Greetings Friends,
First off let me say that the title of this topic alone should be enough to win the Babywater Cliché award.
But seriously now
So, seeing as how it turned out to be my turn to post a topic this month, and as you are all clearly at my mercy now, I thought I would raise a topic for discussion which I have been struggling to articulate a clearer understanding of for the last few years. It's a topic that will have real consequences regarding our eschatology and the how we minister to those around us who don't share in our faith.
HELL
I want to know what you guys think about the idea. Is it a place, is it a state of mind, is it a state of being, is it non-existence, etc...? Is it permanent or can you decide to leave by making the right choice? Is your fate, either within or without decided beforehand, is it even in your control? How will our thoughts on Hell inform how we relate to those outside the faith? How does it affect what kind of church you could pastor or attend? What happens if your ideas on hell conflict with your denominational doctrinal statements? Is there are any certainty to be had or is it all just opinions? What is the cost of being wrong?
I realize all those questions in that last paragraph would take millennia to answer, if indeed they actually can be answered. I don't expect to come up with some neat and tidy doctrine of hell here; I just want to hear what you all think when the idea of Hell is presented. I'd like to hear how your hermeneutics back up your opinion and what authors and teaching have influenced you. Once we have tossed around a lot of ideas concerning the nature of hell I would like to move into something more practical and talk about how our thoughts on hell influence how we evangelize and disciple those in our sphere of influence. How does it affect the gospel we preach and live if we tend towards universalism or annihilationism or whatever? What problems do you have with the more traditional or the more liberal views?
Finally, I would like to know how you would preach what you believe on the topic. Obviously a good measure of humility is deserved when dealing with a topic like this. What would you say from the pulpit, or in a classroom setting?
Tell me what you believe, why you believe it, and how firmly you believe it. I expect there are going to be some pretty varied opinions among us, so don't be bashful.
Love You All,
Coldstorageunit
73 comments:
Nice piece of topic CSU. I've thought about this one for years. I first had my assumptions challenged by a young 'underachiever' in a persuasive speech he delivered on annihilationism several years ago.
I think I'm agnostic toward hell in that I don't think we can know for sure what/where/how it is. Most references to it in the Bible are shrouded in symbolism and hyperbole. I will share what I lean toward though and that is annihilationism.
A couple basic reasons I lean toward annihilationism are that I have a hard time believing that eternal life is given to everyone. Even if it's eternal suffering it's eternally alive isn't it? Also if a person is made to no longer exist then that is an eternal punishment though the suffering is not eternal.
Recently though someone asked what was worse, to no longer exist or to exist in suffering? I don't know and I don't know if God is about giving people the worst possibility either. That doesn't fit into the post-redemption-work-of-Jesus image I have of God.
I'm just getting started here though, I look forward to hearing what others have to say.
great topic. there are a ton of very insightful questions there.
the question has been raised on a number of occasions in some of my classes whether we should be preaching hell more. i don't know. i don't like it, but that is a long way from saying i'm right.
i have very little to say on this issue yet. i would love to believe in annhialationsim, and to some extent universalism, but i don't feel like the bible lets me. there i said it. and that's all i have to say at this point.
not to promote proof-texting or anything but what are some of the key texts on this issue?
ignoramus
Helluva good topic. I haven't done a lot of research on Hell itself (although I've heard that it doesn't know fury like a woman scorned).
Tanti's right, there is a lot of symbolism and hyperbole in depictions of Hell and if I recall correctly, most of them are in the NT since the OT had a very different idea about life and death (with Sheol as the mysterious, foggy afterlife in which all dead seemed to go; OT *life* with God was the reward itself, not the afterlife -- which is a good lesson for us, but that's a digression)... so we're really only working on NT teachings alone.
I'm not an annihilationist but I couldn't back up any argument right now.
From the pulpit I wouldn't stray far from the lake of fire teaching (is that Gehenna, named after the burning dump near Jerusalem?)... I guess the concept of eternal torment. That's what I would teach, although I would be fine if my Hell-ology was eternal punishment rather than eternal torment: that is, I am fine if Hell is people try to eke out an existence while living in homes, driving cars, working at jobs, trying to find happiness (a lot like today only worse because it will lack God's presence resonating in the world).
A third view I would be fine with is best summarized in an analogy: if a bunch of people in town went to the circus and you couldn't go, you might sit outside of the fence and listen to the laughter and the rides and the carnies and wish you were there. You're not enjoying the time you're in torment over hearing/seeing the good times and not being able to enjoy it. (Of course Tuna, who hates all clowns, wouldn't appreciate this analogy).
I've got more to write but I have a conference call. Will write more later.
csu - props on the topic. i'm very excited. as mentioned above by tt, i lean toward annihilationalsim. would i stake my salvation on this? not a chance in hell.
i see many potentially great discussions coming from this topic.
like mr t, i will write more later and look forward to hearing opinions and how individual's faiths are affected by their hell-ology.
again, great topic csu. time for my coffee break.
alright, i have a few thoughts now.
i asked my wife this morning what she thought hell was and her exact response was: "separation from God, whatever that looks like." And I thought, okay, that's pretty much the definitive statement for me, at least when it comes down to saying what i can be certain of.
But then again, where do i get that from? separation from God? is that our logical conclusion or is that the Bible's statement? i really need some key texts here.
because logically, if we are separate from God how can we be existent?
tanti already alluded to something my prof said which i relayed to him, speculating that perhaps we've got it backwards in our preferences and hell is actually a better state than annhialation. how could we know? interesting idea though. But I should back up. His actual point which led to that statement was something to the effect of:
God elected to create, and in doing so he made things with an everlasting quality to them. Or better put perhaps, what he made he does not destroy. when he declared it good he meant it. no sin or evil was going to make him destroy what was good. if we want to choose existence apart from him it is our freedom to do so but he's not going to be annhialating anything because that would be like saying it wasn't good after all. so an everlasting hell in a sense affirms the goodness of creation.
that feels a little backwards, but says some decent things too. ie that this election to create was a big step for God but that He's sticking to it, and that our sin is worse than maybe we realize. That's one thing I appreciate about the traditional view of hell: it really reminds me that I'm probably worse than I realize.
What I don't appreciate about the traditionalists isn't so much their view as their seeming pleasure with getting to preach it. if we preach this it should be with tears and if we believe in everlasting torment in hell shouldn't secluding ourselves in our church pews and christian bubbles be the LAST thing we do? SOmetimes you get the sense that the traditionalists (to generalize of course) already pictured themselves PRE-HEAVEN as Lazarus in the parable who couldn't reach across to give the rich man a sip of water. (Hey I thought of a key text!)
anyway, that's what's milling about in my head right now, along with dreams of Indianapolis Colts glory this weekend against Tuna's New England Patriots of course. All I can say is that the Pats are going somewhere in a handbasket Tuna, I'm not sure where exactly, but it isn't going to be pretty.
fear,
every time you mention something about your class or your prof, it makes me realize how much i miss academia. i'm a little jealous.
that's an interesting point your prof made. (i hope God created dinosaurs with an everlasting quality to them.) how does he maintin that thought when discussing the flood account (literal or not), assuming he meant ALL of creation, not just humanity? i'm not smart enough to figure that one out, but i'm guessing pre-flood plants and animals (also declared good) will not be resurrected when Christ redeems the world. however, the humans who didn't make it past the flood will probably be resurrected and judged. the point being that i have no problem allowing God to destroy something he created. that contributes to why i fit in the annihilation group.
one traditionalist critique i have is that they seem to discuss hell as something they have to save people from, rather than discussing heaven as something they should want to bring someone to. the focus seems to be more on the punishment than the rewarding invitation Christ offers. i would rather emphasize to a friend that i want them to come join me in heaven than say i don't want you to go to hell. maybe just semantics, but it's an important distinction in my mind.
once i get my bookshelves anchored and my books unpacked, i might be able to come up with some proof texts, but a lot of annihilationism seems to come from logical arguments using characteristics of God with a few proof text thrown in to give it some cred.
at least tuna's pats will not be joining my dolphins in that magical place where teams get high draft picks. i'm just glad teams don't get religated in the nfl or nhl (go bruins).
Hey Fellas,
Sorry it has taken me so long to chime in here. I posted the topic and then got shipped out to San Diego the very next morning for work, but I'm not complaining.
Annihilationism has always intrigued me though I wouldn't say I subscribe to it, perhaps not yet at least. I'm not sure what annihilationism does with a text such as a John 17:12 or that one where Jesus says something along the lines of being "not willing that any of these should perish", I couldn't seem to find the reference for that last one, so maybe I'm making it up. Annihilationism has a finality that I'm not entirely comfortable with becuase it takes away a person's chance to eventually make the right decision concerning Christ. Maybe that's why find universalism so appealing, since it seems to be more in line with the father heart of God. Universalism has its own problems, but I sure find it tempting.
Anyways, I will post more when I get home and have my reading materials closer to hand.
Go Chargers!!!
Geriatric
I just haven't had time to do much on this topic except read what Grenz wrote in Theology for the Community of God. I promise that I will think my own thoughts soon, but he has a good collection of ideas about the origins of the Hell concept as well as verses to go with it, and he seems to have a stance against annihilationism that I think is well written.
It's a starting point for me on a topic I'm fairly ignorant about.
"God is an eternal lover. In keeping with his own nature, he loves his creation eternally, and he desires that humans respond to his love by enjoying unending fellowship with him... As the great Lover, God is also the avenging protector of the love relationship. Consequently, God's love has a dark side. Those who spurn or seek to destroy the holy love relationship God desires to enjoy with creation experience the divine love as protective jealousy or wrath. Because God is eternal, our experience of God's love -- whether as fellowship or as wrath -- is also eternal... The connection we have outlined between the two eternal alternatives and God's inention for his creatures points us to the manner in which we may understand hell. Ultimately, hell is the eternal tragedy, the eternal human failure. Reportedly Jesus spoke of the dark side of eternity as gehenna, a transliteration from the Hebrew ge hinnom. Hinnom as a valley south of Jerusalem where under Ahaz and Manasseh children were sacrificed in fire to Molech (2 Kings 16:3; 21:6; 2 Chron 28:3; 33:6). The prophets borrowed the term as a symbol for judgment (Jer 7:31-32; 19:6) and later for the final judgment. In Jesus' day, the valley was used as a burial place for criminals and for burning garbage. Located as it was outside the city of Jerusalem, it formed in apprpropriate metaphor for the destiny of the lost (Matt 5:22,29-30; 10:28; 18:9; 23:33; Mark 9:43-47; Luke 12:5). Even the New Testament texts where the word gehenna is not present, the idea remains in the background of references to eternal punishment by fire... The New Testament writers repeatedly spoke of the fate of the unrighteous as exclusion, as eternal separation from community with God. This theme arose from our Lord himself. Jesus warned that at the judgment, the Son of Man will plainly declare to many, 'I never knew you. Away from me you evildoers!' (Matt 7:23)... [Grenz discusses several texts related to exclusion and torment including Matt25:41; 25:10-13; 25:30; 2 Thess 1:9; Rev 22:15; Rev. 20:10; Matt 8:12; 22:13; 24:51; 18:8; Jude 7; Rev 20:14]... Consequently, hell is a place of burning fire. Although some interpret this figure literally, we do well to follow the Reformers and understand the biblical pictures metaphorically. The fire of hell is the anguish generated by the awareness that a person has invested his or her entire life in what is perishable and temporal rather than imperishable and eternal (Matt 6:19-20; Luke 12:16-21)." (Grenz, Theology for the Community of God, p.836 -838).
Well, there's some interesting reading for us all. I needed something to really get me started and this seemed to be as good a place as any.
that's what i was looking for myself; some sort of articulation of what i think is my view, or at least for the sake of discussion my starting point.
grenz seems to leave it pretty open on what hell actually is though. seems to be eternal consciousness of separation from God. would that be separation from all that is good as well? or is there some grace in hell, in that they are still given enough to keep going day after day, to experience more of the same? this is where it gets fuzzy.
i'm not sure we're supposed to know, to be honest. and when i read the old testament, particularly some of the warnings of the prophets, i wonder: maybe it is somewhat appropriate to incorporate language of warning into our preaching. whether that is evangelistic preaching or just motivational preaching for the apathetic is up for debate.
anyway, that argument by grenz and the metaphors of scripture get to why i have a hard time with annhialation. i'd like to hear underacheiver's argument on how annhialationists understand these numerous texts indicating eternal suffering.
his previous comments questioning the eternal quality of the dinosaurs is a good point, but i just wonder if there isn't something everlasting about the human, once created, that makes annhialation sort of weak ...
Although I find Hanegraaff over the top sometimes I think it interesting how he puts it:
"humans are fashioned in the very image of God (Gen. 1:27); therefore, to eliminate them would do violence to His nature. The alternative to annihilation is quarantine. That is precisely what hell is."
i also have questions about csu's apparent high regard for a sort of second-chance hell (like purgatory?). how does he reconcile that with passages such as where the rich man in hell who pleads for his relatives and is told "they have moses and the prophets, let them listen to them"
this indicates that this life on earth is our chance, and the rich man did not get another. call it a metaphor, it still carries that message.
Whether the fire is real or metaphor it is an interesting point to make that fire is something that consumes when it is used in other biblical non-hell metaphors. Like the burning of chaff.
In some ways the eternal human existence arguement falls in on itself a little because isn't eternal life the reward for faith in Jesus? Grenz is argueing that we are eternal beings but when we sinned didn't we forfeit that eternalness? If Hell is simply eternal life without God it's still eternal life. And are people really punished for eternity for temporal sins? Maybe they are but that's seems odd to me.
I like the idea of universalism since it lines up with the merciful God I believe in but it is hard to square it with scripture where it seems to be clear that our afterlife is determined by our life on earth.
More questions than answers at this point for sure.
"isn't eternal life the reward for faith in Jesus? ... when we sinned didn't we forfeit that eternalness?"
No, that's the point. Eternal life, despite what we grew up thinking, is not the reward for faith in Jesus, Jesus is the reward for faith in Jesus.
Sure, we make a temporal decision, but is there any other kind? How else do we choose the life we want other than in the course of life itself? And how would that be a free choice if it was made in the throes of hell or the splendour of heaven? And what would it mean anyway? We'd just be an extension of God himself, not independent beings who choose communion with him.
I still like Grenz's description. I mean, I don't like hell at all, but this makes a lot of sense, even if it is uncomfortable. I think if there is a real hell and it is serious, well, it puts a lot of the Bible's strong language into perspective. ie the prophets, revelation, Jesus' warnings, etc ...
"Jesus is the reward for faith in Jesus." Really? It's entirely probable that you're right but is there scripture for that? There's plenty that talks about the gift being eternal life.
I don't know, I'm not convinced of anything at this point so keep the counterpoints coming. Don't get me wrong I still believe there is a Hell, it's just that I'm open to the possibility that the "fire" consumes.
I should probably say that Communion with the Trintity is the reward for (result of?) faith in Jesus.
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of GOd is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord."
"God so loved the world that He gave his one and only Son that those who believe in him might not perish but have everlasting life."
I suppose these do imply what you are saying. On the other hand I guess I've come to think of "everlasting" as a description of the QUALITY of life in Jesus, not just this other unknown life that we get after this one, although it is that too.
Its tough because on one hand it feels like the Bible is giving us two options for our post-death experience, and on the other it seems like there is just a post-death experience or none at all.
Yeah we need to talk the heck out of this one so I can think this through.
tagging onto fear's last post: how does John 17:3 fit in? eternal life is knowing God and Jesus.
back to a previous question:
if i recall correctly, annhialationists believe in eternal punishMENT, not eternal punishING. in my view, this fits wonderfully with a God who is perfectly merciful and perfectly just. hell is still eternal. however, as alluded to by tt above, the suffering bit is only temporal. a just God requires punishment for rejection. a merciful God requires a fitting punishment: a temporal suffering for a temporal earthly life. is this the right view? only God knows. i echo fear's questioning if we are supposed to even know what hell is.
i agree that the reward for following is eternal and that Jesus is in himself the reward. that's a great phrase you used, by the way. does it make sense that everlasting communion with Christ is fitting for a temporal life, while "hell" is only a temporal punishing?
tt still has a valuable book of mine called four views of hell. its an informative read. i'm sure most of you are familiar with the "counterpoints" series. each view is discussed by one author and then countered by the other three. anyway, if i don't get my book back by the end of november, my hope is that tt will provide some great quotes.
some questions for biblical scholars:
is Matthew 10:28 just using hyperbole or simply a threat?
what does John mean in Rev. 21:1 when he mentions earth has passed away?
in John 17:2 (thanks CSU for making me read the chapter), do the words "may" or "might" carry any significance when Jesus prays "Father, the hour has come; glorify Your Son, that the Son may glorify You, even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He MAY give eternal life..."
looking forward to the next 27 days.
A few quick thoughts here while my pasta cools to an eatable temperature...
The stuff I wrote in about Grenz reflects a summary of my learning from him. Someone said he left hell open to interpretation. He may not have, there was a lot of material and a lot that I haven't had time to read yet; I was just recording the starting point for me.
TT wrote: "And are people really punished for eternity for temporal sins?" I would have to disagree. I think people are punished eternally for rejecting God. The sin is just the outcropping of that rejection. If hell were punishment for sin, it would seem unjust to me. However I see hell as punishment of rejecting the creator so it seems just (to me, at least).
There's also some debate about what hell is. Good thoughts so far. Earlier I used an analogy about the circus that I have come to really like the more I think about it. Hell may not be a specific place but rather could it be "not-heaven"? Revelation talks about the New Jerusalem and nothing impure enters its gates. Using that idea, is hell everything outside of the gates of New Jerusalem? Inside is God communing with his people. Outside are the many who can no longer enjoy even the scraps of grace that they once unknowingly enjoyed (and still rejected) in this present time.
More to write but the pasta is now eatable.
This discussion might benefit from a bit of a framework. From what I've read there are four main schools of thought concerning Hell:
1)Exclusivism: this is the traditional view of Hell that alot of us probably grew up with. You are either in or you're out based on whether you have "asked Jesus into your heart". The punishment is eternal, no second chances. There would probably be some little sub-schools that would yammer back and forth about predestination here too.
2) Inclusivism: This would be the idea that, in addition to Christians, some people will be saved through Christ who don't know Jesus or don't consider themselves Christians. Kind of along the lines of Romans 10:20;
"I was found by those who did not seek me; I revealed myself to those who did not ask for me"
C.S. Lewis has a good quote that describes this school of thought;
"The world does not consist of 100 per cent Christians and 100 per cent non-Christians. There are people who are slowly ceasing to be Christians but who still themselves by that name...There are other people wo are slowly becoming Christians though they do not yet call themselves so. There are people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by him that they are his in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God's secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it."
The last bit kind of echoes Romans 8 about "those who are led by the Spirit of God are children of God".
3) Conditionalism/Annihilationism: The idea that hell is temporary and leads to extinction rather than eternal torment, or that hell itself actually is extinction (eternal separation from God).
4) Universalism: The idea that everybody will ultimately be reconciled to God through Christ of their own choosing. It may take a long time, and there will likely be much suffering, but eventually everyone will choose Christ. This is the happy ending eschatology.
I'm not sure if there are anymore main schools of thought that I am missing out on, but that is my understanding of the issue from what I've read and studied. Correct me if I'm out to lunch or leaving something big out.
Underachiever, the "MAY" in that text from John 17:2 to me smacks of something akin to priveledge rather than option. I mean to say "even as You gave Him authority over all flesh, that to all whom You have given Him, He MAY give eternal life...". I could very well be out to lunch. I don't know what the greek word is there.
Dr. Fear, your challenge of my second -chance hell is just. That rich man parable is a tough one to reconcile it with. This is why I hold on to my opinion rather loosely still. I don't challenge the eternity of hell, I am just of the opinion (right now at least) that it is a choice that sends you there and a choice that keeps you there. That parable does seem pretty contradictory though. Jeers to me.
Anyways, keep up the good stuff fellows. This is good crap.
One more thing, maybe a bit pedantic but its worth noting I think. The word "forever" comes up a lot in a discussion like this. Most of the time it is used as a synonym for eternal, but that doesn't have to be the case. It could refer to an unending succession of moments (eternity) or it can also just mean without stopping, i.e. I will love you forever, in the sense that I won't ever choose to stop. Maybe that was obvious to all you illustrious scholars, but I had to remind myself of it.
Also, we have alot of OT texts that, thanks to the KJV, reference Hell. However I think mainstream biblical thought has deemed this a mistake. The hebrew word "sheol" which was translated hell was only referring to the place of the dead, or the grave. There is no indication of an immortal soul involved or even of different destinations for good and evil. This is open for debate, but that's the main idea that comes across.
So basically all our biblical evidence for Hell is from the NT, and more specifically Christ, since he talks the most about it. This is open for debate, but I think its pretty accurate.
I'm doing some reading right now on the history of hell and how our conception of it now, and even during the time of the apostles, has been influenced by the surrounding cultures and mythologies. I will write more on this once I have read more.
There is a lot cultural and traditional baggage that accompanies our idea of Hell these days. Not to say that it's bad, but it needs to be recognized as such. The more conservative and exlusivist views seem to toss out tradition and reason to strengthen their own eschatology. Good ol' GKC once said something along the lines of "tradition is the democracy of the dead. It reminds us not to be prejudiced against boices just because they are not here anymore."
Well fellows keep the dialogue going, this is great..."talking we went bravely on, even as a vessel urged by a good wind."
-Purgatorio
And yes, I am fully conscious that all my material is just quotes ripped off from other scholars, but I am comfortable with that. Like Trembling said, i will soon try to contribute some of my own thoughts on the matter.
Cheers to you all
you know csu, that's some good ground work you've done there. i appreciate it. i've done some links on the sidebar to some key texts, however i may be missing some and it may be biased to one view but at least they might help.
one thing you said: i'm not sure how the conservatives and exclusivists have tossed out tradition on this one, could you enlighten me?
i have to say, i'm not buying this second-chance idea in large part because of the rich man & lazarus thing but also i think because of jesus incarnation. i'm not sure why.
in a way i guess i just feel like we're told in the bible that this life matters and what we do with it matters and there is an urgency to what we do here. also, when it says some go to eternal life and some to eternal punishment i don't see how you can get out of something eternal once you are in it.
that cs lewis stuff is interesting. you see this in The Last Battle when that servant of Tash is allowed into the new Narnia by Aslan too. i don't know. i've said before that sometimes i think we'll be surprised how many people are in heaven, and sometimes i think we'll be surprised how few.
in the end i think we have to view this life as our chance to reach people with the life and love of Jesus and our doctrine of hell should be faithful to his teaching and to that sense of urgency because that's the way the Word puts it.
however. there is something to be said for those verses you've quoted, albeit the romans 8 one seems a bit weak. another verse i might add to your cause is the one where it suggests Jesus preached to the dead (in hell?). this would imply there was some hope for them wouldn't it? also the many texts that say every knee will bow and every tongue confess. that one stymies me, to be honest.
keep it up with the H-E-double hockey sticks
Great work Fear and CSU. Universalism is a stretch for me, as much as I'd love to believe every person gets another chance to make the right choice after they see the truth I don't know if that lines up with the urgency about this life as Fear put it. Great point by Fear about Jesus preaching to the dead, what's the deal with that anyway?
Interesting points as well about how many or how few might get to heaven and that Last Battle excerpt has always intrigued me. Virtuous deeds cannot be done for anyone other than God, even if you don't think you're serving God. He is love and all love is done for Him whether the person likes it or not.
The flipside is the sheep and the goats, the only time Jesus talked about judgement and he's got the goats calling him Lord and seeming shocked that they are being judged.
Underachiever is right, I still have his book on Hell, I'm trying to get through the purgatorial chapter but I'll try to get it back to you before this debate is over.
As for the Romans 8 passage I quoted. I wasn't trying to use that one to justify that second chance theory but rather to back up the C.S. Lewis quote with some scripture. I just meant that I would think it is possible that people who don't profess to be Christians or even to know Christ could be "led by the spirit of God" and thus be considered "children of God". Maybe that's a misinterpretation, but that was the idea the book I had been reading was trying to get across, and it seems like that's the point C.S was trying to make in the latter part of that quote. I grant that its probably likely the text was referring to Christians being led by the spirit.
Ah Fear, good catch on that part about conservatives tossing out tradition. That's not what I meant to say. I reread that paragraph and it was pretty convoluted. I meant to say that the conservative viewpoint will tend to sacrifice reason and experience while the more liberal can be tempted to let scripture and tradition slide in order to strengthen their view. I was just trying to say each end of the ideological spectrum seems to let some important things slide when the going gets rough. Plus, If I'm honest with myself that whole paragraph was just a vehicle to secure another GKC award come end of the month.
As for the second chance theory. I'm not trying to downplay the urgency in this life to share what we believe, because there will definitely be consequences to dying without christ, likely worse than we can imagine. I'm just not comfortable with limiting salvation and redemption to this side of eternity yet. But yet I'm not comfortable with not doing that either. Basically it's like flying on American Airlines, no matter what I do I can't get comfortable.
I'm not familiar with that text you referenced about Jesus preaching to the dead, that would be neat to read and get into. But the verse about every knee bowing and every tongue confessing is one of the major reasons I like to entertain the ideas of hell that I do. I'm sure the exclusivists would say something along the lines of; everyone will eventually acknowledge the lordship of Christ, but for many it will be to late to escape the eternal consequences. Those tending to universalism would prolly say something about how the prerequisites for salvation are the same regardless of which side of the divide you happen to be on. Who knows though.
I would like to hear some more from Tuna on the matter. He seems to have taken his this aggravated accosting thing too far since it is cutting into his Holy Crap time.
tuna is a busy man. but yeah, he needs to make a little time for hell i'd say.
in continuing the cs lewis aspect of this whole discussion i must say that while all virtuous deeds serve God, whether intentional or not, in the grand scheme of things you could say that less than virtuous ones end up serving him too. although i get what you are saying.
thing is, its kind of beside the point since since meatloaf is going to have as much of a chance getting outta hell on his motorcycle as any of us will on the basis of our virtuous deeds.
yes the use of rom 8 is probably out of context there csu, i get your point though. and the conservative liberal one is good too although i'd say conservatives are pretty heavy on reason actually. just not very reasonable about it soemtimes.
Thanks for keeping me honest there Dr. Fear.
Ya, by reason, in this case at least, I was referring to our ability to apply a good hermeneutical method to a passage of scripture and gain a good interpretation of the text in light of the cultural, historical, literary, etc....issues. In my experience the more conservative and traditional views tend to drop this sort of reasoning and take the text at face value when it doesn't jive with what they want to believe. Not that the liberals don't do the same thing. Anyways...
Cool email from AAHZMANDIUS too, thanks for posting that. That names reminds me of Percy Shelly's poem, Ozymandius. I remember trying to impress girls by reciting that poem back in the day, bah who am I kidding, that could have been last week.
Good points in that email. We definitely can't avoid talking about Hell from the pulpit even if it is a difficult topic. Later on in the month I hope that we can bat that idea around a bit and discuss how we might preach/teach Hell while avoiding giving the impression of trying to scare people into heaven.
Here's the only thing I think we can know for certain about Hell right now: Its horrific and I don't ever want to experience it, or want anyone else to experience it. Can anyone add any thing else to the list that you would consider a certainty?
The text of Jesus preaching to the dead is found in one of Peter's epistles. In this case, I think it refers to him descending to the realm of the dead (Hades or Sheol), not to "hell". It's a neat thought that Jesus went to this realm after he died. Through his death, Jesus made access to heaven possible and went to hades to invite the grateful dead to come with him. He preached the gospel to those who had died before him. Although it's likely figurative, how cool would that conversation have been? Jesus introducing himself to Isaiah as the Christ. Sorry for the rabbit trail and borderline blasphemy.
Another sidepoint: This is why we have that line in the apostle's creed: "[Jesus] descended to hell (or the dead)". Did he go to the firey hell where satan reigns and Homer eats millions of donuts? I doubt it. I think that phrase is important to combat the idea that Jesus didn't really die. This line basically says: Jesus died, and he REALLY did die. He died so much that he actually went to the realm of the dead.
csu - The only other certainty I could come up with in my very limited mental capacity is that hell does exist. It's not an empty threat. As November's chief among sinners, I am the first who deserves hell. I guess that could be another certainty: we all deserve it.
i think that's a pretty excellent assessment of the "descended into hell" line. good catch on "ozymandius" as well. I wasn't quite sure what to make of that.
you are right about the dangers of presupposition-driven hermeneutics, which is basically what you are talking about. i mean, i guess we all have them, but you have to be able to put your presuppositions out there and hear from others in order to get a balanced interp. hence the need for theology in community and not by hierarchy. even the pope calls his bishops around him to make theological decisions.
i think another thing that can be said for certain about hell is that it is an experience of isolation. am i biblical in saying that? i think so, but maybe not based on the explicit hell passages, i don't know. best sermon i ever heard on hell was tim moore at youth conference. he pulled out "my own prison" by creed and talked about gnashing your teeth as an image of great regret and the anguish of isolation.
i feel that hits the nail on the head, and it puts the whole "hell is a party" mentality of our culture in a dreadfully tragic light.
I think the "hell is a party" thing is just a way for people who've been burned by someone religous to belittle their belief. I can't imagine that anyone actually believes in a fun hell where are the cool people are because to have an alternate interpretation of the Christian concepts of Heaven and Hell is to also believe in them.
Rabbit trail: it's like the fear of Satanism in some Christian circles. It's ridiculous to believe there are people out there who believe in the same God and Devil Christians do and choose the Devil.
Back to hell, could it be that it's not the same for everyone? I mean if it's about punishment and justice any parent will tell you each kid needs to be punished in different ways.
I still have trouble lining up my image of a Gracious God with the idea of eternal torment for not believing in Jesus. Your mailbag quote is interesting but I'm not sure about the claim that God's punishment for rejecting Him is mentioned more in the Bible than his love and Grace. Especially if we're talking post-Jesus since Jesus' work kinda changed our relationship to God.
fyi, in the full email from that dude he said he needed to check that stat out himself. still a point there though. there is a lot of wrath and judgment in the bible.
God of grace vs God who is holy. this is the trouble. how far gone are we I wonder? i think pretty far. my problem isn't so much with hell as how we could be allowed to get so far gone. i have a well argued article about that basically saying its our own fault, and actually more the church's fault. i'll have to share that sometime somehow.
good insight on the hell party and Satanism. i fully acknowledge people are joking when they say it, but its still sad. heck, i joke about hell too though so what can i say. joking more about the topic than the actual place.
about different kinds of punishment. i was intrigued as i did a bit of reading on this last week that a real conservative (hank hanegraaff) stated that there would be different degrees of punishment in hell. i'd have to look again to know where he gets that, but i haven't heard him or anyone explain that much.
Okay, I've been having such a hard time deciding what I think on this topic that it's kept me from posting anything at all. Also, I've only barely gotten into some of the reading I want to do on it, so these are some of my thoughts at this point.
Fear, interesting that you posted that question about different degrees of punishment in hell, as I just finished reading about it. Millard J. Erickson in "Christian Theology" quotes Matt 11:21-24 when Jesus says "Woe to you Korazin! Woe to you Bethsaida...it will be more bearable for Tyre and Sidon on the day of judgment than for you...etc." I don't know what I think about that yet, but that might be where the idea is coming from that you came across.
I want to be an annihilationist, but I don't think I am. I was reading 2 Thess 1:9, "They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power..." And Phil 3:18-19, "For, as I have often told you before and now say again even with tears, many live as enemies of the cross of Christ. Their destiny is destruction..." Destruction to me seems like a permanent removal, so I was starting to lean toward the totally consuming fire thought mentioned by Tanti. (There is a punishment of fire, but perhaps it consumes people and they're gone forever.)
Then I read Mark 9:42-48 talking about cutting off you hand or foot if it causes you to sin because that would be better than going to hell where "the fire never goes out." Mark also quotes from Isaiah 66 saying, "their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched." Also, Matt 25:46 says, "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life." If the word "eternal" is meant to mean unending duration in regards to life, then it must also mean that in regards to the punishment part. (That thought was from Erickson- not my own.)
So, here's the question I have today. When God created us in his image, were we made to be immortal or temporal? If we were created to be immortal, then those who don't repent will still live forever, but apart from God. If we were created to be temporal then God could grant eternal life to those who repent and simply allow those who didn't accept Christ to cease to exist at death. I however, think I believe the former, so I don't see humans suddenly getting out of their very nature as a way of "escaping" eternal punishment for rejecting God.
I'm not sure about all of these things, or how I'm coming across today because I can't write long. I don't have pasta cooling, but my eyelids are very heavy... This topic has been very challenging, and I'm grateful for the chance to ponder it like this.
its interesting to me that some of you don't say anything until you know what you think, whereas i say stuff so i can figure out what i think. sorry for "talking" so much. i really want to hear what you all have to say. even just ideas. hansens you have made some excellent biblical points there and basically done in one post what i wish i could have done with my 23, or however many i've done.
by the way, how is it that no one thinks i would beat tuna or trembling in a paper/rock/scissors competition? amazing. i didn't know that about myself.
I would always bet on fear in any competition of any kind, especially paper/rock/scissors.
I wanted to comment quickly on thehansens post.
Were we eternal beings before sin? I think so. Did sin end our right to that and is eternal life now the reward for accepting redemption through Christ?
Also, as an aspiring annihilationist I will say that I don't think any of your passages are a problem. The fire never goes out and is never quenched, this is talking about the fire and I can believe that the fire is always there but that doesn't need to mean that the people are. The language there implies a fire that is consuming, it's never quenched, as in it is capable of consuming everything thrown into it. I'm not sure why the fire would need to be there forever unless the devil is never consumed or something. Finally, being destroyed is an eternal punishment, you're gone eternally.
I still don't know, just some thoughts.
I have a hard time with people eternally suffering in hell while the saved are hanging out in paradise. It just doesn't jive with my "God is love" mindset.
I do understand the hansen's (and miller's) point about eternal bliss vs. eternal punishment. and yes, it is a bit of a head scratcher. but as tt points out, being annihilated is an eternal punishment.
One of the passages that seems to be used by both traditionalists and annihilationist is Rev. 21:8. I see the emphasis more on the "second death" part. To me this indicates the destruction of the immortal (as contradictory as that is).
As far as the argument that God has created us immortal so we can't lose that, Matthew 10:28 seems to say that the immortality can be lost (while other well-known passages say it can be gained).
I look forward to reading other's thoughts and hope my iron gets sharpened.
rutgers
I understand how annihilationism is eternal punishment without being eternal torment but I think what bothers me about that point of view is that it gets nonbelievers off the hook. It's either paradise or nothingness. It's conscious bliss and unconcious punishment (meaning that once you're nothing you don't realize what you're missing).
From the point of view of someone who will be in paradise, I understand that paradise is the thing to look forward to. If annihilationism is true, I'm bothered that nonbelievers can live enjoyably debauched lives now and the consequence is unconsciously missing out on something better. If you're no longer consciously made to realize the punishment for sin then it doesn't seem to be punishment anymore. I understand that it is still separation from God but I wonder whether it's actually punishment.
Perhaps a comparison might be a criminal who breaks the law and instead of being put in jail is forced to serve out his time in a medically induced coma. He wakes up 25 years later and goes back to living his life. I understand that his 25 years away from everyone else is punishment for his crime but he slept the whole time and didn't have to deal with it. Perhaps it's pretty right-wing of me but I like the fact that the criminal's punishment is not just being locked away but having to make license plates and think about his punishment. (I know this example is full of holes but I'm just talking it out as I process my thinking). Also, I expect my license plate in heaven will be tempered in the furnace of hell.
Wait, maybe here's a better example: Children face bullies. If little Billy was bullied, his parents might tell him that when he grows up he'll "get back at those bullies" by living a better life. So Billy grows up and becomes Bill Gates, world's richest man. He lives the epitome of successful life (of course, with the exception of still being a nerd -- haha). Is the bully punished for his bullying? No, because he has no idea how good the other person's life is.
I'm not into salvation as a get-out-of-hell-free card but a healthy fear of hell sure isn't a bad thing to have. Can you fear unconscious separation from God if we don't fully understand and appreciate the conscious enjoyment of God?
Okay, I've probably repeated myself here a bunch of times; just thinking this stuff through.
Some thoughts from the book underachiever mentioned that he leant me. The chapter on Hell as an end, a destruction, is written by Clarke H. Pinnock.
Pinnock reminds us of some OT passages that speak of judgement - Psalm 37:2 - the wicked will fade like the grass and whither like the herb :9 they will be cut off and be no more :20 they will perish and vanish like smoke :38 they will be altogether destroyed. Also Malachi 4:1-2 - "The day of judgment is coming, burning like a furnace. On that day the arrogant and the wicked will be burned up like straw. They will be consumed—roots, branches, and all."
Pinnock also says in an overall sense: "The Bible uses the language of death and destruction, of ruin and perishing, when it speaks of the fate of the impenitent wicked. It uses the imagery of fire that consumes whatever is thrown into it...One receives the impression that 'eternal punishment' refers to a divine judgment whose results cannot be reversed rather than to the experience of endless torment...Although there are many good reasons for questioning the traditional view of the nature of hell, the most important reason is the fact that the Bible does not teach it."
The book is a Counterpoints book and the other three scholars speak out against Pinnock's conclusions but mainly rely on the "eternal punishment is what has always been taught" arguement rather than taking on Pinnock on a Scriptural level.
dust
I hope Pinnock used other Scripture, too, because developing theology only from poetic language is dangerous. The OT idea of reward for a righteous life and punishment for an unrighteous is very temporal. The reward for a righteous life was land & offspring (i.e. the covenant of Abraham). The reward for an unrighteous life was the opposite. Death (Sheol) was an airy and unknown thing. The unrighteous would have nothing to show for their life while the righteous, through their children and land would have something go on for generations. Psalm 32 uses this covenant language to talk about inheriting the land forever.
Specifically in Psalm 32, we also see other poetic language at work that we know to be figurative: 32:25 is a good example because obviously some righteous people somewhere have their children begging for bread. 32:28 suggests that the offspring of the wicked will be cut off, yet none of us are arguing that children are punished for the disbelief of their parents. 32:31 suggests that the feet of the righteous man do not slip and yet I have slipped on more than one occasions (although perhaps it's because I'm a chief among sinners).
And in Malachi 4:1-2 we see similar poetic language and we have to be careful how much we read into it. (For example, when we leap like calves released from the stall, does that mean we'll run around on all fours? Will we be mooing? etc.).
My point is that OT writing and especially OT poetic writing is a tough place to create an argument from... in the same way that we get frustrated with pro-rapture eschatology based on readings from Revelation.
I'm not harshing on Tony Tanti but rather on Pinnock. Did he use any other verses?
I tried to get this point across in a previous post. It seems to me that the issue is not in the eternality of the punishment, nor necessarily in the torment, but rather it seems like the crux of the argument between traditionalists and annihilationists seems to be whether the punishment is conscious... i.e., will the punished understand their separation from God for eternity?
Am I off on this? Is this close? Perhaps if we can identify the nucleus of the argument we can talk about Scripture that addresses it but otherwise both sides are going to use similar scripture to get to a different point.
Pinnock uses a lot of other scripture, much of it has already been mentioned. I certainly didn't mean to give the impression that the verses I was including were the only ones he used for his rationale. I cited a few examples of passages noone had brought up yet that illustrate Pinnock's point in the quote I used, namely that the symbolism of fire in the Bible is referring to destruction. I'm well aware that to only use those verses would be a very incomplete arguement.
I see what Trembling is saying about punishment for sin, I guess I would say that to be consumed by fire would be quite a punishment, even if it didn't last forever. Personally I feel like eternal torment doesn't fit with a merciful God though temporary suffering I might be able to grasp. (Not that I have to understand something for it to be true.) I think the only way your coma analogy makes sense is if in the analogy the criminal's coma is induced through intense suffering for a limited amount of time. Would that not be punishment?
trembling, i do think the issue is the concious suffering. i think the verses tanti quoted from pinnock are a good reminder that there are metaphors in scripture to support both arguments. I wonder if the conscious torment in hell is more of this isolation idea and not so much this writhing agony in an eternal fire. i am intrigued by tanti's idea of a temporary conscious suffering followed by extinction,
however...
GOd is merciful, yes. but aren't we living in mercy already? isn't this our chance right here? that's what the parable of lazarus and the rich man and the overall urgency of scripture implies.
God is just, too. i think of those people butchered in the Rwandan genocide. When is there to be justice? Genocidal murderers of equal atrocity to Saddam are living it up today all over the place. Where is the justice? I don't want to be a dink (I deserve to rot in hell myself but for the grace of God) but when I read about infants slaughtered in cold blood, with blood dripping from a man's hands as he laughs and butchers another, if fills me with rage. Imagine the holy God.
And to think that Jesus called my hatred the equivalent of murder. My sin must be horrific in his eyes too.
I don't know. I just think its awfully kind of God to give us another day on this filthy planet. I sound like a right wing fundy right now and I know it, but I guess I'm just trying to express that other side of the coin while I feel it because so often I am comfy cozy in my naive assumption that we're all okay.
I mentioned this before, but to me another central issue here, trembling, is:
1) How does God let it get so depraved in this world? Is it the church's fault? If so how could he leave us with this responsibility? He had to know we'd let him down. And why do we have so much dang freedom? God seems to value our freedom more than we do. He'll let us burn in hell for our freedom to choose him or choose our own way.
That's my thoughts today. Thank God for Jesus. If only more could know his life.
Is there a Biblical backing for the assumption that our souls are eternal? I can't find it. The annihilationists I've read claim that this idea comes from Helenistic thinking and isn't Biblical. The problem is many people assume the soul is indestructable, eternal, etc... and they look at passages on hell through that lense. But is it a Biblical lense?
If you take off that lense the scripture on hell actually sounds a lot like it's talking about a final destruction. I guess that's just my opinion.
As far as a copout, I guess that's one way to put it. But if not making people endure physical and/or mental anguish and torment for eternity is a copout then I'm perfectly willing to believe in a God who "cops out" on this one.
The Lazarus story keeps coming up here. Underachiever and I were hanging out last night and talking about all this and he showed me a book of Catholic doctrine. We read this books dealing of the Lazarus story and of the 2 Peter passage about Jesus preaching to the "spirits in prison" and Catholic doctrine says he went to Hades, the place of the dead. Neither heaven nor hell. That he preached to the faithful that went before him and opened the gates of heaven. The belief is that there were different states in Hades but that all the dead were there before Jesus opened heaven's gates. (correct me if I'm wrong here underachiever) So Lazarus was at Abraham's side and in a far better part of Hades. In fact there was a chasm between him and the rich man. Neither were in heaven or hell though according to this line of thinking. The really interesting part is the wording at the end when the rich man asks Abraham to send Lazarus back to earth to tell his relatives who are alive about their fate and Abraham tells him they have all the info they need to make their choice and that they wouldn't be convinced even if someone rose from the dead. The dead being a state of being and a place - Hades, the thought is that Jesus went there before rising "from the dead."
It's weird stuff but very interesting and I suppose this is where purgatorial thinking comes from so I'm not sure what I make of it yet but I think we all acknowledge on here that the afterlife is not all that cut and dry and easy to understand and that the Bible has some mysterious things to say about it.
good points. from what you are saying it sounds like the lazarus passage doesn't allow for second-chance universalism but does allow for annhialationism.
isn't annhialationism basically saying there is no hell? basically you die. Perish. That's it. am i right?
interesting that there are a lot of biblical texts that lend themselves to this idea. But then again, where does the weeping and gnashing of teeth happen?
today in pentateuch we are looking at the fall account and it is interesting that once sin enters the picture adam and eve are banished from the tree of life.
the prof said clearly God didn't want them as monsters walking the earth in an eternal state of sin.
i asked him after if this lends itself to annhialationist thought and he said, basically, that it may, but that there are way too many passages to deal with first before he'll conclude that.
this is a big topic. i have to admit i am going to be reading the bible for a long time now looking to figure this out. I'm more open to annhialationism now but still believe our time on earth is still incredibly urgent and that while it may seem more merciful of God to annhialate sinners, I'm willing of course to admit that God is justified in doing whatever he is doing.
God is justified in whatever he's doing, I agree. Is that because He's God and can do whatever he wants or is it that he is God and God is love and is incapable of doing wrong so all His actions are just? Would it be ok to torture people forever no matter what they've done? Maybe it is and I have a limited understanding of justice but that's the question.
Also, fear, all the annihilationists I've read believe there is a very real hell and that it's fire consumes. Or if the fire is a metaphor for other suffering the suffering is still a reality. Just not eternal.
You mentioned that your prof said "there are way too many passages to deal with first before he'll conclude that" referring to annihilationism. What are they? And are there any passages to support the eternal soul idea and if so how do you deal with Matthew 10:28 if the soul is eternal in and of itself? Is your prof saying that the tree of life was what made Adam and Eve eternal?
Matthew 10:28 - Don’t be afraid of those who want to kill your body; they cannot touch your soul. Fear only God, who can destroy both soul and body in hell.
i didn't have a chance to ask my prof what texts, and can't promise i'll get a chance anytime soon, but methinks i need to go on a scripture hunt to find what the strongest texts are because i don't want to just keep assuming they are out there and not ever quote them. you are making good arguments. i don't think i've even felt like i'm arguing with you but i will admit i felt like the burden of proof was on the annhialationists, until recently. You have shifted the burden for me ... so well done.
When I say I think God is justified in whatever he does it is because I believe He is just and I believe the world is depraved and he has been incredibly gracious toward it already. it was interesting to notice in Gen 1-11 today that God just keeps on giving humanity a chance.
and after the flood God put a rainbow in the sky as a reminder of his covenant not to "wipe out" the earth again. And it wasn't a reminder to us. It was a reminder to Him. Reminds me of that scene in Apollo 13 where Kevin Bacon puts a sticky note on a button to keep himself from ejecting the other two into space. (not that God would have the same motives in wiping us out, mind you)
Some quick thoughts about the immortality of the soul as a Hellenistic idea rather than a Biblical idea:
1. As I read through John, I keep on picking up on phrases Jesus uses where he gives people eternal life. John 4:14, 5:21, 6:27, 10:28, and 17:2 all say that Jesus gives eternal life. How can eternal life be given to an already immortal soul? If Christ gives life and sustains it, does absence of Christ mean absence of life as no other being can sustain life. How can someone who does not have eternal life be consciously tormented forever? Eternal death seems to be annihilationist thinking.
2. I think there will always be verses and arguments to counter the annihilationist position, just as there will be arguments against the other positions. Goes back to idea that we're probably not supposed to know for sure what hell (or even heaven) will be like. There definately is a hell though. The punishment is very real, just, and eternal.
3. One problem I have with throwing out Hellenistic worldviews (besides my love for bath-houses) is that the context in which the New Testament was written and received was very Helenistic. Jewish too, but with an overwhelming Greco-Roman presence. One who desires to read the text within its original context cannot totally discredit the Hellenistic milieu. I guess the question is, in light of the language Christ uses in John, does he think the soul is immortal? Or is he saying, "You believe that your soul is immortal, but I am the one who gives eternal life."
steam
Kevin Bacon!!! There needs to be a reward for that.
agreed! the "six degrees" award for connecting your post to kevin bacon?
What's everyone else thinking on this Hell stuff? Haven't heard from anyone but Trembles, Fearsy, underchieve or me for a week.
Greetings Tanti. Sorry for the lack of updates from the Coldstorageunit. I've been rereading some of my books on this topic to refresh my memory this past week. And to further strengthen my excuse, I have also been busy getting ready to head to Libya on saturday where I will experience first hand some of the closest temperatures to hell we have on this good earth. Hopefully that will give my comments on here a little more credibility.
As for the matter at hand. Cheers to you guys for getting dirty and diggin up some scripture to back up your points.
Mr. Underachiever. I am curious about the texts you listed that reference eternal life. I am wondering if these basically are referring to eternal life in heaven, or just eternal life in and of itself (regardless of heaven or hell). Because if this is just another way of referring to salvation in heaven then it wouldn't matter if the soul was immortal already, it's basically just refining the destination its headed to.
It would be interesting for those of you greek scholars out there to maybe figure whether those texts are referring to paradise or a just a general concept of immortality.
That Matthew 10:28 verse is pretty compelling. I've never looked at it under an eschatological light before. It's curious where we get the idea of an immortal soul. I guess I've always kind of just taken that for granted. It'll be interesting to see what verses we can come up with dealing on the supposed immortality of the soul. I'm going to start looking around after work to see what i can come up with.
As for the urgency fear mentions. I don't think that annihilationism, or even universalism, would lessen it in any way. Regardless of each of ours particular views concerning the nature of hell and its population, we still have the great commission, there's no getting around it. Granted we as people are weak, and an universalist eschatology would no doubt make slacking off easier to justify in one's mind.
The more we get into this it seems like there are so many passages that offer strong support for each different theory, even the much maligned second chance theory; and plenty of texts to call into question each theory as well.
Lets keep digging deeper for a while longer. Then if we could take the last week or so of the month and shift the discussion more to the pragmatic side. I still want to know how all of this affects our lives and our witness.
Cheers to Underachiever for the Rutgers reference. My second favourite US university, close behind Gonzaga.
is Tuna alive?
Tuna has been dead for years; it's simply been inertia that keeps moving him forward.
tuna has been to hell and back several times so I too am anxious about he has to say.
sitting in pentateuch i am struck by how often it seems God is holding back from just wiping everyone out. i am losing my grip on the traditionalist stance, although since i haven't had time to do the study justice am still wavering on the precipice of annhialationism.
i doubt i'll ever be a second chance universalist, as attractive as it is in some ways. an over-optimistic universalist maybe, but that too is doubtfull. having said that, given his greatness i would follow coldstorageunit pretty much anywhere, including libya. have a good time there csu, but watch out for those libyans. you saw what they almost did to Michael J Fox's Delaurien
1. Michael J Fox & Crispin Glover (Back to the Future).
2. Crispin Glover & Drew Barrymore (Charlies Angels)
3. Drew Barrymore & Val Kilmer (Batman Forever).
4. Val Kilmer & Tom Cruise (Top Gun).
5. Tom Cruise & Kevin Bacon (A Few Good men).
Hmmm... 5 steps. Can I do better?
1. Michael J Fox & Elisabeth Shue (Back to the Future 2).
2. Elisabeth Shue & Kevin Bacon (Hollow Man).
Wow, 2 steps!!!
nicely done, but i'll do you one better: apparently michael j. fox's wife was dating kevin bacon during the time that she worked on the set of family ties.
Wow. What did Michael J. Fox think of his wife dating someone else? Wouldn't he have been upset about that?
1) Michael J. Fox & Michael J. Fox's Wife
2)Michael J. Fox's Wife & Kevin Bacon
-Correct me if I'm wrong but that only matches tremblings feat of two degrees of separation.
Michael J. Fox is Kevin Bacon.
Think about it, have you ever seem them both in the same room?
have you ever seen tuna with either of them?
tuna is currently on a reforesting expedition in the himalayas with the both of them. i'm starting to worry though if maybe they are stranded and tuna had to eat one of them to survive.
Alright, funny quips everyone but lets get back on track. I believe at some point CSU wanted to transition to practical application of what you believe about Hell. How does it affect your witness? Your preaching? (if you do that sort of thing)
For me a leaning toward final destruction helps me to see God in a more merciful light which can only help my desire to introduce others to him. To be honest though I don't know how much Hell affects my life. A belief in its reality, no matter the nature of it, is enough for me. I've always been uneasy with hellfire preaching even before I'd given any thought to what hell is. I just don't see it being a focus of why Jesus calls people to follow him. Jesus came to give life and provide salvation. If someone doesn't believe that or want to accept Jesus should we then try to scare them into following Him? I've never been comfortable with that. I always hated that youth group skit where the person is in hell and yelling at their friends in heaven "why didn't you tell me?" I have a feeling that if a Christian has close friends who are unaware that they are a Christian they'll likely be down there with them.
As far as how we preach hell, I think I would never claim to know what it is. I would tell people the different ideas and say that it doesn't matter much what hell is, the point is you're supposed to invite people to heaven.
Ed Fudge
i keep coming back to the parable of the rich man and lazarus and when the rich man asks if he can send a warning about the afterlife to those still alive he is told "they have moses and the prophets" and if they don't believe them they won't believe anyone.
while i don't want necessarily avoid talking about hell, i think i am first and foremost interested in LIFE WITH GOD THROGH CHRIST and all that entails, in contrast with the isolation, grasping, regret, shame, guilt, discord, and death that we have or will inevitably have without Him.
so i guess i would preach hell, but more in the sense of how we see it in our current reality in the depravity of man. Although I think there is something to using the same imagery God uses, in the West this has come under some disrepute and is almost laughable or unecessarily offensive when we could talk instead in terms of what hell represents, namely those things I mentioned above.
but to me the point is always the positive message of love and life in Jesus, not merely as an escape, but as Life of Everlasting Quality, which we miss at our own expense.
save tuna
Cheers to Tanti for keeping us on the straight and narrow. We might as well get into some of this practical stuff about how we deal with hell.
In my experience hell has always been used as a tool to scare people into coming to church and then to scare them into buying whatever the preacher is selling. Sounds harsh, but that's how its always seemed to me. Take away heaven and hell and how many people would still be practicing christians. For how many is the message and life of Christ sufficient for obedience; the number is lower than we might expect methinks. I think the message of the gospel should be preached and practiced based on the life and teachings of Christ; heaven is the gravy, the cherry on top, and i suppose hell could be really spicey gravy or something.
So what I'm trying to say is that hell should be preached and discussed, always acknowledging how little we can know for sure about it. Any time i've ever heard hell preached it has been from the perspective of this is what you can avoid if you subscribe to a certain set of beliefs. I have never heard a sermon on the nature of hell, or competing eschatological theories, or anything of that nature. that being said, when i read texts where hell is spoken of in scripture it always seems to be used more as a warning, almost as though it was intended to scare people into making the right decisions.
I have had many non-christian friends and coworkers ask me whether I think they will burn in a lake of fire for eternity if they don't believe what I believe. I always try to downplay the consequences, saying that I don't believe the lake of fire to be literal and that the punishment might actually play out alot different, like extinction or solitude or something. But I wonder how I can to get across the idea that I do believe dying without Christ will be a horrifying experience, without the scare tactics, but while still maintaining the urgency that Dr. Fear speaks about. Any suggestions? I suspect that often my ideas on eschatology do soften my resolve to share my faith, it shouldn't, but it does. So how do we maintain our passion for non-believers if our ideologies on hell seem to be less scary than the traditional view.
porkchop
When I was 12 I remember being at a revival meeting of some kind and the guy was preaching about Christ's second coming and all the trumpets and what not and then out of nowhere as a preplanned thing they had the synthesizer blare trumpet sounds.
It scared the crap out of me. I went forward of course, even though I was at that point already a Christian. It makes me a little angry how I was manipulated.
But anyway, I was thinking about what I was scared of. And you know what it was? I thought the trumpets had sounded, Christ had come, and I had missed it. I wasn't afraid of hell. I was afraid I'd missed out.
Now, I don't think we should downplay hell. I think it is a reality we need to really think about and talk about. But let's talk about the horrific situation of being separated from the life-giver, the Creater, the God of all things good, and the gracious source of love. Let's talk about missing out.
But the thing that this demands is that we live like its important that people don't miss out. It demands we live like people who have that life and love inside them.
And this is where preaching hell gets uneasy. I'm not sure our lives line up with that message. Its like yelling that someone is drowning in the next yard over and doing jack squat to get up and do anything about it because you are enjoying what you've got on the stereo at the moment.
i also want to say that I believe we should preach God's wrath. But wrath today, if I read Romans 1 right, is more about God letting us go our own way than God standing up there zapping people.
However, Revelation talks about fury. And quite frankly I think we have such a lame concept of sin and such a weak realization of the world's depravity that most evangelicals aren't even sure what God is so upset about.
This is a big problem. I think we need to talk about sin and depravity and the ends of those roads. I just don't know if hellfire and brimstone communicates that today. So I guess I am for preaching hell, but I believe the metaphorical language of the Bible needs to be tapped into for its message instead of relied on for a scary picture.
I don't know about the drowning person analogy. I mean isn't there a lifeguard called the Holy Spirit who convicts the world of it's sin and need to avoid "drowning"? In keeping with the drowning person analogy isn't my role to have told that person how much meaning my life has serving the God who doesn't want anyone to drown, in the end I don't have any power to actually save that person from drowning.
I remember that rally with the trumpet. That was fear mongering. I brought half a dozen friends to that and they all became Christians, for a week. It didn't stick because it didn't mean jack to them after they got home and the manipulative fear mongering words of the salesman had worn off.
We can't save people. If we're fortunate God might use us as part of someone's process of coming to know Him but in the drowning analogy we don't have the ability to pull them out.
I agree tanti, but two things:
1) all i was trying to say was that if we believe in hell we really ought to act like our faith is important. i don't think a lot of people who believe in hell actually think it important to tell anyone about Jesus, or hell, or anything else. This is what I was alluding to.
2) the Holy Spirit does the convicting, saving, etc... but has God not given us a huge hand in that? So its not ALL on us, but something huge IS on us, is it not?
ok, I have tuna here with me and I'm making him say something. He says he'd like to be an annhialationist but can't. (obviously he hasn't been reading along very well this month)
All he'll say about hell is that its bad.
I want to go on record and say that if tuna doesn't post anything this month he will be sent to holy crap purgatory and will have to earn his way back through penance.
Feel free to suggest things he can do to buy his way back.
boooooo tuna
Tuna must endure some sort of torment, but only temporarily. At the end of it he will either be purified or gone forever.
Here's his torment, he must read every post on Holy Crap from it's inception and he must post at least 5 times next month. Failing that he can be replaced by someone new.
All in favour?
As far as what you said on the hell topic Fear, I agree kinda. I still think my desire to have others know Christ should be almost solely for just that, so they can know Him, not to avoid punishment. If I can't control who gets the punishment and if I do my part to make sure everyone I know is aware of what I believe and I live it the best I can then isn't the fate of the person not my problem?
Is that a cop out?
What can I say, first I throw myself on the abounding mercies of you all. Except for Trembling, he has no mercy only rage.
It is intersting that it took the threat of punishment to get me back. Shouldn't be that I love being with you all and long for this community. Maybe if I knew that you all loved me and would die for me I wouldn't need the threat of punishment.
I do apoligize for being absent. Life has been busy with work and school but that is no excuse.
When I fist heard the topic I thought I would be writing about how Hell is defiently real and eterenal. I wanted to say that we should preach the doctrine of hell. After reading a few of your posts and thinking about it more I am way less inclined to belief what I thought earlier. I have two questions though, sorry if you answered these previously. 1) Why doesn't the Bible make it clear one way or the other about what Hell is? 2) Well actually the second isn't a question as much as a point. I wonder if I am inclined to preach about hell because it makes me concerned about the lost around me. For the most part it doesn't bother me that so many of my co workers and friends don't know Jesus, I mean are not Christians. This should bother me more but I am caught up in the concers of the day. Yes I would like to see them become Christians but their lostness doesn't cause me the pain it should and I know these people! What about the hundreds of people I have contact with?
Maybe preaching about hell is more about the preacher then it is the preachee (if that is word)?
Again I beg your mercies and plead for forgivness please don't strip me of the commerative Holy Crap ring and cape, I love them!
I am filled with rage.
Greetings from somewhere in the Sahara, i know not where. Although my bed is pretty nice and the food is marvelous.
The month is kind of winding down so maybe its a good time to call for some last thoughts and summations.
For my part I have enjoyed hearing what you all have had to say. My views and thoughts have been challenged and I have had plenty of new ideas opened up to me.
I think what is most poignant to me is the fact that there is not that much that we can really know for certain on this topic. Hell sucks, whatever it is, and it should really instill some urgency to the spreading of the good news that we believe. I came into this topic thinking that what specific ideas or thoughts we have concerning hell would have some wide ranging consequences on our how we lived out our faith, but now i'm not so sure. All of us brought so many different ideas and theories to the table here, but i think we are all well aware of the responsibility we have to share Christ and I don't think that diminishes too much based on our different eschatologies.
It sounds like we all would preach hell differently than what we have experienced in the past. That doesn't come as a surprise. But i think we agree that does need to be mentioned from the pulpit still. Just cause we can't know too much for certain shouldn't prevent us from talking and discussing and teaching the ideas.
I don't know if i will have an opportunity to check in again before this month ends, so thank you all for humouring me on the discussion this month.
You are all beauties.
lentil
not sure why things have slowed down here. maybe none of us knows what the hell we're talking about.
all i know is that our blog just got that much cooler when someone was able to post a comment from the Sahara. I think on the sidebar we need to have a tally of places we've posted from.
by the way, trembling and i have talked about making next month a rehash of the topics we've already covered, plus maybe another small topic, like Christmas comments (i.e. my proposal to rename the holiday Incarnation Day) or soemthing. then in the New Year we would proceed with topics from Under, Hansen, and Tuna (if he's still alive at that point). any objections?
okay. about hell. i think the language of hell and also the imagery of Revelation in the BIble tells us we better preach something pretty stark about the state of things without God. I think we should glean from the imagery what we think we're supposed to, but that it was also supposed to trigger the imagination.
once when I was speaking of existence without God I used donald miller's cartoon on loneliness from his "searching for God knows what". I'm not sure it captured all that the hell imagery does, but for me it had a similar effect.
when i was a boy i had a vision of heaven that was cold, lonely, and boring and i couldn't stand it. i was beside myself in childish anxiety, conflicted over whether i even wanted to go there. after coming to know the warmth and love of Jesus i realized that my vision was probably closer to hell than heaven, and it sticks with me to this day.
i wonder if the Bible isn't trying to give all of us one of those crisis moments, and that's what the hell passages are all about. it would be a shame to not find a way to be faithful to that in at least our preaching, if not also our sharing of the faith.
but tanti, i've been in agreement with you here that the love and life of Jesus is what we ought to sharing most.
I agree with your thoughts about next month. Though there is probably a lot to say about the Incarnation and loss of Christmas (or at least the complete misunderstanding and secularization of Christmas).
Now to the topic on hand, the lack of description about hell and even the little knowledge of heaven should challenge our notion of salvation. For many of us, Christianity is about a ticket to heaven and get out of hell free card. There is probably some truth to that but for the most part it is missing the point. Like Fear said, it is about being in relationship with the Triune God. This relationship makes a difference know and will make a difference eternally. The traditional church, bye that I mean modern evangelicalism, has sold us a lie or at least an incomplete gospel. We need to focus on the perfection that comes through relationship with the Triune God. I do think there is a place to speak about Hell but we need to get beyond "the ticket to heaven" gospel we have been sold.
Apologies for not posting anything of quality in the past couple weeks (and some would argue that I've never posted anything of quality -- haha) as things have been busy on the workfront.
I really appreciate the blog this month. While we've had great interaction in previous blogs I think this blog embodies exactly what I was hoping for: disparate views debated with grace. While I have not changed my viewpoint on the reality of Hell as an eternal torment, it has driven me to my Bible and the many dusty theology textbooks I own and enjoy reading but rarely open. It has forced me to really consider topics I never thought about before and (more importantly) determine why I believe what I believe.
It's nice, from time to time, when we all agree on a topic (i.e., women in ministry) but I found this topic a very engaging one... on a completely unexpected topic.
Does it change how I preach about Hell? I don't think so because I rarely preach to begin with and after my pastor read the women in ministry blog I don't think that I'll ever be preaching again! (Just kidding). My preaching is really influenced by Remin's Greek Exegesis 3 & 4, and since there really aren't a lot of clear Hell passages (as we've discovered here), it's not likely that an exegetical approach to sermon prep will take me to a sermon on Hell.
In our preaching, Hell deserves to be mentioned but not as an end in itself, nor as a means to an end (conversion), rather it needs to be mentioned briefly as a reality (whatever that looks like for the two views expressed in this blog) and then the preacher needs to move on to the hope we have in Christ and what a life with Christ means for today.
After a long hiatus, I am finally posting again for fear of being the next member to face possible excommunication. I would also point to excuses of sickness and busyness if it weren't for that damned CSU who went and posted from the Sahara... (Not damned in the eternal sense, of course.) I'm most sorry about missing a couple of weeks of reading this blog because I missed out on hearing fear use the term, "right wing fundy." Quality terminology.
Okay, I know we're drawing to a close and working on the pragmatics of this months discussion, but I have a couple of thoughts. CSU asked earlier how many people would still be practicing Christians if we took away the concepts of heaven and hell. Then, to further the arguement, Tuna finally posted on this blog only under the threat of punishment. Much like my children at their young age who often only obey me when faced with the consequence of punishment. I think it's important that we not lose sight of the fact that the Bible does imply there are serious consequences to not accepting Christ, and I don't think it's limited to just not knowing the peace and joy of relationship with him in this life. Though, granted, that is the better thing. It is human nature to need reward and/or punishment for obedience and/or disobedience. I think this carries over to the sharing of our faith. We need some kind of motivator. It's sad, but true. Sadder still, is I feel the need to share the gospel with my unsaved friends and family more urgently when I think they're faced with horrible punishment than when I think they'll just miss out on a great relationship with Jesus. (I feel bad even saying this, but it's true.) It's not because I don't value my relationship with Christ above all things, but because it seems easier to think they'll just miss out on something great, than that they'll face something awful.
An example would be my kids. Sure, I'd really like it my son would find himself a great wife one day and experience a wonderful relationship with her. But, I really, really hope he never gets brutally attacked and murdered. (These 2 events are not related, lest you think you've lost my train of thought.) You see what I'm saying? I'd like him to experience something wonderful, but not as much as I'd like him NOT to experience something horrible. In that way, I agree with Tuna, that in some ways, the concept we have of hell may be more of a motivator for the "preacher as opposed to the preachee."
I have to confess though, after all these posts, I'm still not sure where I stand. I keep starting to type what I think I've concluded and then I erase it because I'm still not entirely convinced. That's okay. This one is still a theological work in progress. As long as my theology doesn't lead me to a place where I forget that, although the Holy Spirit may be the lifeguard by the pool of the previously mentioned drowning person, I am still the bystander required to pitch in. The Spirit and should both be trying to prevent the drowning, and I have not been doing enough of this for most of my Christian life.
And how did I walk away with the "raptured first" poll?
i'm not sure if its your holiness, or women and children first.
If it's any consolation thehansens I didn't vote for you in the rapture poll. I think only one person will be raptured, Tim Lahaye, and God will only rapture him for a couple minutes to explain to him that there's no rapture and then send him back. Maybe Kirk Cameron too, I'm not sure.
Good summation thoughts this week. I agree that I don't have a hard and fast conclusion on what my opinion is on this topic. I debated one side here because that is where I lean and I ended up a little more convinced to lean that way at the end.
One thing I wanted to say before we switched to December and new topic. Trembling, you mentioned that this topic was good because of so many divergent views and I agree. You also mentioned dusting off some books to help you through your view on this and you came out still believing in eternal torment. Can I ask why?
I know a few of you lean that way and I'm not begrudging that opinion but outside of the philosophical soul-is-eternal arguement I'm not sure I remember anyone making a Biblical stand for this line of thinking. Did I miss something?
I suppose depending on your starting point (ie: the assumption about the eternality of the soul) you could argue your point with all the same scripture an annihilationist would use.
Tony Tanti wrote: "Trembling, you mentioned that this topic was good because of so many divergent views and I agree. You also mentioned dusting off some books to help you through your view on this and you came out still believing in eternal torment. Can I ask why?"
I'm afraid that the reason is not of any great theological importance. I wasn't as engaged this month in the blog because of work. And often I take longer than a month to made decisions on these things. They tend to sit in my mind like a piece of grit in my eye: not doing anything but incredibly annoying and sharp and always there... and it takes some time to work out. On some issues (like women in ministry and the rapture) they'll be all I can think about for months and months and I'll read everything in sight on the issue until I come to a conclusion because I literally can't sleep at night without having reached one. On other topics, like this one, I see the divergent points of view, I think both sides still believe in essentially an eternal punishment, and I find that I don't lose sleep over it. But mostly it was a lot of work demands that crowded my time.
Even though I haven't come over to the other side, I do appreciate hearing other ideas because honestly, before this topic was mentioned, I never gave it a second thought.
this is why our next month is dedicated to tying up loose ends. we certainly can't solve things in a month ... but by the end of the year we sure better!
i have to confess that as one of the people who would have come into this discussion representing the traditional view I did a bad job sticking up for it.
quite frankly i could not find the motivation to dig hard enough. i don't want to believe in a hell of eternal torment. and i found each annhialationist rebuttal quite convincing. so i certainly wouldn't close the book on this one but i have probably changed my default view.
is that because i'm believing what i wanted to believe?
truthfully, part of it might be that i know i'll be able to depend on a lot of people in my tradition to stick up for that view to their dying breath so i have the security to go and "try on" some other ideas. but what when annhialationism is the traditional view? i'm not sure we'll have the same sense of our depravity, the same sense of urgency to this life and the decision for Christ. I even wonder, do we believe annhialation is more just, or do we believe in it as an act of grace?
i think we deserve everything we get, but at the same time I look around and see alot of people who seem to come by their sins "honestly", so to speak. so i don't know.
did i just say that? see, isn't this a huge softening of the doctrine of sin?
look for the next post to be an opportunity to tie up some loose ends. and trembling needs to decide on this issue by Christmas. None of this radical middle crap!
Post a Comment