More Active Posts
Front Page
A time to tell
 |
 141 Comments |
If you had a bit of spinach stuck between your teeth, or body odor so bad your co-workers were snickering around the water cooler, would you want someone to tell you? Then if you know hell is real, and you know people who are headed to a Christ-less eternity, should you not tell them?
That’s how my friend Jayne Clark introduced the three-day topic of the Judgment at our women’s retreat at Harvey Cedars Bible Conference in
It’s been a long time since I’ve heard a sermon on hell. I mean one that lingered there and let you smell the sulfur, not just a passing poetic reference.
There is, of course, that famous Jonathan Edwards sermon, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God.” And I’m ashamed to say that, like old Barnabas, who “was led astray” by peer pressure in an unrelated matter (Galatians 2:13), I was slipping into the camp of people who say nice things about Edwards in spite of that little trip to woodshed in Enfield, Connecticut on July 8,1741.
But Jayne helped me remember how I myself got saved. This Christian guy at L’Abri took a fancy to me, and didn’t fancy me being damned, and kept saying, “Andree, please become a Christian.” It was as unsophisticated as that.
“Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation….’Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountains, lest you be consumed’” (Jonathan Edwards, “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God”).
 |
Topic: Front Page, Odds & Ends |  |
Email a friend |
 |
Keywords: evangelism, witnessing |  |
RSS 2.0 |
 |
You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed. |  |
Share this: |
Yep, just as there is a time to tell it, there is a way to say it. Both are vital.
“if you know hell is real” … no one knows this. Many believe it, but no one knows it.
Nor does anyone know, if hell is real, that being a Christian is the way to avoid it. Muslims believe submitting to the will of Allah is the way to avoid it and that Christians have been misled.
No Christian can counter that argument because for every Bible verse you cite they’ll have a Koran passage in response. It comes down to which authority you believe — if either.
If you are serving God not because you love God and goodness but because you fear where you will end up if you don’t, what kind of God do you have? What kind of faith do you have?
Steve, of course SOME faith is required to believe in hell, as it is required to believe in god. Rather than “know”, maybe Andree should have said “are pretty sure”. I think it’s a small point. If God didn’t want us to take hell seriously, he wouldn’t have told us about it.
Steve,
It’s not the “kind” of faith that matters. It’s who you trust that matters.
No, I think “know” is the right word. God is trustworthy. The Bible has been tried and found true on so many levels, and God Himself has proven true during millennia. There is no other option. If God isn’t true, this world is meaningless; but we live in a world that shouts of meaning, beauty, and purpose. As Peter said, to whom else shall we go? Jesus is the one who holds the answer to life’s riddles, the One who makes all of life pull together. I know He is true.
Amen, Cheryl, Amen!
And I agree with you, too, Adios.
This discussion about knowing is an interesting one to me.
I recently read a book by Lesslie Newbigin where he discusses Michael Polanyi’s (a Hungarian scientist known for his work with crystals) idea that all knowledge is gained through acting upon unproven presuppositions. (You can read about Polanyi’s work in epistemology in his book Personal Knowledge: Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy) Polanyi applies this observable fact of knowledge to what we know about the arts and humanities. Newbigin takes that and applies that idea to knowledge about God also.
I think Newbigin would agree with Cheryl. I also think there’s something radically skewed about a view point that only admits to “knowing” that which is emperical, measurable, and repeatable.
You can buy Newbigin’s book Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship here: http://tinyurl.com/49e535
I’ve mentioned this book many times here and encouraged you to buy it (it’s cheap!) and bounce these ideas areound, but so far, no takers. I can always hope…
The lake-of-fire “Hell” originated in Persian apocalytpic literature and was co-opted by Christianity for its own purposes.
It is interesting perhaps as a metaphor/myth (of what exactly?), but it is just plain ignorant, naive, and offensive to 1) believe in it literally as described in the Bible and/or 2) try to threaten the non-Christians with it as a means of evangelism.
There are perhaps eternal consequences of some kind for bad choices (or maybe not?). Perhaps hell is a good metaphor for this. But as a consequence for simply not embracing evangelical soteriology? Only a “devil” would create such an idea!
Spinoza,
Willing to gamble eternity on that theory?
I’m bothered by Andree’s description of her own salvation: “This Christian guy … kept saying, ‘Andree, please become a Christian.’ It was as unsophisticated as that.”
That sure doesn’t sound Biblical to me.
Spinoza, How do you know a devil created this consequence for not embracing evangelical soteriology?
I think it was created by Spinoza. Are you a devil?
I think that it’s important to remember that the point of letting a coworker know that they smell or a friend know that there’s spinach in their teeth is so that they can take the spinach out and put on some deoderant. Therefore, one would want to approach the topic in a way that would be most likely to change their behavior. The point is NOT to just let them know that they stink and then walk away smuggly, glad that you’ve done your duty - if you really love them, then their well being is the most important thing, and maybe you can suggest ways for their behavior to change… that doesn’t include saying “wow, you sure smell like crap this morning”. We don’t say “You have spinach in your teeth, and you look dumb and people are laughing at you, so you should do something about that”. We causually touch our teeth with our finger and look meaningfully at them. They get the hint - WITHOUT the sledgehammer.
I think that the same is true of judgment and hell. The point is not to inform people of their eternal damnation - the point is to keep them out of it. If we can keep them out of it without mentioning it, the more the better - particularly since mentioning it usually is offensive and ends up sending more people TOWARDS is (as in, they are less likely to consider Christ AFTER we’ve talked about hell.) It’s important to remember our end goals - “if we truly love people, then we will keep them out of hell” - sure, that’s all well and good, but what is the best way to “keep people out of hell”? Probably by not talking about it - probably by loving them and showing them Christ’s love and truth.
Not that we can’t talk about hell or anything. I just think that the logic of this idea is screwy - the claim that unless we’re talking about hell, we can’t be saving people from it. Hmmmm.
CherylD: Adherents of other religious systems also think they “know” things that completely contradict the things you “know.”
They have their own sources of authority and their own historical teachings, and they contradict yours.
You say “God is trustworthy” and you mean one thing; a Muslim says “God is trusthworthy” with every bit as much confidence and means some other idea of God.
And the Muslim’s reasons are every bit as good as yours. He has a holy book, divinely inspired, that he will assert has been “found true on so many levels.”
In Post #9, you condescendingly ask Spinoza, “Willing to gamble eternity on that theory?” I bet you have not spent one minute wondering if perhaps the Koran is correct and you’ve made the wrong choice, but the devout Muslim could well ask you the same question.
John M. at #3: If God didn’t want us to take hell seriously, he wouldn’t have told us about it.
He didn’t. Some men wrote some books that are collected into a single volume called the Bible. Whether their words came from God or not is hardly certain. And if they did, whether they’ve been interpreted as intended is also hardly certain.
PS to Cheryl: And a devout Jew would say you’ve made the same error that you will say the Muslim is making: Starting with the truth and then building something new and false on top of it.
And all three of you can argue til your dying days who has the “right” view of things.
Sometimes I wonder is STEVEG is multiple people using the same login name. Some posts are extremely well thought out, then others are like the ones in here. So there are disputed truth claims. This is unique to religious thought? Those claims negate each other because they’re disputed? We didn’t know others make different claims? Not enlightening. Those claims are subject to scrutiny like any other proposition. One can assess how well they hold up, but one should not be dissuaded from a claim merely because others compete with it. One would not be wise if one did that, would one?
Y’all jumped on SteveG saying, “Well, we know hell exists!” but he makes an excellent point:
If you are serving God not because you love God and goodness but because you fear where you will end up if you don’t, what kind of God do you have? What kind of faith do you have?
I think it does matter that we are serving God for the right reasons. If your primary goal is to not be “caught” by a “vengeful” God and sent to hell - in other words, if your serving Him primarily out of fear, as though it is some game of “gotcha” - you could argue that you aren’t really acknowledging or worshipping the true nature of God - that of Love.
There was an excellent article that I can’t find the link to, I think I saw it referenced in a posting here on WMB, about the Orthodox conception of hell, and judgement, contrasted with the more westernized conception of a vengeful God who is more to be feared than loved.
Yeah #16:
I am not sure what your criticism is. I am pointing out that the existence of conflicting truth claims, given that none are backed by empirical evidence and that all are based on claimed divine revelation, means that whatever people believe about hell is not something they can credibly claim to know.
It is a belief. It may be a deeply held belief. It may make total sense within the logic of the faith system the person operates within.
But it is not knowledge.
What about that do you not agree with?
Emma #12
“The point is not to inform people of their eternal damnation - the point is to keep them out of it. If we can keep them out of it without mentioning it, the more the better - particularly since mentioning it usually is offensive and ends up sending more people TOWARDS is (as in, they are less likely to consider Christ AFTER we’ve talked about hell.)”
On the contrary, Jesus himself spoke of hell and the coming judgment repeatedly during his earthly ministry. If one rejects the truth about hell, then one has also rejected the truth about the Cross — you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have a Jesus who dies a substitutionary atonement on the cross without also have a depraved and sinful human race that is justly deserving of God’s wrath.
As believers we are called to speak the truth about God to the world around us. That truth might be categorized as full answers to three key questions: 1)Who is God?; 2)Who are we?; 3)What has God done for us? — if you only answer one of the questions (say the third one: Jesus died on the Cross (but there is much more…)) then your answer will not make much sense. We can only truly understand the Mercy of God (”God was in Christ Jesus reconciling the world to himself”) in relation to the Justice of God (after all, “reconciliation” implies enmity — and man’s sin is the root of that enmity because God is Holy)
So again, speaking to someone concerning the reality of Hell is necessary. If someone doesn’t believe they are a sinner, then they cannot be saved. If they do not believe in hell, what should they be saved from?
Make It Man, thanks once again for mentioning that book, I would also recommend Alvin Plantinga’s “Warranted Christian Belief” as another book that provides justification for a believer to “know” religious truths (for instance: I know that ‘God was in Jesus Christ reconciling the world to himself’.) But unfortunately no one will take us seriously and read said books (rather we tend to get ignored or ridiculed; oh well).
Thomas #17 — Proverbs 1:7 “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of knowledge; fools despise wisdom and instruction.’
Fear (as understood by Scripture) is an essential part of the Christian faith, so also is love. We must love God and we must fear him.
#17 Thomas,
read up on the doctrine of Divine Simplicity or consider the Westminster Shorter Catechism Question #4 “What is God?” A: “God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”
We cannot say “God is and only is love”. We can say “God is love” and we also say “God is merciful”, “God is holy”, “God is just” , “God is wise”, “God is kind”, “God is compassionate”, “God is vengeful”, “God is wrath”. Each are true statements of God — and a true conception of God requires that acknowledge of the whole counsel of Scripture regarding God’s nature. Christians (and others) err when we limit our definition of God to “God is Love” implying that “God is love and only love.”
#18 SteveG, just want to make sure i’m hearing you correctly.
First, do you grant that knowledge is ‘justified true belief’?
Second, if yes, then are you saying that the ‘justification’ simply means ‘verifiable empirically’?
Ah.. Here is the link:
The River of Fire
A quote:
But why do men hate God? They hate Him not only because their deeds are dark while God is light, but also because they consider Him as a menace, as an imminent and eternal danger, as an adversary in court, as an opponent at law, as a public prosecutor and an eternal persecutor. To them, God is no more the almighty physician who came to save them from illness and death, but rather a cruel judge and a vengeful inquisitor.
SteveG #18,
But I’m sure you’ve been confronted with this before. I’m sure you’ve considered the epistemolgical ramifications. You allude to empirical support, or as you say, “backing.” Does sufficient “backing” get us all the way to knowledge, or do we eventually have to rely on more than empiricism? Should I really infer from you that any knowledge must have an exclusively empirical basis? Again, I’m sure you would recognize the contradiction inherent there.
Make It Man, I put the book in my list of books to buy. I’m not sure I’ll remember who recommended it, and whom to thank or blame, but it should be up for purchase in a month or two (when I get my next $25 amazon gift certificate).
It’s a long article, but I’ll jump to the conclusion:
It doesn’t deny that there is a hell, but it does make the point that God dispenses love to all - He doesn’t dispense torture. It’s in how WE choose to respond to His love that determines if it is heaven or hell for us:
God is a loving fire, and He is a loving fire for all: good or bad. There is, however, a great difference in the way people receive this loving fire of God. Saint Basil says that “the sword of fire was placed at the gate of paradise to guard the approach to the tree of life; it was terrible and burning toward infidels, but kindly accessible toward the faithful, bringing to them the light of day.”44 The same loving fire brings the day to those who respond to love with love, and burns those who respond to love with hatred.
Paradise and hell are one and the same River of God, a loving fire which embraces and covers all with the same beneficial will, without any difference or discrimination. The same vivifying water is life eternal for the faithful and death eternal for the infidels; for the first it is their element of life, for the second it is the instrument of their eternal suffocation; paradise for the one is hell for the other. Do not consider this strange. The son who loves his father will feel happy in his father’s arms, but if he does not love him, his father’s loving embrace will be a torment to him. This also is why when we love the man who hates us, it is likened to pouring lighted coals and hot embers on his head.
#18 SteveG,
So you admit the Theory of Evolution is not knowledge too?
If one rejects the truth about hell, then one has also rejected the truth about the Cross — you cannot have one without the other. You cannot have a Jesus who dies a substitutionary atonement on the cross without also have a depraved and sinful human race that is justly deserving of God’s wrath.
Not exactly, you can also have Christ dying a substitutionary death for all men and hence universal salvation. This is why Calvinists believe in Limited Atonement, because Universal Atonement logically equates to universal salvation. And indeed, though most Arminians believe both in Universal Atonement and eternal damnation, the early Trinitarian Universalists were indeed Arminians whose belief in the universality of Atonement equated with universal salvation. Here is Benjamin Rush one such Trinitarian Universalist explaining the matter.
At Dr. Finley’s school, I was more fully instructed in those principles by means of the Westminster catechism. I retained them without any affection for them until about the year 1780. I then read for the first time Fletcher’s controversy with the Calvinists, in favor of the universality of the atonement. This prepared my mind to admit the doctrine of universal salvation, which was then preached in our city by the Rev. Mr. Winchester. It embraced and reconciled my ancient Calvinistical and my newly adopted Arminian principles. From that time I have never doubted upon the subject of the salvation of all men. My conviction of the truth of this doctrine was derived from reading the works of Stonehouse, Seigvolk, White, Chauncey and Winchester, and afterwards from an attentive perusal of the Scriptures. I always admitted with each of those authors future punishment, and of long duration.
Yeah at #24:
Does sufficient “backing” get us all the way to knowledge, or do we eventually have to rely on more than empiricism? Should I really infer from you that any knowledge must have an exclusively empirical basis? Again, I’m sure you would recognize the contradiction inherent there.
Fair point, but there are degrees of reasonableness.
For example, if John argues that the ground is wet in the morning because it rained all night, and Bruce argues that the ground is wet because water sprang up through previously unknown springs just before dawn, it’s logical to conclude that John is the one telling the truth. It is possible that Bruce is the truth-teller, but I know that it rains often and I do not know of any underground springs nearby.
But if a Christain tells me there’s a hell and all non-Christains go there, and a Muslim tells me there’s a hell and all non-Muslims go there, then we have a contradiction on something neither one can show any evidence for other than what they believe to be divine revelation.
And thereby we have an impasse. At least I can see the ground is wet, so whether John or Bruce is right, I know something made the ground wet. In this second example, I have no reason to think there is such a place as hell at all except for the competing claims of revelation.
I should also note that America’s key Founders — Washington, J. Adams, Jefferson, Madison, and Franklin — unlike Rush didn’t appear to be Trinitarian Universalists but Unitarian Universalists, that is denying both the Trinity and Eternal Damnation. They believed Jesus was a great moral teacher not an Incarnate God who made a substitutionary Atonement. Men were justified through works, not faith. And the good were rewarded immediately with Heaven, the bad temporarily punished, eventually saved. They were also more likely to term this system “Christianity” not “Deism.” The question is does a system that rejects original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, infallibility of the Bible and eternal damnation qualify as “Christianity,” or something else? But it is what America’s Founders, in J. Adams’, Jefferson’s, and Franklin’s case, certainly believed. And in Washington’s and Madison’s case, very likely believed.
Thomas’ notion of Hell seems the most morally justifiable. Edwards’ notion of Hell as eternal torture (and yes, that’s what he articulated) makes the Christian God seem just as bad as the worst Islam has to offer.
The point is, because of my sins, I might deserve some kind of punishment (finite because my sins are finite); but what I DON’T deserve is to be thrown into a lake of fire for eternity. And if you tell me I do, you are just selling me the unsellable.
I seriously doubt that most evangelicals believe in Hell in the Edwardsian sense, if at all. Perhaps they believe in annihilation or secretly hold out hopes for universal salvation. Or believe in some version of Hell that is juster like Thomas’.
Christians would be the most miserable people in the world if what they preach — or at least Edwards’ version of it — they really believed to be true. All Christians have family members and loved ones who will be unsaved. It is not possible for this to not utterly distress someone of good conscience. The news about eternal justice is not “good” but “bad.” The Gospel is the ultimate “bad news” that most of humanity will be eternally tortured forever, with a silver lining on how to escape it.
Jon Rowe, justification for eternal hell is based not upon the quantity/quality of our sins but upon the supreme holiness of God. Since He is supremely holy, our sins are supremely abhorrent to Him and thus worthy of supreme justice: hell.
I still don’t deserve eternal punishment for finite sins. Also consider the degree of my sins — telling some white lies to a few folks; taking the Lords name in vain; stealing a candy bar, drinking too much on a few occasions in college, this doesn’t merit being thrown into a Lake of Fire for all of eternity; perhaps it merits being excluded from the happiness of Heaven, but not eternally tortured. I may be able to buy Hell being a place where humans get to go and enjoy eternity outside of God’s presence, continuing their same situation they had on Earth. Perhaps humans choose to go there because they get to enjoy their sins (eating, drinking, and being merry not in God’s presence) for eternity. That’s a just notion of Hell; eternal torture is not.
Steve [13]: Only Jesus Christ [and no other religious leader or religion] has provided the solution for man’s deepest need [the problem of sin]. Only Jesus [through His death and resurrection] has defeated sin and death forever.
That’s why Jesus is absolutely trustworthy. And that’s why when Jesus taught us about the reality of hell [which He actually spoke more about than even any of the Biblical writers], we can trust that He is speaking the truth.
Still going around the same circle, I see, Tyichicus.
When you figure out an argument that moves in a straight line, let me know.
Robert M: Your version of God is graceless. I do not buy it.
Justice requires mercy. Forgiveness may not come until the soul repents, but merciful justice holds the door open until that time comes. It does not close and lock the door and say “too late.”
Steve: You’re the one who keeps bringing the same circles back [this time, starting at #2].
However, you consistently avoid the point that I made in my first paragraph. Maybe a question will help: What religious leader or religion has dealt with man’s greatest problem - the problem of sin?
But SteveG in #29, you’re still no closer to the goal. In your example, you’ve made a host of assumptions that are entirely without empirical backing.
But what’s even more of a head scratcher is your post at #36. After having reminded us of the dearth of empirical evidence in support of certain Christian propositions, and ridiculing any claims to knowledge of them, you state, “Justice requires mercy.” So do you know this, and is that assertion based on emprical data?
Tychicus: All of them deal with sin in one way or another.
Not all of them believe in “original sin.”
Not all of them believe in the need for a redeemer or a blood sacrifice.
Not all of them use the word “sin,” but they do have a concept of a disharmony with the good, whatever name it goes by.
But all of them, without exception, have some concept of sin/evil/wrong and some theological approach to address it. Christianity’s way is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Other faith systems have other ways.
Now please explain how you see any sort of circular argument in what I said in Post #2.
Mommy (#10):
I’m bothered by Andree’s description of her own salvation: “This Christian guy … kept saying, ‘Andree, please become a Christian.’ It was as unsophisticated as that.”
That sure doesn’t sound Biblical to me.
Me:
I don’t think that persuasion is unbiblical (”we persuade men”). Agrippa said to Paul, “Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian.” I tend to think that salvation is very simple:
Romans 10:13 For whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved.
If a friend persuades you and you agree, I don’t think it’s inconceivable that a big God would take you just as you are.
Yeah at #38: But what’s even more of a head scratcher is your post at #36. After having reminded us of the dearth of empirical evidence in support of certain Christian propositions, and ridiculing any claims to knowledge of them, you state, “Justice requires mercy.” So do you know this, and is that assertion based on emprical data?
Because the nature of justice is a philosophical question. The question of whether rain came down or a place called hell exists are questions of fact.
My philosophical position is that justice requires mercy. I argue that punishment that exceeds the severity of the crime is vengeance, not justice. I argue that never-ending punishment for a finite amount of sin is unjust by definition.
This is my philosophical position. You can take and argue a different one.
SteveG & Jon Rowe: both of you consider justice and mercy in light of a finite standard. Regarding a finite standard, you are correct, finite transgression requires finite punishment (no more & no less). The infinite standard of God, as supremely holy, requires an infinite punishment (no more & no less). Lets consider for a moment what it took to redeem a sinner: the death of the 2nd person of the Trinity. It took Jesus’s death, the death of the only person who is supremely good, to cover over the sin. If salvation required so great an act, then the transgression must have been equally great.
And regarding vengeance: “Vengeance is mine, and recompense, for the time when their foot shall slip; for the day of their calamity is at hand,
and their doom comes swiftly.’” Deut 32:35.
Regardless of your philosophical view of justice - God himself considers vengeance to be a divine perogative.
John M.: According to the substitutionary atonement theology, it took the death of Jesus to redeem the sin of the entire world. Every sin great and small, committed by every human being, past present and future.
That does not in any way logically necessitate endless torment for one person’s finite sin.
(And one may argue that Jesus had it pretty easy as death goes, seeing as he knew he was coming back in a glorious way.)
Your argument that God’s holiness requires infinite punishment for sin doesn’t make a lot of sense either. God’s love and mercy and willingness to get down in the mud with us in the incarnation suggests that that’s more of a nice classroom or barroom assertion that doesn’t hold up very long under examination.
If you want to believe that you are a revolting worm in the eyes of a rigid, unyielding God, you go right ahead. I think it’s a sad sacrilege though.
The above was to Robert M, not John M.
Sorry M.
Robert,
I understand the logic, but simply disagree with the premises. This also complements what I’ve been studying over the past few years on Founding era theology. Doctrines like original sin, the trinity, incarnation, and atonement, rise and fall together. It’s hard to reject one without rejecting them all. America’s key Founders whom I listed above rejected them all. Rush was a Trinitarian Universalist who believed in original sin, the trinity, incarnation, atonement, but believed in universal salvation through universal atonement. Christ would just work with people after death towards salvation.
#9Spinoza, Willing to gamble eternity on that theory?
Absolutely!
#10 I’m bothered by Andree’s description of her own salvation: “This Christian guy … kept saying, ‘Andree, please become a Christian.’ It was as unsophisticated as that.”
Yeah but he was really CUTE!
#11 Spinoza, How do you know a devil created this consequence for not embracing evangelical soteriology? I think it was created by Spinoza.
I don’t think such a consequence exists. But if it does, it’s highly unethical (eternal punishment for finite crimes), so only an evil deity could be responsible.
Are you a devil?
If I were, do you think I would tell you (mwah ha ha)?!
Gotta go. My nephew, Wormwood, needs some attention…
Jon Rowe, Thanks I can appreciate that and I agree that such doctrines rise and fall together. I also think that such doctrines are bound to be accepted when one accepts the plenary and verbal inspiration of Scripture.
SteveG,
At the end of the day, you hold to a homo-centric or ratio-centric theology, on the other hand I hold to a Christo-centric theology — hence the root of our disagreement. If one accepts Scripture as authoritative, then the position articulated by myself and others is the logical outcome, if one rejects that assertion, then positions such as the one that you hold is the logical outcome.
If it were not for Scripture, then I could easily see myself believing as you do; but my theology is constrained and informed by the teaching of Scripture which declares, among other things, that man on his own is at enmity with God, and will always be an enmity with God throughout eternity (thus continually sinning) unless the Holy Spirit regenerates the heart — as the Prophet Ezekial declares “And I will give you a new heart, and a new spirit I will put within you. And I will remove the heart of stone from your flesh and give you a heart of flesh.” (36:26)
In response to SteveG’s first post or post #2, I think ‘know’ is the right word. I was thinking on what it would mean to know something.
Let’s say you read a science book on a certain topic, from a book that you know was proven accurate in every way except for maybe some Grammatical error.
If someone later asked you about the topic you read from the book, wouldn’t you say you know about it?
Same way with the Bible, It’s never been proven wrong once. And science, History and many more topics have been known to match up with it to be 100% true.
That’s why i think that we really can know that there is a hell. If I can’t trust the Bible on that, then what can i trust it for?
Robert M at #48: If one accepts Scripture as authoritative, then the position articulated by myself and others is the logical outcome.
Right. But the question remains, WHY do you accept Scripture as authoritative?
I have heard many people try to answer that question who go in circles like Tychicus does. Ultimately, you believe it because well, you just do. And there’s, again, nothing wrong with that, but it is stll not knowledge.
The other option is to respond like Striker does in #49, but that magical land in which the Bible has “never been proven wrong once” and is shown by science and history to be “100% true” is so far from the real world I wouldn’t even know where to begin.
SteveG says,
“Because the nature of justice is a philosophical question. The question of whether rain came down or a place called hell exists are questions of fact.”
Your epistemology is equally a philosophical position.
“And there’s, again, nothing wrong with that, but it is stll not knowledge.”
It isn’t knowledge. based on your epistemological position, but you beg the question in regard to epistemology.
Ree: If you are going to take something on authority, you have to:
1: Know that the authority is trustworthy, and;
2: Know that the information you receive comes from that authority.
In the case of the Bible, at least the second condition is unmet. No matter how strongly you believe it, you do not know it. (And even at that, it’s subject to interpretation. Christian Universalists believe the Bible is the inspired word of God but that it does not actually teach endless torment.)
That is why a belief in neverending hell for non-Christians will never be something that anyone can known.
Spinoza - #47.
At times our vision and/or discription of Hell tends to be a little (or maybe very) misleading. Hell is simply eternal separation from God; nothing more and nothing less. If you hate God (as your posts imply) or perhaps the concept of God, then Hell should be a very comfortable place for you. Where the concept originated is immaterial if you consider (as us crazy Christians do) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I imagine He even created Hell so folks that didn’t want to spend enternity with Him at least had a place to stay - see, He really is compassionate!
Now we have to admit, Hell as described by those in Heaven or more aptly put, those going to Heaven, does not sound like a very nice place. Then again, maybe those in Hell think Heaven is the last place you want to visit; let alone spend eternity!
The good news is that you can keep mocking us gullible Believers right up until your second to the last breath, change your mind and with your dying breath ask to be with God and He will hear you (I won’t say whether He will save or curse you since that is His decision, not ours). But, knowing God the way I do, I think your chances are pretty good. It would be nice for you to come to side with Him before then because He would like to employ you for mighty works in this life, but He’s not the type to demand anything. Again, it is purely your choice.
In the meantime, folks like me will continue to worry about you and others who believe the way you do and pray for your salvation. If that bothers you, my apologies. You see, us Christians think about Heaven not for ourselves, but for those who we fear may choose the wrong course when the time comes. Eternal punishment for finite wrongs? Nah. Just eternal implications for one choice. At least you have control over what to choose.
People generally would want to know about spinach in their teeth; hearing about their sins? That is a different matter entirely. I don’t see the logic at all.
If you hate God (as your posts imply) or perhaps the concept of God, then Hell should be a very comfortable place for you. Where the concept originated is immaterial if you consider (as us crazy Christians do) that God created the heavens and the earth and all that is in them. I imagine He even created Hell so folks that didn’t want to spend enternity with Him at least had a place to stay - see, He really is compassionate!
This concept of Hell I don’t find disturbing and wouldn’t mock you for believing it; it would make for, in my mind, a more reasonable and hence a more persuasive argument. But it’s not what Jonathan Edwards taught (he taught God as an eternal torturer). And few folks on these boards would admit to believing in such a version of Hell.
Hell as a place where folks who don’t want to be in God’s presence can enjoy themselves for eternity with their fellow unsaved loved ones and meet fellow unsaved historical figures like Aristotle, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Voltaire, Ghandi, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Zappa, John Lennon, etc., basically doing for eternity what they did on earth (probably enjoying their sins, since God won’t permit that in His presence; but you’d be free to do it with Him not there).
For most folks Hell would be a place where they eat, drink, gamble, fornicate, gossip, have sex with friends and loved ones for eternity.
It makes sense why so many folks would choose to be there and would be perfectly just on God’s part; he would be neither an eternal torturer of finite sins and in fact wouldn’t be forcing misery on anyone, because the doors would be locked from the inside. All sides would probably be happy with the deal.
This is a narrative of Hell I could accept. Why is it that so many evangelicals won’t endorse this?
Steve,
I understand your epistemology–you don’t have to explain it. I even once held it. I no longer share it, though, so when you base your assertions on it, your begging the questions on which we differ.
Nitrobob and Jon Rowe,
Evangelicals don’t endorse this view of hell (post 53) because we can’t. The Bible doesn’t allow us to. Yes, the worst thing about hell will be separation from God (and all that is good), which is far less benign than you indicate. But the Bible also describes active suffering, not simply passive separation from all that is good.
Thanks Cheryl,
Yours seems to be the typical view of evangelicals. My response is if it’s true — that the overwhelming majority of humanity including loved ones of every believer faces this — then what a terrible cosmic truth it is. It’s even bleaker than atheism.
But all of them, without exception, have some concept of sin/evil/wrong and some theological approach to address it. Christianity’s way is the doctrine of substitutionary atonement. Other faith systems have other ways.
Steve: When I ask which religious leader or religion has dealt with sin, I mean as I do in #34, that is, who has actually provided the solution for sin. It’s not about having a “theological approach”, it’s about Christ and His complete victory over sin at the Cross.
Without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness of sins. Heb 9:22
There is salvation in no one else! There is no other name in all of heaven for people to call on to save them. Acts 4:12
So tell us again why other religious leaders or religious systems are as trustworthy as Christianity.
Oh I see… you mean what other religious system deals with sin in the same way Christianity does.
In #59, you define the concept of “dealing with sin” so narrowly that only Christianity qualifies. That closes the door to any real discussion of the topic, because it allows no questioning of the conclusion.
So tell us again why other religious leaders or religious systems are as trustworthy as Christianity.
You haven’t shown that Christianity is “trustworthy” on this. You’ve only shown what it claims, not whether it’s claims are true.
However, you’ve defined “dealing with sin” so narrowly that only Christianity qualifies. There’s no point in trying to go further. Have fun spinning around in your circular arguments.
SteveG, you said “Right. But the question remains, WHY do you accept Scripture as authoritative?”
That is not something that can be exhaustively answered in a posting to a blog. But I will do my best to give the beginnings of an answer.
Reformed Theologians speak of somethign called the self-authentication of Scripture, such that when a person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit reads Scripture, then they are assured to its truthfulness. Now, I readly grant that this might seem strange to you. But you asked why I hold it to be authoritative: 1) B/c of scriptures testimony about itself (its self-authentication) & 2) because of the presence of the Holy Spirit that testifies to my spirit concerning its truth (biblical justification lies in Romans 8).
Yet I think that you will find the above highly unsatisfying — and were I to hold to your metaphysical and epistemological basic beliefs I would also find it higly unsatisfying. However we both approach this issue from different starting points and thus what you find unhelpful, I find helpful.
So the real issue is not so much my reason for holding Scripture to be authoritative, but rather what epistemological and metaphysical beliefs guide our determining what counts as knowledge. Again I will refer you back to Dr. Alvin Plantiga’s (of Notre Dame) book “Warranted Christian Belief”.
Let me briefly explain why I keep citing Dr. Plantinga. I am willing to guess that you accept certain propositions of Science and Mathematics (like I do) as knowledge even though you don’t (as I don’t) have a complete grasp of the concept and surely would be incapable of providing an adequate explanation for such concepts that would assuage a skeptic (i.e. we aren’t qualified to teach that proposition, even though we accept it as knowledge). So when a person comes to us questioning that proposition, we rightly refer said person back to an expert. So in the same way, I refer you (and others) back to Dr. Plantinga, while I have read his book and understand his arguments, I feel far from qualified to teach or explain them here. (Just as I understand the essential tenets of Immanuel Kant’s metaphysics, I would not be able to recount them accurately here).
“Have fun spinning around in your circular arguments.”
And you “have fun” denying culpability before God for your rebellion against Him by telling yourself that, because there’s no empirical method by which to test the Bible, God is inherently unknowable.
While you’re doing so, try not to think about the circularity of your own arguments–all of which are based on your own unproven, unprovable (and philosophically unjustifiable) hybrid rationalist/empiricist assumptions. But that doesn’t appear to be too hard for you.
It worked for me for a long time–or so I convinced myself.
Steve: You have a strange way of talking about circular arguments - I don’t know what you’re on about.
As plainly as I can put it: Without the forgiveness of sins, one is still dead in his sins, and the wrath of God abides in him. Only Jesus Christ, by His death and resurrection, can forgive sins. These aren’t merely claims. Jesus didn’t just claim to be teaching us the truth [as do other religious leaders]; He claims that He is the Truth. He not only claimed to be God, but He proved it through His miracles, through fulfilled prophecies, through fulfilling the attributes that are unique to God, and through His resurrection from the dead.
Do you know a religious leader who has claimed to be God? Do you know a religious leader who has proved himself to be God? Do you know a religious leader who can forgive sins? Do you know a religion that can point to a specific moment in history and say, “This is what God has done for you!”? Do you know of a religion that tells us how God took the initiative to save us from our sins and provide us with eternal life?
That is why Christianity is unique. That is why Jesus Christ is absolutely trustworthy. Once again in this discussion, just as in our previous discussions [including the one about the authority of Scripture which you are also now having with Robert], you are presented with Scriptural truth, yet you still choose not to believe. Sure, it means a step of faith, but the evidence is clear. I pray that you will finally come to understand that Jesus is unique and trustworthy, and place your trust in Him.
Nitrobob - If you hate God (as your posts imply) or perhaps the concept of God, then Hell should be a very comfortable place for you.
I love God and the concept! Which is why I strenuously oppose puerile evangelical notions about him/her/them. Like:
1. Fiat creation in 6 days
2. Literal Adam/Eve/Serpent/Apple, etc.
3. Literal Flood w/God wiping out all of life on earth save a boatload
4. God literally killing innocent children in Egypt, etc.
5. Literal substitionary atonement - i.e., God torturing his Son to give Himself permission to give us eternal life.
….. and of course
N-1. Literal lake-of-fire hell with a supposedly omnipresent God effectively saying, “I don’t like you any more. Go some place where I won’t have to see you.” (i.e., “Hell = absence of God”) or simply
N. Eternal punishment for one choice (as you so aptly put it)
I do think I see examples of literal Hell on Earth, e.g.
* My paranoid schizophrenic brother in the middle of a night-time hallucination of paralysis while being covered with scorpions
* Myriad injuries/casualties across the world in Iraq, Sudan, Rwanda, etc…
* A poor sucker being waterboarded at Guantanamo
… Just watch the nightly news for more.
Unfortunately, these don’t always correspond to punishments exactly fitting a crime. I admit that the notion of a final “justice” or “redemption” day that makes all this right is enormously attractive. I sincerely wish there to be such a thing. But I don’t think evangelical eschatologyis either real or desirable.
Robert M at #61: Reformed Theologians speak of somethign called the self-authentication of Scripture, such that when a person who has been regenerated by the Holy Spirit reads Scripture, then they are assured to its truthfulness. Now, I readly grant that this might seem strange to you. But you asked why I hold it to be authoritative: 1) B/c of scriptures testimony about itself (its self-authentication) & 2) because of the presence of the Holy Spirit that testifies to my spirit concerning its truth (biblical justification lies in Romans 8).
Yet I think that you will find the above highly unsatisfying — and were I to hold to your metaphysical and epistemological basic beliefs I would also find it higly unsatisfying. However we both approach this issue from different starting points and thus what you find unhelpful, I find helpful.
So the real issue is not so much my reason for holding Scripture to be authoritative, but rather what epistemological and metaphysical beliefs guide our determining what counts as knowledge. Again I will refer you back to Dr. Alvin Plantiga’s (of Notre Dame) book “Warranted Christian Belief”.
I understand this concept, but what I don’t understand is what about this is something that could not be said by an adherent of any other religion.
The Orthodox Jew will say that it is something similar that causes him to reject the New Testament as a heretical add-on to the real revelation. The devout Muslim will say that something along these same lines is how he knows the Koran is the true revelation of God. And a Mormon can “prove” the Book of Mormon the same way. Meanwhile, a Hindu raised completely outside of the Abrahamic faiths will read his Bagavad Gita and wonder why you all are arguing when none of your books are (in his view) even close to right.
What it always seems to come down to is, people who believe the Christian Bible to be the only true revelation of God believe it because, well, they do. There is no external reason to support that belief.
Now, I do not discount this. But I also see no warrant to discount it when the Jew, the Muslim, the Mormon and the Hindu tell me the same thing about their scriptures.
All faith systems make sense when one is inside of them. If you take the basic claims of Christianity as your starting assumption, then Christianity will make all kinds of sense to you and Hinduism will not. But if you start with a different set of assumptions, you reach a different conclusion.
Spinoza:
I appreciate your clarification of where you are coming from…that is often the most difficult thing to discern. I too have seen my share of hell on earth, though through my own eyes rather than that of a camera or a newspaper article. I thought about listing some as well, but realized it would be exploiting the suffering of others to attempt to prove a point.
You’re right; sometimes we Christians are too lazy to really think and pray about our faith and would rather give a canned soundbite that seems to work from the pulpit, but falls flat in the real world. I for one, believe in the Bible though there are descriptors that are confusing to say the least. Since we’re on the subject of Hell, that certainly is one of them.
Does one choice secure eternal paradise or damnation? I don’t know. But, it seems to me that God works in a binary language. In other words, instead of multiple positions on a particular issue, He gives us a choice of two. My favorite example is when Jesus says in Luke that you cannot serve two masters; either you will love the one and hate the other, or be devoted to the other and despise the one…therefore, choose whom you will serve; God or money. If I continue this line of thinking, then at some point He is going to ask us to make a choice between life with Him or life without Him. If we choose the latter, then I guess we go to Hell. Now what is that place really like? I don’t know, but when I say someone would be comfortable there, I imply that they made the choice to be away from God; therefore, they must be content to be completely separated from Him.
I am sorry for the suffering of this world; especially for the hell you, your brother and your family must be going through. If you ask me to explain or rationalize the suffering, then I will tell you I just don’t know. Though, in my own faith journey, it is most often the evil around me that drives me closer to God. At least He gives me hope and He offers a place for me someday where I will no longer have to participate in the evil and suffering. I pray the same for you and your family.
Tychicus at #63: As plainly as I can put it: Without the forgiveness of sins, one is still dead in his sins, and the wrath of God abides in him. Only Jesus Christ, by His death and resurrection, can forgive sins. These aren’t merely claims. Jesus didn’t just claim to be teaching us the truth [as do other religious leaders]; He claims that He is the Truth. He not only claimed to be God, but He proved it through His miracles, through fulfilled prophecies, through fulfilling the attributes that are unique to God, and through His resurrection from the dead.
You are just preaching the message of Christianity and acting as if that should be taken as some kind of self-evident, obvious truth.
It isn’t.
I could come back to you and say there is no such thing as “sin,” but there is karma that brings us good or bad fortune depending on how we treat others.
That is a cornerstone of Buddhism and to the Buddhist it makes much more sense than your idea of a judging God demanding our repentance. They would read what you say here and, if they have never encountered any religion but Buddhism, be absolutely mystified by what you think is so obvious.
Their religion deals with “sin” every bit as much as Christianity does, but by a different name and in a different way. However, it does not deal with your belief about sin.
The punishment of Hell (rejection of God - i.e. all that is good) is being vastly UNDERPLAYED here.
Christian teachings demonstrate that every man and woman who has and does and will exist on the planet was created ESPECIALLY to walk with God. It is in the warp and woof of our very being - our single purpose and intended destiny.
If a person once and for all REJECTS and renounces that relationship within their inner being, they will then necessarily suffer Hell, i.e. spiritual torments beyond imagining - because they exist in a Hell absent their very defining purpose, in a terrible indescribable incomplete and eternally fragmenting state. For them, the mouth of Hell is insatiable and ever-widening, even though it is in reality less than a geometric (or spiritual) point.
The ravages of thirst in Hell are spiritual - thirst for a relationship with the Creator, a walk with the Creator, which is eternally rejected.
So the thirsts and torments of Hell are self-induced and eternally self-sustaining.
God did not create Hell (which is best and most horribly defined as the complete and utter absence of God).
He did not NEED to create Hell; it is the anti-Creation of those who reject forever Him, whether angels or men or beings beyond our ken.
Those who speak glibly of ‘relationships’ in Hell forget that ALL the good ‘things’ in this life, relationships and other things as well, are but dim shadows and poor reflections of the single driving relationship that we were singularly created and shaped for.
And when (and if) you ultimately utterly reject that defining relationship, all things you count as good will become a mist and will be driven away in the furious wind of your own insatiable and self-consuming ego.
Sheesh Drill - that was very Edwards-ian of you!
Just curious, what must one do to carry out this “ultimate” and “once and for all” REJECTION? Is this effective blasphemy of the Holy Spirit a conscientious choice? Must one say some sort of anti-creed? (”I believe in NO God…”), or can it encompass simple doubt and agnosticism?
Put another way, “What must one do to be [NOT] saved?”
“What it always seems to come down to is, people who believe the Christian Bible to be the only true revelation of God believe it because, well, they do. There is no external reason to support that belief.”
The external justification for the truth of the triune God is its explanatory power. No other belief system (whether ostenstibly religious or not) can consistently and fully account for our universal experience of reality. It comes down to, as Van Til put it, “the impossibility of the contrary.” Apart from the reality of the triune God, all knowledge claims would be undermined and we’d be left in radical skepticism. This is what consistent postmodernists have figured out (presuming there really are any), while the run-of-the-mill relativists try to eat their cake and have it too when it comes to living out the ramifications of their stated worldview.
Spinoza: Edwards? Who? Full name would be nice. Are you talking about Jonathon Edwards? Because I doubt if he would have agreed with what I wrote, based on the relatively little I know of him.
Spinoza: You ask “what must one do to carry out this “ultimate” and “once and for all” REJECTION?”
I don’t think of it as ’something you do’. It will be clear enough (I suspect) when that Rubicon is crossed. I don’t think you lose your identity or your will - ever. What you can lose is your CAPACITY to enter into Joy - the Joy you were created to be part of. I think you will still have that DESIRE (that is maybe the definition of being human, whether in heaven, in hell, or on earth.) But you will have self-eliminated (nulled) your own capacity to participate in that Joy. But the desire remains, growing monstrous with denial, twisted and distorting out of time and mind, and feeds on the only thing left to it - the ego itself. And the feeding is eternal, and horrible beyond the ability of words to describe.
That is a view of Hell.
I used to get hung up on ‘How can a good God create Hell’. Then it hit me. He did not.
As I said above, Hell is the anti-creation of those who reject God - it is the place of infinitely small extent that God does not - will not - inhabit.
And it is a place that one cannot either literally, or figuratively, or allegorically describe in fearsome enough terms.
72 - yes, but I meant the comparison only with the let’s-be-clear-hell-is-very-bad rhetoric you used.
“Hell, i.e. spiritual torments beyond imagining…
a terrible indescribable incomplete and eternally fragmenting state. For them, the mouth of Hell is insatiable and ever-widening…”
#71 Ree - The external justification for the truth of the triune God is its explanatory power. No other belief system (whether ostenstibly religious or not) can consistently and fully account for our universal experience of reality. It comes down to, as Van Til put it, “the impossibility of the contrary.”
#71 Van Til was whacko - his thesis that his creationist version of Christianity and only this view explains everything is just a patently false assertion.
The problem Drill is your conception of God isn’t just. No one deserves what you describe and I seriously doubt you or any good person or conscience really believes every human being because of original sin deserves that. Maybe because of original sin all human beings deserve something less than the total joy that Christians describe what Heaven will be, but they don’t deserve that.
This is especially so given that most human beings on the road to perdition don’t “reject” God as you say, but rather make a theological error. The overwhelming majority of folks believe in God, but only a small fraction of them believe in what you would call the “real God” the Triune God of the inerrant Bible.
So the Muslim, the Mormon, the Jehovah’s Witness, the Deist, the Jew, the Hindu all die devoutly believing they serve the real God(s) but make a theological error and are damned for it.
That’s not just and I can’t buy it. This aspect of orthodox Christian theology is, in my eyes, as bad as what the worst of Islam has to offer.
Drill - It is not my intention to downplay the torment of Hell. If God is absent, then so is anything that is good, therefore, only evil exists there. The true manifestation of that evil is unknown to us, but has been described throughout the millenia through allegory, comparison, etc. Nevertheless, it is a real bad place to say the least.
If you have ever suffered depression or any other torments of the mind and spirit, then you might get a glimpse of Hell. For you can be sitting in an air conditioned room, sipping from a cool glass of water and surrounded by the finest furnishing; yet, all the while in unspeakable agony. That is the closest comparison I can think of in this life.
The Bible uses all sorts of physical comparisons to describe Hell because that is what most folks can relate to. Nevertheless, we must remember it is far more a book of the mind, emotion and spirit and their eternal well-being, then some sort of guide to better living in the present.