Divine punishment? Is it needed?

[Clare73]

The Christus Victor View was the dominant early Church atonement view up until the 11th century. I don't know what else to tell you. You can argue that fact all you like. The fact remains.

As for Ramelli she is a Patristic Scholar and has no agenda. Just because you don't agree with her does not make her any less knowledgeable. What are your credentials?

To whom and to what are you responding here, it is not identified here.

 

[Clare73]

Sin is its own punishment. Some theologians argue the damned in hell have punished themselves.

To whom and to what are you responding here, it is not identifiable here.

 

[wendykvw]

Christus victor was unheard of until Gustaf Aulen wrote a book named that in 1931 arguing it was the ancient view. That it was the dominant view is not a fact, but an argument. In and of itself Christus victor is not a theory of atonement because it doesn't give any explanation of how the victory is achieved, only a declaration of Christ being victor over death. The most dominant theory among early theorists is ransom theory which Aulen linked with his motif.


It's not simply that I disagree with her, it is that she makes a habit of manipulating quotes to change what the authors she is quoting is saying. It is quite common to be able to expand the scope of her quotes by only a line or two and see that she is not handling the material honestly as the full quotes are diametrically opposed to her presentation of the quotes. This is not a matter of credentials, it is a matter of methodology.

I am sorry, but your sources have misinformed you about Christus Victor view. It was not an "invention" in the 1930s. You may be confussed.

"The predominant view expressed by the early church fathers was that of the
model of triumph or as it is commonly known today as the Christus Victor
model. There were two main variants of this model; that developed by
Irenaeus placed little emphasis on the death of Christ but saw in the life of
Christ a recapitulation of Adam’s. Where Adam failed Christ succeeded
and as our representative head gained for us life eternal. Others, including
Gregory of Nyssa stressed the idea of ransom; we are set free from slavery
to the devil because in his death Christ paid our ransom. In Gregory’s
development of this theme there was the idea that God ‘tricked’ the devil, the
hook of deity was covered by the bait of flesh. Others found the idea of God
deceiving the devil morally dubious and thought more in terms of a
miscalculation by the devil and of him deceiving himself (Origen). The early
church fathers did incorporate other ideas of the atonement in their writings
but Christus Victor was the major theme of their teaching. Gradually,
however this model lost currency in the church. A range of reasons have
been suggested for its decline in popularity including its implication that the
devil had some legitimate rights over man, and its dualistic world view. More
recently it has been argued that the increasing domestication of the church
from the time of Constantine meant a model based on ideas of conflict were
less attractive.


… the Christus Victor motif fell aside … because the
church had lost its sense of confrontation with the
world. ….The idea – of the church in history posing an
alternative to the world – fell out of favour as a result of
the so-called Constantinian shift. With it went the
Christus Victor motif of atonement, which assumes a
confrontation of forces of good and evil.


And as far as Ramelli you make strong accusations. Can you back it up? Give me a quote of hers that you believe she is twisting? Thank you.

 

[Der Alte]

The Christus Victor View was the dominant early Church atonement view up until the 11th century. I don't know what else to tell you. You can argue that fact all you like. The fact remains.
As for Ramelli she is a Patristic Scholar and has no agenda. Just because you don't agree with her does not make her any less knowledgeable. What are your credentials?

I refer to Ramelli as the high priestess of UR [for those who don't know UR refers to Universal Reconciliation i.e. the belief that all mankind will be saved the righteous and unrighteous alike no matter what.
But I will document a false statement she made. A error that no competent scholar, in any field should make.

"But even the aiónes will come to an end, Origen tells us: “After aiónios life a leap will take place and all will pass from the aeons to the Father, who is beyond aiónios life. For Christ is Life, but the Father, who is ‘greater than Christ,’ is greater than life” (Comm. in Io 13.3; quoted in Ramelli, p. 160).
Sometimes Eternity Ain’t Forever: Aiónios and the Universalist Hope"​

That is what Ramelli claims Origen said. Here is what Origen actually said.

Origen Commentary On The Gospel Of John Book Thirteen[1]
(18) For, as there, [Song 2:8] the bridegroom leaps upon souls that are more noble-natured and divine, called mountains, and skips upon the inferior ones called hills, so here [Joh 4:14] the fountain that appears in the one who drinks of the water that Jesus gives leaps into eternal life.
(19) And after eternal life, perhaps it will also leap into the Father who is beyond eternal life. For Christ is life; but he who is greater than Christ is greater than life.20[2] Pg. 23​

Contrary to the assertion by UR high priestess Ilaria Ramelli and her loyal followers, here is the one and only time Origen mentions “after eternal life.”
Note the context, Origen is not talking about the fate of believers he is talking about the well of water, John 4:14. Origen is saying after the well of water springs into eternal life perhaps, not for certain, it [the well of water] springs into the Father because the Father is beyond eternal life.

(59) He [Heracleon] is not wrong, however, when he says that the water that the Savior gives is of his spirit and power.[John 4:14]
(60) And he has explained the statement, “But he shall not thirst forever,” as follows with these very words: For the life he gives is eternal and never perishes, as, indeed, does the first life which comes from the well; the life he gives remains. For the grace and the gift of our Savior is not to be taken away, nor is it consumed, nor does it perish, when one partakes of it.
(61) He would be correct when he grants that the first life perishes if he meant that life which is according to the letter, when it seeks and discovers the life according to the Spirit by the removal of the veil. But, if he is accusing the ancient words of passing out of existence all together, it is clear that he does this because he does not perceive that those good words contain the shadow of future things.
(291) But neither is it possible here to understand the statement “He who reaps receives a reward, and gathers fruit for eternal life” to have reference to the same things as the statement, “He who sows in the flesh, of the flesh shall reap corruption, and he who sows in the spirit, of the spirit will reap eternal life.”
(292) For according to the Apostle’s words, it is the same person who sows and reaps, whether in the flesh or in the spirit, and on this basis reaps either corruption or eternal life. [Gal 6:8] But according to the present words, it is one who sows and another who reaps.[4] Pg 128
[1] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 67–69). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[2] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 72–73). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[3] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 81–82). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.
[4] Origen. (1993). Commentary on the Gospel according to John Books 13–32. (T. P. Halton, Ed., R. E. Heine, Trans.) (Vol. 89, pp. 128–129). Washington, DC: The Catholic University of America Press.​

Unfortunately Origen's commentary on John is still in copyright. If you want to read this document you must go to a university which has it in the library or purchase it online. It cost me $40.00 from "Logos."
Origen says that the life Jesus gives is "eternal,""never perishes 2X,""remains,""is not taken away" and "is not consumed."



.

 

[Der Alte]

I am sorry, but your sources have misinformed you about Christus Victor view. It was not an "invention" in the 1930s. You may be confussed.
"The predominant view expressed by the early church fathers was that of the
model of triumph or as it is commonly known today as the Christus Victor
model. There were two main variants of this model; that developed by
Irenaeus placed little emphasis on the death of Christ but saw in the life of
Christ a recapitulation of Adam’s. Where Adam failed Christ succeeded
and as our representative head gained for us life eternal. Others, including
Gregory of Nyssa stressed the idea of ransom; we are set free from slavery
to the devil because in his death Christ paid our ransom. In Gregory’s
development of this theme there was the idea that God ‘tricked’ the devil, the
hook of deity was covered by the bait of flesh. Others found the idea of God
deceiving the devil morally dubious and thought more in terms of a
miscalculation by the devil and of him deceiving himself (Origen). The early
church fathers did incorporate other ideas of the atonement in their writings
but Christus Victor was the major theme of their teaching. Gradually,
however this model lost currency in the church. A range of reasons have
been suggested for its decline in popularity including its implication that the
devil had some legitimate rights over man, and its dualistic world view. More
recently it has been argued that the increasing domestication of the church
from the time of Constantine meant a model based on ideas of conflict were
less attractive.
… the Christus Victor motif fell aside … because the
church had lost its sense of confrontation with the
world. ….The idea – of the church in history posing an
alternative to the world – fell out of favour as a result of
the so-called Constantinian shift. With it went the
Christus Victor motif of atonement, which assumes a
confrontation of forces of good and evil.
And as far as Ramelli you make strong accusations. Can you back it up? Give me a quote of hers that you believe she is twisting? Thank you.

All somewhat interesting but without any clearly identified historical resources it is a humungous waste of band width. See e.g. my post #344, above. No more compelling than the scribblings on a public facility wall. "This guy said this, that guy said that, some other guy said something else."
See my post #344 above for Ramelli's lack of integrity.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Okay. Thanks for the clarification.

Ephesians 4:8
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”

1 Peter 3:19-20
After being made alive, he went and made proclamation to the imprisoned spirits— 20 to those who were disobedient long ago when God waited patiently in the days of Noah while the ark was being built.

I just answered these two, plus 3 more like them, in another post somewhere. I'll look.

Ah, here. From post 322 in answer to 318:

I said, "I don't see any of these as evidence that they are 'released' from Hades, and certainly not that they are converted, released from sin, forgiven, during their 'stay' in the grave.

1Pe 3:19-20 says that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah's day. Where does that mean they were "released from Hades"?

1Pe 4:6 says that the Gospel has been preached to those who are dead (notice the time difference there?) There is no reference to where they were when preached to, nor even if they were alive at the time, but only that they are expired. Nor is there any mention of anyone being "released from Hades." Note here also, that it references the Gospel being preached, which to me necessarily implies during this temporal frame, though it does not necessarily imply it could not happen in Hades.

Rom 10:6-8 only rhetorically references Christ being brought up from the grave, with no reference at all to those who died in their sin being "released from Hades"

Ephesians 4:8-9 Says Christ took captives, and that he gave gifts to his people, and that he descended to the lower, earthly regions (which I take to mean, Hades). I agree that he descended (and resurrected from) Hades, because the prophecy (Psalm 16:10 reads, "because you will not abandon me to the realm of the dead".

Rev 1:18 only reference to hell and death is that he was dead and is alive, and possesses the keys of hell and death. No reference to anyone being "released from Hades".

The closest reference among them to anyone being "released" is the fact that he has the keys. Yet the only time we see them being possibly 'released' is elsewhere talked about, when the sea, and the grave and death 'give up' the dead that are in them, to be judged according to their deeds, as sounds somewhat like 1 Peter 4:6, though, as I said, even there we do not know when they were judged by that one verse of itself, except as it says, "judged in the flesh"."

But you claimed that there were some for whom forgiveness was not provided. (which you also claimed was not withheld) Quote below.

Saint Steven said: ↑
What do you make of this?

1 John 2:2 NIV
He is the atoning sacrifice for our sins, and not only for ours but also for the sins of the whole world.

I'm not sure I understand the objection. Both classes of people, Jew and Gentile. It does not mention any one person specifically, nor does it include every person who ever lived, but both classes (or, since other verses are relevant: All classes, tribes, nations, 'peoples'.) So forgiveness for those who are not forgiven was not provided. While all individuals must have THIS savior if any, they are not all saved, nor forgiven, though they are from a group of people that does include some of the elect upon whom God has mercy. You seem to project the very human notion, perhaps from some desire for fairness, that God would not show particular mercy to some without showing the same degree of mercy to the rest. But I don't find that notion expressed in Scripture, (nor in reason, in the end).

 

[Fervent]

I am sorry, but your sources have misinformed you about Christus Victor view. It was not an "invention" in the 1930s. You may be confussed.

"The predominant view expressed by the early church fathers was that of the
model of triumph or as it is commonly known today as the Christus Victor
model. There were two main variants of this model; that developed by
Irenaeus placed little emphasis on the death of Christ but saw in the life of
Christ a recapitulation of Adam’s. Where Adam failed Christ succeeded
and as our representative head gained for us life eternal. Others, including
Gregory of Nyssa stressed the idea of ransom; we are set free from slavery
to the devil because in his death Christ paid our ransom. In Gregory’s
development of this theme there was the idea that God ‘tricked’ the devil, the
hook of deity was covered by the bait of flesh. Others found the idea of God
deceiving the devil morally dubious and thought more in terms of a
miscalculation by the devil and of him deceiving himself (Origen). The early
church fathers did incorporate other ideas of the atonement in their writings
but Christus Victor was the major theme of their teaching. Gradually,
however this model lost currency in the church. A range of reasons have
been suggested for its decline in popularity including its implication that the
devil had some legitimate rights over man, and its dualistic world view. More
recently it has been argued that the increasing domestication of the church
from the time of Constantine meant a model based on ideas of conflict were
less attractive.


… the Christus Victor motif fell aside … because the
church had lost its sense of confrontation with the
world. ….The idea – of the church in history posing an
alternative to the world – fell out of favour as a result of
the so-called Constantinian shift. With it went the
Christus Victor motif of atonement, which assumes a
confrontation of forces of good and evil.


And as far as Ramelli you make strong accusations. Can you back it up? Give me a quote of hers that you believe she is twisting? Thank you.

Christus Victor, as a phrase, was coined by Aulen and as a complete idea is essentially his. The quote you use(wherever you got it) describes two different ancient atonement theories in recapitulation(Iraneus) and ransom(Gregory) these certainly were ancient theories, but they are not "Christus Victor" but atonement theories in and of themselves. In fact, your quote agrees with what I said about ransom theory making up the backbone of the motif that is "Christus Victor." So the view of the ancients was not "Christus Victor" but ransom theory and recapitulation theory, which 20th century scholars grouped with other more minor aspects of atonement that were prevalent among early writers to dream up a holistic atonement motif they called "Christus Victor." If you disagree, find a mention of Christus Victor before Aulen's book was published.

 

[Fervent]

It's almost like you didn't read what I said.

Not at all, I just chose not to comment on how you claim your position is about honoring God while essentially justifying it based on the fact that you get peace of mind by absolving yourself of any sort of accountability.

 

[RickReads]

God's punishment of sinners is necessary, just like it is necessary for a parent to punish the child or children they love.


Heb 12:6 For whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, and scourgeth every son whom he receiveth.
Heb 12:7 If ye endure chastening, God dealeth with you as with sons; for what son is he whom the father chasteneth not?
Heb 12:8 But if ye be without chastisement, whereof all are partakers, then are ye bastards, and not sons.
Heb 12:9 Furthermore we have had fathers of our flesh which corrected us, and we gave them reverence: shall we not much rather be in subjection unto the Father of spirits, and live?
Heb 12:10 For they verily for a few days chastened us after their own pleasure; but he for our profit, that we might be partakers of his holiness.
Heb 12:11 Now no chastening for the present seemeth to be joyous, but grievous: nevertheless afterward it yieldeth the peaceable fruit of righteousness unto them which are exercised thereby.


Sounds pretty necessary to me, but if your only concept of punishment is burning for all eternity in some literal fiery pit, well, you aren't really going to be able to see that as necessary, now are you.

The passage distinguishes between sons and those who are not. The provision only applies to the saved.

 

[Oleaster]

Better than ECT? There are many ideas around the world, inside and outside Christianity and they do not contradict the Bible. Examples: A purgatory for all people (not just for Catholics w/ venial sin). Post-mortem education of some sort. Some form of metempsychosis. Annihilationism. A world where all people can see God. Etc.

Fair enough. I guess “better” in this instance is in the eye of the beholder. For me personally, the doctrine of the Church is best because I see it as the most merciful way for God to deal with free and unrepentant souls. A “purgatory for all people” suggests that all people would want to be purged, whereas nothing I see around me suggests that anybody wants to be purged. Of course, there is always the argument about “being given an infinite amount of time, monkeys will eventually type Shakespeare,” and thus all souls surely would eventually seek purgation. But I haven’t been able to verify that, and scripture runs contrary to the notion.

“Post-mortum education” sounds like a sort of veiled Gnosticism. In that view, knowledge saves, I guess, because if only souls know the right thing, then they will choose the right thing? So let’s educate everyone and all will be well. Is that it? I don’t know. It seems ironic to say that the Omniscient Infinite Logos appears not to value knowledge much, but then just look at how stupid even the smartest person who ever lived was, and try to argue from the easily-deceived and -deceiving human intellect that the One Infinite Mind was ever concerned much with humans attaining a proper education in this life, much less in eternity.

Metempsychosis, to my mind, is a form of cruelty. With all due respect to God and the miracle of life, the struggle is real, and so one ride on this tilt-a-whirl is sufficient for me, thanks. If hell is what I get afterwards, well, let’s start the barbecue. At least this phase is over. (Praise Jesus!)

Annihilationism seems cruelest of all. Unimaginable pain. My consciousness and life force are ripped away? And where exactly are they ripped to? How does being even cease to be? Doesn’t work for me.

“A world where all people can see God” solves nothing for me, because the problem is not that people don’t see Him. “The devils also believe and tremble” (Js 2:19). The trouble with souls in hell is that “although they knew God, they did not accord him glory as God or give him thanks” (Rm 1:21). Souls in hell do not love God. That for me is why “hell” is most merciful. He doesn’t repay us what we really deserve. If we offer Him no love, then we deserve no love. But because He is love, even hell manifests as some mysterious expression of love.

God won’t destroy me. He won’t leave me to figure out the path to Nirvana after 666 trips through this vomitorium. He’s not trying to make sure I learn all the correct doctrines or be able to cite scripture from the best translations or be familiar with canons and councils. He’s not even interested in purging me except for the fact that whatever needs purging is everything that impedes my loving Him with all my heart, mind, soul, and strength.

But love is not coercive. The only coercion that God has involved me in is my being “coerced” to pass through this world here and now. And hey, it does suck, but it’s also kinda cool. Sun, wind, flowers, puppies. And He is offering me two choices here: to love Him and live with Him forever, or not to love Him and thus turn from Him forever, in which case I still get to live, and I still get to love.

As Augustine said, “Two cities have been formed by two loves: the earthly by the love of self, even to the contempt of God; the heavenly by the love of God, even to the contempt of self.” So in hell, I will be loving myself and my own will and my own sinful ways, just the same as I can in this life.

To me, the worst depiction of hell in scripture is in the story of Lazarus, and even there, it seems that Lazarus is able to love. “He said, ‘Then I beg you, father, send him to my father’s house, for I have five brothers, so that he may warn them, lest they too come to this place of torment” (Lk 16:27-8). And the answer just below that passage explains why hell lasts forever: “If they will not listen to Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded if someone should rise from the dead” (Lk 16:31). If the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ doesn’t convince us to love Him, then apparently nothing ever will. In that case, we keep going our own way. Sucks, but not utterly merciless.

 

[Mark Quayle]

Not at all, I just chose not to comment on how you claim your position is about honoring God while essentially justifying it based on the fact that you get peace of mind by absolving yourself of any sort of accountability.

Amazing. I do not absolve myself of accountability! Far from it. If I don't persevere I am not saved. But my peace of mind is not dependent on myself.

You may well believe that, like with any redeemed, my disobedience still ruins my feelings of eternal security! But I do not think my success in accomplishing what God had planned for me from before the foundation of the world, is dependent on me, nor (haha) does my eternal destiny hinge on the force and integrity of my will.

Yet returning with me, with every repentance, and even before I acknowledge consciously the repentance God is working in me, is the absolute unspeakable joy of knowing that God is accomplishing everything he set out to do, and, most happily, that HE himself is pleased with what he has done. Ha! these silly words fall so short!

 

[Fervent]

Amazing. I do not absolve myself of accountability! Far from it. If I don't persevere I am not saved. But my peace of mind is not dependent on myself.

You may well believe that, like with any redeemed, my disobedience still ruins my feelings of eternal security! But I do not think my success in accomplishing what God had planned for me from before the foundation of the world, is dependent on me, nor (haha) does my eternal destiny hinge on the force and integrity of my will.

Yet returning with me, with every repentance, and even before I acknowledge consciously the repentance God is working in me, is the absolute unspeakable joy of knowing that God is accomplishing everything he set out to do, and, most happily, that HE himself is pleased with what he has done. Ha! these silly words fall so short!

You're talking out of both sides of your mouth.

 

[martymonster]

The passage distinguishes between sons and those who are not. The provision only applies to the saved.

And? The scripture I quoted is about divine punishment.

 

[RickReads]

And? The scripture I quoted is about divine punishment.

You stated that the passage was about punishing sinners. The passage says nothing of the sort. The passage says it is for the purpose of increasing righteousness and holiness. God does not impute sin to his children and it is discipline, not punishment. Sinners are not blessed with God`s chastisement. Your understanding of this passage is way off the mark.

Romans 4:8
Blessed is the man to whom the Lord will not impute sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

1Pe 3:19-20 says that Christ preached to the imprisoned spirits from Noah's day. Where does that mean they were "released from Hades"?

This is standard doctrine in the larger church. I'm not making this stuff up.

Ephesians 4:8-9
This is why it says:
“When he ascended on high,
he took many captives
and gave gifts to his people.”
9 (When it says, “He ascended,” what does it mean but that he had also descended into the lower parts of the earth?

 

[Saint Steven]

You seem to project the very human notion, perhaps from some desire for fairness, that God would not show particular mercy to some without showing the same degree of mercy to the rest. But I don't find that notion expressed in Scripture, (nor in reason, in the end).

What I am sharing about the Harrowing of Hell is older than the creeds. I'm not making this stuff up.

 

[Andrewn]

Btw, I should mention that the parables often include things besides the main point that may be true and may parallel the 'kingdom of heaven' as Jesus introduces some of them to be like. But it is not good hermeneutics to use them as doctrinal teachings by Christ, without a lot of 'backup'.

I agree that the context of the each parable is very important. There is often hyperbole but they are not sci-fi. Details are coming from the same source, the One who is in the bosom of the Father and who knows everything.

Certainly, there are things to be seen, for example, in the Rich Man and Lazarus, the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe."

This is neither the context of the parable nor what we see taking place in the parable. Luke 16 started with the parable of the Shrewd Manager. In this we see a "rich man" dealing with his manager. Perhaps it was the same "rich man" mentioned in the following parable, quite likely a metaphor for Jewish leaders, with whom the Lord had much conflict.

The rich man died and went to Hades. There, his soul was quite conscious of his torment. He was able to communicate with the other side of Hades, and to see the poor Lazarus, whom he had ignored, enjoying blessings in Abraham's bosom. You said the point of the story is, "even if one were to return from the grave, they will not believe." But in the story we read the opposite. We see that the rich man was beginning to repent in Hades. He regretted what he had done and called on to Abraham. He was finally willing to invite Lazarus to his presence.

This sounds like truth, not sci-fi. Abraham told the rich man that Lazarus could not help him. He also told the rich man that his brothers would not believe, even if a person was resurrected from the dead. Apparently predicting what is to happen after Jesus' resurrection.

The rich man was beginning to repent, but we are not told what happened next. Our curiosity is not satisfied. The moral of the parable is that those of us who have the means and the power must attend to the needy. And that we must believe in the resurrected One.

I doubt very much that all this was a hypothetical story. The word "Hades" is mentioned 11 times in the NT. The equivalent "Sheol" is mentioned a lot in the OT. I understand that believers in post-mortem unconsciousness or immediate resurrection see all these as references to "the grave." But is this warranted?

 

[Andrewn]

You apparently misunderstand me. My argument is not that Jesus did not go to the realm of the dead, (in fact, I believe he did), but rather against the notion that his preaching to souls there was for the purpose or effective in saving some who there had died in their sins.

In post #306, I quoted the following from Wikipedia:

'Although the Harrowing of Hell is taught by the Lutheran, Catholic, Reformed, and Orthodox traditions, a number of Christians reject the doctrine of the "harrowing of hell", claiming that "there is scant scriptural evidence for [it], and that Jesus's own words contradict it".'

When you objected to Reformed believing this, I checked several websites and, indeed, Reformed, Lutherans, and Methodists do _not_ believe in Harrowing of Hell. And, of course, Evangelicals do not. Only Orthodox, Catholics, and Anglicans do.

Wikipedia is wrong.

Harrowing of Hell – The Episcopal Church

3 Reasons Why Christ’s Descent into Hell Is Good News - Anglican Compass

The Harrowing of Hell | St. Luke's Episcopal Church

 

[ozso]

I guess I'm going with the other. Although that does quite represent my viewpoint. The analogy of the Sufi Blind men and the elephant is my general position when it comes to these mysteries of the World beyond.

Their are certainly passages that speak of God's wrath, as well as the fiery gehenna. But there are passages which speak of things like being cast into outer darkness etc. I think the Eastern Orthodox River of Fire view is very interesting, as far as reconciling certain paradoxes and conflicts in a lot of the Western Hell theology (Having an Omnipresent God absent from Hell, not to mention a God that is perfect Fatherly love etc. being more wrathful and vengeful than an imperfect earthly father).

I guess I tend to see this more in terms of people opting out salvation, and some of that comes from free will. The whole thing remind me of one of my old psychology professor's that did this bonding therapy with severe autistic kids. In the therapy you embrace them tightly, for them to hopefully get use to what the rest of us get use and enjoy as infants, while the autistic kids find the whole thing very noxious. That kind is what Hell/Heaven is like with the River of fire view of the afterlife, it is a joy for those who are in communion with God but a nightmare for the other folks.

Of course I am aware of the other points of view, especially folks claiming to have near death experiences and claim to be spared from a literal fiery hell.... But that sort of thing is also why this stuff is a Mysterion, and it may not be possible to have a fully orbed cohesive theory of hell that fits everything and resolves all the conflicts other than the realizing that everything that is true points to something complex, multisided, like the Blind men and the Elephant

Reminds me of the idiom, "one man's heaven, is another man's hell".

 

[Andrewn]

it only finds ground among those with no grounding in history thereby introducing a foreign context to the text.

From Calvinism to Evangelicalism to Dispensationalism there is clearly progressive ignorance of history. This is perhaps why Dispensational pre-Millennialism attracts so many people, it gives them a false sense of knowledge.