Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by Ian » Thu Jun 23, 2011 10:50 am

I must admit I cringed through this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3zBMM813 ... re=related
and part two after it.

In this life the jury will have to remain out regarding the content I suppose, but the man`s demeanour left me with questions. I didn`t like his tight swapping from camera to camera either, as if he`d rehearsed the whole thing. I thought I had the discipline to knuckle down to prayer and Bible reading this morning but this man knocked me out of my tracks. I wanted to run from this man`s God. Does that say more about me or about the man? I don`t know.

In another video he condemns Rob Bell`s habit of asking questions. He implies that that`s an underhand tactic. That by asking the question, you are surreptitiously disagreeing. But it seems to me Rob Bell merely does so in order to remain on the fence about certain things. Is that so bad? Steve does so as well, as even indicated by his last post in this section.

It also made me wonder again - who is my brother? Not in the Good Samaritan sense, that`s obvious. But in the Brothers in Christ sense. Is Fred Phelps? Is this man? Is Harold Camping?

User avatar
RickC
Posts: 632
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 5:55 am
Location: Piqua, Ohio

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by RickC » Thu Jun 23, 2011 1:31 pm

Hello Ian

I saw your thread title and thought, "Hmmm...". Anyways, I immediately recognized the Greg Boyd video. (See? I'm sort of a fan of his). In any event, I posted the whole video (on a Rob Bell thread), a sermon entitled "Tormented by the Flames?" <--well worth watching, imo.

Direct link: http://whchurch.org/blog/2253/tormented-by-the-flames

Btw, I made it up to about right after the Boyd clip in the vid you posted.
Then, "click" the X @byebye!

Take care! :)

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by Ian » Thu Jun 23, 2011 2:00 pm

Thanks for your reply, Rick.
Then, "click" the X @byebye!
Like me, you perhaps got tired of being near shouted at and talked down to. The content then kinda takes a backseat in that situation.

User avatar
Ian
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 18, 2009 2:26 am

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by Ian » Fri Jun 24, 2011 1:49 pm

I watched the video Rick C and very worthwhile it was too.

The striking thing is - all he was doing was presenting his annihilationist view on a "it`s ok for you to disagree with me" basis, just as all teachers who`ve learned some humility would do. But in the video to which I linked he`s hung, drawn and quartered by the presenter.

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by steve » Fri Jun 24, 2011 7:30 pm

What a horrendous ministry this man Todd has! He makes his opponents look saintly by contrast.

User avatar
Todd
Posts: 257
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 7:09 pm

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by Todd » Sun Jun 26, 2011 10:21 am

First I watched the full Greg Boyd video, then I watched the Todd Friel video. I was impressed with Greg Boyd; he makes some great arguments against the traditional view. The Todd Friel video was disturbing to me. I cannot fathom how endless torture can ever be called good.

Todd

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by DanielGracely » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:12 pm

I can understand why someone might be turned off by Todd’s demeanor, his pontifical gesture of fingertips together, his sarcasm, etc. But how much of this is really Todd, how much of it is actually unjustified, or how much is a mix of Todd with a bit of acting, I don’t know. Like Limbaugh, I think he grabs the attention through the strategy that rhetoric’s worst enemy is monotonous delivery. At any rate, except for some comments about the book of Job, I actually agreed with most of the content of Todd’s arguments.

For example, I think he’s right to imply that Evangelicals like Boyd have lost touch with God’s feeling of outrage against sin. It reminded me of Francis Schaeffer’s own remark about feeling he had lost some sense of sin’s seriousness compared to that of the generation of Christians before him. But far from sharing Schaeffer’s feeling on the matter, Boyd instead keeps talking about God’s love as though eternal hell, based on divine outrage against sin, were incompatible with it. The problem here, is that Boyd does not keep separate in his thinking exactly what it is about man God loves, namely, man as God made him (man’s material and immaterial forms). Put another way, God loves much about man, but never his sin (i.e., sinful content). And God help us (literally) if we begin deconstructing Scripture to the point where discussion about God’s love, or “For God so loved the world,” should include the meaning of a divine love for the sin of the world. And in my opinion annihilationism aims in that direction, since it would exempt at least some unbelief from punishment.

But here is the proper view: Firstly, God created the immaterial and material forms of man with the divine motive that man should put all these to the service of the good. God values these forms and their continuance, which is why God will not commit himself to annihilationism. For example, God hopes man will choose to offer his arm to help the old lady across the street, rather than choose to smack her with his arm, and steal her purse. And no matter how often man may choose the wrong, he always has the capability of choosing the good. And since God values the ability of a man always to choose, he will always uphold the form of man. However, if a man in this life has proved unfit in his stewardship of his forms, then it appears God will isolate that man in hell, to keep his influence confined to the self, and so from affecting any other persons by his speech or action—while the man himself is so occupied with his own suffering. But the point here is that, regardless of whether a man is here on earth, in heaven, or in hell, God’s motive in sustaining in man (1) his ability to choose; and (2) his body, which is put to the service of the man’s choice, is that man should put all these to the service of the good.

This is why it is so painful to hear Boyd talk about the traditional view, which he thinks depicts God’s “violence” toward the person in hell, as though God’s motive toward man were ever of something other than that man should put all his forms to the service of the good. Again, it is why God sustains man’s being. Rather, in Boyd’s discussion about hell, Boyd seems to equate divine punishment with “violence,” i.e., something wrongful, even when it ought to seem plain that punishment, at least in part, is because of man’s ongoing sin of unbelief. Nevertheless, Boyd pleads for annihilationism.

At any rate Boyd seems ignorant of the traditional view about the reason for hell. Or did not our Christian forbears say—despite whatever else a few of them may have gloatingly remarked about hoping one day to see unrepentant persons suffer in hell—that the reason for hell was for ongoing unbelief in Christ? For rebellion of ongoing unbelief is the reason God has appointed ongoing suffering. Why is that so hard to understand; for is it not just? So then, lest God forever snuff out a man’s immaterial forms (his abilities to think, to choose, to feel) and his material form (his body, put to the service of his immaterial forms)— whereas man, if sustained, will always have the capacity to serve the good—God refrains from the annihilationism which Boyd’s view hypocritically demands.

For especially in Boyd’s open theistic view, which generally denies divine foreknowledge of man’s future choices, it ought to seem obvious to Boyd that God should not annihilate forever the immaterial form of a man—such as his ability to choose—when that man, in the very next split second after his annihilation, might repent and worship and serve God for the rest of eternity. For who is Boyd, or who even is God, in the open theistic view, to say that any choice now is a guarantee of the same choice in the future? Thus Boyd is not even consistent within his own view of what he believes is the nature of God’s love or even the nature of choice, insofar as he advocates for annihilation. For again, since in the open theistic view God doesn’t know the future choices of man, what a tragedy it would be if, a moment or a year or even a millennium after a man’s annihilation by God, that man would have begun to rethink and ultimately repent of his unbelief, to worship and serve the Creator forever. And so Boyd has to implicity argue that men will never repent if they suffer a minute or a millennium in hell. I would like to know how he knows that. For free will (Choice) by definition is that it comes ex nihilio from the man, has no necessity of one direction or the other despite the past, and may change upon any instant.

It seems evident to me that until Boyd understands what it is God loves, and what it is God does not love, he will continue to be confused about the nature of God, and thus put forth contradictory notions about divine obligation. All in all, I think Todd senses this, and has formed his own brand of outrage against such theology.
Last edited by DanielGracely on Sun Jul 10, 2011 9:34 pm, edited 2 times in total.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by steve7150 » Sun Jul 10, 2011 7:48 pm

Boyd instead keeps talking about God’s love as though eternal hell, based on divine outrage against sin, were incompatible with it.






It seems to me that if God is outraged against sin it would make a lot more sense to destroy the source of the sin and annhilate man then allow sin to fester on eternally with no particular purpose or fulfillment or satisfaction for God.
God's will is that everyone should be saved not that the wicked should suffer eternally. His outrage or "anger" is said in scripture to pass quickly not to simmer forever watching wretched man suffering forever.
Personally i think God has something more grand in mind then just a heaven or hell destination based on this brief life on earth but that's another topic.

DanielGracely
Posts: 115
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2010 9:43 pm

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by DanielGracely » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:14 pm

Hi Steve 7150,
To some extent I feel the same way. Yet our feelings about what makes sense can sometimes be skewed. But we're in good company: for even the great prophet Samuel had to be told by God to stop mourning for Saul, since God had rejected him. That is, even Samuel, despite his devotion and faithfulness to God, was not really in tune with God’s rejection of Saul. Indeed, not until we see Samuel called up by the witch of Endor, from an abode in the afterlife where he surely must have come to know God’s mind in a more complete way, do we see in Samuel’s reply a tone reminiscent of God’s own. For when Saul tells Samuel that God is not answering him through prophets nor dreams, Samuel replies, “Why do you ask me, seeing the Lord is departed from you and is become your enemy?” That’s quite a shift for a man like Samuel who had been inconsolable about the king. So, too, I think in this life we but dimly see God’s perspective.

So I think the more of less short answer to your feeling that it makes more sense for God to annihilate the source of evil than to allow men to “fester on [in sin] eternally with no particular purpose or fulfillment or satisfaction for God,” is that God does find purpose, fulfillment, and satisfaction in the form of man which he created—which God intended and still intends for good. And so He is not willing to annihilate man in his form simply because of man’s misuse of it, however bad that misuse might be. But in the future it appears God will limit a man’s misuse of it insofar as its influence upon others.

As for God's anger being but for a moment, while his mercy is forever, I think the context implies a divine act of forgiveness upon those who believe, not a divine act of annihilation upon those who disbelieve. Indeed, how could God’s mercy everlastingly rest upon one who does not exist into the forever? But again, I’m not entirely without empathy about how you feel in the matter. But I suspect we will both have to wait until a later date before our feelings are in tune with God.

User avatar
darinhouston
Posts: 3112
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:45 am

Re: Heretics? - and now Greg Boyd!

Post by darinhouston » Sun Jul 10, 2011 10:45 pm

If God loves the present form of man so much as to keep it forever, then do you think the reprobate will spend eternity in a resurrected body? Will it be the same as that of the saint? Without the temptations of the flesh? If our "form" will be different in eternity, then how does that jive with this view?

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”