PDA

View Full Version : Re-examining Hell?



mikebr
Jul 28th 2008, 08:50 PM
Brian McLauren’s 5 proposals for reexamining hell.
Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?:hmm:


First, I’d suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”



Second, I’d encourage people who say, “Well, what about Matthew 25:41?” or some other specific passage to also pay attention to the reasons those passages give for people experiencing those negative consequences. Jesus never says, “If you don’t believe in a particular theory of atonement . . .” or “If you don’t accept me as your personal Savior by saying the sinner’s prayer . . .” then you’ll experience the lake of fire. That’s not what he says.


Third, we need to re-sensitize ourselves to Jesus’ use of figurative language. We act as if “metaphorical” were a small thing, and concrete/literal were a big thing, but that’s the reverse of what I see in Jesus’ teaching. I think about John 6, for example, where Jesus talks about people eating his flesh and drinking his blood, and then says his flesh and blood are real food and drink. They take his statements non-metaphorically and concretely, and they miss the point.


Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.


Finally, I think we can leave some theoretical questions unanswered because what we need to know is very clear: God is love. God is gracious. God is just. God is holy. And these things are never in tension, but are always perfectly integrated. God’s love and mercy are always just and holy. God’s justice and holiness are always loving and merciful. God shows his perfect integration of love and justice through sending his Son to live and die as one of us. We see God’s love and justice perfectly expressed as the Word-made-flesh spreads out his arms on the cross to offer himself as the perfect sacrifice for all sin, once and for all, saying, not “Father, repay them for their evil deed,” but “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.”

http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/05/brian_mclarens_1.html

Athanasius
Jul 28th 2008, 09:41 PM
Brian McLaren... Nope.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 28th 2008, 10:06 PM
Brian McLauren’s 5 proposals for reexamining hell.
Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?:hmm:












http://blog.christianitytoday.com/outofur/archives/2006/05/brian_mclarens_1.html



The problem is McLaren oversimplifies each interpretation. You have to remember that he is bringing a radical hermeneutic to the Scripture - essentially, it's based on the 'gut reading' or placing the Scripture within our own context. We learn what Scripture means for today rather than what it meant at that time.

Though Jesus' discussion of Hell as a place of brimstone and fire might be metaphorical, what isn't metaphorical is the idea of a place of separation postmortem does exist. The concept of Hell is found more in His parables than in His actual direct teaching. Often He uses the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in order to emphasize that those who are not ready or do not ascribe to a certain belief will, in fact, be tormented for eternity.

Hell, thus, is an actual place where people go because they didn't commit their lives to Christ (they were unprepared). This involves both theological systems (of the essential kind) and committing one's life.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 01:27 AM
Think we can stick to the message and leave the messenger alone?:hmm:

:BGuess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted. :B


.........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?

Literalist-Luke
Jul 29th 2008, 03:00 AM
:BGuess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted. :B


.........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?I have no idea who McLauren is, but I still reject his suggestions.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 03:35 AM
:BGuess not! I'm amazed. Can't we just one time look at the proposals without who they came from. I posted this without his name and it was deleted. :B


.........suspend the common assumption that every time the word judgment occurs in the Bible, it means “going to hell after you die,” or every time the word save occurs, it means “going to heaven after you die.”

Can you comment about this without mentioning McLauren?

No. McLaren is the one who made the comment so we have to look at what his interpretation method to understand why it's flawed.

Regardless, I offered up a reply on why he's wrong - or why the arguments are wron.

Athanasius
Jul 29th 2008, 05:46 AM
Hey, McLaren said we should take a five year moratorium on the issue of homosexuality. In a more serious setting I'd take the time to examine his thoughts. For now there's apothanein who does a splendid job of this.

But if you mention the name McLaren, it's almost not worth the effort... That'll come and bite me in the arse.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 01:02 PM
I have no idea who McLauren is, but I still reject his suggestions.


Why.......................?;)

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 01:04 PM
The problem is McLaren oversimplifies each interpretation. You have to remember that he is bringing a radical hermeneutic to the Scripture - essentially, it's based on the 'gut reading' or placing the Scripture within our own context. We learn what Scripture means for today rather than what it meant at that time.

Though Jesus' discussion of Hell as a place of brimstone and fire might be metaphorical, what isn't metaphorical is the idea of a place of separation postmortem does exist. The concept of Hell is found more in His parables than in His actual direct teaching. Often He uses the term "weeping and gnashing of teeth" in order to emphasize that those who are not ready or do not ascribe to a certain belief will, in fact, be tormented for eternity.

Hell, thus, is an actual place where people go because they didn't commit their lives to Christ (they were unprepared). This involves both theological systems (of the essential kind) and committing one's life.


So Hell exists. What in the name of Santa Clause Jones does that have to do with the truth or error of his statements?

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 01:09 PM
Hey, McLaren said we should take a five year moratorium on the issue of homosexuality. In a more serious setting I'd take the time to examine his thoughts. For now there's apothanein who does a splendid job of this.

But if you mention the name McLaren, it's almost not worth the effort... That'll come and bite me in the arse.


Apothanein did nothing. McLauren didn't say lets re-examine the existence of Hell only what scripture says about it.

If its not possible to discuss the comments without discussing McLauren the why are you posting on a thread where you were specifically asked not to.:idea:

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 01:11 PM
No. McLaren is the one who made the comment so we have to look at what his interpretation method to understand why it's flawed.

Regardless, I offered up a reply on why he's wrong - or why the arguments are wron.


What is his interpretation method and what does it have to do with what is said here?

Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

Can you prove biblically that Jesus' comments were talking about a future fiery existence?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 01:48 PM
So Hell exists. What in the name of Santa Clause Jones does that have to do with the truth or error of his statements?

You're misunderstanding McLaren - it's better to understand your source before trying to use it or defend it. :)

When McLaren refers to Hell as a metaphor or a figure of speech, he is stating that it probably doesn't exist. This is seen in his point #4:

Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

In other words, he's theorizing that Hell is most likely something that occurs on earth and doesn't occur in the afterlife.

I was stating that Biblically, this is impossible. Hell is most assuredly real as Christ goes to great lengths to describe it and even offers a parable (Rich man and Lazarus) that shows there is postmortem torture.


What is his interpretation method and what does it have to do with what is said here?

Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

Can you prove biblically that Jesus' comments were talking about a future fiery existence?

I can't prove that Christ is saying that Hell is literally fire and brimstone - it is very possible this is figurative language. I can prove (as I did in my previous paragraph by pointing to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) that Hell is most certainly postmortem. It isn't something that takes place on earth, but instead takes place after our souls leave the body. Likewise, though Revelation is figurative and metaphorical, even the Lake of Fire gives the indication that this occurs after death. The soul is judged, re-embodied, then cast into the lake of Fire (whether it is a literal lake or not we do not know, but we do know it exists).

As for how McLaren's interpretative method skews his view on this subject matter: As I said, he attempts to read our modern context into Scripture. Since Hell is a taboo subject in the modern American psyche, he finds it easier to explain away hell as something we endure on earth by neglecting the commandments of God rather than dealing with hell for what it is. That's how his interpretative method fails in successfully interpreting the Bible.

Athanasius
Jul 29th 2008, 02:33 PM
Apothanein did nothing. McLauren didn't say lets re-examine the existence of Hell only what scripture says about it.

If its not possible to discuss the comments without discussing McLauren the why are you posting on a thread where you were specifically asked not to.:idea:

If you're re-examining what 'scripture says about Hell', then you are re-examining Hell. In regards to Apothanein, I don't understand how you're missing what he's been saying :confused

Let's put it this way. You can discuss Hell two ways. You can discuss Hell, or you can discuss those parts of the biblical text which address Hell. In the same way we can examine McLaren's 'proposals', or we can examine where exactly McLaren is coming from such that he's made these proposals. The former in both cases is much more superficial than the latter, which necessarily involves deeper reflection.

His name is McLaren by the way, not McLauren.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 02:41 PM
If all McLaren meant was that we need to re-examine if Hell is literally fire and brimstone, or if those are allusions to something more sinister, then I'd have no problem. Personally, I'm on the fence on whether or not Hell is literally fire and brimstone (some of the men I look up to in theology believe it is, some of them don't). However, in all of this I still believe Hell is a real place, we just may not know what it is exactly like.

McLaren, however, is proposing the idea that Hell may be figurative period (in contrast to his friend Tony Campolo who believe Hell does actually exist in order to execute the justice of God).

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 03:55 PM
You're misunderstanding McLaren - it's better to understand your source before trying to use it or defend it. :)

When McLaren refers to Hell as a metaphor or a figure of speech, he is stating that it probably doesn't exist. This is seen in his point #4:

Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

In other words, he's theorizing that Hell is most likely something that occurs on earth and doesn't occur in the afterlife.

I was stating that Biblically, this is impossible. Hell is most assuredly real as Christ goes to great lengths to describe it and even offers a parable (Rich man and Lazarus) that shows there is postmortem torture.



I can't prove that Christ is saying that Hell is literally fire and brimstone - it is very possible this is figurative language. I can prove (as I did in my previous paragraph by pointing to the parable of the rich man and Lazarus) that Hell is most certainly postmortem. It isn't something that takes place on earth, but instead takes place after our souls leave the body. Likewise, though Revelation is figurative and metaphorical, even the Lake of Fire gives the indication that this occurs after death. The soul is judged, re-embodied, then cast into the lake of Fire (whether it is a literal lake or not we do not know, but we do know it exists).

As for how McLaren's interpretative method skews his view on this subject matter: As I said, he attempts to read our modern context into Scripture. Since Hell is a taboo subject in the modern American psyche, he finds it easier to explain away hell as something we endure on earth by neglecting the commandments of God rather than dealing with hell for what it is. That's how his interpretative method fails in successfully interpreting the Bible.


So you can prove biblically that in every place that Jesus used Gehenna that He most certainly was not talking about the million plus Jews who were literally piled in the Valley of Hinnom and whose bodies were burned. You know; a place where the fires never went out and where there were maggots and flies swarming around constantly?

You can prove that biblically?


As for Lazarus and the Rich we'll get to that later.

Literalist-Luke
Jul 29th 2008, 04:23 PM
Why.......................?;)Because he's not offering anything to support his position besides just personal opinion. He just doesn't like the idea of eternal hell, so he chooses to reject it. He can reject it all he wants to, but that won't alter the facts.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 05:27 PM
Because he's not offering anything to support his position besides just personal opinion. He just doesn't like the idea of eternal hell, so he chooses to reject it. He can reject it all he wants to, but that won't alter the facts.


Do You like the idea of eternal hell?

31 ‘When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. 32 All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33 and He will put the sheep at his right hand and the goats at the left. 34 Then the king will say to those at His right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35 for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36 I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” 37 Then the righteous will answer Him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? 38 And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? 39 And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” 40 And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family,* you did it to me.”’ 41 ‘Then He will say to those at His left hand, “You that are accursed, depart from me into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42 for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not give me clothing, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.” 44 Then they also will answer, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not take care of you?” 45 Then He will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.” 46 And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_life).’

Will you read Matthew 25:31-46 and tell my why the sheep were sheep and the goats were goats. Don't tell my why you think they were what they were tell me what scripture says. Oh yeah tell me who was being judged as well?

Its pretty simple really?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 06:01 PM
So you can prove biblically that in every place that Jesus used Gehenna that He most certainly was not talking about the million plus Jews who were literally piled in the Valley of Hinnom and whose bodies were burned. You know; a place where the fires never went out and where there were maggots and flies swarming around constantly?

You can prove that biblically?


As for Lazarus and the Rich we'll get to that later.

Once again (I thought I had explained this):

I cannot prove that Hell is literal fire, but I can prove that every time He mentions Gehenne He is referring to a postmortem place. He is alluding to a physical reality, but is alluding to Hell. It would be like a modern day Jesus saying, "If you sin against me and ignore My commandments, when you die you will go to New Jersey." Obviously, you won't literally go to New Jersey because you are dead. You will, however, go to a torturous place postmortem (as New Jersey would be a great metaphor for Hell).

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 06:02 PM
Just because the evidence isn't in the direct text doesn't mean our interpretation is invalid. You're performing the same mistake McLaren makes - you're looking to immediate context and ignoring outside context as well.

Why don't YOU actually defend YOUR position? Why don't YOU prove that EVERY TIME Jesus mentions Gehenna, He is referring to a reality in this life and not a postmortem punishment.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 06:20 PM
Just because the evidence isn't in the direct text doesn't mean our interpretation is invalid. You're performing the same mistake McLaren makes - you're looking to immediate context and ignoring outside context as well.

Why don't YOU actually defend YOUR position? Why don't YOU prove that EVERY TIME Jesus mentions Gehenna, He is referring to a reality in this life and not a postmortem punishment.

Glad you asked.


"Gehenna" is derived from "Ge Hinnom," meaning "Valley of Hinnom." "Ge Hinnom" is also called "Gai ben-Hinnom," meaning "valley of Hinnom's son." The valley is outside the south wall of ancient Jerusalem, and stretches from the foot of Mount Zion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Zion) eastward to Kidron Valley. It is mentioned 13 times in 11 different verses in the Bible (King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)) as "valley of Hinnom," "valley of the son of Hinnom" or "valley of the children of Hinnom." It is not described as a spiritual hell but a literal valley in Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, Joshua 18:16, 2nd Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2nd Chronicles 33:6,Nehemiah 11:30, Jeremiah 7:31~32, Jeremiah 19:2, Jeremiah 19:6, Jeremiah 32:35) After 638 B.C.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], the valley of Hinnom and the valley of the son of Hinnom became the place for burning rubbish from Jerusalem.

In that exact valley in 70AD between 600,000 and a million religious Jews were slaughtered and piled there and literally burned. It was a garbage dump. Jesus could have been predicting what was going to take place there in 70ad (where the worm never dies, and the fires burn on and on).

History played this out, what Jesus said was going to happen actually took place. Read Josepheus.

Isaiah 66:24
"Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."


When Jesus talked about Gehenna the Jews knew exactly where and what He was talking about.

Jeremiah 7:31-33

And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place.

And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away.




hope this helps

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 06:30 PM
Glad you asked.


"Gehenna" is derived from "Ge Hinnom," meaning "Valley of Hinnom." "Ge Hinnom" is also called "Gai ben-Hinnom," meaning "valley of Hinnom's son." The valley is outside the south wall of ancient Jerusalem, and stretches from the foot of Mount Zion (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mount_Zion) eastward to Kidron Valley. It is mentioned 13 times in 11 different verses in the Bible (King James Version (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Version)) as "valley of Hinnom," "valley of the son of Hinnom" or "valley of the children of Hinnom." It is not described as a spiritual hell but a literal valley in Jerusalem (Joshua 15:8, Joshua 18:16, 2nd Kings 23:10, 2 Chronicles 28:3, 2nd Chronicles 33:6,Nehemiah 11:30, Jeremiah 7:31~32, Jeremiah 19:2, Jeremiah 19:6, Jeremiah 32:35) After 638 B.C.[citation needed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Citation_needed)], the valley of Hinnom and the valley of the son of Hinnom became the place for burning rubbish from Jerusalem.

In that exact valley in 70AD between 600,000 and a million religious Jews were slaughtered and piled there and literally burned. It was a garbage dump. Jesus could have been predicting what was going to take place there in 70ad (where the worm never dies, and the fires burn on and on).

History played this out, what Jesus said was going to happen actually took place. Read Josepheus.

Isaiah 66:24
"Then they will go forth and look On the corpses of the men Who have transgressed against Me. For their worm will not die And their fire will not be quenched; And they will be an abhorrence to all mankind."


When Jesus talked about Gehenna the Jews knew exactly where and what He was talking about.

Jeremiah 7:31-33

And they have built the high places of Tophet, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire; which I commanded them not, neither came it into my heart.

Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the LORD, that it shall no more be called Tophet, nor the valley of the son of Hinnom, but the valley of slaughter: for they shall bury in Tophet, till there be no place.

And the carcases of this people shall be meat for the fowls of the heaven, and for the beasts of the earth; and none shall fray them away.




hope this helps


It doesn't help at all. I've studied the history, I've studied this issue, you didn't present anything new.

In fact, you present an incomplete history. During the time of Christ the valley was already being used to burn dead animals and other filth. The fire never died and was eternal. This is why Jesus makes an allusion to it when He refers to Hell; He is making a point about the eternality and suffering that is there. The fact that 600,000 Jews were burned there is inconsequential to His usage - it is the most logical place because it was already being used to burn the dead (and even sometimes poor Samaritans and Gentiles).

As I stated:

He is alluding to a physical reality, but is alluding to Hell. It would be like a modern day Jesus saying, "If you sin against me and ignore My commandments, when you die you will go to New Jersey." Obviously, you won't literally go to New Jersey because you are dead. You will, however, go to a torturous place postmortem (as New Jersey would be a great metaphor for Hell).

Jesus is making an allusion to a physical place. At best, all your point can do is make a good argument that Hell is not a place of literal fire, but instead that Jesus was using a physical place as an example of what Hell is like.

It does not, however, prove that Jesus is actually saying there is no postmortem Hell. In fact, such an argument shows the advocate hasn't used a proper exegesis of the Scriptures and is reading his or her own desires into the text.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 06:44 PM
In fact, you present an incomplete history.:lol::rofl::D:agree::monkeyd:


Can you explain why that Peter, Paul nor John ever used the word? James did though.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 06:59 PM
:lol::rofl::D:agree::monkeyd:


Can you explain why that Peter, Paul nor John ever used the word? James did though.

They were dealing with different issues than Christ.

Paul also doesn't mention - specifically - the empty tomb. He doesn't mention a lot of things that Christ taught. Just because there is no repetition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jude, for instance, does mention that there is a place for eternal torment (v. 7).

Regardless of all this, Paul does allude to an eternal torment (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Even if you don't accept this it literally means nothing - just because Peter or Paul don't mention it doesn't mean it's not important. The fact is, Jesus does mention it (and not all of His teaches - such as the beatitudes - are repeated elsewhere in the Epistles).

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 07:02 PM
They were dealing with different issues than Christ.

Paul also doesn't mention - specifically - the empty tomb. He doesn't mention a lot of things that Christ taught. Just because there is no repetition doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Jude, for instance, does mention that there is a place for eternal torment (v. 7).

Regardless of all this, Paul does allude to an eternal torment (2 Thessalonians 2:9). Even if you don't accept this it literally means nothing - just because Peter or Paul don't mention it doesn't mean it's not important. The fact is, Jesus does mention it (and not all of His teaches - such as the beatitudes - are repeated elsewhere in the Epistles).


Gotcha...................:idea: I did think they were both preaching the gospel though.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 07:05 PM
Do you realize that the only time Paul mentions Hades, normally translated Hell in the KJV He says that it has no power. Its translated grave. "Oh death where is thy sting oh grave where is thy victory." Why didn't good ol' King James use the word Hell here?

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 07:07 PM
Gotcha...................:idea: I did think they were both preaching the gospel though.

They are, but Paul refers to judgment. It can easily be assumed that when he refers to judgment he is referring to Hell.

At the same time, we don't see Hell emphasized in Scripture for a reason. Coming to Christ is more about falling in love with Him and focusing on the here and now. Though there is an eternal consequence for not coming to Christ, there is also an immediate consequence (living in a Fallen world without the Key).

Thus, Jesus focused on the eternality of this separation while Paul focused on the immediate context of this situation. Both Hell and sin teach separation from God. This would indicate that any Gospel presentation would have a need to deal with man's separation from God (both here and in eternity).

One other thing to keep in mind is that Christ was dealing with lost people while Paul was writing to new converts - again, different audiences and different agendas.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 07:09 PM
Do you realize that the only time Paul mentions Hades, normally translated Hell in the KJV He says that it has no power. Its translated grave. "Oh death where is thy sting oh grave where is thy victory." Why didn't good ol' King James use the word Hell here?

Because it wouldn't have fit the context. Once again, PAUL IS WRITING TO CHRISTIANS, NOT TO THE LOST. This would mean anyone that has not come to Christ would certainly feel the sting of death (Hell) while those that are Christians wouldn't have.

Let me ask you this - if there is no Hell, is God still just? If you answer yes to this, how is He still just? Where is it that child rapists and unrepentant serial killers go when they die?

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 07:21 PM
They are, but Paul refers to judgment. It can easily be assumed that when he refers to judgment he is referring to Hell.

At the same time, we don't see Hell emphasized in Scripture for a reason. Coming to Christ is more about falling in love with Him and focusing on the here and now. Though there is an eternal consequence for not coming to Christ, there is also an immediate consequence (living in a Fallen world without the Key).

Thus, Jesus focused on the eternality of this separation while Paul focused on the immediate context of this situation. Both Hell and sin teach separation from God. This would indicate that any Gospel presentation would have a need to deal with man's separation from God (both here and in eternity).

One other thing to keep in mind is that Christ was dealing with lost people while Paul was writing to new converts - again, different audiences and different agendas.

Man, what if churches did that. I was raised hearing hell every Sunday. It was always God loves you but..................

As for judgment; that was the first point. Does judgment always refer to Hell in scripture? What do you think Paul is saying when he says of hades where is thy victory?

From the Bible Chat thread. I promised to keep such discussion in this arena.


I don't want muslims to burn in a literal fire for all eternity though. Do you? ............and Yes I know it has nothing to do with what I want. Still don't though.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 07:35 PM
Man, what if churches did that. I was raised hearing hell every Sunday. It was always God loves you but..................

As for judgment; that was the first point. Does judgment always refer to Hell in scripture? What do you think Paul is saying when he says of hades where is thy victory?

From the Bible Chat thread. I promised to keep such discussion in this arena.


The judgment goes both ways. It takes part in this life and in the next. There is a temporal judgment and an eternal judgment.

As for if I want Muslims to go to Hell - yes and no. I want anyone who denies God in their lifestyle and words (forever without repenting) to go to Hell (including myself) because it is what we deserve.

At the same time, of course I don't want to know some of my friends will be in Hell. I'd rather them experience the love of Christ. I'd rather them see the joy that comes with Christ.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 07:53 PM
The judgment goes both ways. It takes part in this life and in the next. There is a temporal judgment and an eternal judgment.

As for if I want Muslims to go to Hell - yes and no. I want anyone who denies God in their lifestyle and words (forever without repenting) to go to Hell (including myself) because it is what we deserve.

At the same time, of course I don't want to know some of my friends will be in Hell. I'd rather them experience the love of Christ. I'd rather them see the joy that comes with Christ.


You honestly believe that any person deserves to burn in a literal fire for all eternity. Have you ever burned you hand? .....again in Jeremiah God said it never entered His heart for Israel to burn their children.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 29th 2008, 08:02 PM
You honestly believe that any person deserves to burn in a literal fire for all eternity. Have you ever burned you hand? .....again in Jeremiah God said it never entered His heart for Israel to burn their children.

Of course I think all people deserve Hell. Whether or not this is literal fire I don't know. I do know it is torment that is akin to being burned (whether that means the torment takes on the form of burning, I don't know). I do know we deserve it though.

To say someone in Hell doesn't deserve Hell is to say God has committed an injustice.

mikebr
Jul 29th 2008, 08:46 PM
Of course I think all people deserve Hell. Whether or not this is literal fire I don't know. I do know it is torment that is akin to being burned (whether that means the torment takes on the form of burning, I don't know). I do know we deserve it though.

To say someone in Hell doesn't deserve Hell is to say God has committed an injustice.

I know that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God but to think that God created something in His image that deserves to be eternally separated from Him makes little sense to me. What verse would you use to prove you reasoning.

I agree with your last quote btw.

apothanein kerdos
Jul 30th 2008, 04:38 AM
I know that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God but to think that God created something in His image that deserves to be eternally separated from Him makes little sense to me. What verse would you use to prove you reasoning.

I agree with your last quote btw.


We were made in His image and remain in His image, but this image is fallen. Lest we forget this, consider Paul's treatise on this issue in Romans 1-8 that states we are fallen and that none of us seek after God.

We are in His image, which means our sin actually pains God. At the same time, it is because we are in His image that we deserve Hell when we sin. This would mean that sin is violating this image and going against this image - this is why His image bearers (and not say, a lion that kills a gazelle) goes to hell for rejecting Him - they are acting out against their own image.

I know that's worded poorly (extremely tired), but does it give an idea of what I'm saying?

Athanasius
Jul 30th 2008, 05:19 AM
I know that all have sinned and come short of the Glory of God but to think that God created something in His image that deserves to be eternally separated from Him makes little sense to me. What verse would you use to prove you reasoning.

I agree with your last quote btw.

Well we aren't as we were originally created, don't forget that.

mikebr
Jul 30th 2008, 07:21 PM
Well we aren't as we were originally created, don't forget that.


But I am as I was originally born. Well except for that Jesus invasion stuff.:pp

Athanasius
Jul 31st 2008, 05:39 PM
But I am as I was originally born. Well except for that Jesus invasion stuff.:pp

Sure, but you weren't originally born as that thing which God originally created us to be.

mikebr
Jul 31st 2008, 11:09 PM
Sure, but you weren't originally born as that thing which God originally created us to be.So is it my fault?

Do I deserve punishment for something that is not my fault. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that you as an individual were created in the image of God or humanity (Adam and Eve) were created in the image of God.

David Taylor
Aug 1st 2008, 12:08 AM
So is it my fault?

Do I deserve punishment for something that is not my fault.
Yes.
All of us deserve punishment for our sins; and they are our fault. We cannot pass the responsibity of our sins to anyone else; save Christ who takes away the sins of those who are his who repent and follow him.

Read chapter one of Romans.

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 12:16 AM
So is it my fault?

Do I deserve punishment for something that is not my fault. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that you as an individual were created in the image of God or humanity (Adam and Eve) were created in the image of God.

But that's the thing, this is your fault. It was never not your fault. So no, it doesn't come down to believing we were created either in the image of God or humanity. We are created in the image of God, that image, however, is now corrupted.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:43 AM
But that's the thing, this is your fault. It was never not your fault. So no, it doesn't come down to believing we were created either in the image of God or humanity. We are created in the image of God, that image, however, is now corrupted.


There's a thread over at BibleChat that is discussing the age of accountability. Do you believe that unborn and infant children burn for eternity in hell?

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 12:47 AM
There's a thread over at BibleChat that is discussing the age of accountability. Do you believe that unborn and infant children burn for eternity in hell?

No, I don't. What's that got to do with what we're talking about?

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:49 AM
No, I don't. What's that got to do with what we're talking about?


If we are born corrupt and deserve hell then it would seem to me that unborn and infant children fall into that category. Why wouldn't they go to hell?

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 12:54 AM
What is his interpretation method and what does it have to do with what is said here?

Well, we could put words from Satan up and say "what do you think of this", but knowing they came from Satan makes for a good warning not to eat what he is offering. ;)


Fourth, we should consider the possibility that many, and perhaps even all of Jesus’ hell-fire or end-of-the-universe statements refer not to postmortem judgment but to the very historic consequences of rejecting his kingdom message of reconciliation and peacemaking. The destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 67-70 seems to many people to fulfill much of what we have traditionally understood as hell.

Can you prove biblically that Jesus' comments were talking about a future fiery existence?


How many times did Jesus use the words eternity, or forever and ever, etc. when speaking of punishment? Look at this verse is Rev concerning hell.

Rev 14:11
11 "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."
NASB

Rest never comes to those that receive the mark of the beast.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 12:58 AM
So is it my fault?

Do I deserve punishment for something that is not my fault. I guess it comes down to whether or not you believe that you as an individual were created in the image of God or humanity (Adam and Eve) were created in the image of God.

If we are created in his image then why this verse?

Rom 8:29-30
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
NASB

If we are born into the image of God, then why do we need to become conformed to his image?

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 01:00 AM
If we are born corrupt and deserve hell then it would seem to me that unborn and infant children fall into that category. Why wouldn't they go to hell?

Simple reason; they are not aware.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:03 AM
OK folks. Please take a look at the rules for the world religions forum. It is not meant to be a forum for advancing non-protestant beliefs about hell. Rather, it is meant to be a forum to discuss how to answer questions against those non-protestant beliefs. So be careful about pushing something that doesn't line up with eternal hell being a place the sinful go to.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:05 AM
Simple reason; they are not aware.

So ignorance gets a person to heaven?

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:08 AM
OK folks. Please take a look at the rules for the world religions forum. It is not meant to be a forum for advancing non-protestant beliefs about hell. Rather, it is meant to be a forum to discuss how to answer questions against those non-protestant beliefs. So be careful about pushing something that doesn't line up with eternal hell being a place the sinful go to.


Gotcha, Brother Mark. I'd have to go back and re-read my post but I don't think I have broken any rules. Besides the line of discussion has changed somewhat.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:10 AM
If we are created in his image then why this verse?

Rom 8:29-30
29 For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.
NASB

If we are born into the image of God, then why do we need to become conformed to his image?


Ok this is the reason I asked the individual/humanity question. In what sense are we created in His image?

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:13 AM
Ok this is the reason I asked the individual/humanity question. In what sense are we created in His image?

Personally, I think Adam and Eve were created in His image. But that image was distorted when they sinned. That's why Romans 8 says we are to be conformed, or made again into his image. It's also why Romans 12 speaks of transforming our minds.

God is good, yet Romans says "There is none good, no not one". So that is another example of how we are not in his image. When Jesus comes to reside in us, then we begin to be in the image of God again.

The first Adam sinned and with that sin, all of his descendants were condemned. The second Adam lived righteously and died. As a result, all of his descendants are righteous and live. The second Adam is in us and we are being conformed more and more to that image.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:15 AM
Personally, I think Adam and Eve were created in His image. But that image was distorted when they sinned. That's why Romans 8 says we are to be conformed, or made again into his image. It's also why Romans 12 speaks of transforming our minds.

God is good, yet Romans says "There is none good, no not one". So that is another example of how we are not in his image. When Jesus comes to reside in us, then we begin to be in the image of God again.

The first Adam sinned and with that sin, all of his descendants were condemned. The second Adam lived righteously and died. As a result, all of his descendants are righteous and live. The second Adam is in us and we are being conformed more and more to that image.

So do you believe that infants and unborn children go to heaven when they die? If so, why? If not, I know why?;)

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:18 AM
So do you believe that infants and unborn children go to heaven when they die? If so, why? If not, I know why?;)

When David's boy died, he said he would see his son again but not in this life. David believed he would go to his boy but his boy would not return to him.

In the NT, we have the scripture in 1 Cor 7 that speaks to how children are sanctified because of the believing parents.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:21 AM
When David's boy died, he said he would see his son again but not in this life. David believed he would go to his boy but his boy would not return to him.

In the NT, we have the scripture in 1 Cor 7 that speaks to how children are sanctified because of the believing parents.

At what point would those children become unsantified? Is that different from being justified?........and what about those who parents are pagans?

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:23 AM
At what point would those children become unsantified? Is that different from being justified?

I don't know. .....

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:28 AM
I don't know. .....
This literally brought tears to my eyes Brother Mark. Its the ultimate in humility. God Bless You.:pp:cry:

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:34 AM
I don't know. .....

I don't either. I really don't, even though I act like I do. I believe it this were our answer more often people might take us a little more seriously.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:38 AM
Brother Mark-Thread Killer.:lol:

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:44 AM
I don't either. I really don't, even though I act like I do. I believe it this were our answer more often people might take us a little more seriously.

There's a lot in scripture we don't know Mike. What can we say when scripture doesn't address it? The single biggest issue I had after I got saved was unlearning the bad things I was taught. It's very easy to come to scripture we desires, hopes, expectations, beliefs, etc.

As for hell, Paul often mentioned fear and trembling. He spoke of the severity and kindness of God. Paul wasn't afraid of men. But he was afraid for them. Why? Because he knew God was very severe.

I know God is love. And when I first got saved, all God would let me read is the NT and even then, he wouldn't let me read anything about judgment. Once I knew more about love, then he taught me about fear. Paul wasn't afraid of being stoned, or of dying for Jesus or what man could do to him. So what was he afraid of? What caused him "fear and trembling"?

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 01:45 AM
Brother Mark-Thread Killer.:lol:

:lol::lol:

Perhaps my previous post will start it back up. ;)

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 01:55 AM
There's a lot in scripture we don't know Mike. What can we say when scripture doesn't address it? The single biggest issue I had after I got saved was unlearning the bad things I was taught. It's very easy to come to scripture we desires, hopes, expectations, beliefs, etc.

As for hell, Paul often mentioned fear and trembling. He spoke of the severity and kindness of God. Paul wasn't afraid of men. But he was afraid for them. Why? Because he knew God was very severe.

I know God is love. And when I first got saved, all God would let me read is the NT and even then, he wouldn't let me read anything about judgment. Once I knew more about love, then he taught me about fear. Paul wasn't afraid of being stoned, or of dying for Jesus or what man could do to him. So what was he afraid of? What caused him "fear and trembling"?

For 40+ years all I ever heard or read was judgment. All I see now is Love. If you think that this is not a struggle for me, nothing could be further from the truth I've got a great story of how he let me know that He knew exactly were I was. Though He slay me or send billions to Hell, I trust Him.

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 02:05 AM
So ignorance gets a person to heaven?

Not at all. A baby isn't aware of anything. Or rather, I should say self aware. There becomes a point where we all are and Romans 1 applies then.

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 02:07 AM
For 40+ years all I ever heard or read was judgment. All I see now is Love. If you think that this is not a struggle for me, nothing could be further from the truth I've got a great story of how he let me know that He knew exactly were I was. Though He slay me or send billions to Hell, I trust Him.

I hear you. Having been through that fear and judgment thing, it can take a LONG time to get to the point where we can revisit it. I had the hardest time believing God would love me. I was well aware of many of my short comings and that God was holy and judgmental. I learned he was holy but he was not judgmental. Finally, after learning about his love, I learned about balance with proper fear.

It's still amazing to me, that when I hated God, he loved me.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 02:17 AM
Not at all. A baby isn't aware of anything. Or rather, I should say self aware. There becomes a point where we all are and Romans 1 applies then.


So our awareness of what determines our corruptness?

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 02:22 AM
So our awareness of what determines our corruptness?

Our awareness of... I'd say for starters the difference between good and evil.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 02:30 AM
Our awareness of... I'd say for starters the difference between good and evil.

That's what started this whole mess in the first place. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil we would still be eating from the Tree of Life? Besides that I'd say they learn that at about six months; certainly by the first year. Do you have children?

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 02:36 AM
That's what started this whole mess in the first place. If Adam and Eve hadn't eaten from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil we would still be eating from the Tree of Life? Besides that I'd say they learn that at about six months; certainly by the first year. Do you have children?

No I don't have children, but I'm going to go out on a limb and don't say they understand the difference between good and evil, even if they seem to. As for Adam and Eve... They had knowledge of what was right and wrong long before they ate of the tree. The tree was only a choice.

apothanein kerdos
Aug 1st 2008, 03:44 AM
Mike,

First and foremost, we are still in the image of God (note that both Genesis 9 and James 4 references that humans are in the image), but this image is severely distorted (note Romans 1) and is need of being re-conformed to a more perfect, less fallen image (note Romans 8).

If a man eats his child and never repents of this sin, he will go to Hell. If a lion eats her cub, we think nothing of it. Why is this? It is simple - humans are made in the image of God. Thus, when we do things such as kill, lie, and steal we are violating the image we have been made in. We are mocking God by defaming His image. This is why we are condemned to Hell.

An infant is not fully comprehensive of what he or she is doing, therefore he or she cannot be held accountable for what he or she does. As the child becomes self-aware to the point that he or she realizes he/she is sinning against God, we must begin to worry about the child's eternal status.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 11:24 AM
Mike,

First and foremost, we are still in the image of God (note that both Genesis 9 and James 4 references that humans are in the image), but this image is severely distorted (note Romans 1) and is need of being re-conformed to a more perfect, less fallen image (note Romans 8).

If a man eats his child and never repents of this sin, he will go to Hell. If a lion eats her cub, we think nothing of it. Why is this? It is simple - humans are made in the image of God. Thus, when we do things such as kill, lie, and steal we are violating the image we have been made in. We are mocking God by defaming His image. This is why we are condemned to Hell.

An infant is not fully comprehensive of what he or she is doing, therefore he or she cannot be held accountable for what he or she does. As the child becomes self-aware to the point that he or she realizes he/she is sinning against God, we must begin to worry about the child's eternal status.


So what about God would make Him say that a person can go to heaven up until a point then that person deserves hell? What in His character I mean? It just seems to me that if a person deserved hell then they would go there. NOW if we don't deserve it, but we must somehow earn it then we are talking about something totally different. We would need to ask what we do to earn it.

again self-awareness was the point of sin for Adam and Eve.:hmm:

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 12:15 PM
again self-awareness was the point of sin for Adam and Eve.:hmm:

No, it self-awareness was not the point of sin for Adam and Eve (they were already self-aware).

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 12:59 PM
No, it self-awareness was not the point of sin for Adam and Eve (they were already self-aware).

I disagree, they were naked and not ashamed at one point and then they were hiding themselves with fig leaves. They had no awareness of THEIR good and evil.

Athanasius
Aug 1st 2008, 01:51 PM
I disagree, they were naked and not ashamed at one point and then they were hiding themselves with fig leaves. They had no awareness of THEIR good and evil.

That's a different self-awareness. We're all aware that we're aware; we're conscious. Adam and Eve weren't aware that they were naked, perhaps because they weren't? But, Adam and Eve did know right and wrong, and to a point good and evil. Otherwise God's character would have never been known and His command not to eat of the tree would have been... fruitless.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 03:28 PM
That's a different self-awareness. We're all aware that we're aware; we're conscious. Adam and Eve weren't aware that they were naked, perhaps because they weren't? But, Adam and Eve did know right and wrong, and to a point good and evil. Otherwise God's character would have never been known and His command not to eat of the tree would have been... fruitless.


I've been trying to think of a way to respond. I am bumfuzzled.:o:eek:

Brother Mark
Aug 1st 2008, 03:35 PM
I've been trying to think of a way to respond. I am bumfuzzled.:o:eek:

I think Adam and Eve were clothed in the shakinah glory of God. When Jesus was transfigured, he glowed. When Moses met face to face with God, he glowed. When Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God, he glowed. I suspect Adam and Eve glowed so brightly, they couldn't see their nakedness. When they ate, the glory left and they saw they were naked.

Just an opinion.

Many people teach that it is becoming aware of good and evil that makes one accountable. I have no issue with that doctrine. It's just hard to get our hands around some issues in scripture. IMO, this is one of them.

mikebr
Aug 1st 2008, 04:43 PM
I think Adam and Eve were clothed in the shakinah glory of God. When Jesus was transfigured, he glowed. When Moses met face to face with God, he glowed. When Stephen saw Jesus standing next to God, he glowed. I suspect Adam and Eve glowed so brightly, they couldn't see their nakedness. When they ate, the glory left and they saw they were naked.

Just an opinion.

Many people teach that it is becoming aware of good and evil that makes one accountable. I have no issue with that doctrine. It's just hard to get our hands around some issues in scripture. IMO, this is one of them.

I agree with this and have heard the same explanation.