David Bentley Hart on Hell

[disciple Clint]

Too many people on this forum don’t get the idea that what we see now is not the end all of things. They don’t get the big picture of what God is doing. Because the lake of fire is a refinery by ending the mortal lives of these people they will have less sin stacked up and therefore spend less time in the refinery had they lived longer, so by cutting their lives short He did them a favor. If all you understand is the here and now and you don’t get the big picture then you come away with a distorted view of what God is doing.that’s why people who follow UR have a much better view of God and what He has done and is going to do. In the end God 100% satan 0%

If a person has one sin or 1 million sins unless they accept Jesus they will go to the same hell for the same amount of time.

 

[JulieB67]

Because the lake of fire is a refinery

This is unbiblical. The lake of fire is not a refinery and has never been described as one.

God refines certain people through their lifetimes.

Zechariah 13:8 "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein."

Zechariah 13:9 "And I will bring a third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."

="Jeff Saunders, post: 76740368, member: 443932"I don’t understand why you think that unless someone quotes scripture by your definition or quotes lexicons by someone else’s understanding they can’t know God.

If we have the means we are told to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word. We have his letter, OT and NT. And we have the tools to take certain words back, etc. Some can't study and don't have the tools and I'm sure our Father is very understanding in this. But for the rest of us, there is no excuse to at least try and study the word. That's how we can best know our Father and his overall plan.

II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

If we are able and want to be approved of God, this is one of the things we need to do.



Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

We have to search the scriptures to see if what we have been taught is in the bible. This is one of the main reasons we have to study his Word.

Christ himself also said often, "Haven't you read?". He's talking about the OT. There's more prophecy about the end times in the OT than the NT. And we'll never understand the end without understanding the beginning. Paul also states many things happened then for everyone's ensample today.

 

[Ceallaigh]

Something I keep in mind is that no one ever said anything about a lake of fire except John, and there's a good chance that he wasn't the Apostle John.

 

[martymonster]

Yes how does he deal with those hard sayings passages? I have not yet read his universalism book.

Which hard saying are you referring too?

 

[Clare73]

Something I keep in mind is that no one ever said anything about a lake of fire except John, and there's a good chance that he wasn't the Apostle John.

Does the writer report those as his own words or as Jesus' words?

That is the issue, not the strawman of who penned them

 

[Der Alte]

Something I keep in mind is that no one ever said anything about a lake of fire except John, and there's a good chance that he wasn't the Apostle John.

Does the writer report those as his own words or as Jesus' words?
That is the issue, not the strawman of who penned them

Every word in the Bible comes under the general heading of "The Word of God," even the words of people like Herod. If we start disregarding certain parts of the Bible because God, Himself, or Jesus, Himself, did not speak them where do we draw the line?
.....My practice is if the words of someone other than Jesus seemingly contradict the words of Jesus, Himself, I would say always resolve them in favor of Jesus.
.....I see for some folks when the words of Peter or Paul etc. seem to contradict the words of Jesus, if the words of Peter or Paul support some of their favorite doctrinal assumptions/presuppositions then they choose the words of Peter or Paul over the words of Jesus. This is particularly true when the topic is UR vs. "eternal punishment."

 

[Der Alte]

Something I keep in mind is that no one ever said anything about a lake of fire except John, and there's a good chance that he wasn't the Apostle John.

This comes close.

Matthew 25:40-46
(40) And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
(41) “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire 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 welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
(44) Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
(45) Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
(46) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

 

[Clare73]

This comes close.

Matthew 25:40-46
(40) And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.’
(41) “Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire 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 welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me.’
(44) Then they also will answer, saying, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to you?’
(45) Then he will answer them, saying, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’
(46) And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”​

And Mark 9:43-48?

How do they miss all those texts?

 

[Jeff Saunders]

This is unbiblical. The lake of fire is not a refinery and has never been described as one.

God refines certain people through their lifetimes.

Zechariah 13:8 "And it shall come to pass, that in all the land, saith the Lord, two parts therein shall be cut off and die; but the third shall be left therein."

Zechariah 13:9 "And I will bring a third part through the fire, and will refine them as silver is refined, and will try them as gold is tried: they shall call on my name, and I will hear them: I will say, It is my people: and they shall say, The Lord is my God."




If we have the means we are told to study to show ourselves approved, rightly dividing the word. We have his letter, OT and NT. And we have the tools to take certain words back, etc. Some can't study and don't have the tools and I'm sure our Father is very understanding in this. But for the rest of us, there is no excuse to at least try and study the word. That's how we can best know our Father and his overall plan.

II Timothy 2:15 "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth."

If we are able and want to be approved of God, this is one of the things we need to do.



Acts 17:11 "These were more noble than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness of mind, and searched the scriptures daily, whether those things were so."

We have to search the scriptures to see if what we have been taught is in the bible. This is one of the main reasons we have to study his Word.

Christ himself also said often, "Haven't you read?". He's talking about the OT. There's more prophecy about the end times in the OT than the NT. And we'll never understand the end without understanding the beginning. Paul also states many things happened then for everyone's ensample today.

Malachi 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears for he is like a refiners fire, and like fuller’s soap. I don’t know how it could be any plainer. Also the word picture given of the gold be refined with fire and sulfur, that was put in for a reason.

 

[Der Alte]

Malachi 3:2 But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears for he is like a refiners fire, and like fuller’s soap. I don’t know how it could be any plainer. Also the word picture given of the gold be refined with fire and sulfur, that was put in for a reason.

And you think this refers to God going to those e.g. to whom God said in,

Jeremiah 13:14
(14) And I will dash them one against another, fathers and sons together, declares the LORD. I will not pity or spare or have compassion, that I should not destroy them.’”​

And others?
Let us read your out-of-context proof text, in context.

Malachi 3:1-6
(1) “Behold, I send my messenger, and he will prepare the way before me. And the Lord whom you seek will suddenly come to his temple; and the messenger of the covenant in whom you delight, behold, he is coming, says the LORD of hosts.​

This has already happened. Also there ain't no temple in the LOF.

Mark 1:1-3
(1) The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
(2) As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,
(3) the voice of one crying in the wilderness: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”​

To whom is the rest of the passage addressed and when?.

(2) But who can endure the day of his coming, and who can stand when he appears? For he is like a refiner's fire and like fullers' soap.
(3) He will sit as a refiner and purifier of silver, and he will purify the sons of Levi and refine them like gold and silver, and they will bring offerings in righteousness to the LORD.​

Are the sons of Levi going to be standing in the LOF? Where will they get "offerings in righteousness" in the LOF?

(4) Then the offering of Judah and Jerusalem will be pleasing to the LORD as in the days of old and as in former years.
(5) “Then I will draw near to you for judgment. I will be a swift witness against the sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner, and do not fear me, says the LORD of hosts.​

What offerings will Judah and Jerusalem give that are pleasing to YHWH in the LOF?
If this passage is supposed to be God purifying the unrighteous in the LOF why are there still "sorcerers, against the adulterers, against those who swear falsely, against those who oppress the hired worker in his wages, the widow and the fatherless, against those who thrust aside the sojourner etc." for God to "draw near for judgement?" Aren't they already judged being in the LOF?

(6) “For I the LORD do not change; therefore you, O children of Jacob, are not consumed.​

The children of Jacob are not the only ones in the LOF.

 

[Der Alte]

I have
one question how did Enoch know God so well that God took him to Himself with our death.He had no Bible, or any lexicon to read . I don’t understand why you think that unless someone quotes scripture by your definition or quotes lexicons by someone else’s understanding they can’t know God. This makes no sense to me at all.

I am sick to death of the ridiculous absurd argument, "He [Enoch]had no Bible, or any lexicon to read..." and others like it. I classify that in the "Neener, neener, neener you're wrong and I'm right. Am too! Nuh huh!" category.
Of course, Enoch and all the other people in the Bible did not have a Bible they were living it and writing it as they lived. They did not have or need a lexicon they were speaking/writing their own native language. Just as we speaking/writing in our own native language do not need a lexicon.
.....BUT when we are reading, trying to understand another language such as Greek and Hebrew we definitely need a lexicon. Some will argue, "But wait, we have the Bible in our own language." That's right but how many versions? How many versions were "translated" to deliberately support their assumptions/presuppositions? Or translated by someone who was self taught such as Robert Young's "Young's Literal Translation?"

So what’s your point?

I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else in this forum can instruct me in or improve my understanding of scripture. Here e.g. is part of my final for Hebrew 2040 39 years ago,

"Write your translation of Jer 1:4-12.... Did you see something in the passage that you would not have seen if you had read only the English?" ​

In my gut I knew I had better find something. Would you like to try?

 

[JulieB67]

But who may abide the day of his coming? And who shall stand when he appears for he is like a refiners fire, and like fuller’s soap. I don’t know how it could be any plainer. Also the word picture given of the gold be refined with fire and sulfur, that was put in for a reason.

Christ will make things right at his coming. But that has nothing to do with the lake of fire after the final judgement.

This is talking about certain elect.


Malachi 3:2 "But who may abide the day of His coming? and who shall stand when He appeareth? for he is like a refiner's fire, and like fullers' soap:"

Malachi 3:3 "And He shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver: and He shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness."

Malachi 3:4 "Then shall the offering of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years."

 

[Andrewn]

This is unbiblical. The lake of fire is not a refinery and has never been described as one.

Christ will make things right at his coming. But that has nothing to do with the lake of fire after the final judgement.

What's your belief about the LoF?

 

[Der Alte]

What's your belief about the LoF?

PMFBI. The lake of fire passages, in context.

Revelation 2:11 'Whoever has an ear should listen to what the Spirit is saying to the Churches. The one who overcomes will not be harmed by the second death.
Rev 20:6 This is the first resurrection. 6 and ho1y is the one who has part in the first resurrection! Over these, the second death has no power, but they will be priests” of God and of Christ, and they will reign with him for a thousand years.
Rev 19:20 But the beast was captured and with him the false prophet who worked the signs in his sight and by which he deceived those who had received the mark of the beast and those who expressed adoration to his image. These two were thrown alive into the lake of fire that burns with sulfur.2 ​

And 1000 years later, the beast and the false prophet, who is a person, are still in the lake of fire.

Revelation 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and [they] shall be tormented [plural verb] day and night for ever and ever.
Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Revelation 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die.
…..The terms “the lake of fire” and “the second death” are interchangeable.
“The lake of fire” is “the second death” and “the second death” is “the lake of fire,” thus we can see that it is not synonymous with death or destruction.
…..We also see that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death from Rev 19:20, where the beast and the false prophet, who was a person, are thrown into the LOF and 1000 years later, in 20:10 the devil, is thrown into the LOF.
Three living, sentient, beings, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever. There is not one verse in Revelation which says anyone/anything is thrown into the LOF then they/it dies.
…..Rev 20:14 does say death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life; it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere.
If “hell” refers to the grave, graves are empty holes. Empty cannot be literally thrown anywhere.
Since neither death nor hell could/did die a first death they can’t die a second death.
But there is a scriptural answer which does not involve mixing literal and figurative in one sentence, there is a death and hell which are sentient beings and can be thrown into the LOF.

Revelation 6:8 And I looked, and behold a pale horse: and his name that sat on him was Death, and Hell followed with him. And power was given unto them over the fourth part of the earth, to kill with sword, and with hunger, and with death, and with the beasts of the earth.​

My name for these two sentient beings are “the angel of death” and “the demon of hell.” Others can feel free to call them whatever they want. The 2 beings are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.
….Additional verses which show that the LOF is not synonymous with death or destruction.

Revelation 21:4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.
Revelation 21:5 And he that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new. And he said unto me, Write: for these words are true and faithful.
Revelation 21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.​

. Rev 21:4 says “there shall be no more death” in vs. 5 Jesus said “Behold I make all things new,” vs. 5.
“No more death” but 3 verses later, Rev 21:8 says eight groups of the unrighteous; fearful, unbelieving, the abominable, murderers, whoremongers, sorcerers, idolaters and liars “shall have their part in the lake which burns with fire and brimstone: which is [still] the second death.”
If there is “no more death,” after vs. 4, then those thrown into the lake of fire in vs. 8 will not die although it is called the “second death.”.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

I am sick to death of the ridiculous absurd argument, "He [Enoch]had no Bible, or any lexicon to read..." and others like it. I classify that in the "Neener, neener, neener you're wrong and I'm right. Am too! Nuh huh!" category.
Of course, Enoch and all the other people in the Bible did not have a Bible they were living it and writing it as they lived. They did not have or need a lexicon they were speaking/writing their own native language. Just as we speaking/writing in our own native language do not need a lexicon.
.....BUT when we are reading, trying to understand another language such as Greek and Hebrew we definitely need a lexicon. Some will argue, "But wait, we have the Bible in our own language." That's right but how many versions? How many versions were "translated" to deliberately support their assumptions/presuppositions? Or translated by someone who was self taught such as Robert Young's "Young's Literal Translation?"


I doubt very seriously that you or anyone else in this forum can instruct me in or improve my understanding of scripture. Here e.g. is part of my final for Hebrew 2040 39 years ago,

"Write your translation of Jer 1:4-12.... Did you see something in the passage that you would not have seen if you had read only the English?" ​

In my gut I knew I had better find something. Would you like to try?

And you don’t think that all those who support and translated the New Testament following Augustine tradition didn’t do exactly what you are accusing others to have done? I listen to a lot of native Orthodox Greek speaking people who over and over say how Augustine got it wrong because he relied on the Latin and didn’t speak Greek. I would bet most of the people you hold up as having the correct view are all in the Augustine tradition so of course they will all agree, just as those who follow Gregory of Nyssa will all agree. You follow Augustine I follow Gregory and that’s the way it is

 

[Der Alte]

And you don’t think that all those who support and translated the New Testament following Augustine tradition didn’t do exactly what you are accusing others to have done? I listen to a lot of native Orthodox Greek speaking people who over and over say how Augustine got it wrong because he relied on the Latin and didn’t speak Greek. I would bet most of the people you hold up as having the correct view are all in the Augustine tradition so of course they will all agree, just as those who follow Gregory of Nyssa will all agree. You follow Augustine I follow Gregory and that’s the way it is

Then you deal with what you mentioned here not the absurd argument that the Bible writers didn't have lexicons. In fact you have given us a good reason to use lexicons.
I am fairly certain that many of the errors of people like Augustine, Gregory of Nyssa etc., if they exist, have been dealt with. And if they haven't that is why lexicons are a good idea. And just FYI there are about 800 words in good ol' king jimmy that have changed significantly or dropped out of use altogether.
My first Greek professor was Dr. Roger Omanson, now deceased, who was on the original NIV translation committee. He told us the struggles the committee had convincing the old school members to give up their often incorrect assumptions/presuppositions.
Here is a definition I looked up this afternoon. You may note the blue highlights. Those are the historical, lexical etc. sources the scholars consulted in determining the correct meaning. Honest scholars don't make up definitions which fit their assumptions/presuppositions.

μονογενής, ές (μόνος, γένος; Hes.; LXX; PsSol 18, 4; TestSol 20:2; TestBenj 9:2; ParJer 7:26; ApcEsdr 6:16; ApcSed 9:2; Joseph., Just.; loanw. in rabb.) acc. μονογενῆ (-ῆν J 3:16 v.l.; Hb 11:17 D; also ApcEsdr 6:16)
① pert. to being the only one of its kind within a specific relationship, one and only, only (so mostly, incl. Judg 11:34; Tob 3:15; 8:17) of children: of Isaac, Abraham’s only son (Jos., Ant. 1, 222) Hb 11:17. Of an only son (PsSol 18:4; TestSol 20:2; ParJer 7:26; Plut., Lycurgus 59 [31, 8]; Jos., Ant. 20, 20) Lk 7:12; 9:38. Of a daughter (Diod S 4, 73, 2) of Jairus 8:42. (On the motif of a child’s death before that of a parent s. EpigrAnat 13, ’89, 128f, no. 2; 18, ’91, 94 no. 4 [244/45 A.D.]; GVI nos. 1663–69.)
② pert. to being the only one of its kind or class, unique (in kind) of someth. that is the only example of its category (Cornutus 27 p, 49, 13 εἷς κ. μονογενὴς ὁ κόσμος ἐστί. μονογενῆ κ. μόνα ἐστίν=‘unique and alone’; Pla., Timaeus 92c; Theosophien 181, §56, 27). Of a mysterious bird, the Phoenix 1 Cl 25:2.—In the Johannine lit. (s. also ApcEsdr and ApcSed: ὁ μονογενής υἱός; Hippol., Ref. 8, 10, 3; Did., Gen. 89, 18; ὑμνοῦμέν γε θεὸν καὶ τὸν μ. αὐτοῦ Orig., C. Cels. 8, 67, 14; cp. ἡ δύναμις ἐκείνη ἡ μ. Hippol., Ref. 10, 16, 6) μονογενὴς υἱός is used only of Jesus. The renderings only, unique may be quite adequate for all its occurrences here (so M-M., NRSV et al.; DMoody, JBL 72, ’53, 213–19; FGrant, ATR 36, ’54, 284–87; GPendrick, NTS 41, ’95, 587–600). τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἔδωκεν J 3:16 (Philo Bybl. [100 A.D.]: 790 Fgm. 2 ch. 10, 33 Jac. [in Eus., PE 1, 10, 33]: Cronus offers up his μονογενὴς υἱός). ὁ μ. υἱὸς τοῦ θεοῦ vs. 18; τὸν υἱὸν τὸν μ. ἀπέσταλκεν ὁ θεός 1J 4:9; cp. Dg 10:2. On the expr. δόξαν ὡς μονογενοῦς παρὰ πατρός J 1:14 s. Hdb. ad loc. and PWinter, Zeitschrift für Rel. u. Geistesgeschichte 5, ’53, 335–65 (Engl.). See also Hdb. on vs. 18 where, beside the rdg. μονογενὴς θεός (considered by many the orig.) an only-begotten one, God (acc. to his real being; i.e. uniquely divine as God’s son and transcending all others alleged to be gods) or a uniquely begotten deity (for the perspective s. J 10:33–36), another rdg. ὁ μονογενὴς υἱός is found. MPol 20:2 in the doxology διὰ παιδὸς αὐτοῦ τοῦ μονογενοῦς Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Some (e.g. WBauer, Hdb.; JBulman, Calvin Theological Journal 16, ’81, 56–79; JDahms, NTS 29, ’83, 222–32) prefer to regard μ. as somewhat heightened in mng. in J and 1J to only-begotten or begotten of the Only One, in view of the emphasis on γεννᾶσθαι ἐκ θεοῦ (J 1:13 al.); in this case it would be analogous to πρωτότοκος (Ro 8:29; Col 1:15 al.).—On the mng. of μονογενής in history of religion s. the material in Hdb.3 25f on J 1:14 (also Plut., Mor. 423a Πλάτων … αὐτῷ δή φησι δοκεῖν ἕνα τοῦτον [sc. τὸν κόσμον] εἶναι μονογενῆ τῷ θεῷ καὶ ἀγαπητόν; Wsd 7:22 of σοφία: ἔστι ἐν αὐτῇ πνεῦμα νοερὸν ἅγιον μονογενές.—Vett. Val. 11, 32) as well as the lit. given there, also HLeisegang, Der Bruder des Erlösers: Αγγελος I 1925, 24–33; RBultmann J (comm., KEK) ’50, 47 n. 2; 55f.—DELG s.v. μένω. M-M. EDNT. TW. Sv.
William Arndt et al., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2000), 658.​

 

[ViaCrucis]

Over the last two decades of reading and study has, for a long time, convinced me that all dogmatic views about hell and the final judgment and end of the wicked is based largely on not always to understand biblical statements and conjecture. And I say that in regard to multiple views of hell, both the universalist and perpetualist views of hell are, basically, speculative conjecture.

At the end of the day the most honest I think we can be about hell is that we don't really know much at all. The Bible is, in spite of what I had heard growing up, says next to nothing about it. And even among the ancient fathers, the topic of hell isn't all that important. When the fathers speak about hell, there are different views. From Tertullian of Carthage (who, it must be remembered abandoned orthodoxy for heresy when he became a Montanist, meaning we should take his writings with a heavy grain of salt) who seems to treat the matter of the enemies of the Church ultimately being burned in hellfire something to celebrate (which I'd argue is at best deeply concerning and reflects Tertullian's deeply legalistic and moralistic thinking). Tertullian also thought that post-baptismal sins basically guaranteed damnation and thus believed one should postpone baptism for as long as possible so as to have the best chance of salvation. And on the other side we have, for example the controversial Origen of Alexandria, but also St. Gregory of Nyssa one of the great Cappadocian Fathers, we have the views of St. Isaac the Syrian and even the great theologian of the East, St. Maximos the Confessor.

We see, in the diversity of patristic views, frequently, a line between East and West. A line that seems to reflect the more broad differences between Western or Latin Christian thinking and Eastern Christian thinking (itself more diverse in itself due to the confluence of diverse cultural and linguistic makeup). So the West has, frequently, articulated religious and theological language in the structure of law, rule, order; and thus for example the chief emphasis in the West in regard to sin is that it is a legal transgression (and this is biblical); where the East has placed more emphasis that sin is sickness, disease, and salvation is God's healing of the human person and the created order (and this is also biblical). As such, it appears the ways in which East and West have contemplated the subject of hell has, likewise, differed greatly.

In the West hell has frequently been conceived as the just punishment for a life of sinful transgression in a state of separation from God either figuratively or literally in a state or place called "hell". In the East, by stark contrast, hell has frequently been conceived as a choice to remain sick and unwell--even in the presence of God and His all-consuming love for all creatures. Where in the West hell is a separate reality of some kind from God; the East views hell as what happens when the wicked are brought into God's presence--where the fire of God's light and love is the fire that torments the wicked "in hell"--a torment that is ultimately borne out of the wicked's own remorse, regret, and enmity against God.

In the West hell is an external torment forced upon the wicked; where in the East hell is an internal torment that is borne out of human will.

I don't have any dogmatic position(s) about hell. I don't know if, ultimately, even all the wicked shall be restored and healed; or if this hellishness (whatever it may be) is effectively perpetual and endless.

I remain unconvinced that the Greek word aionios means "eternal", if it were that straight forward there wouldn't be the debate, discussion, and diversity of views among Christians over the last two thousand years. Nor do I believe that the arguments of the universalists are necessarily convincing either.

I'm pretty sure this post will result in me getting heat from all sides of the debate. But this is my two cents worth on the subject. Which I guess is a lot of words to have just said, "I don't think we really can know much about hell at all."

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Something I keep in mind is that no one ever said anything about a lake of fire except John, and there's a good chance that he wasn't the Apostle John.

This is also the same book where we read about a man described as a beast rising out of the sea and having the power of a the dragon, where a bottomless pit opens up and pours out chimeric locust creatures, and where Jesus is described as riding a white horse and having a sword protruding from His mouth. St. John's Apocalypse isn't the sort of book to read literally.

And it is even likely St. John of Patmos wasn't the Apostle John, there are as many as three early Johns: John the Apostle, John the Presbyter (or Elder), and John the Revelator. These may all be the same person, these may be two persons, or these may be three persons. It's really not all that clear. I tend to treat St. John of Patmos as his own person, separate from the Apostle and the [possible] author of the Johanine letters. It is noteworthy that in all the words traditionally ascribed to "John" in the New Testament, only the Apocalypse comes out and has the author identify himself as "John". The Gospel and Johanine letters are internally anonymous, with the Evangelist merely describing themselves as "the disciple whom Jesus loved" and the author of the Johanine letters identifies himself as "the Presbyter" (and even here, it's not actually certain that the three letters of John are all by the same author either).

-CryptoLutheran

 

[JulieB67]

What's your belief about the LoF?

I believe in what Christ stated, that it's the second death. Which coincides with his teaching in Matthew 10:28 that there are two deaths, the flesh/body and the soul.

I don't believe in ECT. I just don't see how it could be called "second death" if one achieves eternal life in the LOF. And especially since the former will be passed away when we get the new heavens and earth.

 

[Jeff Saunders]

Over the last two decades of reading and study has, for a long time, convinced me that all dogmatic views about hell and the final judgment and end of the wicked is based largely on not always to understand biblical statements and conjecture. And I say that in regard to multiple views of hell, both the universalist and perpetualist views of hell are, basically, speculative conjecture.

At the end of the day the most honest I think we can be about hell is that we don't really know much at all. The Bible is, in spite of what I had heard growing up, says next to nothing about it. And even among the ancient fathers, the topic of hell isn't all that important. When the fathers speak about hell, there are different views. From Tertullian of Carthage (who, it must be remembered abandoned orthodoxy for heresy when he became a Montanist, meaning we should take his writings with a heavy grain of salt) who seems to treat the matter of the enemies of the Church ultimately being burned in hellfire something to celebrate (which I'd argue is at best deeply concerning and reflects Tertullian's deeply legalistic and moralistic thinking). Tertullian also thought that post-baptismal sins basically guaranteed damnation and thus believed one should postpone baptism for as long as possible so as to have the best chance of salvation. And on the other side we have, for example the controversial Origen of Alexandria, but also St. Gregory of Nyssa one of the great Cappadocian Fathers, we have the views of St. Isaac the Syrian and even the great theologian of the East, St. Maximos the Confessor.

We see, in the diversity of patristic views, frequently, a line between East and West. A line that seems to reflect the more broad differences between Western or Latin Christian thinking and Eastern Christian thinking (itself more diverse in itself due to the confluence of diverse cultural and linguistic makeup). So the West has, frequently, articulated religious and theological language in the structure of law, rule, order; and thus for example the chief emphasis in the West in regard to sin is that it is a legal transgression (and this is biblical); where the East has placed more emphasis that sin is sickness, disease, and salvation is God's healing of the human person and the created order (and this is also biblical). As such, it appears the ways in which East and West have contemplated the subject of hell has, likewise, differed greatly.

In the West hell has frequently been conceived as the just punishment for a life of sinful transgression in a state of separation from God either figuratively or literally in a state or place called "hell". In the East, by stark contrast, hell has frequently been conceived as a choice to remain sick and unwell--even in the presence of God and His all-consuming love for all creatures. Where in the West hell is a separate reality of some kind from God; the East views hell as what happens when the wicked are brought into God's presence--where the fire of God's light and love is the fire that torments the wicked "in hell"--a torment that is ultimately borne out of the wicked's own remorse, regret, and enmity against God.

In the West hell is an external torment forced upon the wicked; where in the East hell is an internal torment that is borne out of human will.

I don't have any dogmatic position(s) about hell. I don't know if, ultimately, even all the wicked shall be restored and healed; or if this hellishness (whatever it may be) is effectively perpetual and endless.

I remain unconvinced that the Greek word aionios means "eternal", if it were that straight forward there wouldn't be the debate, discussion, and diversity of views among Christians over the last two thousand years. Nor do I believe that the arguments of the universalists are necessarily convincing either.

I'm pretty sure this post will result in me getting heat from all sides of the debate. But this is my two cents worth on the subject. Which I guess is a lot of words to have just said, "I don't think we really can know much about hell at all."

-CryptoLutheran

Thank you for the realistic conversation I think it was well thought out and I did enjoy reading your post . I grew up in the western tradition but after much study and prayer I now think the eastern tradition is more in line with the whole of the Bible and I see things different now.