We’ve been talking about the parable of the Sheep and the Goats, and if you haven’t read the two previous posts, you should read them. The Sheep and the Kids and What to do with the Kids?
After talking and talking, I’m left with one question. If the eternal punishment doesn’t last forever, then how can the eternal life last forever? A lot of people ask this, and it makes sense to ask it, given our understanding of words, parallel structure of sentences, and just plain logic. Here’s the verse in question:
‘Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say to you, Inasmuch as you did it not to one of these, the least, you did it not to me. And these shall go away to punishment age-during, but the righteous to life age-during.’ (Matthew 25:46 RYLT-NT)
You see the problem, I’m sure. It’s that last sentence. The same word (aionion) is used of the punishment and of the life. If the punishment is finite, then so is the life. Not to give offense, but I think I’d be happier with a limited-time engagement of life for everyone than to gain never-ending life at such a price. Fortunately, that’s not a choice we have to make.
Aionios is a very complex word. Books — long, scholarly books — have been written about it and its cousins. I haven’t read them, but I have read long scholarly articles — does that count? And I’ve read the people who read the books.
Now here’s a phenomenon that (unless you’re a linguist) you probably haven’t noticed. We’ve all been taught that adjectives modify nouns, but have you ever realized that nouns also modify adjectives?
Here’s an example: The yellow dog rolled on the green grass. Now visualize it. Unless you’re a surrealist artist, you probably see a yellow lab or a golden retriever sort of color on the dog. You don’t normally see bright neon-yellow dogs around here. The noun (dog) modifies the adjective. If you were talking about apples, you’d see a different sort of yellow. What color was the grass? Was it the color of pine needles? The color of the Caribbean sea? Probably it was the color of the sort of grass you have around you most springtimes or summers. Again, noun modifies adjective modifies noun.
Aionios is like that. If it is attached to something like remedial punishment (see What to do with the Kids?), then it will be of limited duration. Connected with our eternal Father, it necessarily has a different meaning. Aionios is used in this way throughout the Bible, sometimes meaning a long time, sometimes a fairly short time (Jonah’s time in the whale).
But there’s another way in which aionios can be used. We have adjectives that denote origin: French wine, Belgian chocolate, German beer. Eternal can also be used in this way. “And this is eternal life: that they should know You, and Jesus Christ, whom You have sent.” It is the God kind of life; the kind of life that comes from God. In this way, eternal punishment, such as that suffered by Sodom, needn’t last forever (and God later said it wouldn’t). Eternal fire, such as the fire that consumed that unhappy city, needn’t burn forever (which obviously it doesn’t). It is punishment; it is fire; from eternity.
For more on this, see my posts: What’s in an Eternity? and Does an Eternity have to be Forever?
My conclusion, the aionion in aionion punishment can (and probably does) mean two things. First, that it is punishment of the sort that kolasis is — remedial and therefore limited to the duration of necessity. Second that it is punishment of the sort that comes from the Father.
The aionion life is life that endures for the age (and I’m guessing, but I’ll bet that’s the way Jesus’ hearers understood it — that’s what they would have expected to hear; life during the Messianic age. That was their hope. It can also mean life of the sort that God has and gives, which would be abundant and also never-ending life. The two instances of aionios don’t have to mean the same thing, nor is it reasonable to require or even to suppose that they do.
Blessings, Cindy
Cindy, blessing to see this blog post that begins to probe what is a curious thing to mull from our 21st century viewing port.
As we consider “aionion”, it should be noted that the people first reading New Testament documents tended to be more concrete in their perception of time. Our modern notion of “eternity” or “everlasting” or “no beginning” are abstract concepts. The difference may be illustrated by example of another change: flat earthers & round earthers. To the “flat earth” crowd, the world is defined differently — it has an edge somewhere, though unseen. The round earthers also have a limited earth, while there’s is seamless. Nothing from the Scriptures solidly jumps up to define the abstract idea of “eternity” to these people, and as Latin & English Bible translators later began to superimpose infinity and as to match (mostly RCC) theology.
We can imagine what is meant by aionion, or make the big leap in deferring to an earlier understanding: eternity (as a concept) is birthed from reasoned speculation. Ages and epochs, these we are able to comprehend. We do not know what will become of the 4th dimension (time), or for how time began — or if it did; better in faith to trust God with these?
Hi, Marshall
Thanks for your comments — you make some good points. I believe that the concept of eternity was actually current with some of the Greek philosophers, but possibly not with the general public, or with Israel in particular. But I’ve been told this — what you brought up — that when the bible was originally translated into more modern languages, “eternal” wasn’t that bad a translation. As you point out, the word itself has changed flavors, as it seems so many words inevitably do.
The topic of time is an interesting one. Christians mostly expect time to come to an end, and I suppose the reason for this is that verse in Revelation where the angel says, “Time shall be no more.” More modern translations have it: “There shall be no more interval of time (or delay).” Apart from this, and the misunderstandings over aionion, I can’t think of any other text that suggests an end to time. Truthfully, though I’m certain it would be okay, if that’s what Father wants to do, it’s somewhat of a relief to me. I like things happening one after another.
Blessings, Cindy
Cindy,
Very interesting article! Thanks!
I’d like your take on something. As you know, our Catholic brothers and sisters believe in purgatory. I am Protestant, but for the sake of argument, if the doctrine of purgatory is true, would that weaken the potency of universalism? After all, they may argue, what would be the point of purgatory if hell is restorative/purgatorial? To them, purgatory IS the place where one is purged of serious sins and can repent and eventually enter heaven. So, from a Catholic point of view, is it also possible to escape hell?
Andy
Oops! I forgot your last sentence. The RCC has believed in a never-ending hell at least since Augustine (around 600 CE/AD). It was largely due to his influence that it stopped being optional and became dogma. Before that, differences of opinion were acceptable on the topic of whether one could eventually escape hell, whether one would be annihilated, or whether one would suffer in hell forever and ever.
Eastern Orthodox is a little softer on the hell issue, and has always been more receptive to the idea of hopeful universalism. Perhaps this is due in part to the fact that they spoke Greek, whereas Augustine had studied very little Greek and had to rely on the (rather inaccurate/incomplete) Latin Vulgate.
Thanks again!
Hi, Andy
I’m not an expert on the Roman Catholic Church, but it’s my understanding that purgatory is for baptized members of the church only. It doesn’t extend to unbelievers. I believe they get it from one or more of the apocryphal books. I keep meaning to read them, but I confess that I STILL haven’t gotten to them. They also take it from Paul’s description of judgment where works made of “wood, hay, and stubble” are burned up, however the person whose works they are is saved — but as through fire. (1 Cor : 12-15)
As with pretty much all doctrines, there are various flavors of universalism. The one (it seems to me) that’s most popular with Evangelical universalists is the purgatorial view. Works of the flesh are “burned up,” thus purifying the person himself. Some think this is instantaneous; others think it could take a while. Personally, I think it will take as long as it takes, and the more tenaciously one clings to the flesh, the longer it’s likely to go on. But that’s just me, from reason and a few suggestive scriptures — certainly not dogma.
Most universalists I’ve read/conversed with take the view that this applies to believers and unbelievers, but that the believers (one hopes) have less need of purification, having already gotten a head start during this life. Jesus said on one occasion that everyone will be “salted with fire.”
So, based on all that, I’d say that Evangelical universalism is more of an expansion on the RCC’s purgatory, in that not only will believers be cleansed, but also those who have not believed in this life.
Great question — thanks for bringing it up!
Blessings, Cindy
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on this, Cindy. I greatly appreciate it.
God bless,
Andy
Hey Cindy,
Be careful about trying to interpret away that which is unappealing to you. I share your sentiment in not liking the idea of eternal hell. But a good rule of interpretation is that if the plain sense makes good sense, seek no other sense. The hope of every believer is the promise of eternal life as we understand eternal to be, not as God will redefine it in a bait-and-switch maneuver when we get to heaven. So maybe you shouldn’t get too hung up trying to wring every possible meaning from the word “eternity”.
I don’t know if this will be much consolation or not, but perhaps we might view hell in a light other than a pit of 2000 degree flames. Let’s think in terms of our natural state and what happens to us when we are saved. In our natural state, we are spiritually separated from God. We are saved when we are spiritually re-connected to God through Christ. This re-connectedness IS eternal life. We have eternal life at this very moment. We simply transition to a different location where it continues on after we die. If we do not receive Christ in this life, then our state of separation from God simply continues on into eternity in another location. In our state of eternal life, our status drastically improves by being even more connected to God by being in His presence. In our state of eternal separation, our status is vastly degraded because now we are absolutely totally absent from the presence of God.
Let’s think of hell in those terms. God giving unbelievers exactly what we want – life and an eternity without Him. Does God really need to do anything more to make hell a hell other than to be totally absent from it? Think of the most God-forsaken, hellish times in human history. When I do, I think of the German invasion of the Soviet Union in WW 2, and the siege of Stalingrad in particular. Images from that conflict definitely have a hellish flavor to them. Two countries that rejected God in conflict with one another. What a picture of hell that is – God just letting God-rejecting people destroy one another. Perhaps hell will be like that. It will be a complete and constant godless existence, replete with the atrocities of war, famine, violence, and every other horror that unregenerate humans visit upon one another.
In this way God is not accountable for the conditions or duration of hell. Hell would be what the hellions have made of it. And they are there because they chose not to opt out of it, by rejecting the One who could have saved their souls from this oblivion. They are getting exactly what they’ve always wanted – a world without God. So . . . now that you’ve gotten your world, how do you like it? Of course, the imagery of eternal fire and torment would be part and parcel of this existence, as would be the literal and spiritual unquenchable thirst experienced by it’s inhabitants.
Maybe it’s not much of a consolation as to the comfort level. But I think it does absolve God of being a torture chamber attendant. As Romans 1 tells us, God gives reprobate sinners over to their own devices. And perhaps hell is just the ultimate in giving them over to be who they really are.
Just some thoughts. God bless . . . . . . Jim
Hi there, Jim
If you’ve been reading my blog for a while, you’ll be aware that, while I blog about many things in the Christian walk, I’ve lately done quite a lot regarding eschatology (and by this I mean last things rather than end times). I don’t want to re-blog all that in an answer to a comment
but if you’re interested, I’ll post some links. It’s something I need to do, but summer has been very busy.
Up until a couple of years ago, I believed in the sort of hell you’re talking about — whether absence of God on up to literal flames and screams of agony. I believed it because that’s what I believed the bible said. Like you say, I didn’t like it, but I believed it and that if God did it, then it must be good, or at the least, unavoidable. My blog chronicles my journey to this point, and gives many of my reasons which would answer your comments here if you are interested in reading them. You can just scroll back through my posts of the last year, or if you want, I’ll post you some links as I said.
Your contention that we should believe the plain sense of scripture is good — if you’re a first century Greek reader. If you’re not, it doesn’t have a lot of meaning. The great thing is to find out what the writer meant by what he said, because in Biblical Greek, as in modern English, words may have many meanings. Take “radical”. It could refer to a new product, in an effort of the advertiser to portray it as some wonderful unheard-of discovery — something that has never been done before. It could refer to a destructive element (free radicals). It could refer to a “freedom fighter” or to a hard-line fanatic (radical mu$1lm) or to a conspiracy theorist or a “prepper” or an academic with whom you disagree or a politician who’s “off the reservation”. How this sort of thing is translated will depend on the meaning of the original writer, if that can be discerned.
Add to the mix that Jesus’ and the apostles’ words were spoken into a society far different from the society of the original Reformation-era translators. Taking the text at its plain meaning for US isn’t the same as taking the story Jesus told to His 1st century Jewish listeners at its plain meaning for THEM. All translations are and can be only paraphrases with greater or less degree of literalness.
If you will study the more literal English versions, you will find that not only is “eternal” never mentioned, but neither is hell present in the OT at all. It is seldom mentioned in the NT, and then as Hades, Gehenna, Tartarus, or the Lake of Fire. Hades (which is, if I remember right) the word most often used by Jesus when we understand Him to be referring to hell, is the Greek word the Septuagint translators used to translate the Hebrew word Sheol (grave or hidden). Reformation translators rendered Sheol hell, but this is incorrect. The Jews understood it to mean the grave or the hidden place. Until their sojourn in Babylon, they had no concept of hell whatsoever. After that, because of Babylonian, Greek, and Roman influence, they did understand the concept of hell (as we moderns understand it).
Gehenna, which Jesus also used quite a lot, refers to the valley outside of Jerusalem where the Jews at one time offered sacrifices to Moloch by making their children pass through fire. Some historians believe there was a huge metal idol which was heated up to receive the “offerings.” The child would be rolled down the outstretched arms of the “god” and received through an opening into the inside of the idol — essentially a huge oven — where he or she would be baked to death. YHWH said of this practice, “which I did not command, nor did such a thing enter My mind.”
After the sacking of Jerusalem, the Romans piled up the thousands of Jewish corpses in that valley. Some historians say there was a garbage dump there, which was kept burning constantly, but others dispute this. At any rate, Gehenna is a reference to a time-limited punishment. What’s more, the corpses piled there (or the offerings made there) were soon dead or already dead. They were not writhing in never-ending agony.
The fire is not quenched and the worm does not die does not mean the fire will burn forever. I live in the west mid-west, and I can attest to the fact that humans can seldom quench fires. They burn until there is no fuel for them, or until God puts them out with rain or winter. They are not quenched aside from an act of God — they just burn out when we manage to remove fuel from them. The eternal fires that burned Sodom and Gomorrah are not still burning. They also were not quenched. The worms feed on dead flesh and they do not die so long as there is something for them to consume. The pictures Jesus gives us of Gehenna are more conducive to a view of hell as annihilation (which many Christian leaders are, often quietly, coming to believe) than they are of eternal conscious torment. However I have other reasons, which I think very good, to favor eventual reconciliation of all through the work of Christ.
If my study of scripture didn’t honestly lead me to believe as I do today, then I wouldn’t believe as I do today. There are a few passages which seem to point toward eternal conscious torment (however you like to depict it), but there are many more which seem (and very clearly) to point to the eventual reconciliation of all through Christ. Believers in ECT or in Annihilation must “explain away” these passages. There are difficult and challenging passages of scripture for all three views. It’s my belief that EU (evangelical universalism) is the model that best accommodates the entire witness of scripture.
However I freely confess that a year or two ago I would likely have written a comment that would have been very similar to yours, given cause. It is, I believe, the Holy Spirit who has led me in this direction. I pray regularly that Father will lead me into all truth. I tell Him that I am willing to abandon any doctrine I hold, so long as He can show me from scripture (the whole witness of scripture — not a few proof texts) that I have been mistaken in my beliefs.
I’ve asked Him, with fear and trembling, about some doctrines which I hold to be very dear indeed, and He has affirmed them. I want to be fair to people who come to me and say, “You’re wrong about this or that.” I know how I would have reacted to the idea of EU five years ago, and I don’t want to make the mistake of holding on to falsehood. But neither do I want to let go that which is true.
Some of the greatest theologians of our day have leaned toward EU or have embraced it. If you read Barth, for example, you’ll easily see where he was going. CS Lewis was not far from it, though he didn’t go all the way, but his acknowledged master, George MacDonald was wholeheartedly EU.
But I’m off on a rabbit trail here. The point of your comment, I believe, was that we should take the translations at their simple meaning. Unfortunately, this is sometimes a mistake. Aionios is not best translated as eternity; it often is not so translated (because it would result in incoherency) and there is no compelling reason to so translate it (other than to support current theology) in the places where it IS so translated. From this, I (and many others far better educated than I) conclude that the literal translators were correct in translating it in temporal terms. (of the age, for the age, age during, etc.)
Sorry to lead you such a merry chase, Brother.
I hope you’ll forgive me.
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for your response. I enjoy dialoguing with those who have thought through their positions. The presence of good men on both sides of an argument says that each must have legitimate reasons for believing as they do, but it does not mean that each can be right. My personal preference is to agree with you on your evangelical universalism as I understand it, although I find some aspects of it confusing where it’s proponents believe in an eternal hell, but that all men will eventually be saved from it. As I said, I would LOVE to believe that, as I have friends and relatives that I am nearly sure will be there. But it seems that belief in that would be speculative at best, since there is nothing in scripture I am aware of to support that. The fact that “every knee will bow and every tongue confess” can just as well mean that everyone will bow the knee at the judgment bar as a last ditch effort to avoid condemnation.
But having said that, God can certainly do whatever He wants. And if He someday wants to empty the chambers of hell, I’ll be there praising Him for it. But while I can certainly praise Him for it, I don’t see sufficient evidence of it in scripture to preach it to others. I think that is the difference between hope and hopefulness. Hope is based upon the clear promises of scripture. Hopefulness is based upon our desire for things to be a certain way without any basis for knowing that they will be that way. Certainly we can be hopeful that someday God will empty hell, but it doesn’t seem that we have any real hope of it. But . . . at the same time, we only know what God has told us in His word. And His word is certainly not exhaustive about all things future.
As for the biblical meaning of words, you’re right . . . . they can only be understood within the context of the language and the times in which they were written. My “cool shirt” would be understood as being a shirt that did not keep me warm if spoken a hundred years ago.
We speak of eternal life. And we speak of eternal torment. The same word is used describing both outcomes. So whatever one means, the other must mean as well. Yet Jesus said in John 11:25, 26, “I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me shall live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me shall never die . . .” And so here Jesus speaks of the certain hope of eternal life in terms of NEVER dying. And it appears the word “never” is spoken as doubly strong negative, i.e. , “shall no, not die”, without having the negating effect of a double negative, but rather a reinforcing effect. Furthermore, it appears Jesus is saying that one must be living in order to believe, “he who lives and believes in Me . . . ” Certainly there will be no unbelievers in hell, once they have arrived. But they won’t be believing while they live.
I certainly hope that you are right, and that I am wrong. But I am compelled to advocate that which seems to be the clearest sense of scripture, and not that which is my hopeful sense of it. And basing such hopefulness on the loving character of God is a nebulous conclusion. (Love Wins?) I would think (in my humanness) that if God loved me that He would not have allowed my barn to burn down 5 years ago with hundreds of animals in it, or that I would be teetering on the edge of financial solvency because of skyrocketing feed prices brought on by a drought. Sometimes God doesn’t make any sense to me in the things that He does. So I don’t think I can correctly assume that because God is “x”, that He is necessarily going to do “y”. But perhaps that is the pessimism of a farmer speaking who doesn’t ever get the opportunity to define reality as I think it ought to be. When the bible says, “God is love”, He sets the parameters of what the expression of that love is, and not ourselves. So do I believe that God loves me? Yes, I do. And why? Because His word tells me that He does. And in the end, that’s all I have to hold on to. But right now, it doesn’t FEEL that way, because He is not expressing that love in the way I would like Him to. I would LOVE to be wealthy ! ! ! But then . . . . . I suppose I really am after all. He defines that too.
Best regards and God bless . . . .. Jim
Hello, Jim
I have to run and will plan to respond later, this evening. But . . . as you are knowledgeable in scripture and not afraid of closely examining the word of God (and should be unafraid, since God’s word cannot be found wanting), I’d like to give you a link to my favorite resource (because it is very good and also free!) which will direct you to many scriptures you may have overlooked.
You can download this as a pdf, as a Kindle book, or request a hard copy either from the author’s website or order from Amazon, or you can get it in a rather well-executed audio book, also free. I recommend text, though, because otherwise it’s more difficult to look up the references. Here’s the link: http://www.hopebeyondhell.net/, and as I said, I’ll get back with you later this evening, God willing.
Blessings, Cindy
Hello, Jim
I appreciate your fair-mindedness.
You openly confess that you prefer EU over ECT or (I presume) annihilation. But God says,
This is a passage that many people use to support God’s “decision” to subject most of the human populace to eternal conscious torment. However this doesn’t hold water when you read the entire chapter. (Context, you know!) In this portion of Isaiah, God is explaining that He is more merciful than those to whom the passage is addressed. So your saying that you would much prefer to believe in EU if only you could, would (if we understand God’s mercy in accord with Is 55) appear to make you more merciful and loving than God. One might argue that God’s mercy might look different from ours because He sees things from a higher perspective, but ultimately, that just doesn’t make sense. God’s definition of love given by Paul in 1 Corinthians 13, and His description of mercy given by Jesus in Matthew 4-5 tell us very clearly what love and mercy look like to Him.
While God does allow things to happen within time that look unconscionable to us, these things can ultimately be worked together for good. If the ultimate end is ECT, though, it’s difficult to see that as merciful and loving in the mold of the scriptures cited. There are more, many, many more and more specific scriptures that point toward EU. For an exhaustive treatment on that, just download HBH (above). Don’t bother to read it if you don’t want to. Just check out the scripture references.
I don’t want to cop out on giving you a list of scripture references myself, though, so I’ll make a separate post. There are so many, and I won’t give you an exhaustive list, but there are still too many to give them a fair showing in a comment.
Okay . . . whew! That was l-o-n-g. You can see (when you look at my new post) why a whole book is required to contain and comment on these verses, plus discussing the verses that seem to point toward a more traditional view of hell.
I just re-read your post and realized that I missed the end. Now that I’ve read the remainder (last paragraph), I can see that you may relate to the earlier comment that sometimes we don’t understand God allowing temporal hardships. And of course that He will work all things together for good to those who love Him. (And of course I believe this potentially includes all people — eventually and in their time). I will be praying for you, Brother. I’ve had my share of hardships too, and I can sure relate to at least a little bit of what you must be going through. We all want that rain!
Love in Jesus,
Cindy
Hi Cindy,
Thanks for taking the time to reply. As I think about it, I wonder if it makes much difference if hell last for 1000 years, or for eternity, in terms of how we view a God. Of course, I am not aware of any scriptures that speak of a specific duration for hell if it is not eternal. Also, I wonder how it would really be remedial for those who are there, as those of the EU position claim it is. Will they really come out of hell being holy after having spent their time there? There are primarily two things that make a Christian holy, and that is the Spirit of God and the truth of God’s word, two things that will be totally absent from hell. So then, how can hell possibly be remedial for the soul? I could just as well see just the opposite happening – and perhaps the gnashing of teeth is a picture of the ongoing rebellion and anger toward God that resides in the heart of man while in hell.
Perhaps hell is not eternal, based upon the meaning of the words. And in that case, neither is heaven. So what have we gained? We all apparently evaporate into oblivion in the end. I think I realize that the primary motivations of those who seek to disprove the eternality of hell is the irreconcilable concept of God’s eternal punishment for temporal crimes, and the desire to not have to conceive of loved ones spending forever in torment. I am right with them on both counts, as far as motivation. Personally, if I am talking about personal preferences of what I would like to believe, I would much rather lean toward pure universalism – except in some extreme cases. But now . . . . . . my humanness is showing.
Just some thoughts here . . . you know, I think Christians like to move toward a temporal view of hell just to temper it’s impact upon the mind of the unbeliever. You know as well as I that one of the great objections unbelievers have is “I could never believe in a God who sends people to hell for eternity”. So, does it really help matters if we tell them that He only sends them there for a few hundred years, or even just a few decades? If the bible taught specifically that unbelievers go to hell for 50 years, that would still be an inconvenient truth and we would be tempted to moderate the nature of hell so as to make it sound like not such a bad place after all. Any way you slice it, hell is an extremely offensive truth to human beings who think that they’re really not all that bad. You know, in the final analysis, Gehenna was a garbage dump. And with hell being populated by fallen angels and unrepentant sinners, perhaps that is really what the purpose of hell is all about after all. Now that’s really offensive. But it seems that the pure universalists are the only ones who have really resolved the offensiveness of God’s wrath, but in doing so they make believing in the gospel totally irrelevant. So it seems no matter where we turn, we’re stuck between the proverbial rock and a hard place – being offensive, or being totally irrelevant.
God bless . . . . . Jim
Hi, Jim
I’m enjoying our conversation — it’s a pleasure to talk with someone who disagrees and yet is capable of being nice about it.
And of course we can go on disagreeing until our Lord returns and still belong to Him.
But yes, truth is important. First, I’d like to have you try to recall where you picked up that concept that God will be absent from hell. If you want to go with a particular OT verse that used to seriously bother me, ” . . . If I make my bed in hell, behold Thou art there.” On the one hand, it may not work because the word is actually Sheol, or the grave (remember the concept of hell is completely absent from the OT). But on the other hand, the Psalmist’s point is that there is no where he can go to escape the presence of God.
People use 2 Thess 1:9 to demonstrate that hell is the absence of God’s presence. As far as I know, that’s the only verse that would indicate such a thing. And the translation as “eternal destruction away from the presence of the Lord” is seriously problematic. I did a post on it here: http://www.journeyintotheson.com/2011/11/eternal-destruction-from-the-presence-of-god/.
Leaving aside the fact that “eternal” is more accurately translated “age-during”, “away from” is a huge assumption. The more likely translation is “eternal destruction FROM the presence of the Lord.” There is really no credible reason within the original text to insert “away” before “from.” But I go into all that and more in my post, which isn’t long — so I’ll let you look at it there rather than repeating it all here.
“Aionios” (age-during) is a very complex word. I don’t remember if I mentioned, but this adjective is modified by its noun. (That’s not unusual, btw.) The meaning of “aionios/aionion/aion” often depends on the noun to which it’s attached. So we have “aionios” used to describe situations that were extremely temporal, such as Jonah’s imprisonment in the great fish. (The LXX translators used “aionios” to translate the Hebrew “olam” into Greek.) There are plenty of examples, but for now this one will do. Neither “olam” nor “aionios” can consistently be translated as “having neither beginning nor end” nor as “having a beginning but no end.”
Not only that, but the word used in this passage for destruction (not remembering it at the moment) is the same used in Paul’s statement to the Corinthians that he had turned a sinning brother over to Satan for the destruction of the flesh. As you’ll be aware, this brother was later restored, as we learn in 2 Corinthians.
As to the eternal punishment needing to equate to the eternal life in duration, I’m not certain that is even an issue here. If you translate this as age-during, it will (in the minds of the Jews listening) equate to the Messianic age which they were anticipating. To them, missing out on the Messianic age would be GREAT cause for weeping and gnashing of teeth, especially seeing many from the Gentile nations sitting down at table with Abraham and the prophets while they are left out in the darkness.
It also doesn’t follow that those who ARE welcomed into the Messianic kingdom will die at the end of that age. As you point out, Jesus said of His sheep, “I give unto them eternal life AND they will never die.” In other words, if I say “I have a week’s supply of food stored away,” that doesn’t mean that I don’t have a month’s supply. Saying they will live to the age doesn’t mean they will live no longer than the age.
How long will this banishment, this destruction last? Scripture isn’t clear on this. “Age during” would seem (to us westerners) to indicate a specific time frame. To the oriental mind, however, I’m told it more likely meant a non-specified long period of time. Jesus, in His parable of the unforgiving servant, tells His listeners that ” . . . he will not get out of there until he has paid the uttermost farthing.” (Uttermost farthing is so poetic — I can’t bring myself to change it to “the last penny!”) This is not to indicate that the unforgiving servant can pay the penalty of his own sin, but, imo, that he owes forgiveness and he will not be released until he gladly pays it.
Based on that, I would say that “hell” lasts as long as it takes. We see a pattern of judgment, destruction, and reconciliation throughout the OT. One prominent example, Israel is exiled to Babylon (read some of the dooms — they sound appallingly permanent), yet God restores them after their sojourn there. And while they may not have learned anything else, they never go back to blatant idolatry.
We also see in Revelation, the kings of the earth et al being thrown into the lake of fire, yet later in this same sequence, we see the lost washing their robes in the blood of the Lamb, drinking from the living water, and the kings of the earth bringing their treasures into the New Jerusalem. Revelation is a confusing and faithfully non-chronological book, but these things are presented one after another in fairly close proximity. I think we are intended to see chronology in this passage. At any rate, the kings of the earth are pretty much universally presented as bad guys, and here they are entering the Holy City. From outside — where are dogs and sorcerers.
Just to clear up any possible fogginess . . . I see hell as a very bad state indeed. It is a state of slavery to our own fleshly desires and rebellion. The outer darkness where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. People do try to whitewash it, but imo this is a mistake, and most especially for a universalist. Hell is not something to scoff at.
Now having said that, I do NOT believe that it involves literal flames. Nearly all the mentions of fire in the bible refer to it as a symbolic cleansing agent. In fact, I see strong parallels between the lake of fire and the bronze laver of the Tabernacle and Temple. Bronze is symbolic of judgment and of course water is symbolic of cleansing. It’s also interesting to note that the laver itself was made from the mirrors donated by the women who helped with some of the work of constructing the Tabernacle. The mirror in James is the word of God that shows us what sort of person we are.
So while hell is not, in my view, a place where God (or devils) torment the souls of the wicked until they have received their just punishment — or forever and ever, if you’re of that persuasion — it IS a place (state of being) to avoid if at all possible. I think of treatment for cancer. Yes, it is better to receive it than not to receive it, but the great thing is, if possible, to avoid ever needing it.
Although perhaps chastisement in hell is more along the lines of the sufferer experiencing the pain he/she caused to others (or some multiple thereof) and in so doing, being cured of the desire to ever inflict such again. A breaking process whereby a wicked person can be not only cured of his wickedness, but also initiated into the ways of love.
I did post a great bolus of scriptures last night — you were wondering whether scripture could be found to back up UR — did you get a chance to look through them? What did you think?
Blessings, Cindy
Hi Cindy,
I suppose if we agreed on everything, then these conversations could get boring fast. So I think it’s good to be stimulated with a different point of view. My idea of hell being the absence of God was more or less just a musing of what I thought it could possibly be, since the bible doesn’t say a lot about the brand of furnaces that are installed in hell. God’s presence being a dimension of hell is surely a possibility, particularly since Hebrews declares that, “our God is a consuming fire”. But I must say that purely from a preferential point of view, that I do like the idea of hell being what the hellions have made of it, particularly if it is perceived as a place of punishment only, and not purification. But I can’t say that I have any biblical justification for it.
I would question your idea about hell not being comprised of literal flames. Revelation says specifically that the lake of fire is comprised of fire and brimstone. It’s interesting that archeologists have analyzed some of the biblical brimstone found in the area of Sodom and Gomorrah and have found that it contains 96-98% sulfur, with trace amount of magnesium. This compares with geo-thermal brimstone being 40% sulfur. Of course the characteristic of this high sulfur/magnesium brimstone is the extremely hot temperature with which it burns. I find it hard to believe that the fire of hell would not be literal, especially when it mentions this component of brimstone which is known for the extremely hot flames it produces. If the bible intended on being purely symbolic about the fires of hell, then why mention the brimstone at all? Perhaps this mention has to do with the anticipation of those trying to spiritualize the literal flames away from hell, and so it brings in the imagery of Gehenna and the hot burning brimstone to steer us away from this conclusion. Sort of like the literary device used in Genesis 1 where it talks about the 6 days of creation. At the end of each day it says, “And there was evening and there was morning, one day.” As if the writer anticipated spiritualizing days into ages of thousands of years and is attempting to say, “These are literal 24-hour days”. Again, I would LOVE to believe that hell was not literal flames of fire. But perhaps the effect this reality has upon me is to be even more zealous in shining my light, sharing the gospel, and equipping others to do so.
I did read some of those scriptures. And I found the one in Isaiah 55 very interesting in light of it’s placement in the context of grace. I always thought of this verse in reference to the hard things about God. But I suppose to the Law-minded Jews, the idea of the grace of God would be a formidable stumbling block in their conception of God.
I know the bible is only inspired in the original languages, and that is how we best understand them. But I muse about the sovereignty of God and His allowing these time descriptive words to be translated as “forever” and “eternity”. As many bible translations as there have been, it seems like there would have been some objective minded scholars who would have gotten it right. I know doctrinal bias plays into it, but I would think most scholars would value textual integrity over bias. Of course having said that, you should do a word and ancient horticultural study on John 15:2 sometime, particularly the words “takes away” and “prunes”. It completely changes the color of the passage from being that which is somewhat dark and discouraging in nature to being extremely delightful and encouraging. Sometimes the translators do seem to do some questionable things.
Always a delight. God bless . . . .. Jim
Hi Cindy,
Just one more comment on ECT and the sovereignty of God in allowing it to be the predominant view. Let’s assume EU was in reality the truth. Let’s think about the possible effect this might have on evangelism. Many people are compelled to go into the ministry or missions in order to save people from hell as they understand it in the ECT form. If the predominant understanding was EU, could this not possibly have a stifling effect upon evangelism. People generally don’t like evangelism and feel inadequate to do it. But many overcome these personal barriers in order to see people saved from ECT. I could imagine the rationalizing attitudes of these same people if EU was predominant. “Oh well, yeah they might go to hell, but they’re going to get out in a little while, so I’ll not worry too much about it. It’s all going to alright in the end.” Maybe EU is really true, but God is keeping it veiled, knowing our lazy and rationalizing ways. Speaking of being veiled, Christ is all over the Old Testament, but was not perceived by the typical reader in biblical times. But in retrospect, He is seen very clearly. So maybe God is really in control with the current understanding of hell being what it is in order to keep us lazy excuse-loving Christians motivated. That’s not deception on His part – it’s just keeping something veiled.
Just a thought. God bless . . . . . Jim
Okay . . . now the evangelism.
I wouldn’t deny at all that Father has allowed this deception to prosper, but perhaps not for the purposes of evangelism. Many, many deceptions have prevailed in the history of the church. God has allowed them all. For a time.
When He was ready to pull aside the veil, the deceptions (of which He was not the author) were destroyed by the light. But there were always a few who saw the light and followed it. Mostly they paid dearly — consider dissenters to the RCC when it was supreme, or even to the Reformers. Both the RCC and the Reformers burned the Anabaptists.
But I wonder how many of the 100% Christian towns and villages during these time periods were truly devoted to following our Christ? During the reign of the RCC, most people didn’t have any access to scripture except through the priestocracy. They surely hadn’t prayed “the prayer,” though they were, by law, baptized as infants. Were they saved? Evangelism at that time amounted to conquering and subjecting populations to the Papacy.
Evangelism as we know it is a fairly young phenomenon. They sure didn’t do it “our way” during the time of the early church. An apostle, or perhaps an evangelist would travel around and preach for a few days at the meeting place of the local Jewish community, and then, if they didn’t get run out of town immediately, they’d stay around for a few weeks or months and disciple the new believers. Paul had a go at the Areopagus, but it was disappointing.
The pattern Jesus taught to His disciples was to go into a town, find a person of peace, if there was any such there, stay in their house, heal the sick, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons, and tell them “The kingdom of God has come near you.” Then He would be along to back them up. So I think that when He said to them, “Go into all the world,” that’s probably the default pattern they would have followed, and the sermons we read in Acts are special exceptions rather than the day to day modus operandi. So that’s what we should do, unless the Spirit prompts us otherwise.
The point? That’s not the way we do it today — not in the west. Hell is, unquestionably a heavy hitting motivator for scaring people into either going into all the world, or into “receiving Jesus.” But it’s faulty, don’t you see? If we go into all the world in order to save people from our Father, who will torment them in flames forever if we don’t persuade them to believe, then are we going out of love? Love for sinners, perhaps, but love for our Father?
God has shown me a small piece of His heart, His pain for His lost children. He knows what He will do, and that He will save them in the long run, but for right now? It HURTS. It hurts to see their pain and their perversion and their hatred of Him and of one another. Just as it hurts us to see our children enmired in filth and degradation and defiance of what is good. We evangelize out of LOVE, not out of fear. I can only wonder how effective, in eternal terms, an evangelist who preaches the “gospel” of fear can truly be.
And how is it good news that everyone is condemned to eternal hell, including your beloved wife who died last year, a Hindu, but YOU can be saved? People don’t see that as good news, because to them, it isn’t.
The thing that should motivate us to evangelism is our love of our Lord, our desire to obey Him, and our love of the bewildered lost (whether they know they’re bewildered or not). The way home is the way home, and if you’re going in the wrong direction, that is a bad, very bad thing for the weary traveler. As to the traveler who is not yet weary, perhaps what he needs is actually more time and hardship, in order to realize his need.
I think God has allowed deception (the weeds in the wheat?) to flourish lest He do more harm than good by yanking the lies out too soon. Nevertheless, weeds are NOT a good thing. They are sown by the enemy, not by the Father.
Solomon said it is the glory of God to conceal a thing, but the glory of kings to find it out. Kings are those to whom God gives authority on the earth — WE, His children, are the kings in this saying. WE are the ones who must uncover God’s truth. If we want to know, He will reveal it to us. If we don’t much care, then He will probably allow us to remain in deception.
As we grow and develop physically, we learn many things. I think the church is perhaps like that. It started out as a little child, dependent on the Father, but it was still an immature child, and while it may have had much of truth that we have since lost, it had its share of deception and self will as well. If you think of the church as a child, destined to be the bride of Christ, you can see its growth and development and maturing over the years. We have shed much error through the years, and there is much yet to be shed.
What if ECT is but one of those false doctrines? One among so many? Not entirely false, because of course, there is a grain of truth there in that disobedience to God causes genuine torment (whether now or later) by its very nature. Yet so perverted to make of God a monster (especially by those of ultra-Calvinist leanings). I think this is one of those false doctrines that we must grow out of, just as we grew out of indulgences and the veneration of relics, and the burning of those who disagree with us, and Papal supremacy.
So . . . I have talked enough, Brother!
Your turn.
Hullo, Jim
I’m working on a project with my husband, so it might be a couple of days (like early next week) before I get back to you — but I haven’t forgotten you, Bro!
Talk to you soon,
Cindy
Hi, Jim
Sorry I’m longer than I intended. I got a new computer this weekend, and it’s taken a while to shift things over. The old one is just too tired to go on, and Best Buy had a good sale on them. Anyway . . .
The fact that Revelation says the lake of fire is a lake of fire doesn’t mean a lot, as the whole book is highly symbolic. Interestingly, sulfur (brimstone) was used in medicine at the time. Unless you’re a hyper-dispensationalist and expect to see locusts with crowns and the hair of women, etc., there’s no problem with seeing the lake of fire as symbolic. It’s more likely than not, based on the rest of the book and its genre of apocalypse.
That absolutely does NOT mean that being consigned to the lake of fire is a minor thing. That kind of purification can only be agonizing, and it will take (imo) as long as it takes. Jesus did say, though, that we would ALL be salted by fire. Which would say to me that those bits we haven’t submitted to Him still have to go, whether in this age or the next. He wants us perfect. That to me is a huge motivation to submit to His perfecting NOW rather than just expecting to be magically made perfect when I die. For us who have submitted to Him in this life, who devote ourselves to making Him truly our Lord, that’s gotta be easier, but I’ll bet we still have a lesser or a greater ways to go.
I think that God is willing that we run with the bit for a while, so to speak. You might also question whether God’s sovereignty in not deposing the Pope during the reign of the RC church indicates He approved of the Papal throne, and of priests handing down the “word of God” from on high and forbidding it to the common man. KJV only folks insist that the KJV is the God-ordained and accepted translation of the Bible, but it was translated from the Vulgate, which was a rather poor translation of a rather late-dated Greek text.
The KJV only people have a point, though. If you want to present an English translation of the Bible as being perfect because God wouldn’t allow His word to be mistranslated, then you have to pick a horse. They all have significant disagreements with one another. I’d go with Youngs’, or for a somewhat later translation, Rotherham’s Emphatic (my current fave), which was produced in the late 1800s. This isn’t my only reason for choosing them, but neither of these translations contain the word “eternal” or “hell.” So there, if you like, is your honest translator.
I’m not saying the others were DIShonest, but they were looking at the word through their doctrinal sunglasses; using the horizon of their own religious views to color their translations. The only way to avoid that, IMO, is to translate literally, even if the idioms don’t make sense to us (it’s fine to clarify in comments, of course, especially if one is certain of the meaning of the idiom).
Love, Cindy
Hi Cindy,
I understand you were busy. That’s fine. Your points on sovereignty are well taken. It sounds as if you may be embracing a more Catholic view of things, i.e., purgatory for even the believers. I would have a problem with that, since Paul says that he preferred to be absent from the body and present with the Lord. Jesus said in John 11 that he who believes would live even if he dies, and that everyone who lives and believes shall never die. Nothing is said about an in between state of purification. Furthermore, the sin with which we struggle is tied to our unredeemed physical being, according to Romans 7. We are completely righteous in our spiritual being as a result of our union with Christ, and we will be given new glorified bodies someday when we go to dwell in the presence of God. And so upon physical death, we will be free from our struggle with sin. Purification will have been completed.
Assuming the words translated eternity are vague in terms of duration, I still don’t see the prospect of getting out of hell in the scriptures. Annihilation seems like a more reasonable possibility in light of those vagaries. And I would agree that the reference to the lake of fire burning with brimstone in Revelation is set within the context of a book filled with symbolism. But it isn’t symbolism simply for symbolism’s sake. John is presented with a vision of future things. He is a first century man looking at things at least 1900 years plus into the future. He is being descriptive of those things in first century terminology that he is familiar with. So describing something as a lake of fire burning with brimstone is a scene that would transcend centuries of descriptive terminology. John knew what fire was. You will notice in his earlier descriptions of things that he often uses the word “like” to communicate what he is seeing. He doesn’t know exactly what it is he is seeing, so he is comparing it with the familiar. And he doesn’t say, “LIKE a lake of fire”. He apparently knows a lake of fire when he sees it, as I would expect that he would.
I am also conscious of not falling into Satan’s original ploy. Genesis 3 unveils for us Satan’s age-old tactics in his battle against mankind. First, is to cast doubt upon the word of God. “Indeed has God said”. Secondly, is to deny the judgment of God. “You shall not surely die”. And thirdly, is to deceive us into thinking that our man-centered pursuits of knowledge are able to give us the God-like wisdom to discern good and evil on our own apart from God. I.e., we can be smart enough apart from God to create our own moral reality. “You shall be like God, knowing good and evil”.
Being eventually saved from hell and the absence of literal flames seems to be a step in the direction of tactic # 2. Another thing that we know about the deceiver is that he often uses the strategy of incrementalism, eroding the belief in a certain truth a step at a time. I think questioning the duration of the words used for eternal has merit. And so annihilation could fit into that paradigm. But being eventually set free from a flameless hell seems at this point a little too imaginative with the scriptures. And evangelical universalism for this generation could well become pure universalism in the next. And in that case, it’s not love wins, but Satan wins, as he has achieved objective # 2.
Always stimulating. God bless . . . . .Jim
Hi, Jim
Catholics don’t believe in purgatory for anyone BUT believers. The concept (in the RCC) comes from one or more of the Apocryphal books, but I haven’t read them. It also comes from Jesus’ statement that ” . . . every sacrifice is salted with salt, and every person will be salted with fire” as well as in (I believe) 1 Corinthians, where Paul warns that believers who build with wood hay and stubble will be saved, but as through fire. So, as for specific texts, there isn’t a lot to go on, however I feel that the overall witness of the NT points to something like this — I’m in no-wise married to it, though. Father may change my mind tomorrow. And I suspect it will be minimal at most for the bride — if that. Jesus is coming for a bride having no spot or wrinkle. (On another note, if that doesn’t scare us, perhaps it should.)
However, you have some good points. Perhaps you’re right about this. I would certainly qualify it, though, as the NT in its entirety is very adamant that we must obey. Not just in the spirit — in the desire of our hearts — but in the flesh. “All these who are being led by the Spirit of God, these and none but these are the sons (huios — means mature sons fit to represent the family) of God.” (Ro 8) “Why do you say to Me Lord, Lord, and do not do the things I tell you?” (followed by the house on the sand). “You are My friends if you do the things I tell you.” ” . . . make disciples of all nations, teaching them to obey the things I have told you.” And many, many, many more.
Our gospel of grace is true, but we have painted it too one-dimensionally. Father expects us to be good, obedient children. Until we learn how to do that, we can never be all He wants us to be. If we don’t learn in this life, I’m not sure why we expect an instant fix at the beginning of the next. Perhaps it WILL be instant, from the outside looking in, while it may seem otherwise to the one experiencing it. I don’t know. But I do know that it just doesn’t work to insist that only those mature in the Lord will be saved at all. It also doesn’t work to suggest that (however sincere) half-committed and worldly Sunday morning Christians will be ready to take on the responsibilities of the House of Yahweh as fully-vested representatives; sons of the Father, brothers of the King.
As for Revelation, we may not agree on that book. I used to try to see it as concrete prophecy, but having considered what others have said and having been seeking God about it, I begin to see their point. Revelation is an apocalypse. Daniel wrote quite a lot of apocalyptic prophecy. I doubt he really expected to see fantastic beasts rising from the literal sea. That may have been his vision, but I think he was a wise enough man (megatons wiser than I, for sure) to understand more of his visions just off-hand than I do with lots of help.
What’s more, the majority of his visions HAVE come to pass in the rise of the Medeo-Persian, Greek, and Roman empires and in the first part of his 70 weeks prophecy. The beasts were empires, not some modern device or vehicle that looked like a beast. His visions were so true that modern historians try to say his prophecies were written AFTER the days of the Greek empire. They would love to say after the Roman empire, but because of the Dead Sea Scrolls, they can’t take it that far. They were also so accurate that the Jewish leaders HAD to know (from that and other things, of course) that Jesus was the Messiah, but that’s another discussion.
Revelation is packed full with OT apocalyptic prophetic references. I don’t think John was trying to explain what a helicopter looked like from the perspective of a late 1st century fisherman. I suspect he knew, as I suspect Daniel knew at least a significant amount, the sort of things his visions meant. I think John’s visions probably had a more immediate (though partial) fulfillment of local interest to beleaguered and persecuted brethren, and that his readers would have understood the symbolism far better than we could, with our lack of historical/cultural information.
Satan said they would not die. He lied. Adam and Eve are dead. Their daughters and sons and grand and great, great, great grandchildren are dead. Whatever else death may mean, it doesn’t mean eternal life in torment. The bible never ever defines it that way. Adam and Eve did immediately die to God’s kingdom, however. Now they belonged to the kingdom of another. The only way out of that kingdom, according to Paul, is to die in Christ and be raised with Him to life. “I died, and the life I now live I live by faith in the Son of God who loved me and gave Himself for me.”
We can never be smart enough apart from God — which is, I suppose, what appealed to Eve — the individuality thing — however, “we have the mind of Christ.” So while we should never seek knowledge apart from Him, seeking knowledge (like the Bereans) through and because of and with His help is a good thing. Taking scripture literally is no particular virtue, though modern preachers often make it so. It is just as true (only far deeper) if it is written symbolically as if it’s written literally. Parts, the histories, the epistles, etc. are obviously meant to be taken literally. Other parts are meant symbolically.
Many parts have shades of meaning both ways — such as Eliezer meeting Rebekah at the well, Jacob meeting Rachel at the same well; some say the very well where Jesus met the Samaritan woman. Yes, Jacob met Rachel at the well; but there is also a deeper meaning here. Jesus met a Samaritan woman at the same well many centuries later and a bunch of her fellow townfolk came to trust Jesus as a result — but again, there is a deeper meaning here. Jesus meets a despised and rejected woman among women as a generally disrespected class, among hated Samaritans — half Jew; half Gentile, and offers her living water. Could it be she represents the ekklesia, the bride of Christ? The bible is full of this kind of stuff.
Denying literal flames in no way denies the judgment of God. If God is loving, He MUST be just. However look at OT law. An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth. We today tend to think of this as harsh, but in the day, it was revolutionary. A man who put out the eye of a ruler was not executed. He lost his eye. (In practice, he probably paid a heavy fine to the man whose eye he had put out — most likely in a fist fight, etc.) A ruler who put out the eye of a lowly laborer was not let off with a slap on the hand. He paid the same fine or suffered the same penalty as he would have done had he been a plebeian. The Mosaic law was a HUGE step ahead for justice. God instituted it.
So in what way is it NOT just for the God who instituted punishment proportionate to the crime to Himself mete out punishment proportionate to the crime? Is a sentence of a thousand years less just in the case of, say, a woman who all her life refused to consider Christianity because she didn’t understand rightly who God is? Or would a never-ending sentence be more appropriate? Even in the hard cases, ie Hitler (of course!) Pol Pot, Kim Jung Il, Mao, Lenin, Stalin, Idi Amin, etc., at some point, the punishment must fit the crime and be complete.
I can’t see it so much as punishment though. That’s been paid. But the sinner must be separated from his sin, and that takes as long as it takes. I suspect it also takes experiencing the hurt he or she has put others through. The uttermost farthing must be paid.
I think that the never-ending hell of flames is a bit imaginative with the scriptures. Jesus as often describes after-life punishment as an outer darkness, but He also spoke of the fire that was not quenched. So which is it? One of them at least must be symbolic. To me, it makes more sense to suppose that they are both symbolic — intended to teach a truth that mere face-value words could not adequately reveal.
The OT never ever describes the sort of modern hell we imagine today. That is a Greek thing. How could God, who showed us so very much in the OT — a very, very long book — never ever warn His people of this result of their sins? He never warned Adam and Eve about any ever-lasting fires, yet that would seem to have been the natural place. Why did God’s people go for 4000 years with absolutely no warning of anything but temporal punishments? I’m not saying God was remiss. I’m positing that He never said it because it never entered His mind to do such a thing.
The second paragraph happened as prophesied, after the Roman sacking of Jerusalem in 72AD. There was no place to put the bodies and no one to bury them, so the Romans piled them up outside the city in Topeth (Gehenna).
Annihilation certainly fits the scriptures better than ECT. But Christian universalism fits better than annihilation. Your idea that the idea could degenerate into what you call pure universalism is worth looking at. John Wesley famously said that the church was like a drunken horseman; always engaged in falling off the horse on one side or the other. That’s pretty much a description of this world.
But to say that because we might fall off on the left side of the horse (and unfortunately many do), we should therefore go on dragging by the right-side stirrup, is folly. We should sit square in the saddle, even if that is closer to the left side of the horse. Those who are dragging on the right aren’t any better off than those who are dragging on the left. There is a place we ought to be, and that place is as near the center of the truth of God as we can manage.
So, if Father is ready to reveal this to the church as truth, I think we should be ready to receive it. Jesus assured us that if we ask the Father for a good gift, He would not give us a stone (useless) or a snake (harmful). He knows how to give good gifts to His children. I think we’re safe enough so long as we are whole-heartedly following and desiring to follow Jesus. If we go off on the wrong path, He will lead us aright so long as we continue to seek Him. He will not let His own true sheep stray any longer than is good for them. So if it is false, I pray that Father would reveal my error to me. And if it is true, I pray that He would reveal the error of ECT (or annihilation as the case may be) to His people. He is, after all, the final arbiter of all truth.
So . . . on to read your next note.
Hi Cindy,
Just saw your response about evangelism. Love is certainly the purest motivation to preach the gospel. I think a strictly judgment focused gospel can certainly generate some superficial professions of faith. Nevertheless, the judgment of God is a very crucial component to the gospel message. For one, people are broken, and they don’t realize that they are, and neither do they care often times. They enjoy their sin. And the message of judgment is often the only way to get their attention.
You love God, and hate sin. But most people are exactly the opposite. Telling them that God loves them and wants to fix their broken lives is often inviting derision upon yourself. Jesus even told us in John 16:7-11 that when the Spirit comes that He would convince the world of sin, righteousness, and judgment. I prefer not to make a big issue out of judgment, but nevertheless I cannot in good conscience avoid it. Paul begins his dissertation on the gospel message in the book of Romans by saying, “For the WRATH OF GOD is revealed . . . . ” Somehow we have gotten into the habit of beginning with, “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life”.
With truly hurting people you can begin this latter way. I led a young Sikh woman to Christ a year ago over the internet who was struggling for three years with paralyzing depression. And I used the “woman at the well” approach with her, hardly even mentioning judgment. Today she is a vibrant young Christian woman serving in her local church and ready to re-enter college after a 3 year hiatus. She needed to hear of the spiritual resources in Christ because she knew full well that she was broken. But those who believe “I’m quite fine, thank you”, need to understand the reality that they’re not quite fine and that the certainty of judgment awaits. And I HATE to be the bearer of that bad news. I think we all do, if we’re human. But the nature of the beast is that most of us are filled with self-sufficient pride and a hatred toward a God who thinks He has a claim upon our lives and wants to ruin our “fun”. And in that case, a tactful and intelligent, but direct “no you’re not OK, and here’s why according to God’s word” approach is what they need to hear. Even Jesus preached, “Unless you repent you will all likewise perish.” And I am motivated by love to preach this message, because I do not wish for anyone to suffer the wrath of God. So I guess that is why I am reluctant to needlessly neuter hell.
I think you are on Yahoo Answers enough to know the hatred of God that is out there. But also that instinctive awareness that people have of the reality of judgment that often manifests itself with a typical question that begins with, “Will I go to hell if . . . . ?”
I think our weaknesses are often the result of our strengths taken to an extreme. And the strength of our love for others can become a weakness if we allow it to compromise our view of the truth of God’s word regarding His wrath and judgment. These are inconvenient truths, to be sure. But they are also inescapable.
Appreciate your thoughtful discussion. God bless . . . . . Jim
Hello again, Jim!
That is such a wonderful story of the Sikh woman! Praise God!! You have made my day. Jesus did come to heal the broken hearted.
Paul was writing to Christians. Sometimes he writes ABOUT unbelievers, but of course he never writes TO them. And the point of that chapter was a set-up against self-righteousness and hypocrisy on the part of Jewish Christians. Chapter one makes you say, “Yeah! That’s right! Preach it, brother Paul!” but the second chapter makes you say “OUCH!!!” Or it does if you’re a hypocrite, or maybe even if you’re just acutely aware of your own failings.
But I agree that the “God loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life” kind of evangelism is just asinine. What’s more, God’s wrath is real and it’s scary. Scary like the wrath of Dad is to his young son who knows he’s done something terribly wrong (like put the cat in the microwave, maybe). Still, as terrible as the punishment is, the good news is that Dad loves him and will only discipline him for his own good. (Or we certainly hope so!)
But the good news according to Jesus was, “The kingdom of God has come near you.” That was good news to oppressed Jewish citizens of hated Rome. The kingdom of GOD! The kingdom of God was NEAR them! (And it was . . . too bad their leaders crucified the King.) But not only the Messianic kingdom they were all longing for and expecting right about that time — the kingdom of God means being under the authority of a GOOD King. When the wicked rule, the people groan, but when the righteous rule, the people rejoice. Whatever the Jewish leaders did to their Messiah, WE who follow Him are no longer the subjects of the prince of this world. That is huge.
They even had proof that the kingdom of God had come near them as they saw their sick healed, etc. They saw the power — the token of the King — the scroll signed with a signet that only He could impress on it. POWER. Proof to them, no mere pie in the sky, but real, present power from God to demonstrate that what the disciples told them was true. Yeah, we need that. We have it, too, if we only would believe and obey.
Pearls before swine — precious things given to untamed dogs. The pigs just trample them; the dogs turn and tear you to pieces.
This lack of a sense of need is true of the people on the other side of the screen at YA, but it actually isn’t true of most of the world — even of many of our own part of the world. The question is, can we give them a reason to believe?
Jesus looked out over the crowds of people gathered below Him and He had compassion on them. Why? Because they were weary and scattered like sheep without a shepherd. So He healed their sick.
Why was He concerned about these people’s temporal woes? Wasn’t their eternal fate far more pressing? Yet He didn’t preach hell to them — or as far as the text goes, He didn’t preach to them at all. After He got done healing them, He fed them. That’s all. Was Jesus remiss? Shouldn’t He have warned them?
What’s more, if you will search the “H” word, you’ll find that not one of the recorded sermons of the apostles in the entire NT even mentions hell. Only James refers to Gehenna, but as a metaphor for the damage the tongue can do. Other than that, there is absolutely nothing until we get to the LOF in Revelation. I found that _very_ odd. If the disciples understood Jesus to be warning of the hell we today believe in, wouldn’t one expect they should at least refer to it occasionally? Jesus never even mentions it in the Great Commission — in any rendition of it whether in the gospels or in Acts.
Okay . . . here’s me, getting carried away . . . again . . .
So people say, “I don’t want your god. I love my ‘sin’; what’s more, it’s not sin because there’s no such thing as sin. I can be moral without your little invisible buddy and besides he’s a monster. I don’t want to be like him.”
Will ANYTHING you say to such a person have ANY effect? I suspect not. Otherwise, maybe Jesus would have urged us to plead with such persons, warn them of the wrath to come. He Himself would perhaps have been pleading with the Pharisees, or sternly warning them of hellfire. I’m convinced He loved them. But no . . . His answer to this situation is that His disciples should shake off the dust of the town from their feet against them and move on.
And I absolutely agree with you that a tactful and intelligent, but direct “no you’re not OK” is perfectly acceptable in such a case — as the HS directs. Ragging at people who truly don’t want to hear and who are not under the conviction of the HS is still useless, though. However we don’t know — maybe a rejection or objection is just a cover for a nearly-ready heart. That’s why we need Him, as always.
But are we supposed to go out and protect people from our God who hates them, ala Jonathan Edwards? Urge them to get under the umbrella of His Son, who is love? But God is love and Jesus is His exact image. The posters who say things like “god came to save us from god” have a point. No. Jesus did NOT come to save us from His vengeful Father, but to bring us back into relationship with Father. The Father is every bit as shining and lovely and good as the Son. He is the One who prompted Jesus to command us to LOVE our enemies that we might be like our Father in heaven.
The “will I go to hell if” questions drive me crazy. As if doing this or that will send you to hell where you would not otherwise have gone if you hadn’t done it. It isn’t about keeping the letter of the law and slipping through every loophole you can find so as to make it to some place called heaven where everyone drives a roarin’ muscle car and the weather is fine all the time. They are SO missing the point. (my rant — sorry)
But their fear of hell isn’t going to save them. It is LOVE who saves, and He says that perfect love casts out all fear. The message of the Gospel is not “You no longer have to go to hell,” because people of that day (at least, the Jews) didn’t expect to go to hell — didn’t even believe in hell unless they were, well, a bit fringe, shall we say. The good news was “The kingdom of God has come near.” and “Jesus has conquered death and the grave.” He came to deliver people who were all their lives held captive by the fear of DEATH. He came to set us free from sin and death. The bible never says that a) He came to deliver us from the penalty of our sins. It also never says He came to deliver us from hell. It was always sin itself, and death itself.
A gospel in the Rome of Jesus’ day was the short bio of a new ruler. Always flattering, of course. “Good News! Augustus is on the throne!” Jesus’ rival gospel was dangerous. But it was a gospel in the sense of the times. “You are now (or can be) under a new ruler. Jesus the Messiah! Rejoice! The days of the prince of this world are finished.” (And of course, from God’s pov, they are finished indeed, as Jesus is Risen indeed, the conqueror of death and the grave!)
Jesus has conquered sin and death and we can be reconciled to God. THAT is the gospel. No one in the entire bible ever preached that we should repent because there is a hell to shun and a heaven to gain. Repent! (turn around — change your direction, your behavior, your alliance) For the Kingdom of God is at hand!
It is OUR duty to spread that good news to whomever is ready to receive it, like your Sikh friend. Jesus didn’t seem stressed over those who would refuse it. He wept over Jerusalem, but looking forward in history, to all the pain they suffered because they rejected their Messiah, one can well understand that! Yes, He actually cares about our temporary pain! What a wonderful Messiah! How gentle and tender and loving and kind He is! Who, that understood, would not REJOICE! for the Kingdom of God is at hand?
I figure He knew He would eventually pick up the dissenters — when they had had enough of their own ways. I don’t doubt that your vision of hell as a place where people will have it their way has validity. I wouldn’t be at all surprised if you’re right about that, though as you say, it’s speculative. CS Lewis postulated something very like it in The Great Divorce (which is well worth a read).
In fact, Jesus DID know He would pick up the strays, imo, because He said, “If I am lifted up, I will draw all people unto Me.” That word draw, is used in many other places. It describes dragging in a net, dragging people to court, etc. It isn’t a gentle coaxing. It is more like the SF tractor beam, if the word usage is consistent. And I KNOW that YOU at least won’t try to pull that “all doesn’t mean all” thing on me. Clearly, at least in this passage, it does mean all.
He also says, “All the Father gives Me shall come to Me.” And in another place, “The Father loves the Son and has given Him all things.” Psalm 2 says, “Ask of Me and I will give you the nations as your inheritance and the uttermost parts of the earth as your possession.” This Son here spoken of can’t mean anyone but Jesus. There are also places where the nations are further described and it can be seen that every person of every nation is meant, but I’ve gone on long enough.
The point is that it is our duty and our privilege to bring lost brothers and sisters to Jesus — as soon as they are willing to come. And why would we delay doing that? It is a pure joy — and if it is not, then we ourselves need finding.
Love, Cindy
Hi Cindy,
I am enjoying our conversations. Since I spend much of my time discipling people online or in bible studies, I find it’s stimulating to have some “adult” conversations that go beyond the basics. By the way, I was looking over yours and Bruce’s answers on YA yesterday, and MY GOODNESS, you were on a roll earlier in the week. I think I counted 9 best answers in 2 days. That’s amazing !
I do find the biblical concept of the punishment fitting the crime in regards to hell to have some merit to consider. On the other hand though, we find that violating of the Sabbath and idolatry are met with the death penalty. That certainly insults our human sensibilities of the punishment fitting the crime. But then again, these could be seen as crimes of cosmic treason against God. And crimes directly against an infinite God are certainly infinitely more serious. So I’m not sure yet what to make of that concept. Another way I look at hell is, as I referred to earlier, the continuation of our separation from Him. Maybe it’s not so much punishment as it is the lack of reconciliation, and the ensuing fallout from that. Sort of like if you fell into a pit and I threw you a rope so I could pull you out. If you refuse the rope, you remain in the pit not because I put you there, but because you refused to be rescued. Perhaps (in a twisted way) you preferred life in the pit to being rescued. Jesus alludes to this idea in John 3:18, 19, where He says, “He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been JUDGED ALREADY, because he has not believed in the only begotten Son of God. And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their deeds were evil.”
So Jesus indicates that we exist in a state of separation and condemnation already (we were NEVER good and deserving of reward at any time) and that if we refuse Him, then this state of separation and condemnation continues on. And, as I speculated earlier, perhaps this state of being simply continues on after death in a spiritual realm of like-minded spiritual beings who have rejected God and His salvation, and they are in a hell of their own making simply because they have rejected the life of God that He has offered to them. I mean, imagine what this world would be like if everyone was a hopeless God-rejecter. Violence, oppression, perversion, and war would be the norm, even vastly greater than it is now.
In regards to sharing my faith, I very rarely bring the discussion of judgment and hell into it. My approach, which I think is biblical and yet easier to accept, is to present to the other person the truth that we all come into this world broken, and cannot fix ourselves. I like to bring into the discussion the truths of Ephesians 2:1-3. That we are all born spiritually disconnected from God and spiritually connected to the realm of Satan. And this is no fault of our own. It is the fallout from the fall. But, because of this spiritual state, we lead self-centered lives, which is what sin is all about. Everything we do is all about me. Even the good, the charitable, and the noble things all have as their core motivation the desire to bring glory and honor to me, or to further what I perceive as a worthwhile agenda “to make the world a better place” according to me, or to make myself feel good about myself. And, of course, we do plenty of naughty things as well. The fact of the matter is that we have turned Revelation 4:11 on it’s head. “Worthy are You, O Lord, to receive glory and honor and power; for You have created all things, and for YOUR pleasure they are and were created.” We were made to live unto God. But as those who are born spiritually disconnected from God, we instead live for our own glory and honor and power and pleasure, and God is our good luck genie to achieve those self-centered ends, if we acknowledge Him at all in our attempts at man-centered religion.
And the gospel is so much more than our ticket to heaven. Much of evangelical Christianity today fixates on the gospel of forgiveness only. But that’s only half of the good news. I like to refer to Romans 5:18, 19 as the “Gold Mine of the Gospel”. For verse 18 teaches us about the concept of IMPUTED sin and righteousness, and verse 19 teaches us about the equally wonderful truth of IMPARTED sin and righteousness. And just as Ephesians 2:1-3 shows us the effects of Adam’s sin upon us, i.e. we sin because we are natural born sinners, so in Christ we are MADE RIGHTEOUS, as Romans 5:19 says, which sets us free from this natural inclination toward self-centered living and gives us the foundation for others-centered and God-centered living. Indeed, it is the foundation for our transformation into the likeness of Jesus, which is accomplished in us by the ongoing ministry of the Spirit and the word. I feel like that kind of gospel is much more liberating, hopeful, and encouraging. And it tremendously impacts my here and now. So . . . does the Christian life seem a bit threatening to your current unregenerate lifestyle? No problem. The Spirit puts within us the desire to pursue this kind of life, with all the blessings accompanying it. I have found transformation to be such a liberating thing. I don’t struggle with many of the old sins because I really don’t desire them anymore. My joy (which is the Holy Grail for which we all seek) is to serve God in the fullness of His giftedness in my life. WOW ! What a rush that is ! And that’s what real freedom from sin is all about – being set free from the very DESIRE for sin by having it replaced by a superior desire to serve Jesus. I don’t do those things any more because I don’t WANT to. That is VERY, VERY, VERY GOOD NEWS, which the world desperately needs to hear, instead of just a ticket to heaven, and in the meantime it’s just a MEAN time.
But then . . . I digress. But my point is, I’m not focusing on hell and judgment, but yet I’m not avoiding the issue of sin, which is the whole context in which the gospel is set. It is the pearl in this pile of manure. And why would you ever not desire it? Simply receive Jesus by declaring Him Lord and believing He died and rose again for your sins, and you can experience the inner joy of life as it was meant to be by our Creator, by being reconnected to Him through Christ. And as Jesus said in John 3, the ONLY reason any sane person would reject this is because they love their sinful, self-centered and self-directed life more. And, admittedly, that IS a formidable obstacle to overcome, as well as all the misinformation surrounding the gospel. But again, if we reject this gift of new life, we simply continue on in our state of disconnectedness and alienation from God, which ends up after this life in hell.
Perhaps a way to reconcile the concept of the nature of eternity in the afterlife is to think of it in terms of how C.S. Lewis viewed the eternal nature of God. God is above time. And perhaps that is why we stumble over the concept of time-never-ending eternity. Perhaps in the spiritual state there is no such thing as sequential time, which is something our finite minds cannot conceive of. Think of our spiritual union with Christ as taught in Romans 6, Galatians 2:20, 2 Corinthians 5:14-17, and other places. Those truths certainly transcend space and time. Otherwise they make no sense to our finite minds. And so, perhaps the bible is needfully vague on this concept of the nature of eternity, because we wouldn’t “get it” anyway.
Oh well . . . . but now my shallow mind is getting dizzy from such deep thinking.
God bless . . . . . Jim
The compartments of Hades. The English translators of the English Bible have confused the issue by rendering several different Hebrew and Greek words simply as hell when they actually refer to different places. In Hebrew (sheol) is sometimes translated (hell) and sometimes (the grave). The parallel Greek word (hades) is always translated (hell). Sheol or hades is the general designation for the abode of the dead, both believers and unbelievers, before the resurrection and ascension of Christ.
Hades contains 4 compartments 1.( paradise ) Luke 16:19-22 / 2.( torments ) Luke 16:19-22 / 3.( tartarus ) 2 peter 2:4 / 4. ( the abyss ) Revelation 9: 1-11
Paradise was the section where the souls of all believers of the Old Testament resided after death. When the resurrected Christ ascended to heaven, he brought with Him the souls of all believers who had died up to that time. He transferred them from Paradise to Heaven (Eph. 4:8-10)
No human being went to heaven until Christ entered into the presence of God (The Father) as a resurrected Man. If Jesus was accepted in His humanity, that would mean God had accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for sin. Only under these conditions could believers be admitted into the abode of God. Christ had opened the way for believing mankind to enter into the presence of holy God. Believers who die in the Church Age go directly into the presence of the Lord ( Heaven ).
The 2nd compartment, Torments, is a temporary fire for the souls of unbelievers. between paradise and torments was a great chasm fixed . Now that paradise has been emptied, hades and torments are actually synonymous. But using hell for both creates confusion because there is yet a final hell designated as (tophet) in Isaiah 30:33 and (gehenna) “lake of fire”. The lake of fire is occupied by the beast, false prophet, dictators of the revived Roman Empire and Palestine in the tribulation until the second resurrection. Then all unbelievers will be raised, judged according to their works at the Great White Throne and sent to their final eternal punishment the Lake of Fire.
The 3rd area, Tartarus, is the prison of the fallen angles involved in the satanic conspiracy of Genesis 6. They were the only angles who had not been watching the activities of the Son of God on earth and, therefore, were not aware of the defeat of satan (Christ death and resurrection). They still entertained hopes that satan would emerge victorious in his battle to keep Christ from going to the cross and who would then free them . After three days and three nights in the grave Jesus went to Tartarus in His resurrection body to issue a victory (for Christ and a defeat for the fallen angles) proclamation to the spirits in prison (not human spirits, angelic spirits).
The 4th area, The Abyss, The place of imprisonment for the incorrigible demons who violated certain rules for angelic creation, including the demon assault army under the leadership of Apollyon to be released at the middle of the Tribulation ( Luke 8: 30-31 and Romans 10: 7 also Revelation 9: 1-11, Revelation 20: 1-3
Hello, D
Yes, that’s pretty much the story I heard, too. Do you feel that it stacks up to scripture? If so, how?
Thanks for visiting.
Cindy
On the idea of the (to us) disproportionate punishment for Sabbath breaking and idol worship, I’ve always assumed that God needed to make the point early that He really meant this stuff. The Sabbath is symbolic of Jesus, who is our Sabbath rest. So, a big deal to God, and to God, death isn’t really such a big deal (especially if you, like me, figure God’s got all the time He wants in which to get through the thickest skulls). “All live unto Me,” He says. And of course, though serious, these consequences are still finite, not never-ending penalties.
As for the idolatry, I guess I don’t see a problem with God’s penalty for that. It wasn’t exactly having a statue of Mary in the front yard, or a Buddha in the nook in the living room. I know I don’t have to paint you a picture here. The things people did back in the day in the worship of their idols were way past horrendous. I can see why He didn’t want that invading His people from the beginning. Of course, He knew they would go that way, and all the things they would suffer because of it — but no one can fault Him for failing to show them how seriously He took it.
I’ve heard the thing about how any crime committed against an infinite being (God) deserves an infinite punishment. But that’s just medieval law; you won’t find that in scripture. In fact, the example I mentioned in my last reply — about how the penalty for a crime against a person of low or high degree still rated the same penalty — seems to plead against such a concept as being born of God.
” They that do evil hate the light and do not come to the light lest their deeds be reproved.” (I’m not sure I got that perfect, but that’s the gist.) To me, that says that people don’t come to the light because they are afraid of having their evil deeds exposed and reproved. At the time Jesus said this, strictly speaking, that would have included everyone but Him. I’ve often wondered who these good people were who would come to God that their deeds might be made manifest, that they were wrought in God. As Jesus also said, “There is none good but God.”
Could it be possible that this is the reason Jesus HAS to draw/drag all people to Himself? Because we won’t/can’t come on our own because we’re afraid of the light — like Adam and Eve hiding from God in the Garden?
But that’s a completely different direction than I intended . . . people who are in their sin and refuse God’s Messiah have serious problems. First, you’re right — they DO want to keep on sinning, most of them. Second, some of them know they’re incapable of living righteous lives — so that’s scary, too. Third, many don’t think the God we serve is worthy of worship. They have their reasons, ALL based in a misrepresentation of who He is.
THAT is why hell isn’t a natural part of the presentation of the gospel. Even the lost know a Good God wouldn’t ever do what we accuse Him of. Like I said earlier, most of us don’t believe it either — not really. If we did, our actions would be far different.
But I love the way you present the gospel. And I hope you are going to tell me where and how you find these people on-line to disciple, because I’d like to do that. I’d like it even more to find some flesh and blood people here where I am.
Another thing you said is about a sane person not rejecting the gospel. That’s an important point. A person in full health of mind and body, and able to grasp the truth concerning the gospel and the PRESENT state of the sinner — a person given sufficient evidence in order to believe, wouldn’t continue forever to reject that which is in his best interests. The gospel is SO good that the idea of a fully informed, rational person (a person with a truly free will?) continuing to reject it throughout ages of ages and NEVER changing his mind is, imo, deeply incoherent.
We do two things to God that “prevent” Him from saving everyone He loves. Well, maybe three. First, we insist that the Father can or will not continue to work in the hearts of people who have physically died. The bible just never ever says this. When I discovered this, that was the beginning of the end for me regarding ECT. I went over to annihilation (following just punishment) for about a year. I looked and looked, and I was shocked at my failure to turn up evidence for the innate immortality of the human soul. So I figured if God CAN completely destroy a human being, the scriptures give Him plenty of leeway to do just that. Annihilation fits better with His character (He is love). If He can’t save the people He loves, then He’s certainly going to choose annihilation if that’s a choice.
It also fixes the problem of dualism — good and evil existing side by side forever. If all things are gathered together in Christ (Col 1), then how can the vileness of sin stored up in hell be included in that? CS Lewis “solved” the problem in “The Great Divorce” by making hell infinitesimally small. But I don’t see that that works. It’s still wickedness concentrated into a pinprick, and How can Jesus take that into Himself without destroying it in the process?
So annihilation works — to a point. It works better than ECT, however you slice it. But when you start to think through it with the scriptures and start to see the problems with it, annihilation falls apart, too. The one eschatology that brings the whole of scripture together — makes it WORK is universal reconciliation through Christ.
It allows Jesus the ultimate victory over evil — He destroys His enemies by making them His friends; He does not lose that part of His creation through annihilation (a thing that seems unworthy of His great power and majesty — to lose even a little bit to the rebel, Satan (though His loss does not increase Satan.)) The creation of which God said, “It is good” is completed and reconciled, and that with unmitigated success.
It agrees with scripture that God can do anything. “Is anything to difficult for You?” Granted, He cannot do things that are logical fallacies, but saving the lost (whether they want it or not) isn’t a logical fallacy.
Now you might say that saving a person to whom you gave free will by denying that free will IS a logical fallacy. But I would counter that God has all the time He needs and is very, very good at what He does. Again, it is a logical incoherency for a fully informed, rational person to continue forever to choose that which is manifestly hurting him — and he’s feeling it, too — not like the arrogant children enjoying their sin. Sin’s pleasures are only for a season.
And (for me the lynchpin) the human soul is not, so far as scripture informs us, set in concrete at physical death. The bible doesn’t say this, but it also NEVER says it IS. This is our doctrine which we made up all by ourselves. The fact that scripture doesn’t directly dispute it means nothing in the absence of scripture implying or arguing that death is the deadline. And of course, there are piles of scripture that say God wills to save all. And if He wills . . . .
Finally, it agrees with scripture that God is Good. His mercy is everlasting and never comes to an end. His Word will not return to Him void, but will accomplish that task He sent it to accomplish. And that He is Love. And Love NEVER fails.
So yeah — for me, UR solves so many problems — inconsistencies — I used to struggle with in scripture. It’s so beautiful the way this thread weaves its way through God’s written word and brings unity to so many bits that didn’t make sense before.
Love hearing from you, Brother.
Cindy
Hi Cindy,
To answer your question about where I find people to disciple, it has been through interacting with people on Yahoo Answers. I try to look for questions of truly seeking or hurting people and then give them a kind answer (something rare on YA) and invite them to email me to continue the discussion. The young woman who was a Sikh is an amazing story of God’s providence. She posted a question “How do I become a Christian?” (Now there’s some low hanging fruit ready to be picked ! !) And so I explained the gospel in a way that would make logical sense to a person who was not familiar with the Christian faith, trying to avoid the cliches and buzz words. Her contact with Christianity had been through attending a youth group with some friends in high school. And her memories of those times prompted her to consider that perhaps that is where the truth was. So my reply to her began a period of intense correspondence where I was able to start at square one and really build upon the concept of who Jesus was – His revelation through incarnation, the reliability of the record of scripture, the authenticating nature of miracles, prophecies, and the resurrection, and finally a discussion of what grace is all about. I like to refer people to internet resources and youtube clips as well. And she couldn’t get enough. I even brought up in passing the concept of how spiritual union with Christ makes us new, but that discussing it in depth at this time was probably a bit deeper than we need to go at this time. But she insisted that I fully explain that as well.
After about 3 weeks she received Christ. Then some pretty amazing things happened. In the process of helping her to find a church, I found out that she lived 10 minutes from the church of one of my favorite pastors that I listen to on the radio. And this is 700 miles away. Because of her depression, she had been a total recluse for 3 years, staying at home and sleeping most of the time. I knew it may be difficult to spring her out of this habit, and so I called the church to inquire about small group bible studies, figuring this would be a way to ease into going to church. Amazingly, I found out that the new believers bible study was just beginning that night. And so I told her that she should really go to that. It was hard, but she went and just absolutely LOVED it. The leaders were the kindest people and invited her to come to church that following Wednesday and to sit with her. Again, it was really hard but she did it and had an amazing experience – in fact something miraculous happened the first three times she went to church. I had emailed her that morning about the story of Joseph and how God can use our hard times to bring about His purposes for us. She was very encouraged by this, but when she went to church that night a visiting pastor spoke, whose name was also Jim, and he spoke on the exact same text and subject, making the same points that I had. She was blown away by this “coincidence”, as was I. But . . .this same sort of thing happened the next two times she went to church as well. I would email her about something and the next day the pastor would speak on the same text and subject. Of course I was totally oblivious that God was up to something at the time. But He was confirming to her that He was indeed involved in her life and that she had found the truth. Something I suppose was very important since she had come from a completely different faith background. And those confirmations are something she refers back to frequently as giving her confidence to move ahead full of faith. But it has been amazing to see the transformation that God has accomplished in her life in just one year.
But there are other people online that I have developed relationships with in a similar way. After leading them to Christ my main goal is to get them into a local church and to help them to understand what the Christian faith and life is all about. The biggest challenge I find is that people are so ingrained with the idea of do, do, do, whereas the gospel is focused on doing as a result of becoming, and becoming as the result of abiding.
In my church I also teach new believers, which I love. And so I get a good mix of former Catholics, Jehovah Witnesses, unlearned former church goers, and former pagans as well. And it is really wonderful to see them come to understand the nature of the full gospel message and the transformation God wants to accomplish in their life. My pastor and I go back a long way (25+ years) and we used to minister to the state boys school and prisons with our band. And he became a pastor out of this kind of ministry focus. You may have heard of his son – Jeremy Camp. And he has a real gift for evangelism. And so our relationship continues to grow in complimentary ways. I joke that he catches the fish and I clean them !
And so my church ministry and online ministry really dovetail together well and have helped me in my writing and teaching to really clarify some ideas and discover creative ways to articulate these truths. I find it vital to avoid cliches, or else to never use one without fully explaining what it really means. We can never assume that people understand what we mean when we use terms familiar to us. Anyway, it is a very fulfilling ministry and just reinforces in my mind why the local church is so absolutely vital and indispensable.
I suppose I should get out to work. I’ll re-read your post and maybe respond later.
God bless . . . . . Jim
Hello, Jim
That sounds absolutely wonderful.
I’m so happy for her, and always amazed at what Father does. I’ve had some fairly short-lived conversations with YA people. Maybe I should be more pro-active in keeping up the connection. I always feel I should let them respond before I write again and don’t like to presume or pester them by writing back if I haven’t heard from them. What do you think?
Hi Cindy,
In re-reading your post, there is a lot to think about. One thing we know about scripture is that God often presents things for those who have ears to hear, and it goes over the heads of others. But at the same time, I feel the need to always be careful not to read into the scriptures my personal preferences or novel ideas. So we need to be careful not to hemmed in by tradition for it’s own sake, nor on the other hand, think that we know more than those who have come before us. One thing that sort of bothers me is that Rob Bell has in some ways become the point man in this discussion, and I just don’t like his attitude. I have seen him interviewed about his views and he just sort of has an evasive, smart aleck attitude about being pinned down on the issue. He’ll answer a direct question with, “I don’t know, what do you guys think?” I much prefer someone who can really articulate the view in a respectful, scholarly, and classy sort of way. Of course he has that whole post-modern mindset going as well, which makes for an extremely poor approach to the scriptures.
But if UR is true, maybe God prefers that it be somewhat vague so that the idea doesn’t get distorted and the spread of the gospel stifled as a result. I talked about the threat of incrementalism. And if pure universalism ever became the prevailing view because of poor understanding, then you can bet that most evangelism would all but cease to exist. But I must say, I do believe that those who believe in ECT would do nothing but celebrate if they get to heaven and find out UR is really true. I really don’t hear that many pastors preaching aggressively about hell and damnation – not like they used to. But, in planning meetings for evangelistic events, saving neighbors and loved ones from the flames of eternal hell is a major motivator. So in a way, I think that is a very healthy balance. When I listen to the likes of Greg Laurie do his evangelistic sermons, I don’t know if I hear him hardly ever mention an eternal hell. If he does, I guess it goes over my head. But I do know that the reality of an eternal hell is what gets him up there on the stage and on the road doing his crusades. But what I do hear is a strong emphasis on forgiveness of sins and new life in Christ. One thing that really bothers me about so many churches is their focus on bigger and better and nicer things for the existing church members. And this is with the prevailing understanding of ECT. How much more would outreach and evangelism be neglected otherwise? Good question. Most Christians tend to be very doctrinally illiterate, and generally lethargic in their approach to spiritual life. Let me give you an example of how ECT motivates even the most marginal (if not questionable) of Christians. My brother professes to have prayed a prayer and went forward when he was 12. But he lives like the world and NEVER goes to church. He is a clinical unbeliever in my estimation. (by their fruits you shall know them) But he believes in ECT. About 10 years ago a friend of our family, who he was close to, was dying of cancer. In the last week of this friend’s life my brother insisted that my mom send her minister up to his room to witness to him. Of course my brother did not feel “qualified” to do the job, but his ECT belief was a tremendous motivator in seeing that this friend come to understand how to avoid the judgment of God. So does God allow a not-so-true view of hell to prevail in order to keep us motivated to do what we should be doing anyway, but may well neglect if we had a different view of it? I know I’m kind of covering some old ground again, but maybe from a slightly different angle.
To answer your question about how to approach YA people, I kind of take your approach of not wanting to pester people. It’s kind of interesting, but I’ve had about equal numbers of people that I’ve gotten involved with be the result of my answering their question, and others who have contacted me because they have read some of my answers to other questions and wanted to know if I could help. So I tend to just give a really helpful initial answer, and then emphasize how I would love to help them in anyway I can, but then leave the ball in their court. Another thing I have noticed is that being too deep or heavy duty can sometimes scare them away. And so I try to be clear, simple, practical, and help them to see how much hope there is in a very real and practical sense with Christ. I find that people want real and practical answers to the issues they face, and aren’t looking to becoming hyper spiritual at this point. They want their faith to “work” for them. And that’s one thing I just LOVE about expounding on the gospel. What other philosophy, religion, or approach to therapy can address the core issue that is at the heart of all of our struggles. Our spirit, which is the source of our desires, inner motivations and convictions, and the bents that we have, is bad from the get-go. And the gospel is all about addressing this condition and replacing this old spirit with the Spirit of Christ. The gospel is GOOD NEWS, not good advice. Good advice is a band-aid on a gaping wound. But good news is new life. My Sikh friend had been in weekly $85 therapy for three years and was still making no progress. But when the gospel took root, then it wasn’t much longer that the therapy was gone. I told her that I wasn’t going to advise her on what to do about therapy. But I did say that I thought she would eventually find that it was a dried up well. And she did.
I came up in a church environment with a heavy emphasis on biblical counseling, and that the gospel of Christ and the word of God have the answers to our problems. And while many people say that we need Jesus to get us to heaven, but Freud to sort out our struggles, I say a resounding BALONEY ! Jesus made us, and He can fix us better than anyone else. But it requires understanding the full message of the gospel. It’s not just trust Jesus to get you to heaven, nor is it biblical behavioral therapy. It is regeneration and transformation by the Spirit of God working through the word of God.
One thing I insist upon when leading someone to Christ is that they not only accept the truths of the atonement, but that they declare Christ as Lord. (Romans 10:9) And I insist that a genuine commitment like that should be evidenced by baptism ASAP. God does not regenerate rebellious sinners. He regenerates surrendered sinners, so that they have the power to follow Him. I guess I’m not in to enabling people to play games. But at the same time, I see the need to be extremely compassionate and patient with people. The sin ingrained into our brain (flesh) can be a formidable foe as we seek to learn how to walk in the Spirit. It took even Peter quite a while to get the hang of it.
But sometimes I might write an inquirer back if I haven’t heard from them in a while and just let them know I’ve been thinking and praying for them and would love to hear from them. People aren’t used to others genuinely caring about them. And that’s the REAL advantage we have as “people helpers”. “For the love of God has been poured out within our hearts through the Holy Spirit who was given to us”. (Romans 5:5) and “For THE LOVE OF CHRIST CONTROLS US, having concluded this, that one died for all, therefore all died; AND HE DIED FOR ALL THAT THOSE WHO LIVE SHOULD NO LONGER LIVE FOR THEMSELVES, BUT FOR HIM WHO DIED AND ROSE AGAIN ON THEIR BEHALF”. (2 Corinthians 5:14, 15) And that’s the blessed message of our union with Christ. Not only are those we seek to help made new, but we who are trying to help them are made to be superior helpers by the supernatural love generated within our hearts by the Holy Spirit. I often ask myself, why do I get so much joy spending endless hours helping people to understand the truth that will set them free. And the answer is, “For the love of Christ controls us . . ”
So I hope this encourages you to just let the love of Christ flow through you. I often end my discipleship classes by giving everyone a funnel with Romans 5:5 written on it, and the words, “Be a FUNnel”. And the emphasis being that the first 3 letters of funnel spell “FUN”. And there is no greater fun to be had than to be a funnel of God’s love into the lives of others. As a new creation, that’s what we’re wired to be.
Have a blessed day of worship tomorrow, sister. God bless . . . . . Jim
Hello
i will direct you to this book instead of writing again which i am a poor typist and it takes a while for me to answer reply’s, plus i do not like to read from the computer to much. Anyway i would highly recommend this book ( Footsteps of the Messiah )
http://www.amazon.com/Footsteps-Messiah-Arnold-G-Fruchtenbaum/dp/0914863096
also here is a link to Dr Fruchtenbaum website Ariel Ministries (come and see) there are 50 discipleship studies on the Bible http://www.ariel.org/come-and-see.htm
and a link to a pdf about The place of the dead http://www.arielm.org/dcs/pdf/mbs107m.pdf
Also a book by Joseph Dillow The Reign of the Servant Kings this book is out of print so the best place to find a used copy is on ebay
Thanks, D. Funny! I just happen to be reading “In the Footsteps of the Messiah” right now, and am enjoying it very much. And I’ll certainly check out Arnold’s discipleship studies. I may take some of them, but at the moment I think Father is directing me to Romans. I think I’ll go through the whole thing using the discovery/inductive bible study format. I’ve heard of “The Reign of the Servant Kings” previously and was interested at the time but forgot to look it up. Headed to Amazon to have a look.
Thanks again, and be blessed, D!
Hello, Jim!
I agree with you on Rob Bell though I wouldn’t like to hurt his feelings. He doesn’t provide a lot of backing for his views. If I had to depend on his book I would have a hard time defending UR. Still a lot of people lap it up. I didn’t read “Love Wins” for a long time even after I knew I believed UR, just because I didn’t expect much substance. Alas, I was not disappointed.
Hope Beyond Hell by Gerry Beauchemin is the free one I gave you a link to. Very good resource. Another favorite is “The Inescapable Love of God” by Thomas Talbott, and “Evangelical Universalism” by Gregory MacDonald (aka Robin Parry). Right now I’m reading “The One Purpose of God” by Jan Bonda. Inescapable and EU are more from an Arminian pov, and One Purpose is purportedly from a more Reformed viewpoint. Also quite a lot of Barth’s writings lean toward UR, though he denied coming to that conclusion. Still, considering all the other stuff he was dealing with, who could possibly blame him for not wanting yet another thing on his plate?
You know, I would have said the same not long ago. ALL of the people I know who think about hell to any degree are horrified by it. BUT since then, I’ve encountered quite a few of the Calvinist tribe online, some (not all by any stretch) of whom seem positively delighted that God has created some people for the express purpose of tormenting them forever in hellfire. I find that appalling. I think Abba does, too, as He has made it clear that He loves all people. And you do have a point about the incrementalism. Yet this is also the case with “greasy” grace, yet we still preach grace, as did Paul, and do our best to make it clear that grace leads to obedience, not to licentiousness.
I’ve heard of him but don’t know anything about his preaching. However I will say that if he fails to preach hell, he’s following the tradition of the apostles and prophets in both old and new testaments. Jesus was the only one who ever talked about anything resembling hell (save John in Revelation), and half the time He’s actually using “hades,” which the Septuagint uses to translate Sheol (grave/hidden place).
But isn’t it too bad that an evangelist needs the threat of ECT to motivate him to preach? Jeremiah couldn’t help himself — it was fire in his bones. For me, the motivation is two-fold to share Jesus’ love; first the misery of the person before me, and second the pain of the Father in seeing the misery of His beloved child. We are their brothers and sisters. How DARE we not desire with all our hearts to minister to these lost ones and lead them home to the joy of our Father? Not that He stands by helpless, but WE are the body of Christ. WE are Christ to this generation. He has given to us the ministry of reconciliation. Yes, it will be accomplished with or without us, but what an honor! What a commission. How can we NOT want to fulfill it? How can we bear to watch for one moment longer the misery of our little brothers and sisters if we could persuade them to take our hand and allow us to minister His love to them?
I’m sure God uses absolutely anything available to bring His children closer to Him. Wouldn’t you? I’m not saying that He DOES wrong things — but He uses everything. Like Joseph’s brothers; they meant it for evil but God meant it for good. BTW, that reminds me . . . I just watched a video clip from a friend that I’d be so happy if you’d take a look. http://createhistory.org/presentation He’s not an EU that I know of, in case that matters, but this looks very exciting to me. I’m getting our group together to watch this and consider whether we want to help.
I’ll drop you a personal e-mail about the YA’s. I’d like to get your opinion of mine, if you have time.
Thanks, Bro
Cindy
here is one more link to solid Bible teaching http://www.biblicalresearch.info/index.html