Edward Fudge (and others) in the New York Times

Post Reply
User avatar
Michelle
Posts: 845
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 12:16 pm

Edward Fudge (and others) in the New York Times

Post by Michelle » Sat Oct 11, 2014 1:52 pm

Not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing, but there it was yesterday:

Tormented in the Afterlife, but Not Forever

User avatar
robbyyoung
Posts: 811
Joined: Tue Sep 17, 2013 2:23 am

Re: Edward Fudge (and others) in the New York Times

Post by robbyyoung » Sat Oct 11, 2014 5:08 pm

Well, the only thing that should matter in anyone's hypothesis is clearly defining speculation from facts. In many instances these lines are so blurred you can't distinguish between the two. For example, we know in Jewish thought "olam" doesn't necessarily mean eternal. Furthermore, eternity is a obscure notion or even alien to a normal Jewish discussion in antiquity. "Olam" simply meant an indefinite period of time. It's equivalent, "eon" in the greek, should be carefully noted.

For example; Rev 14:9-11 depicts ONLY "The Beast" worshippers being sentenced to this fate. However, is or IS NOT this rendering of "forever" in vs.11, in-fact, eternal? Or is it an "indefinite period of time"?

Should this be in the speculative column, or fact?

Mr. Fudge puts it in the speculative column, but his error is to not leave it there. He then proceeds to proclaim it as fact. I don't believe there is clear evidence either way. So the safest answer is to simply repeat what is given to us in scripture. In Matt 7, Yeshua says, "Depart from me...", where in the scriptures does He emphatically say, "You, in torment, times up - return to me." or simply "Times up - cease to exist."?

It's ok to speculate on unclear matters, but I think it should stay there.

God Bless.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Edward Fudge (and others) in the New York Times

Post by Singalphile » Sat Oct 11, 2014 9:27 pm

Interesting. Thanks, Michelle. I linked to this post over at rethinkinghell.com. Funny how I'm familiar with all the names in the article (well, except for Kathryn Gin Lum). What is the point of the article? That "conditionalism" is trending? I'm not really sure.
Michell wrote:Not sure whether this is a good thing or a bad thing ....
I know what you mean, I think. Having this minority opinion about hell, I often hope the topic just won't come up. But if people just stick to the Biblical language, then there's no need to argue. (Of course it is important, and I might hope that different views are given a fair treatment in church groups across our countries, but I don't expect it.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”