Christian who struggles with Hell

[TrueMyth]

I don`t believe that you have addressed these questions yet, although I could be wrong.

I have: post #72 (page 8) for the Romans 2 question, and post#80 (again, page 8) for the OT figures question. I understand, though-- there's a lot of posts to sift through!

Although I know that you have stated that you do not need to bring biblical proof, I would like to say that scripture has always been used to define what is right and wrong concerning teaching hence the bareans were considered more noble because they searched the scriptures to see if what Paul had told them was true, generally if a teaching cannot be found in scripture it is because it is not true, essentially what you are doing is reading something into the silence.

I think it's time to address this issue for a final time, since this question keeps coming up. Mark, I will reiterate what I told savedandhappy1: I dislike proof-texting very much. This is the problem with any claim of this type-- "The Bible clearly teaches X"-- Bible verses must be interpreted, and it is quite easy to interpret a verse or a passage to mean several different things. Just look at Calvinists and Arminians: both claim that the Bible clearly teaches their position. The same is true for Catholics and Protestants with sola Scriptura or salvation by faith alone. Of course, it is almost certain that one of them is ontologically right and one is wrong. However, I believe that it is the case that both of them are wrong in their claim, "The Bible clearly teaches X". The only parts on which the Bible is unarguably clear are the essential elements of Christianity, without which the whole structure would collapse.

The Bible clearly teaches that there is a place where unbelievers go called Hell, that this place is final, and that it is full of unutterable suffering. The Bible also clearly teaches that Jesus is the only way to God and to avoid Hell. Beyond this we are left to speculate and use our reason, which God gave us. What we must ensure is that we never allow our reason to override these essential elements on which the Bible is clear. Certain positions are more rational than others, and some positions are rationally unsalvageable apart from an appeal to mystery. Also, while the Bible might not be perfectly clear on a given issue, it can be interpreted to be more or less sympathetic to it.

Thus, with any given theological position which I am presented with-- either from myself or others-- this is my train of thought, in this order: 1) Does it contradict with what the Bible clearly teaches (the essential elements of Christianity)? 2) Is it rationally coherent? 3) Is the Bible sympathetic or unsympathetic to it? and 4) Double-check (1). I reject religious pluralism because of (1), I reject Calvinism because of (2), and I reject salvation only in this life because of (3)-- and possibly (2) as well.

Your comment, "generally if a teaching cannot be found in scripture it is because it is not true" I would vigorously challenge. Of course, it is hard to understand what "generally" means, but what about abortion? What about watching South Park? What about pacifism? What about masturbation? Scripture can be construed as either being sympathetic or unsympathetic toward these issues, but none of them are clearly stated as being either correct or incorrect, apart from straining the contextual meaning of passages/verses. Scripture is not an exhaustive theological/philosophical/social treatise, and to treat it as such is not only doing violence to God's Word, but it leads to denominational friction, the further splintering of Christ's Church, and obscuring of our main mission to preach the Gospel instead of burning Harry Potter books.

 

[savedandhappy1]

I guess I would ask again why Jesus would tell the parable about the rich man and Lazarus if the message, which appears quite clear to me, wasn't that Hell is real and a place of torment?

It even states that there is a great divide that those in Heaven and Hell can not cross over. What other meaning could He have had in telling this parable?

There are many scriptures that speak of gnashing of teeth and eternal torment in Hell. Does that not speak of more then just separation from God to you?

I guess I would have to ask why with all the scriptures that describe a very real and tormenting place, a place that once you are there you can't leave, is not clear to you?

I have gone back and re-read your post #51, #37, and #39, and must need to read them again, because I am not understanding why you think I am confused about what you believe.

You say the rich man still would not surrender to the Lord, and was only wanting relief from his discomfort, right. Again, what about the part of the parable that tells about the great divide between Heaven and Hell that can't be crossed? If it can't be crossed then how could someone make a final decision to surrender to the Lord.

I see to many people trying to make God into what we want Him to be. I have heard many atheist/agnostics and Christians, tell me that if God really means this or does that, they wouldn't want to worship Him anyway. They hear only the fact that He is a loving God, but leave out where the Bible tells us He is a jealous God who will in the end show His wrath and judgement.

Continuing to prayer that the understanding you seek will be found.

P.S. I just read your last post to someone else, and would have to ask where we are to get the answers to lifes questions if not from the Word of God? Isn't it the Operators Manual if you will for us?

I have already addressed this issue, see post #51 on page 6. Basically, I cast a very suspicious eye on the whole concept of "proof-texting", since quite often the Bible can be taken to mean whatever one wants. For this reason, I think Christians can often honestly disagree on what the Bible says. However, there are certain points on which it is abundantly clear, and these are the foundation of our faith, without which it would no longer be Christian, but something else.

I have already answered this as well, in post #39, page 4. In brief, the answer is that while the rich man wanted relief from Hell and wanted his relatives to avoid going there, he desired his own sovereignty more. We see the same principle at work all the time on earth when there is a person who complains about the unpleasantness of their situation, but is not willing to do what is necessary to remove themselves from it. What is necessary to remove a soul from Hell is the choice fo God over self, and no soul will ever make that choice, since their character is fixed self-ward after the Final Decision.​

I think you are also confused about what my view of Hell and the Final Decision is. See also post #37, page 4 for a full description of my theodicy.​

 

[TrueMyth]

Why shouldn't Hell be conscious torment? How can someone who is in Hell forget what he/she has given up? The fact that they realise their separation is unfortunate, but that's how things go.

I'll address this more fully later.

If the young child in your example is conscious of the wrong he is committing, then how can you expect him not to go to Hell when he dies the way you stated he did?

Also how can we judge what is good? we are not perfect, we do not even know what is perfect. Jesus said God is perfect, and only He knows what is. We are not equipped to make that judgement.

I can't see how this is in keeping with any notion of good by anyone. All cultures, in all times, have given different punishments for different offenses. It is universal human nature that to treat all wrongs as equally deserving of the same punishment is unutterably incorrect. The situation worsens when we consider that in common theology, not only do all offenses receive the same punishment, but this punishment is eternal torture. This is akin to punishing all legal offenses with death. It is absurd and wicked.

Now this notion of "We are lowly humans, we have no idea what good is" is rationally and morally ludicrous. First of all, if we have no idea of good, then what do we mean when we say that God is good? God is we know not what? In fact, it actually makes it likely that God's goodness is completely different from ours, in such a way that torturing babies for personal pleasure is what God means by good. THIS IS VERY IMPORTANT TO KEEP IN MIND: I do not believe that any of this is correct. I am pointing out the logical conclusion of the line of argument you are presenting. Of course, if we have some idea of good, but just not perfect good like God has, then we must ask the question, "What ideas of good do we have?" Well, obviously, any idea which has been held by all persons in all times and in all cultures is ideally suited for such a claim. And such is the case with the idea of matching the punishment to the crime. If this, which everyone agrees is good, is actually bad, then God's goodness is something of which we have no possible knowledge. In such a case, we cannot even rely on the Bible, because if our notions of good are so far off as that, what assurance do we have that deceit is not God's idea of goodness?

Of course, one might respond that the punishment does fit the crime; namely that all sin is so heinous that it deserves eternal punishment. I agree with this statement, however, I think there needs to be a definition of what "sin" is. Is it going against what God has commanded? Is it choosing self over God? Is it doing what is morally wrong? If "sin" is defined as something which can encompass a child stealing a $5 bill, then I would question whether this is actually the definition we ought to use, since this in no way seems to deserve eternal torture.

 

[TrueMyth]

I guess I would ask again why Jesus would tell the parable about the rich man and Lazarus if the message, which appears quite clear to me, wasn't that Hell is real and a place of torment?

It even states that there is a great divide that those in Heaven and Hell can not cross over. What other meaning could He have had in telling this parable?
​

I don't think you read my response carefully enough. I quote from one of the responses which I referenced: "Thus, we need to ask "What is the core meaning of the parable?" The core meaning seems to me to be that even the slightest relief in Hell would be welcome, but it is not forthcoming." The meaning is most certainly that Hell is torment. Also, to quote again from a different response: "Those human souls who reject this Final Decision are condemned to Hell, and are there for all eternity." Hell is certainly final. My position is not that people can get out of Hell; my position is that after death all are given a choice to accept or reject God, after which they go to Heaven or Hell for all eternity

​

There are many scriptures that speak of gnashing of teeth and eternal torment in Hell. Does that not speak of more then just separation from God to you?

Heaven is spoken of as being "in the clouds". Are we to assume from this that there will be actual clouds in Heaven, or that it is somehow located in a stratocumulous formation? Of course not. Don't take what is obviously figurative language literally. Jesus used the image of fire and gnashing of teeth and worms to illustrate that there is suffering in Hell, just as He uses images of clouds to indicate serenity and beatitude.

I guess I would have to ask why with all the scriptures that describe a very real and tormenting place, a place that once you are there you can't leave, is not clear to you?

I have gone back and re-read your post #51, #37, and #39, and must need to read them again, because I am not understanding why you think I am confused about what you believe.​

Where you are confused is on several points: 1) You think I state that a person can get out of Hell; 2) You think I state that Hell is not torment; and 3) You think I state that Hell is not real. All three of these are incorrect.
​

You say the rich man still would not surrender to the Lord, and was only wanting relief from his discomfort, right. Again, what about the part of the parable that tells about the great divide between Heaven and Hell that can't be crossed? If it can't be crossed then how could someone make a final decision to surrender to the Lord.

Because the Final Decision occurs before Heaven or Hell, and determines which the soul goes to.

I see to many people trying to make od into what we want Him to be. I have heard many atheist/agnostics and Christians, tell me that if God really means this or does that, they wouldn't want to worship Him anyway. They hear only the fact that He is a loving God, but leave out where the Bible tells us He is a jealous God who will in the end show His wrath and judgement.

I agree that we must take into consideration God's wrath/judgment. However, we must also remember that God is the Author of Reason, and if it can be shown that there is some contradiction in what we say of Him, then we can conclude that what we say of Him is incorrect. Of course, there will never be any contradiction in what God says about Himself. God says in the Bible that Hell is real, it is final, and it is suffering. He does not say that it can only be avoided in this life. That is a conclusion reached by inference from humans, and thus is subject to correction

P.S. I just read your last post to someone else, and would have to ask where we are to get the answers to lifes questions if not from the Word of God? Isn't it the Operators Manual if you will for us?

I refer you to my post #101, on page 11. We get our answers to what we can from the Word of God. It has the ultimate answers, which are the essential parts of Christianity. It presents us with principles for living in all aspects of life, but it does not clearly support or contradict every action conceivable. It is not an exhaustive manual, where we can look up "masturbation" in the index, go to the correct page, and find, "Thou shalt not" or "thou shalt". The Bible speaks clearly and unarguably on some points, and provides general guidance on others. We must use our reason to interpret the parts on which we are given general guidance. It is impossible to avoid human interpretation of the Bible. Thus, while the Bible is the only place we can find ultimate answers, and ought to be the first place we look for any answers, we must use our God-given reason to "test and approve" (Rom. 12:2)and to "examine the Scriptures" (Acts 17:11).

 

[savedandhappy1]

I don't think you read my response carefully enough. I quote from one of the responses which I referenced: "Thus, we need to ask "What is the core meaning of the parable?" The core meaning seems to me to be that even the slightest relief in Hell would be welcome, but it is not forthcoming." The meaning is most certainly that Hell is torment. Also, to quote again from a different response: "Those human souls who reject this Final Decision are condemned to Hell, and are there for all eternity." Hell is certainly final. My position is not that people can get out of Hell; my position is that after death all are given a choice to accept or reject God, after which they go to Heaven or Hell for all eternity

Heaven is spoken of as being "in the clouds". Are we to assume from this that there will be actual clouds in Heaven, or that it is somehow located in a stratocumulous formation? Of course not. Don't take what is obviously figurative language literally. Jesus used the image of fire and gnashing of teeth and worms to illustrate that there is suffering in Hell, just as He uses images of clouds to indicate serenity and beatitude.




Where you are confused is on several points: 1) You think I state that a person can get out of Hell; 2) You think I state that Hell is not torment; and 3) You think I state that Hell is not real. All three of these are incorrect.
[/indent]

Because the Final Decision occurs before Heaven or Hell, and determines which the soul goes to.




I agree that we must take into consideration God's wrath/judgment. However, we must also remember that God is the Author of Reason, and if it can be shown that there is some contradiction in what we say of Him, then we can conclude that what we say of Him is incorrect. Of course, there will never be any contradiction in what God says about Himself. God says in the Bible that Hell is real, it is final, and it is suffering. He does not say that it can only be avoided in this life. That is a conclusion reached by inference from humans, and thus is subject to correction






I refer you to my post #101, on page 11. We get our answers to what we can from the Word of God. It has the ultimate answers, which are the essential parts of Christianity. It presents us with principles for living in all aspects of life, but it does not clearly support or contradict every action conceivable. It is not an exhaustive manual, where we can look up "masturbation" in the index, go to the correct page, and find, "Thou shalt not" or "thou shalt". The Bible speaks clearly and unarguably on some points, and provides general guidance on others. We must use our reason to interpret the parts on which we are given general guidance. It is impossible to avoid human interpretation of the Bible. Thus, while the Bible is the only place we can find ultimate answers, and ought to be the first place we look for any answers, we must use our God-given reason to "test and approve" (Rom. 12:2)and to "examine the Scriptures" (Acts 17:11).

The parable tells us....

Luke 16:19-31
19There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
20And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
21And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
22And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
23And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

So you think that there is somewhere between death and hell for the rich man, that Jesus didn't think was important enough to mention? Wouldn't it be very important and worth mentioning if there was a time/place for a final moment after death to change and receive the Lord?

With all the times that Hell is mentioned in the Bible do you consider that it is only given as general guidance, and not clearly support by the scriptures?

So how do you "test and approve" the time between death and the persons arrival in either Heaven or Hell?(Romans 12:2)

In examining the scriptures (Acts 17:11), do you find any scriptures that leave a hint that there is something between death and Heaven or Hell?

Why can't the scriptures be just what they are without trying to read or put something in there that isn't there?

I assume you will agree that our ways are not His ways, and in saying that I also see that if Jesus wasn't the go between for us like Moses was for the children in the wilderness, that God would have probably already destroyed this world.( I can look up the scriptures about Moses if you aren't familar with them.)

I just see so many people trying to make the Word to be more or less then what it is. I believe the devil is deceiving many in these last days. I see alot of Christians trying to lessen what the word says because people are saying things like I said before,(if God is really a loving God He won't do this or that, and He would do this or that). Or they use because of the way the World is we have to not do this or do this, when the Word plainly tells us that He is the same today tommorrow and forever.

Again, I will continue to pray that you find what you seek.

[/INDENT]

 

[TrueMyth]

So you think that there is somewhere between death and hell for the rich man, that Jesus didn't think was important enough to mention? Wouldn't it be very important and worth mentioning if there was a time/place for a final moment after death to change and receive the Lord?

I do not presume to know specifically why Jesus did not mention this, but there is reason to suspect why. I will give you the same response I gave to someone else who asked this question.

Suppose we leave the house and say, "I'm going to the grocery store!" Is it necessary to also say, "And I'll go to the garage and get in the car first!"? Of course not. When you leave the house and go to somewhere else, it is not necessary that you also mention the method used to get there. It is a logical conclusion from what is known. In the same way, it is not necessary for Jesus to state the method used to get to Hell, only that someone has got there.

In addition, I would point out that while parables are Scripture which is God-breathed, and they cannot be written off as "mere allegory" or the like, we absolutely must avoid using them as didactic theological proof-texts. Jesus is not trying to tell us about how we get to Hell, but about what Hell is like. Even then, we must not assume that the specific features of the parable are exactly like the reality. For example, are we to build a theology from this parable that souls in Hell and souls in Heaven can communicate back and forth? They may, or they may not. But certainly it would be unwise to use this text alone as proof of this, especially since that is not the main point of the story to begin with.

With all the times that Hell is mentioned in the Bible do you consider that it is only given as general guidance, and not clearly support by the scriptures?

Again you misread me. Hell is very real, it is very bad, and it will be populated by people who have rejected Jesus Christ. If I were really wishing to just "make all the problems go away", then I would deny Hell altogether. Far too many people who call themselves Christian (I will the judging to God) do this very thing, and for that very reason. I believe that if a person denies the reality and awfulness of Hell, they are experiencing a certain kind of blindness which I cannot understand. However, it is never clearly stated in the Bible that the choice of Hell can only be made in this lifetime. What I would take to be a clear statement would be a verse to this effect:

"Repent ye, therefore, for thou wilt be judged in the hereafter for the deeds done in this life."

Its absence does not mean that there absolutely definitely is a choice after death, but it does mean that it is not unbiblical to believe that there might be. I also believe, in conjunction with this, that the idea of a choice after death has better rational foundation. Finally, while I see some elements in the Bible which could be construed to mean that this life is all there is, I also see several others which indicate that death is no barrier to God attempting to save the one that is lost.

So how do you "test and approve" the time between death and the persons arrival in either Heaven or Hell?(Romans 12:2)


In examining the scriptures (Acts 17:11), do you find any scriptures that leave a hint that there is something between death and Heaven or Hell?

This is getting mildly frustrating again. We "test and approve" using our reason. Paul himself, when preaching to unbelievers, used reason apart from Scripture (he only had the Torah). Thus, is is entirely within Christian behavior to use rational arguments without appealing to Scriptural support. However, one must always "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul [or anyone else] said was true." This is what I did. I was always told that you must accept Jesus in this life, or else you go to Hell. Later on, I began to find compelling rational arguments against this. So, I "examined the Scriptures" to see if it was true, and lo and behold, I couldn't see that it was clearly spelled out-- at least not the way the existence and suffering of Hell was clearly spelled out.

As far as Scriptures which hint that there might be a choice after death, I already answered this question, but let me do so again in summary for everyone's benefit:

1) There are verses which indicate that if we seek God, we will find Him (Deut. 4:29, Prov. 8:17, Prov. 11:27, Jer. 29:13, Matt. 7:7, Luke 11:9 & 10). I believe that there are many who honestly seek God, but for whatever reason do not find Him in this life. They will then find Him after death.

2) Often it is said, "X is without excuse" for sin (John 15:22; Rom. 1:20). This indicates that there can be excuse for sin; namely, an insufficient knowledge of God and His law. God will remove every excuse at the Final Decision.

3) After death, Peter tells us that Jesus "preached to the spirits in prison" (1 Peter 3:19; 4:6), which is almost unanimously taken to mean the "descended into Hell" part of the Apostles Creed. What purpose would that serve, if they could not choose Him? It seems that at least once there was a salvific choice after death.

4) Finally and most importantly, there is Rom. 8:38-39, which states that "neither death nor life... will be able to separate us from the love of God which is in Christ Jesus our Lord.

Let me reiterate this, though, yet again: THESE ARE NOT PROOF TEXTS! I was asked to provide evidence of what hints are offered that there is a choice after death, so I offered verses which could be sympathetic to that position.

Why can't the scriptures be just what they are without trying to read or put something in there that isn't there?

I actually smiled when I read this. This exhibits such naivete. To be sure, there are certain things which the Scriptures say which simply are, period-- God will judge the wicked, Jesus died for your sins, etc. Others must be interpreted-- Matt. 10:23, Matt. 12:32, Matt. 16:28, to name only a few. Scripture rarely "just is what it is". It must be interpreted on the vast majority of occasions.

I just see so many people trying to make the Word to be more or less then what it is. I believe the devil is deceiving many in these last days. I see alot of Christians trying to lessen what the word says because people are saying things like I said before,(if God is really a loving God He won't do this or that, and He would do this or that). Or they use because of the way the World is we have to not do this or do this, when the Word plainly tells us that He is the same today tommorrow and forever.

Sometimes highly conservative Christians do things where I don't know whether to laugh, be outraged, or cry. Statements like this are of that variety. The phrase "What the Bible says" is constantly being interpreted. This is not necessarily or always a bad thing. For many years, the Bible was taken as support for slavery. Then, some people came along who took another look and reinterpreted it. For many years, the Bible was taken to mean that we should stone/burn at the stake people who practice witchcraft. Then, some people came along who reinterpreted it. To simply say, "Well, they found the real meaning" is ludicrously inept. Either parts of the Bible can be reinterpreted or they can't. If they can, then it is not necessarily bad to do so. If they can't, then the first interpretation is always the right one. To be sure, there are several instances of improper reinterpretation concerning the Bible. However, it would be a fallacy and pitifully wrong in the highest degree to assume that all instances of reinterpretation are bad or (what is so much more sickeningly laughable) signs of the end times.

The essential elements of Christianity are in the Bible, they always have been there, and they will always be the same. The Bible is very clear on these points. On many others, the Bible gives us hints and guidance (some strong, some weak), and we are left to use our own conscience and the Holy Spirit. On some, the Bible is altogether silent.

The "If God is love..." argument gets abused frequently, but it also gets used in ways which many (perhaps yourself included) feel are proper. Jacob Arminius did it when Calvinism was in its heyday-- "If God is love, why does He condemn some to Hell without their choice?" Others do it today-- "If God is love, why do unbaptized infants go to Hell?" Both our best and our worst theology comes from asking this question. This does not at all indicate that we should forego asking it altogether; we must be cautious at all times, however.

 

[intricatic]

This is getting mildly frustrating again. We "test and approve" using our reason. Paul himself, when preaching to unbelievers, used reason apart from Scripture (he only had the Torah). Thus, is is entirely within Christian behavior to use rational arguments without appealing to Scriptural support. However, one must always "examine the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul [or anyone else] said was true." This is what I did. I was always told that you must accept Jesus in this life, or else you go to Hell. Later on, I began to find compelling rational arguments against this. So, I "examined the Scriptures" to see if it was true, and lo and behold, I couldn't see that it was clearly spelled out-- at least not the way the existence and suffering of Hell was clearly spelled out.

I've been following this a bit and I thought I'd comment on this, I hope you don't mind the interjection.

I agree with this, but I also disagree. I agree in that I believe our faith is not something that is mystic and undefinable, and that the utility of reason and rational thinking is absolutely necessary for it to be healthy and well-grounded. However, I disagree in that we really have no way of firmly knowing what will be after life, based on scripture which was written within Judaic cultural standards. The reason for this is that the Judaic axiom which guided an understanding of the afterlife was terribly vague (being centered on the "here and now" was of primary importance, questions of a mystical nature such as the afterlife were not considered as important as how one lives in this life), but also antitypal of life itself. When we read of the "Second Death", this plays a very large part in said axiom. As such, I really don't think it's either wise or benefitial, even, to dwell too much on such questions. They're interesting, to be sure, but it's not as important as how we live now, and it's not as important as sharing the love of Christ with unbelievers. I find it's generally better to operate under the assumption of the worst, and hope for the best - and through that hope, work towards that end. We know that God will punish the unrepentant, and the unrighteous, as is demanded by His Righteousness. We also know that the best possible way to help people come to forgiveness is to actually do something about it. Is this not all that needs be known?

 

[TrueMyth]

I've been following this a bit and I thought I'd comment on this, I hope you don't mind the interjection.

I agree with this, but I also disagree. I agree in that I believe our faith is not something that is mystic and undefinable, and that the utility of reason and rational thinking is absolutely necessary for it to be healthy and well-grounded. However, I disagree in that we really have no way of firmly knowing what will be after life, based on scripture which was written within Judaic cultural standards. The reason for this is that the Judaic axiom which guided an understanding of the afterlife was terribly vague (being centered on the "here and now" was of primary importance, questions of a mystical nature such as the afterlife were not considered as important as how one lives in this life), but also antitypal of life itself. When we read of the "Second Death", this plays a very large part in said axiom. As such, I really don't think it's either wise or benefitial, even, to dwell too much on such questions. They're interesting, to be sure, but it's not as important as how we live now, and it's not as important as sharing the love of Christ with unbelievers. I find it's generally better to operate under the assumption of the worst, and hope for the best - and through that hope, work towards that end. We know that God will punish the unrepentant, and the unrighteous, as is demanded by His Righteousness. We also know that the best possible way to help people come to forgiveness is to actually do something about it. Is this not all that needs be known?

This has been one of the best responses in this thread. In many ways, I believe you are right. It is foolhardy to try to read in the Bible exact descriptions of everything that is or will be, or exact rules for every conceivable action. It is also foolhardy to allow esoteric ideas to usurp more concrete ones. I think here of the ancient story of the philosopher who died in a most philosophical way: he fell into a well, which he did not see b/c he was too busy staring at the heavens.

The primary mandate always has been, and always will be, to first show, and then tell, others about Christ's love. To the extent which such thoughts as have occupied us so far detract from this, they are misplaced. Until this point, however, there does not seem to be any harm in them. In fact, they might not be necessarily mutually exclusive. You might remember from my original post that I have spent some time in the Internet Infidels forum, and it was a direct result of this and encounters with other unbelievers that I began to think about this issue. After all, how can we expect to win anyone with the Truth, if what we call the Truth is logically incoherent? In some ways, theology is a natural extension of the Great Commission. But you are right to point out the threat.

 

[busterdog]

Again you misread me. Hell is very real, it is very bad, and it will be populated by people who have rejected Jesus Christ. If I were really wishing to just "make all the problems go away", then I would deny Hell altogether. Far too many people who call themselves Christian (I will the judging to God) do this very thing, and for that very reason. I believe that if a person denies the reality and awfulness of Hell, they are experiencing a certain kind of blindness which I cannot understand. However, it is never clearly stated in the Bible that the choice of Hell can only be made in this lifetime. What I would take to be a clear statement would be a verse to this effect:

"Repent ye, therefore, for thou wilt be judged in the hereafter for the deeds done in this life."

I appreciate and agree with Savedandhappy1's extreme conservatism. But, I have some sympathy for your logic.

Part of the evangelical perspective is that they would of course not want to take the risk of assuming that one might lose the only chance to avoid the bad stuff. But, that is not the same as a clear statement of doctrine in Scripture.

Is this closer? I don't know if you can get around that.

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

You can also reason around the Lazarus story as you suggest. Somehow God "wipes away every tear" and "makes all things new." Is that hope for people with loved ones who didn't make it? Don't know.

But, what exactly would be the purpoes of trying to loosen up on this doctrinal issue? To keep people from fear? To give people hope for the dead? To encourage peopel to believe in a little more generosity in God?

When you deal with an ultimate issue of what is beyond the veil of death, where so many things are really very unclear, must there not be a really good reason to mess with the problem?

Let's ask another question. If after death, one does not have the resource of the Holy Spirit, how does one make a confession of Jesus Christ unto salvation? The presence of the Holy Spirit is not all comfort all the time. Thessalonians talks of the Holy Spirit being removed (at least in part) in the last days.

If we accept as Paul said, that some vessels are appointed to wrath, it matters little when that last chance expires, since it seems clear that there is a time when there are no more chances. I don't know that the veil of death makes all that much difference. That people have the ability to be stupid and blind for 40 years (like me) to the enormous blessins of this walk, that ought be enough to scare anyone to come to the Lord. That is, anyone that can see. If that is possible, then any moment one refuses to accept the Lord could be the last chance, even if you live another 100 years. Our ability to be blind and miss enormous blessing so nearly unlimited, that the question of whether this extends past death is kind of a moot point.

So, I am not sure I agree with S&H1 on the veil of death, but I have to ask why it matters. We surely agree on the issue of urgency to come into the shelter of the King.

What do you think? Does it make a difference?

 

[TrueMyth]

I appreciate and agree with Savedandhappy1's extreme conservatism. But, I have some sympathy for your logic.

Part of the evangelical perspective is that they would of course not want to take the risk of assuming that one might lose the only chance to avoid the bad stuff. But, that is not the same as a clear statement of doctrine in Scripture.

Is this closer? I don't know if you can get around that.

Hbr 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:

I've addressed this verse once before, so I will paste it following:
"You have brought up another possibly contradictory verse: Heb. 9:27. Let's look at it in its context--

26Then Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But now he has appeared once for all at the end of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

First of all, this verse is in the context of discussion of Christ's sacrifice, and its sufficiency as a final sacrifice. This does not rule out the possibility of interpreting it as evidence of human postmortem spiritual activity, but it makes it a weak verse to use for that purpose.

Second of all, the verse does not rule out teh possibility of intermediary states. For example, suppose I say, "I'm going to go to the mall, and then I'm going home." I do not explicitly state that I will do anything in between those two times, but it is certainly not ruled out by what I say. Sure, to be completely clear, I would say that I would stop off for gas along the way as well. But I believe the argument is even stronger. For example, would it be necessary for me to state "I'm going to get in my car after I'm finished at the mall" or "I will pass the grocery store on my way back"? No, b/c these things are logically implied in my original statement. My argument is simply that: It is rationally and morally implied in any explanation of Hell and eternal destiny that all excuses are removed before someone eternally chooses to be separated from God."

I repeat, in order for this position to be explicitly contradicted by Scripture, there ought to be a verse stating "Repent, for once death finds you, there is no return." Again, to make it as clear as possible for everyone: I am not stating that Scripture absolutely does not teach that this life is all there is. I think there are passages which can be interpreted as sympathetic to the common view, just as there are passages which can be interpreted as sympathetic to my view. However, neither interpretation bears the force of absolute truth the way that doctrines such as Jesus is the only way to the Father or Hell is real do. Thus, I am Biblically free to speculate.

You can also reason around the Lazarus story as you suggest. Somehow God "wipes away every tear" and "makes all things new." Is that hope for people with loved ones who didn't make it? Don't know.

But, what exactly would be the purpoes of trying to loosen up on this doctrinal issue? To keep people from fear? To give people hope for the dead? To encourage peopel to believe in a little more generosity in God?

The purpose would be to make a rationally and morally consistent theodicy. I believe that the common formulation is only salvageable by an appeal to Divine mystery. This is not a death-knell, but if an alternative can be formulated which does not appeal to mystery, retains an imperative to minister to the lost, and is not inconsistent with the Bible, then I believe that a person would be more justified in believing the latter theodicy. In addition, it has the added benefit of being more useful in evangelism, since it does not appeal to a deus ex machina in order to acheive its purpose.

When you deal with an ultimate issue of what is beyond the veil of death, where so many things are really very unclear, must there not be a really good reason to mess with the problem?

Let's ask another question. If after death, one does not have the resource of the Holy Spirit, how does one make a confession of Jesus Christ unto salvation? The presence of the Holy Spirit is not all comfort all the time. Thessalonians talks of the Holy Spirit being removed (at least in part) in the last days.

I believe that after death and before Hell those souls have the Holy Spirit. Not only that, but the Holy Spirit acts on them in such a way as to reveal Himself fully to them. Then they make their choice.

If we accept as Paul said, that some vessels are appointed to wrath, it matters little when that last chance expires, since it seems clear that there is a time when there are no more chances. I don't know that the veil of death makes all that much difference. That people have the ability to be stupid and blind for 40 years (like me) to the enormous blessins of this walk, that ought be enough to scare anyone to come to the Lord. That is, anyone that can see. If that is possible, then any moment one refuses to accept the Lord could be the last chance, even if you live another 100 years. Our ability to be blind and miss enormous blessing so nearly unlimited, that the question of whether this extends past death is kind of a moot point.

It is moot insofar as one is talking about whether or not some people will be in Hell. If even one person will be in Hell, then we have a twofold imperative to 1) ensure that this person is not our neighbor, and 2) ensure that it is not ourselves; and in that order. I fully believe that even with all questions answered and all Truth revealed, some will choose self over God. After all, they spent their whole earthly lives doing so; why would their eternal lives be any different? The point is not moot insofar as we are are attempting to find Truth, and thereby to win more souls to God. However, of course we must never let it obscure our main goal.

 

[savedandhappy1]

To try and avoid making you sigh, or be frustrated and angry I will add these last comment and then leave you to your seeking.

If there is no final decision time after death, then wouldn't it be better to strive for the salvation of everyone while they are alive? Alot of atheist/agnostics that I have spoken to are using the if God really loves us He will save me after I die and find out He is real. Who would want someone to say or think that? The only one I can think of that would want people to think that they still will have a choice after they are dead is that great deceiver.

You know I really can't see Jesus or His Father saying hey it's ok yeah I didn't make it clear to you that I was real. I did to Joe but I was having a bad day which lasted for your entire life, and I just never got around to proving it to you.
Or is it as Abraham told the rich man when he ask for Lazarus to go back and warn his brothers? Abraham stated, they have Moses and the prophets. So for those who stand before God and say God I am sorry, if you would just had made yourself clear to me I would have worshiped you. Will God say you had the preachers/teachers?

Continuing to pray that you find what you are seeking for.

P.S.

I actually smiled when I read this. This exhibits such naivete.

Well that made me feel like I was back at the atheist site. They love to say that you are a non-thinker, naivete, or just plain stupid if you believe in God. Sorry, I am none of the above.

​

 

[TrueMyth]

I just thought of a way to present the situation such that it might help people understand.

A human being, as a citizen of two realities, has existence both on a temporal and on an eternal plane. The temporal one is a shadow, wherein Reality is seen dimly and through various filters. Thus, we experience flowers, mountains, sex, music, art, and excitement as reflections-- echos, if you will-- of heaven. We experience hate, jealousy, war, poverty, and lust as reflections of hell. All that is good is meant to lead us to heaven, and all that is bad is meant to turn us from hell. Our choices in this life are made through these filters as well, and often the filters function improperly. We mistake means for ends, mere things for Good In Itself, and happiness for the Ultimate Good. Thus, our choices always have some measure of uncertainty in them. Nothing that is of this world will last, and nothing is certain.

Eternal realities are Reality Itself. They are unalloyed, pure, unchanging, certain, and solid. There is no middle ground, there is no debate. A thing either is or isn't. Where physical/temporal realities are shadows, Reality is the real thing of which the shadow is intended to represent. Its boundaries are fixed, its purpose is clear, and its Being Is. Choices regarding eternal relalities are definite; there is no hesitation or confusion.

Human beings live two lives: one in the Shadowlands, and one in the Eternal Light (or Eternal Darkness). We perceive Truth dimly in the Shadowlands, and the only Light which we get comes directly from the Eternal through revelation. However, even this revelation must be interpreted; it must be filtered. After all, that is the nature of all truth in the Shadowlands: our eternal selves see things as they truly are, but they must inescapably be sifted through our filters of experience. The best human beings in this life are those who let their Eternal self rule, and the most perfect expression of this was Jesus. It follows from this that those best suited to discover and understand Eternal Truth are those who are closest to it to begin with. Those who are further away are likely to remain so without help from those who are closer to the Truth.

For this reason, it seems that the only way that those whose glasses are dark to begin with will see the Light is if those who know the Light will bring it to them. Yet, even then it is against the nature of the temporal, of life in the Shadowlands, to suppose that the Light will pierce completely, ripping away the glasses-- if it were to do so, it would damage the person entirely. The Light will still come through filters, which means that choices which are made will be frought with uncertainty. These choices will slowly fix one's Eternal self into a being which is closer to or further away from the light, but the uncertainty which is a burden before is also a blessing-- there is always the chance that the person's Eternal self will become aware of its distance from the light, and begin the arduous process of returning.

Now, we are told that no choice toward the Eternal Light can be made after death. But why is this to be the case? If choices of this type are made before death, why not after? The being is still a soul, and a soul is the vehicle of choice. The distinction smells of arbitrariness; it is a fiat entered into the orderly rhythm of things. Even worse, however, we are told that a soul will be desiring to choose the Light, but will have some barrier in place against this. As a final straw, this results in eternal torment for this poor soul. This cries against reason: If we live in the Shadowlands, and we can only perceive shadows and brief glimpses of the True Light, then why must we be asked to surrender our all that we are, our very selves, to the Light? It is not at all unreasonable to think that we cannot see it for what it is-- after all, we are in the Shadowlands. Why, once we can see clearly, are we denied access to Truth?

It is much more in keeping with reason and the natural order of things to reject an arbitrary and quite possibly unjust deadline to surrender our Eternal Selves to the Light. What is more likely is that just as we make choices in life, so we make choices in eternity. However, we must remember the nature of eternity. It is concrete, certain, and exhaustive. There is no debate, and there is no more information to be had. It is unchanging; to see it once is to see it always. For this reason, to choose once is to choose always. In the Shadowlands, there was always uncertainty; more information, better knowledge of the Light could always be possible. Thus, to choose once was to do simply that. However, in Eternity, all is certain, and there is no debate. The soul which, in the Shadowlands, continually moved its Eternal self further from what glimpses of the Light it was given will shriek in terror and run screaming away from the Real Light. And, sadly, while pains are incurred in this choice, it prefers them to the burning, all-consuming fire of the Real Light and it will always do so. The soul which, in the Shadowlands, continually moved its Eternal self further toward what glimpses of the Light it was given will sigh with relief and contentedness, and will sink willingly and freely into the bliss of its lifelong love.

What is the dividing line which determines what response the soul will have when it is faced with Reality? Only God knows. Whatever it is, it will be just and it will be good. And since God meant what He said when He spoke to human beings saying, "I am good," so that they would know He was good, we will recognize God's justice and goodness. We may be taken aback, and we may be surprised, but we will not be shocked. It is our duty, therefore, to give to each soul here in the Shadowlands what glimpses of the Light we can, and God will give what glimpses He sees fit to. We know that no soul will be left without any Light, and can deduce that all will eventually be given Light in its fullness. However, how they respond to that Full Light will be determined by how they responded to what they were given before. Thus, we must give them all we can, and leave the rest to God.

 

[TrueMyth]

RonnieRulz--

I agree with you on many points, the strongest of which being that God will do absolutely everything, short of raping a person's will, to get them to turn to Him. This is why I think that He will remove all the questions, doubts, and inconsistencies of this life and offer us a choice after death.

I also agree that Hell is a state of mind. This is sufficient for me to understand God's justice and love. For example: If God is Holiness, and cannot be around sin, He must quarantine it. But why is it necessary that He quarantine it in a place full of its own tortures? Knowing God as God, and being away from that love and light, is torture enough. Why is it necessary to have fire and brimstone as well?

Where I disagree is based on the Bible. If one takes the Bible seriously, Christianity (and Jesus) is intrinsically eschatalogical. There is no getting around this; it is stated too many times that the wicked will someday be punished and the good rewarded. Jesus talks of horrors not only in this life, but in the next. It is impossible to believe that the Bible is the word of God and still believe that Hell is only in this life.

I agree with you that each choice made sends one closer and closer toward God or farther and farther away from Him. However, choices made in this life do not fix our nature completely, because there is an intrinsic element of uncertainty in this life. There is always new information to uncover, there is always a different perspective which can be obtained. In eternity, when faced with reality-as-it-is, there is not this element of uncertainty. There can be no different perspective, there can be no new information. Choices made while in eternity will fix a person's character permananently. Thus, while a soul chooses to enter Hell, they will always make the same choice, and they will never leave Hell.

I understand why you would want to get rid of the doctrine of eternal punishment. I do, too. If there was any one doctrine which I could ignore, I would. However, it has too much support in the Bible. I would like to, but I simply can't get around it. As C. S. Lewis said, "I would pay any price to say truthfully, 'All will be saved.' But my reason retorts 'Without their willl, or with it?' If I say 'Without their will' I at once perceive a contradiction; how can the supreme voluntary act of self-surrender be involuntary? If I say 'With their will,' my reason replies 'How if they will not give in?'" Some people will be in Hell, they will suffer, and there will be no getting out. While I am inclined to get rid of it, however, I can rationally understand it. Again, C. S. Lewis: "I am not going to try to prove the doctrine tolerable. Let us make no mistake; it is not tolerable. But I think the doctrine can be shown to be moral..."