So if there is no hell*, from what are we being saved?

I think they might say we are being saved from the destruction of sin (both personal and corporate) in this life.

If they are annihilationists (and many of them believe in a temporary hell, that is, separation from God before their existence ends in the second death of the lake of fire), they definitely believe they are also saved from the judgement of God in annihilation.

And yes, I knew an annihilationist that taught at Southwestern Seminary here in Fort Worth.

 

Are they still there?

 

No. I'm referring to Dr. E. Earle Ellis. He went to be with the Lord last year.

 

Hell is real and it has a vast population to prove it.

 

I am with you believing in a literal hell. I suspect most not accepting of a literal hell would probably fall into annihilation. I would "think" they may try to argue that salvation is not "from" but "to". Just my two cents

 

Was he the only one?

 

The only one I knew about. If there were/are others, they sure didn't talk about it or publish those views like Dr. Ellis.

All of the other professors had to sign the 2000 BF&M, so they could not publicly hold to annihilationism. Dr. Ellis served at the pleasure of the seminary president and was never asked to sign the BF&M.

 

hmm...might be something that needs to come up at next years meeting. Most certainly not something we want in our schools.

 

Doesn't John Stott believe in that also?

 

To be blunt, Patterson says one thing about what he allows and does another. I liked Earle Ellis (a friend of my wife's family and fellow church member) and I had great respect for him, although I disagreed with him in a number of places.

Ellis was very clearly on the record as someone who practiced a private prayer language, someone who believed in soul sleep, an annihilationist, and a person who affirmed women in vocational ministry under certain conditions, even as "senior pastor". He was also an exceptionally conservative scholar (not in the SBC political party sense, but in his treatment of the biblical text) who was often criticized for not taking into account modern sensibilities in regard to issues of biblical interpretation.

He made no bones about it, presented those views in class, wrote about them, and had some of these views mentioned in the biography written by one of SWBTS's New Testament professors for his 80th birthday.

When Patterson and the SWBTS Board of Trustees issued a release a few years ago saying they would not knowingly hire or employ a professor who spoke in tongues, it is hard to believe that Patterson did not know that Ellis spoke in a private prayer language since he and Dorothy Patterson were very close friends with Ellis. Furthermore, if Patterson had read any of Ellis' writings (which he claimed to do), then he would have been aware of it. Furthermore, I once asked Earle directly if Patterson knew of his theological stance. Earle confirmed it.

So Patterson, many professors at Southwestern, and numerous students knew of Ellis' views. It was always something of an open secret.

 

Yes, among numerous others.

It's a much more popular position among theologians than might be expected.

Wikipedia lists the following advocates of the position:

- John Stott
- John Wenham
- Michael Green
- Philip Hughes
- Roger Forster
- Clark Pinnock
- Edward Fudge
- Greg Boyd
- Harold Camping
- Homer Hailey
- E. Earle Ellis

 

Just maybe we are redeemed to rather than saved from.

Universalism is not a new thing. There were some first century,,yes, first century, people who advocated universalism. While, yes, we are spared eternal punishment, but we have gained a Saviour, the Lord Jesus Christ. I would much rather preach on what we gain than what we lose.

Cheers,

Jim

 

Edward Fudge has an interesting book on the topic. There is merit to the argument when one actually spends the time to study it. Just a word study on "hell" is thought provoking, at least for me. Some would argue they do believe in a lake of fire and everlasting punishment. They would argue annihilation is an eternal and everlasting punishment.

I would assume they would say one is saved from their sins and eternal separation from God. Annihilationists would not be Universalists, kind of an oxymoron. Haven't studied it enough to come to a conclusion but have studied it enough to raise question of the traditional view.

The difference between men like Fudge and Stott and someone like Rob Bell is they came to their view by exegesis not some personal philosophical beliefs. Big difference in my view.

 

The prayer language issue is benign at best for me except that it makes me question the judgment of those who claim to practice it. But the soul sleep issue is very troubling.

 

I don't want to derail this thread, so here's a link to the book with the biographical sketch (pages 2-14) that covers a number of these issues.

His views on women in ministry can be found in his book, Pauline Theology. His annihilationist viewpoint can be most clearly seen in his book, Christ and the Future of New Teatament History.

 

thanks for the info. I am interested to read his view. Every other view I have read or heard on this is quite lacking. I doubt his view on women in the ministry will impress me much.

 

Another thing I'd like to bring in to this discussion is what is meant by a "literal hell". While I'm not dogmatic about this, I tend to think that the biblical description of hell as fire is symbolic. To be clear, I don't believe in annihilationism; I do believe that a a minority of people will suffer everlasting conscious punishment in hell.

 

And how come a minority?