Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

[Albion]

Being wrong, even firmly wrong, is not the definition of a heresy, though.

Or if it is, we are all heretics.

Other than whether or not the belief is correct, a heresy has to be about a substantial doctrinal matter. Whether leavened or unleavened bread is the one to use for Communion--and each side cites the Bible for support of its belief-- is not a heresy. But denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead is, of course, significant enough to rise to the level of a heresy.

The question here was about hell and whether the denial of its existence is considered serious enough to be a matter of heresy. My answer was "yes." Incidentally, a heresy does not, in itself make anyone a non-Christian, apostate Christian, or anything of the sort.

 

[AmericanChristian91]

The question here was about hell and whether the denial of its existence is considered serious enough to be a matter of heresy. My answer was "yes." Incidentally, a heresy does not, in itself make anyone a non-Christian, apostate Christian, or anything of the sort.

Actually the question I posted about was not whether denying hell or not is heresy but whether having a different view of hell beyond the eternal view is heresy or not.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Hell is the absence of God; the one place in all existence where He may not be found. Christians generally believe what they are taught until something greater is revealed to them. Are there conflicting statements about Hell? Absolutely yes, and absolutely no.

Hell was created for Lucifer and the angels with him who rebelled against God. Being eternal beings, they were condemned to eternal damnation. So hell is a very real place. The lake of fire is the best known component of Hell, but I believe that Hell is more than just that. I believe that outer darkness plays a part as well, for those who are cast away from Heaven but not to the eternal fire.

In Romans 2 we learn that "All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous." So the one who has never learned about Christ will be judged differently from those who have heard and have rejected Him. If there is different judgment, then there is a different fate and consequently multiple facets to Hell.

In Revelations we learn that some will be cast into the fire and consumed; the second death. This is the destruction of body and soul in Hell. It is a far better fate than eternal damnation. This shows that God's judgment is fair; that there isn't simply eternal reward or eternal damnation. Each of us will be judged according to our works.

Jesus said, "I am the way, the truth and the light. No one comes unto the Father but by me." By coming to the presence of God, we are able to actually behold our Creator. The question is, if Hell has segments, wouldn't Heave as well? What of the pious and good hearted person who lives his life by God's standards but that never learned of the Savior? I personally believe that it is possible for them to make it to Heaven, though they will never be in the actual presence of the Father. Romans 2 gives some support to this idea by saying "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them."

Jesus spoke more about Hell in the Gospels than He did about Heaven. He intended for us to know that it was a real place with dire consequence.

This is what I believe from what has been taught and what I have studied. The true nature of the Lord is revealed not by the fallible words of men, but in the perfect record of His word. Anyone stating opinions about the subject would be well suited to support their opinions with what is written in the Bible. We may all be wrong, but the word of the Lord is perfect.

I bolded something I found odd. I sure thought God was omnipresent. I would hope you have some scripture or something to back that claim up.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Actually the question I posted about was not whether denying hell or not is heresy but whether having a different view of hell beyond the eternal view is heresy or not.

If it's a heresy in your church it would be a heresy. One must be in communion with a church to be found a heretic.
So to shorten this up, yes in some groups it is a heresy. In some it is not. I think about all would at least call it bad theology.

 

[Albion]

Actually the question I posted about was not whether denying hell or not is heresy but whether having a different view of hell beyond the eternal view is heresy or not.

Right. I was aware that we had strayed a bit, but there was so little agreement on what a heresy means that it seemed necessary to address that. And as for your specific inquiry...

As I understand it, any "annihilation" would be considered a heresy, as would a temporary hell resulting in everyone being saved sooner or later. Describing hell as a place of loss and alienation from God but not pitchforks and fire would not be a heresy.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Right. I was aware that we had strayed a bit, but there was so little agreement on what a heresy means that it seemed necessary to address that. And as for your specific inquiry...

As I understand it, any "annihilation" would be considered a heresy, as would a temporary hell resulting in everyone being saved sooner or later. Describing hell as a place of loss and alienation from God but not pitchforks and fire would not be a heresy.

I agree with your mindset on that. I have a feeling , however that the SDA wouldn't call it heresy.

 

[seeingeyes]

As I understand it, any "annihilation" would be considered a heresy, as would a temporary hell resulting in everyone being saved sooner or later.

Why? Based on what?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

As I understand it, any "annihilation" would be considered a heresy, as would a temporary hell resulting in everyone being saved sooner or later.
​

​

You mean like "purgatory"? Does Roman Catholicism still teach that doctrine?​

http://www.christianforums.com/t7782077/
Purgatory, if it exists how long do you guys have to stay there?



.

 

[KWCrazy]

I bolded something I found odd. I sure thought God was omnipresent. I would hope you have some scripture or something to back that claim up.

Your problem is that the term "omnipresent" is not a Biblical term.
The presence of the Lord fills the Heaven and the Earth. Not Hell. Hell is the complete opposite of Heaven; the antithesis of God.
God created Hell and God could go there, but why? People who are in Hell are there because they chose to separate themselves from God.

 

[Albion]

You mean like "purgatory"? Does Roman Catholicism still teach that doctrine?[/CENTER]

Yes, Purgatory's still taught, but it's in the process of being redefined to make it seem less scary to 21st century people. After all, everyone goes there except for those who go straight to Hell, so if it's a long spell of fire and brimstone as has historically been taught, any Catholic who believes in Purgatory could well dread what awaits in the afterlife.

While Purgatory has been described as being just like Hell except that it doesn't last forever, that refers to what it would be like to be there. Hell itself is supposed to be forever, and if someone were to advocate a Hell that would only last only until those there were rehabilitated, that would be a heresy.

Purgatory, if it exists how long do you guys have to stay there?

Depends on the sins involved but not longer than until the Second Coming of Christ. According to some Catholic mystics, many people will be there until then.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Originally Posted by Albion

Long before I came to CF I had been told by religious teachers that denying hell (i.e. affirming universal salvation) is indeed a heresy.

BTW, it is common for EO Christians to hope that God has a plan by which all MAY be saved in the end, but those whom I've spoken with take care to say that they don't posit that it necessarily will happen--and for this very reason, that to make it a firm belief would be heretical.
​

Originally Posted by seeingeyes

Being wrong, even firmly wrong, is not the definition of a heresy, though.

Or if it is, we are all heretics.
​

Originally Posted by Albion

Other than whether or not the belief is correct, a heresy has to be about a substantial doctrinal matter. Whether leavened or unleavened bread is the one to use for Communion--and each side cites the Bible for support of its belief-- is not a heresy. But denying that Jesus actually rose from the dead is, of course, significant enough to rise to the level of a heresy.

The question here was about hell and whether the denial of its existence is considered serious enough to be a matter of heresy. My answer was "yes." Incidentally, a heresy does not, in itself make anyone a non-Christian, apostate Christian, or anything of the sort.

Originally Posted by AmericanChristian91

Actually the question I posted about was not whether denying hell or not is heresy but whether having a different view of hell beyond the eternal view is heresy or not.
​

Originally Posted by Albion

As I understand it, any "annihilation" would be considered a heresy, as would a temporary hell resulting in everyone being saved sooner or later.
​

Why? Based on what?

Good question.



.

 

[Albion]

Good question.

As has already been said, a heresy is a belief in a significantly erroneous doctrine.

Universalism and Annihilationism are sufficiently unscriptural (for denying that there will indeed be an eternal separation from God for unrepentant sinners) that such ideas would be heretical.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

As has already been said, a heresy is a belief in a significantly erroneous doctrine.

Universalism and Annihilationism are sufficiently unscriptural (for denying that there will indeed be an eternal separation from God for unrepentant sinners) that such ideas would be heretical.

I suppose that is why those views are relegated to the Unorthodox boards.
It's like a ghost town over there compared to GT....
There is nothing wrong with looking at all arguements, whether pro or con, IMHO

http://www.christianforums.com/t7771017/
POLL: Annihilationism, Universalism or Eternal Hell



.

 

[Timothew]

I don't like the idea of cherry-picking scriptures to support arguments, but I'll bite. In Matthew 10:28, we are told that man can kill man, however, man cannot kill the soul. Correct? Jesus then says that we should fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Correct? Here is where annihilationists go astray. The Greek word that is used in this verse is different when it comes to man can do to man (apokteino) vs what God can do (apollumi). If these two Greek words had been the same, you might have a point. However, the Greek word apollumi reflects a "ruined" or even a "lost" state and a continuation of existence.

Nice try, but I can read Greek, and the Greek word apollumi actually does mean destruction. And if you look at the context of Matthew 10:28, comparing what God can do (destroy both body and soul) to what man can do (destroy the body but NOT the soul), it doesn't make any sense that apollumi doesn't mean destroy. If apollumi only means ruined, then man can ruin both the body and soul, and Jesus's point is lost. However if man can kill the body and can't kill the soul, and God can kill both the body and the soul in Gehenna; Then Jesus's point is made.

Also, Matthew uses the same word in Matthew 2:13 where Herod wanted to destroy Jesus. Herod's plan was to kill Jesus, not put him in a lost state of continued existence.

Whoever told you that apollumi doesn't mean destroy was not telling you the truth.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Long before I came to CF I had been told by religious teachers that denying hell (i.e. affirming universal salvation) is indeed a heresy.

BTW, it is common for EO Christians to hope that God has a plan by which all MAY be saved in the end, but those whom I've spoken with take care to say that they don't posit that it necessarily will happen--and for this very reason, that to make it a firm belief would be heretical.

A hope and a belief are a bit different. I believe it's God's will that no man perish. I hope and even pray His will be done. I believe in a hell.

 

[Timothew]

As has already been said, a heresy is a belief in a significantly erroneous doctrine.

Universalism and Annihilationism are sufficiently unscriptural (for denying that there will indeed be an eternal separation from God for unrepentant sinners) that such ideas would be heretical.

Based on What? What Scriptures?

And what Scriptures say that there will be an eternal separation from God? It has already been established that God is in everywhere. He is in Heaven, He is on the Earth, and He is in Hell. See Psalm 139:8, "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." Eternal Separation is sufficiently unscriptural that if any wrong belief is heretical, then "Eternal Separation" is. But the Bible says many times over that the lost will perish. How is it heretical to believe that the lost will perish? See John 3:16 for just one example. I can give many more examples if you wish.

The Bible never once says that people go to hell when they die where they are tormented alive forever when they are dead. Eternal Conscious Torment in Hell is not Scriptural.

It is time for the Church to leave the doctrine of ECT that it strayed into and return to the doctrine of the Apostles, that there is only eternal life in Jesus Christ and those who reject Him will perish. 1500 years is a long time to believe a false doctrine. Too long, really.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Your problem is that the term "omnipresent" is not a Biblical term.
The presence of the Lord fills the Heaven and the Earth. Not Hell. Hell is the complete opposite of Heaven; the antithesis of God.
God created Hell and God could go there, but why? People who are in Hell are there because they chose to separate themselves from God.

i know it's not a word used in the bible. But God is omnipresent. Not partially omnipresent as that is an oxymoron.

Try this on for size.

 

[Timothew]

Here is the Gospel Truth and it is NOT a heresy, nor is it "unorthodox"
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

How on earth is it heretical or unorthodox to believe that whoever believes in him will not perish and whoever rejects him will perish when that is specifically what the Bible says???

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Here is the Gospel Truth and it is NOT a heresy, nor is it "unorthodox"
For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

How on earth is it heretical or unorthodox to believe that whoever believes in him will not perish and whoever rejects him will perish when that is specifically what the Bible says???

So now we need to define eternal life.

 

[Timothew]

So now we need to define eternal life.

How about this? Life that lasts forever? Not death continuing on forever? Never perishing?
We all know what "life" is. We shouldn't be redefining that to mean something other than "life". We also know that "eternal" means "lasting forever".