is also affected by the fall and experiences an attraction towards evil. Freedom means that evil can be chosen, which leads to people becoming brutalised, e.g. Mel Gibson's film "The Passion of the Christ", where those doing the scourging and whipping took increasing pleasure in inflicting pain on the Lord. God can work miracles, but if someone has constantly chosen evil:
a) would he/she be able to stand heaven, with all those "do-gooders"?
b) would it not be a violation of freedom for God to in effect forcibly convert someone to becoming good after death?
I remember saying once to someone that when Satan fell the reason he isn't forgiven is because he doesn't want to be forgiven, not because of some restriction or inflexibleness of God. He has too much pride to admit he was wrong, and perhaps isn't sorry in the first place, despite having in effect made a mess of everything. We could say he is "the first pervert" in the sense that he has so perverted (i.e. strongly distored) himself from what he was, an angel of light. This process can begin to take place in man, although it never achieves such a completeness as in the devil. Can this not affect man to the point whereby once he reaches the judgement throne after death he rebels against God and freely chooses hell, never again to want to choose God?
I don't know. St. John Vianney though took the line that if you put a priest into hell to hear confessions they would all go to him so that they could get to heaven. Perhaps we are in fact entering a mystery here. Perhaps we lack some important pieces in the jigsaw puzzle. Hence why I at time see faith and understanding being a bit like a colouring-in book. Faith provides the outline, and as time goes by reasoning manages to produce the colour. However, you may never finish colouring in the picture, and your colouring. Always leaves something to desire.
Anyway, there's something for further discussion.
God bless,
xx.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
just a stray thought here.. if human nature is essentially good, then why is it so that this "goodness" is constantly overwhelmed by our propensity towards sin which can be defined as the lust of the eyes, lust of the flesh and the pride of life (1John2:16)? And if human nature is essentially good, then Jesus didn't need to die on the cross as by our own nature and efforts or discipline, we will be able to live a virtuous life. He could have just sent more shrinks to this earth :)
One could perhaps, also argue that at the very end, Jesus shed pointless blood for creatures who despite their (presumably gd and ever striving?) intentions, are tempted into sinning anyway.
About the point of man having "residual goodness", I will like to further elaborate by saying that God made man in the image of Himself or rather more accurately, the image of the trinity. Therefore, there must have been goodness in man, a certain innocence in Adam that was untainted by sin that came from the fall. After the fall, i think that goodness in man could have existed in the form of conscience just as Paul describes it in Romans2:14-15
However, I don't know if it is pushing it a little too far when one says that it is this "residual goodness" in man that recognises God. Will probably need a greater revelation of His word to ascertain that statement but I will (at the moment) disagree with it. We are saved by grace and faith alone. Salvation is a gift from God. We are able to commune and have fellowship with Him because we are made in His likeness. But there are of course many other reasons but shan't continue to ramble on. If not this will become an essay!!
Michael prob. has more to say, but on the simplest level, it is our faculty of reason that allows us to recognise the goodness and love of God, and the gift of free will that allows us to choose Him freely. Both reason and free will are part of this 'residual goodness', I suppose (not all the gifts given to Adam were lost at the Fall).
..though of course, free will (even as it can be used to do good, and admittedly a lot of good in the case of the saints) can also be utilised for the purposes of the 'other' side.
I agree with the point made by Anonymous that our free will can either lead us to make a decision towards good or evil. Just like to add to what has been said: Juliet discussed the point about 'conscience' being the residual goodness. Hmm...honestly i find it hard to define conscience. However, I would see it as kind of a witness of ourselves towards men or towards GOD. (Acts 24:16) However, it is important to note that our conscience can be defiled (1 Cor 8:7- if i'm not wrong,this verse here is referring to non-Christians and Titus 1:15). For Christians, our conscience can be seared (1 Tim 4:2). So, I do not see conscience as being the "residual goodness" since this residual goodness is subject to corruption as well. We are saved through faith towards GOD alone, through His grace(Rom 3:24).
Moving on, if i may see free will as part of 'conscience' so to speak, there is an element of free will in salvation but i think it's too generous to see it as our "residual goodness". perhaps this is more of a personal opinion.
In response to what Michael said about "humanity being 'good' in that the unbaptised are not extremely evil people who never do anything right", perhaps it is good for us to consider the idea of 'evil' or 'sin' in the light of GOD's standard. Yes, i agree that the unbaptised (or for that matter, baptised)may have done right things in their lives. But is this the standard by which GOD views our sins and our position before Him? We often lapse into the thinking that our sin is just like a weighing balance, good things vs bad things that we do. However, this is not the way GOD sees it. He says in Rom 3:23, "For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God". He also puts it clearly in James 2:10 "For whosoever shall keep the whole law, and yet offend in one [point], he is guilty of all." In the sight of GOD, Isa 64:6, "all our righteousness are as filthy rags". Since sin is anything that falls short of GOD's standard, I wouldn't say that humanity (after the Fall)is 'good' in that sense. That is also why we need to rely on GOD's saving grace (see Galatians 3). However, i must say that i believe it's not baptism that restores grace to the soul. Perhaps those reading this post will be familar with the debate surrounding baptism and salvation. So, i shall not delve into it here.
sighz...thanks for bearing with me for such a long post..just hope that the discussion over here will strengthen our understanding and relationship with GOD. :)
I have a feeling I know who Ice Kachang is =). Anyway Michael and Ice will not come to any agreement for the simple reason that both are operating with very different theologies. Ice subscribes to a more traditional and literal understanding of inherent depravity (due to the Fall), a la John Calvin. Michael subcribes to the Catholic teaching that the Holy Spirit can and do work through the consciences of even the unbaptised and those of other religions (VCII). I agree with Michael and the Church, for while Calvin's interpretation is perhaps more literal and Text-Based, it raises certain very unfortunate logical contradictions. So there. Correct me if I am wrong.
'However, i must say that i believe it's not baptism that restores grace to the soul.' - well said, thus and I cannot help but agree.
Here, one is led to return to the definition of 'baptism'. What is 'baptism' (certainly in the context of various churches, it is one thing...and in the mind of certain unorthodox but God-loving and fearing individuals, perhaps another)?
Is it a merely symbol, a sign? And if it is a sign, a pointing to something deeper, truer, more certain and therefore, crux (it is not coincidental that the latin root of the word 'crux' points one back to the Cross), is the literal act then indispensable? Or is the metaphorical 'baptism of fire' (to use the language of the Charismatics although that is not really what is meant, at the core, here) already sufficient?
At baptism, and even at a Catechumen's introduction to the church (in the case of the Catholic and many an Anglican church), he/she is signed with the sign of the cross. Yet, this cross should be signed deeper - within - in one's flesh and sunk, entrenched in one's marrow. To be 'baptised' thus is to accept the sheer burden (and paradoxically, also bliss) of the Cross.
For true 'baptism' is both death and joy. To die to the flesh is but a prelude to leaping in the joys of the Spirit.
Just a minor clarification, I would not say that i align myself with John Calvin, knowing how denominations have been revised and their terms and teachings meaning a thousand and one things to different readers. And also, i haven't studied writings by Calvin himself *face turning red* .
anyway, while we have different theologies so to speak, it is still worth exploring one another's views as food for further thought and prob. giving my 2-cents worth :) Jared, m interested to find out the "unfortunate logical contradictions" u referred to :) btw, m not sure if ur feeling is right :p
What an irony that the most popular article on the blog is one on eternal damnation =P. Anyway, first to reply to Anonymous about baptism: again no doubt baptism (immersion) involves sharing in the death of Christ, and rising to life with him. The deepest 'baptism' may thus be mystical and spiritual, with the sacrament of baptism being a beginning initiation into the life of the Spirit.
However, it is still the fact that in the life of Christ, he first went through the water baptism (of repentance) of John the Baptist at the beginning of the his ministry, and the other 'baptism' at the end of it (Jesus explicitly terms it as such)--the Cross and the Resurrection. To identify baptism ONLY with one or the other seems incomplete. And the question remains why Christ went through the water baptism if it is not in some way a vital part of his (and thus) our spiritual initiation. Moreover, Christ is already overshadowed by the Spirit at conception, so what is he trying to tell us?
I have no easy answer to this question, but offer this mystery for your contemplation.
Post a Comment