David Bentley Hart on Hell

[ozso]

The "bottomless pit" sounds like an oxymoron. A pit without a bottom is just a hole.

Or as the saying goes: A rut is a grave with both ends kicked out.

Which might describe where we have ended up on this book review. A rut.

According to my mom, Tartarus is my stomach.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

Wow. What makes her "cheap"? (careful)

She gets 'all tarted up', rouge and maquillage, I gather. The Tartaroo:

 

[ozso]

She gets 'all tarted up', rouge and maquillage, I gather.

I'm not sure whether to report that or not.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

According to my mom, Tartarus is my stomach.

Maybe need some filling angels.

 

[Saint Steven]

According to my mom, Tartarus is my stomach.

According to my dentist Tartarus is the stuff that builds up on my teeth. Oh wait... maybe that's Tartar Sauce... not sure. ??? Maybe that's why I prefer Cocktail Sauce on my fish. ??? Hell to pay otherwise. ???

 

[Saint Steven]

Maybe need some filling angels.

That's what angel food cake is for, I think. ??? (even has the bottomless hole) - lol

 

[ozso]

That's what angel food cake is for, I think. ??? (even has the bottomless hole) - lol

I once ate angel food and devil's food together. It felt like there was a war going on in my Tartarus I mean stomach.

 

[Saint Steven]

I once ate angel food and devil's food together. It felt like there was a war going on in my Tartarus I mean stomach.

Yes. That's asking for trouble on so many levels.

 

[Shrewd Manager]

I once ate angel food and devil's food together. It felt like there was a war going on in my Tartarus I mean stomach.

Hope nothing emerged from the bottomless pit.

 

[Saint Steven]

Hope nothing emerged from the bottomless pit.

Yes. Usually things are hurled in. But in this case... well, you get the picture. - lol

 

[ozso]

Yes. Usually things are hurled in. But in this case... well, you get the picture. - lol

Those curtains were brand new.

 

[Saint Steven]

Those curtains were brand new.

Yes. I figured it was "curtains" for you. Quite a performance.

 

[Clare73]

Honestly I do not understand why you keep trying to separate these two things.

Because the NT does, and it's important. It's the difference between profession of saving faith and actual possession of saving faith. Profession is not necessarily possession.

You used the phrase “true faith” so what is “false faith” in your mind?

False faith is a profession of faith where in reality there is no new birth. True faith is not the result of good works, nor are good works the substance of faith, good works are only the evidence of faith. True faith is the result of only one thing, the new birth.

Because “false faith” to me would just be an oxymoron and it would make more sense to say faith vs faithlessness

However, "faithlessness" usually refers to failure in commitment, e.g., in marriage, and that makes works the substance of faith, where the substance of faith is belief and trust, the object of faith is the person and work of Jesus Christ for forgiveness of one's sin and reconciliation with God, the practice of faith is obedience, and the evidence of faith is good works. But keeping in mind that not all evidence in court is always true. It's the jury's job to sort out the true from the false.

rather than redefining faith as “true faith” as if the qualifier “true” needs to be used to differentiate true faith from any other kind of non-true faith.

And in that, faith is active.

Activity neither makes nor proves saving faith, it is only evidence. Now, without that evidence, we know the faith is not saving faith. But there is also false evidence. The difference between them is one is born again, and the evidence of works is true evidence, and the other is not born again, and the evidence of works is false evidence, it is not of the Holy Spirit, it is simply human effort to earn God's favor.

It’s fidelity. Israel was betrothed to the Lord and the Church is the bride of Christ. Faith (faithfulness, fidelity) is an active, living state of being. The rich man died under the old covenant as @Der Alte said. He was part of Israel and his faithlessness was manifested in his action.

Under the old covenant, failure to feed your hungry neighbor would not get you in hell. . .that's what the sacrifices were for, to pay for your sin. . .
What got the rich man in hell was the same thing that would get all six of them in his father's house in hell, failure to believe the testimony of Moses and the Prophets regarding Jesus as the Messiah and Savior. (Six is one short of seven, not a good thing, of an unclean spirit.)

Again I really don’t think this is worth arguing about

It must be, because you are vested in defending it not being about unbelief in Jesus as Messiah and Savior, of which the religious leaders were guilty.

but I genuinely can’t understand how you can’t see it. I guess it bothers me to hear things like “In the NT, not feeding your hungry neighbour will not get you in hell” because it comes across like not understanding why it would actually be wrong to do what the rich man did.

Perhaps because one's reference points are more about good works being our salvation rather than faith, repentance and forgiveness being our salvation.

So then if you turn the whole thing into an abstract metaphor

There is nothing abstract about failure to believe in Jesus Christ. There is absolutely nothing more important in one's life.

it’s like not even hearing or applying what it literally says.

Well first of all, parables are not literal, they are metaphor. Interpreting them literally misses the point every time, which Jesus said is why he spoke in parables in the presence of his enemies--the religious leaders, so they wouldn't understand them and make a case against his teaching.

So, the metaphor used by the parable is addressing a much larger and more serious issue than omission of good works, where the sacrifices were the remedy for those failures. Jesus' parabolic teaching is addressing unbelief in him as Messiah and Savior, which unbelief condemns to hell, because there is no sacrifice for unbelief.

 

[Clare73]

According to Orthodoxy as I understand it, going by Ephesians 4:8-10 and 1 Peter 3:18-20, Jesus released the rich man from hell and then put hell out of business.

Is this extra-Biblical? Where do we find that in the Scriptures?

Eph 4:8-10:
captivity captive. . .captive = God's enemies; Christ reduced his enemies to subjection (captivity) - Psalm 68:18

descended. . .to earth in the incarnation

ascended. . . in the resurrection and ascension

1 Pe 3:18-20:
in his pre-incarnate state, Christ went and preached through Noah to the wicked generation of that time

 

[Clare73]

That Hades is ultimately emptied and shut down is also confirmed by John in Revelation 20:13-14. Only Jesus has the keys to death and Hades, and he comes to free the prisoners, liberate the captives and raise the dead.

Still, according to many Hades is just a holding pen en route to the Ovens Valley.

Unfulfilled prophecy is subject to more than one interpretation.

"Thrown into the lake of fire" which is the second death does not translate "Hades is emptied."

 

[Clare73]

Those curtains were brand new.

That did it!

Too much!!!

My sides are splitting over here!

Wow! You guys are really good!

 

[Der Alte]

What do you think about the fact that both stories in Luke 16 start out exactly the same way?
Luke 16:1 "There was a certain rich man, which had a steward; and the same was accused unto him that he had wasted his goods."
Luke 16:19 "There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day"​

Is this a subtle attempt trying to prove the story of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable because parts of it are similar to Lk 61:1?
To be a parable it must have a known, understood actual situation to compare/contrast with an unknown, not understood spiritual situation.
Greek parabole from which we get "parable" mean "lay beside."
In Lazarus and the rich man there is no comparison/contrast between actual and spiritual.

 

[Der Alte]

Ah that answers my unasked question of "where did he get those from?". I'm pretty sure David Bentley Hart has read the ECF thoroughly, and I know that Bradley Jersak who's a supporter of his book is an expert in Patristics. So I'll have to conclude there's a bigger picture than what's contained in those excerpts.

Since I have searched the ECF multiple times re: Lazarus and the rich man I think I can say without fear of contradiction, in the standard collection of the ECF writings there is not one single mention of Lazarus and the rich man which contradicts what I posted.

 

[Der Alte]

Violation of which will not get you in hell.
However, rejection of Jesus as Messiah and Savior, which the religious leaders did, will get you in hell.

The rich man was under OT law. Have you ever read Matthew 25:31-46?

EOB Matthew 25:31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of my Father! Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world!
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in.
36 I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and visit you?’
40 The King will answer them, ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’
41 Then he will also say to those on his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not receive me; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they will answer him: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:31–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

 

[Clare73]

The rich man was under OT law. Have you ever read Matthew 25:31-46?

EOB Matthew 25:31 “But when the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then he will sit on the throne of his glory.
32 All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate them one from another, just as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats.
33 He will place the sheep on his right hand, but the goats on the left.
34 Then the King will tell those on his right hand, ‘Come, you blessed of my Father! Inherit the Kingdom prepared for you since the foundation of the world!
35 For I was hungry and you gave me food to eat; I was thirsty and you gave me drink; I was a stranger and you took me in.
36 I was naked and you clothed me; I was sick and you visited me; I was in prison, and you came to me.’
37 Then the righteous will answer him, saying: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you; or thirsty and give you a drink?
38 When did we see you as a stranger and take you in; or naked, and clothe you?
39 When did we see you sick, or in prison, and visit you?’
40 The King will answer them, ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’
41 Then he will also say to those on his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you accursed, into the eternal fire which is prepared for the devil and his angels! 42 For I was hungry and you gave me no food; I was thirsty and you gave me no drink; 43 I was a stranger and you did not receive me; naked, and you did not clothe me; sick, and in prison, and you did not visit me.’
44 Then they will answer him: ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry, or thirsty, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not help you?’
45 Then he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”
Cleenewerck, L. (Ed.). (2011). The Eastern/Greek Orthodox Bible: New Testament (Mt 25:31–46). Laurent A. Cleenewerck.​

Jesus was born, lived, taught and died under the Old Covenant law.

The New Covenant was not inaugurated until his blood was shed on the cross.

Many of his answers to religions questions were answers for those under the law.
Those answers were to lock them up in unrighteousness, so they would understand that no one is justified by observing the law, rather all who rely on the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).

You are applying Old Covenant law to the New Covenant economy of salvation.

 

[Der Alte]

Jesus was born, lived, taught and died under the Old Covenant law.
The New Covenant was not inaugurated until his blood was shed on the cross.
Many of his answers to religions questions were answers for those under the law.
Those answers were to lock them up in unrighteousness, so they would understand that no one is justified by observing the law, rather all who rely on the law are under a curse (Galatians 3:10).
You are applying Old Covenant law to the New Covenant economy of salvation.

Kind of interesting tap dance but it glosses over Matthew 25:31-46 in response to your previous post.