Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
So... because they refuse to love God, God takes away their ability to refuse him by annihilating them, revoking their existence.That view would say that at that point those people would be annihilated in some way.
So... because they refuse to love God, God takes away their ability to refuse him by annihilating them, revoking their existence.
If the "damned" are humble enough to request annihilation from God, then they are on the path toward salvation, are they not?The idea that people after the final judgement choose annihilation by choosing a particular relation to the source of life uses the same logic.
Have I? I see no contradiction between the two.given that you have been arguing that God is not the one inflicting punishment upon people in hell, but rather they are experiencing God according to their own disposition to him.
If the "damned" are humble enough to request annihilation from God, then they are on the path toward salvation, are they not?
If the damned do not want annihilation from God, and want to choose to keep existing as they are, to annihilate them would be to revoke their freedom.
The entire line of annihilationist thinking, as it's floating around the evangelical milieu at the moment, is based on a popular neoplatonic understanding of human life and the soul, that goes like this:
1. To exist, for a human, is to have a conscious mind-soul.
2. To cease to exist means to have an unconscious mind-soul.
Neoplatonic immortality: There is existence after dying/hell because the mind-soul continues to be concious.
Neoplatonic conditionalism/annihilationism: There is no existence after dying/hell because there ceases to be a conscious mind-soul.
The problem is, ancient near eastern peoples didn't really have that understanding of existence after death at all.
Have I? I see no contradiction between the two.
That the punishment is "inflicted" by God, and that it is caused by the disposition of the wicked. You said I was arguing against the former.I never said there was a contradiction. Between the two what
Asking for separation is asking to continue to exist separately, not to be annihilated. Hence my disagreement with the neoplatonic understanding of annihilationism as it exists today. If one asked God for annihilation, that would be different than asking to exist out of communion with him.To say that willing complete separation from God is asking for annihilation is silly
Some time ago, I had a nice phone conversation with a gentleman serving with the Anglican Province of Christ the King, which leans Anglo-Catholic. During our conversation, we briefly touched on the topic of justification. He said that did not have a conflict with justification, but he also added that he was not a Calvinist. So, maybe Calvinism is more broadly defined within Anglicanism to mean Reformation theology in general (as the central focus of one's theology?), rather than views on predestination or the atonement.
I followed what you were saying up until the last sentence. Anglicans come in many varieties and, yes, the APCK is at the Anglo-Catholic end of things. But when he says that he's not a Calvinist, it seems to me that he means just that. It is common for Anglicans to believe in justification by faith but not to agree with all of Calvin's points, let alone his views on other subjects. There's no special definition of anything in that.
I followed what you were saying up until the last sentence. Anglicans come in many varieties and, yes, the APCK is at the Anglo-Catholic end of things. But when he says that he's not a Calvinist, it seems to me that he means just that. It is common for Anglicans to believe in justification by faith but not to agree with all of Calvin's points, let alone his views on other subjects. There's no special definition of anything in that.
Um, No.
I am not sure where you would get that from what i said.
That view would say that at that point those people would be annihilated in some way.
What you are discribing here is "Annihilationism". I don't think that that is Calvinist. It is doctrine that is held, I believe, by the Adventists, Christidelphians, and Herbert Armstrong's Church of God; and according to this article, it is held by some Anglicans: Annihilationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I'm a bit surprised by that.
It might be that the several clergymen named in the article were allowing for the possibility more than they were adopting it themselves. In any case, I can't say that I've ever met an Anglican who professed a belief in annihilationism.
Me either; I have seen nothing that even hinted at it in the BoCP or the 39 Articles.
Definitely not there, but I was also thinking of any other communication that's come my way at any time --some individual's comment, a journal article, church bulletin, webpage, a sermon, etc. Still nothing.
What you are discribing here is "Annihilationism". I don't think that that is Calvinist. It is doctrine that is held, I believe, by the Adventists, Christidelphians, and Herbert Armstrong's Church of God; and according to this article, it is held by some Anglicans: Annihilationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
I'm a bit surprised by that.
That the punishment is "inflicted" by God, and that it is caused by the disposition of the wicked. You said I was arguing against the former.
Asking for separation is asking to continue to exist separately, not to be annihilated. Hence my disagreement with the neoplatonic understanding of annihilationism as it exists today. If one asked God for annihilation, that would be different than asking to exist out of communion with him.
The Anglican Church is mainly Arminian in doctrine and that is because of the influence of the Caroline Divines. The Calvinist elements of the early Reformation were absorbed by the Puritans.
While its generally true that Anglicanism, on the whole, embraced Arminianism, Calvinist influence continued in Anglicanism to the present day. Generally it was not the full-blown Calvinism found in Scottland, but an attenuated Amyraldianism (being distinguished by an emphasis that Christ died for all, and not merely for the elect).
Two things to consider. 1: The majority of English Puritans in the 17th century were non-separating; that is, they remained members of the Church of England. The Puritans were, of course, thoroughly Calvinist.
2. The 39 Articles, particular 10 (Of Free Will) and 27 (Of Predestination and Election). The Articles are, at the very least, a document which allows for Calvinist thought within Anglicanism and perhaps, some might argue, a Calvinist document.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?