Let's Talk About Hell

[Christos Anesti]

What I am presenting is the inverse of theosis. The principle remains the same, only in theosis you become more like Jesus, and in beholding and loving sin you become more like sin . . . thusly, your soul is an afront to God.

I think you make a valid point about people becoming what they contemplate be it divine or infernal. I still don't think that God experiences hatred toward people in a literal sense though. He loved us while we were still sinners thats why He offered himself for our salvation. If he feels hatred toward sinners why did Jesus ask for the forgiveness of the people crucifying him instead of voicing his anger and hatred toward them? Is it ok for humans to hate sinners as well in order to be more godlike? In that case I would have a free pass to hate everyone I meet.

 

[JamesAH]

Since the OP has an unorthodox view of hell shouldn't this thread be moved to the unorthodox forum?

 

[Christos Anesti]

Yet God commands us to worship Him, to glorify Him, to exalt Him and raise His name and sing His praise! God seeks His own ALL OVER SCRIPTURE!

But why? Not because He is seeking his own. He wants us to love him because it is good for us and he loves us. He doesn't want us to be spiritually ill and He gives us the cure to our disease - love and praise Him. It's a condescion on His part (for our sake) that He tells us to love and worship Him. God isn't lacking anything. So it's not like a human who has an ego problem and therefore feels the need for adulation and worship.

 

[FredVB]

I have posted elsewhere something that would be an appropriate response here.

That hell exists does not mean that any persons in this world before we come to the hereafter have a true picture of it. Descriptions in the Bible are picturesque, to put us in position to truly recoil from a destiny there, so that we might respond to God's grace to deliver us from sin, its power, AND that destiny, to be with him in blissful fellowship for eternity. But in his perfection God is totally just, all sin is always paid for. Allowances are made for the degree of knowledge one has, but judgment includes total fairness to each person for all that they have done, and so there are different degrees one may suffer in going to hell, but as it is an eternity, no one should want to go there, and knowledge of God's grace in Christ has gone forth, and for those who are searching, God gives them the grace, which had made searching possible, to know more and find the possibility of salvation from God. But anything we can do can never save us.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

But why? Not because He is seeking his own. He wants us to love him because it is good for us and he loves us. He doesn't want us to be spiritually ill and He gives us the cure to our disease - love and praise Him. It's a condescion on His part (for our sake) that He tells us to love and worship Him. God isn't lacking anything. So it's not like a human who has an ego problem and therefore feels the need for adulation and worship.

But why? Not because He is seeking his own.

I would disagree . . . why is it said over and again that "I do this for My glory" "I deliver you for My namesake"?

He does indeed seek His own because it is HIS JOY . . . BUT He has so positioned this that HIS JOY AND HIS GLORY IS ALSO OUR GREATEST GOOD. But it is NOT for US (as if we are the ends of the means), or we become the center of Him . . . WE are not . . . it is the love and joy between the members of Trinity that is the center of Him. AND THAT MY FRIEND IS GOOD THEOLOGY. Man never has been or ever will be the center of God . . . GOD is the CENTER OF GOD . . . why did He create us . . . FOR HIS JOY. Thank God that His joy tho is our joy.

It's a condescion on His part (for our sake) that He tells us to love and worship Him.

WOW . . . I would REALLY take that one to prayer brother . . . is it condescension that the ANGELS and ALL of creation are commanded to do the same . . . even prior to the fall? No. It is not condescension at all brother . . . His command to love and worship Him are NOT Him coming down to our level . . . it is US rising to the pleasures that God experiences within Himself THROUGHOUT ALL ETERNITY . . . condescension, hardly, rather it is our chance to ASCEND out of where we are and TO HIM.

God isn't lacking anything.

Agreed, and He doesnt command these things because He lacks them . . . He commands them because it is by these that we are enraptured into the fullness of who He is. As John Piper says "Missions exists because worship doesnt." What are the angels in heaven doing around the throne? Loving, adoring, worshiping . . . we are ASCENDED to this . . . not because He lacks BUT BECAUSE WE LACK AND IT IS IN THIS EXPERIENCE OF HIM THAT WE BECOME FULL. Joy abounding! (man I wanna worship right now! HALLELUJIAH!)

So it's not like a human who has an ego problem and therefore feels the need for adulation and worship.

COMPLETELY AGREED.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

I think you make a valid point about people becoming what they contemplate be it divine or infernal. I still don't think that God experiences hatred toward people in a literal sense though. He loved us while we were still sinners thats why He offered himself for our salvation. If he feels hatred toward sinners why did Jesus ask for the forgiveness of the people crucifying him instead of voicing his anger and hatred toward them? Is it ok for humans to hate sinners as well in order to be more godlike? In that case I would have a free pass to hate everyone I meet.

I still don't think that God experiences hatred toward people in a literal sense though.

But the Scripture gives us no reason to think that it is figurative or metaphorical. If we make it a figurative concept, then the inverse of His hate must also be figurative . . . I dont know about you, but I am glad His love is not figurative!

He loved us while we were still sinners thats why He offered himself for our salvation.

Amen . . . but tho Jesus dies for the whole world in the sense that all may come . . . in the end who is saved? Believers. Not all will come and thus the offering of the Son only applies salfivically to the elect.

If he feels hatred toward sinners why did Jesus ask for the forgiveness of the people crucifying him instead of voicing his anger and hatred toward them?

Here you are foisting what YOU think anger IS upon God tho. Again, you cannot do that, as I said. Whatever emotion God feels or experiences He does so in PERFECT experience of ALL the other emotions and positions that He maintains.

So for us, we get angry and love and mercy have no place . . . we are ONESIDED at that moment. God is not. We still deal with falleness . . . He does not. IN His anger He is STILL ALL LOVING . . . in LOVE He is still perfectly righteous and holy (thus sin must be paid for and why a good God can still send people to hell).

The dichotomy of the cry for mercy while at the same time detesting those who crucify His Son is one of the mysteries of Trinity in the 2nd Person taking on flesh and blood. I cannot tell you how the Father and the Son are one, yet Jesus' wishes to NOT go the cross if there is another way, and the Father DRIVES Jesus to the cross at the same time. Likewise I cannot explain to you how the Son cries for mercy and the Father furies at the same moment. All I know is that this is what the Bible teaches. The wrath of the Romans 5 passage is wrath . . . there is no getting around that we are saved from this . . . and it is an objective FACT aside from our experience . . . cause Jesus bears that penalty for us. Thus it is not something that is merely our perception.

Is it ok for humans to hate sinners as well in order to be more godlike? In that case I would have a free pass to hate everyone I meet

absolutely not. AS in God seeking His own, His commandments to us take into consideration our sinfulness . . . that is the overarching context of the Law. Each and every commandment assumes the fallen propensity of the human. God is not human . . . so that fallen propensity does not apply to Him, thusly His commands in the context of fallen humaness do not apply to Him BECAUSE HE EXISTS IN A DIFFERENT CATEGORY. There is no contradiction to a Holy God in wroth over sin and towards those who have transgressed His mercy and His commands for us not to give into sinful temptations (because whatever He feels is not a sinful temptation for Him).

And, be ever aware, HE IS STILL PATIENT EVEN IN WRATH. He wishes that all would be His . . . why do you think that the 2nd advent has not yet come?

Food for thought, with critical thinking, what is the direction of the wrath, logically, in this statement:

Rom 1:18
For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,
NASU
Eph 5:6
6 Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience
NASU
Col 3:5-7
6 For it is because of these things that the wrath of God will come upon the sons of disobedience,
NASU
1 Thess 1:10
10 and to wait for His Son from heaven, whom He raised from the dead, that is Jesus, who rescues us from the wrath to come.
NASU
1 Thess 5:8-9
9 For God has not destined us forwrath, but for obtaining salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ,
NASU
Rev 6:16-17
16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from thewrath of the Lamb;
NASU
Rev 14:9-11
10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.
NASU
Rev 14:19-20
19 So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God.
NASU
Rev 19:15
5 From His mouth comes a sharp sword, so that with it He may strike down the nations, and He will rule them with a rod of iron; and He treads the wine press of the fierce wrath of God, the Almighty.
NASU

think logically about these statements and the DIRECTION from which the wrath comes . . . it is FROM GOD . . . if it were our perception that wrath could not be spoken of in objective terms apart from our experience . . . yet it is called wrath BEFORE IT EVEN HITS SOMEONE. It is STORED WAITING . . . if it were only wrath by our perception (or anger or hate of which wrath is the external expression of these inward realities) IT COULD NOT JUSTLY BE CALLED WRATH BEFORE OUR EXPERIENCE OF IT. It would only, philosophically BECOME wrath when we perceive it . . . it would be something else before we experience it.

SO that hypothesis really doesn work. And I know your fav theologian says it, I have fav theologians that I part ways with on many things, but your fav theologian is NOT the authority . . . the text is (even with your EO distinctives on the role of tradition, tradition is DERRIVED from the text and if ever tradition departs from the text then the tradition is invalid . . . hence the heretics throughout church history).

 

[Christos Anesti]

If we make it a figurative concept, then the inverse of His hate must also be figurative

Why is that?

the text is (even with your EO distinctive on the role of tradition, tradition is DERIVED from the text and if ever tradition departs from the text then the tradition is invalid . . . hence the heretics throughout church history).

The texts are simply an aspect of Tradition that was written down for the benefit of the Church. Tradition doesn't originate from the Scripture because the Scripture is a part of the Churches Tradition. Tradition existed before the Scriptures were even written for that matter.

I agree with you that if something disagrees with the Bible it is inaccurate though.

your fav theologian is NOT the authority . . . the text is (

Who is the authority on how to properly exegete the text? Are we to trust our own "logic" when reading the Scriptures? If things could simply be proven using word studies and logic from scripture why do the Scriptures themselves speak of the need for having the Holy Spirit to properly understand it? If everything were plain and literal why would one need spiritual discernment at all ? The fathers of the Church have the proper spiritual discernment. One understands the scriptures through illumination and gnosis .

16 and they said to the mountains and to the rocks, "Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from thewrath of the Lamb;

None of those verse pose a problem to my understanding of this. The one above for example talks about peoples experience of the presence of Jesus as wrath. This is perfectly consistent with what St Isaac said. Love works both to burn and enlighten.

 

[Christos Anesti]

WOW . . . I would REALLY take that one to prayer brother

Maybe I didn't communicate what I was trying to say right . By "condescion" I meant that He didn't HAVE to tell us to worship and love Him. He didn't even have to create us let alone communicate with us and shower His love on us. He would still be complete without that. He could have created us and let us wander the world with out the knowledge of what could bring us true joy - to love and worship Him. He told us because he loved us. He didn't do it for his own good because He is not lacking in any good to begin with.

if it were only wrath by our perception (or anger or hate of which wrath is the external expression of these inward realities) IT COULD NOT JUSTLY BE CALLED WRATH BEFORE OUR EXPERIENCE OF IT.

If it's a symbolic, poetic, or metaphorical expression it could be.

 

[Christos Anesti]

because whatever He feels is not a sinful temptation for Him

To talk about the Father literally having changing feelings and emotions seems to imply mutability and change in God doesn't it? like " I do 'x' and then God feels 'y' ".

 

[Christos Anesti]

Mathetes the Kerux,

I wanted to thank you for this great discussion. You have posed some really good challenges to my understanding. This discussion caused me to start a new a thread in TAW that asks this questions:

"What exactly is a proper orthodox understanding of God regarding "feelings" and "emotions" and the use of terms like anger and wrath in the Bible? We know that God doesn't change and thus couldn't have a series of various emotions that are illicited by our actions yet the Bible does say things that could lead one to believe that He does. How do we understand these parts of the Bible?"

I hope I get some good feedback. There is just so much to learn about the Bible and theology it's such a daunting task!

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

To talk about the Father literaly having changing feelings and emotions seems to imply mutability and change in God doesn't it? like " I do 'x' and then God feels 'y' ".

The immutability of God does not refer to His emotional experiences within a given situation . . . our sins are said to grieve the Holy Spirit.

Immutability is a concept of being, ontology . . . not emotional make up . . . so I think it is a category error, a categorical confusion.

Thusly, no I dont think it seems to imply mutability.

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say right. By "condescion" I meant that He didn't HAVE to tell us to worship and love Him. He didn't even have to create us let alone communicate with us and shower His love on us. He would still be complete without that. He could have created us and let us wander the world with out the knowledge of what could bring us true joy - to love and worship Him. He told us because he loved us. He didn't do it for his own good because He is not lacking in any good to begin with.



If it's a symbolic, poetic, or metaphorical expression it could be.

Maybe I didn't explain what I was trying to say right. By "condescion" I meant that He didn't HAVE to tell us to worship and love Him. He didn't even have to create us let alone communicate with us and shower His love on us. He would still be complete without that. He could have created us and let us wander the world with out the knowledge of what could bring us true joy - to love and worship Him. He told us because he loved us. He didn't do it for his own good because He is not lacking in any good to begin with.

Better thank you.

If it's a symbolic, poetic, or metaphorical expression it could be

True, but you can only do that with certain passages that fit that genre . . . like revelation you could try to construe as symbolic because the writ is full of symbol.

However, the PLETHORA of texts in the DIDACTIC PROSE of the NT epistle CANNOT be seen this way unless the text gives good reason for it. Romans 5 does not, the other Pauline citations do not either.

Wrath is spoken of as an objective fact BEFORE it even encounters humanity.

 

[Christos Anesti]

Immutability is a concept of being, ontology . . . not emotional make up . . . so I think it is a category error, a categorical confusion.

So God would have both an immutable and mutable aspect? His being is immutable but He also has a psyche which is ever changing?

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Why is that?



The texts are simply an aspect of Tradition that was written down for the benefit of the Church. Tradition doesn't originate from the Scripture because the Scripture is a part of the Churches Tradition. Tradition existed before the Scriptures were even written for that matter.

I agree with you that if something disagrees with the Bible it is inaccurate though.



Who is the authority on how to properly exegete the text? Are we to trust our own "logic" when reading the Scriptures? If things could simply be proven using word studies and logic from scripture why do the Scriptures themselves speak of the need for having the Holy Spirit to properly understand it? If everything were plain and literal why would one need spiritual discernment at all ? The fathers of the Church have the proper spiritual discernment. One understands the scriptures through illumination and gnosis .



None of those verse pose a problem to my understanding of this. The one above for example talks about peoples experience of the presence of Jesus as wrath. This is perfectly consistent with what St Isaac said. Love works both to burn and enlighten.

Why is that?

Because God is a whole being . . . if you want to talk figuratively about one emotional aspect of God you must apply that same hermeneutic to the other emotional aspects as well.

I agree with you that if something disagrees with the Bible it is inaccurate though.

Coolio, that was the common ground I was shootin for.

Who is the authority on how to properly exegete the text? Are we to trust our own "logic" when reading the Scriptures? If things could simply be proven using word studies and logic from scripture why do the Scriptures themselves speak of the need for having the Holy Spirit to properly understand it?

The bible is pretty straight forward brother. It doesnt take a rocket scientist to "get" intellectually the arguments and posits made by Scripture, even if they do not agree with them.

The speaking of the Spirit in the grasping of spiritual matters does not refer to the intellectual understanding of logic . . . it refers to the internalization of the truth of God. So while someone can "get" that Jesus does in fact lay claim to deity in John 8:58 (per Greek construction and historical and cultural context) they need the Spirit to BELIEVE that this is true and thusly internalize the truth to incorporate it into their being. Their is intellectual "getting/understanding" and there is spiritual "getting/understanding" one is the comprehension of an arguement and logic the other is the apprehension of truth by the Spirit of the revelation of the Gospel of the Glory of God in the Face of Jesus Christ (2 Cor 4).

The bible is not hard to get in understanding what it asserts . . . it is, however, impossible to believe w/o the Spirit of God.

about peoples experience of the presence of Jesus as wrath.

But that is not what it says . . .

"Fall on us and hide us from the presence of Him who sits on the throne, and from thewrath of the Lamb;

It is a conjunctive clause meaning BOTH . . . not that they are the same. The presence is the presence of the Father . . . the wrath belongs to the Lamb. They are certainly parallel in concept but by comparision not equality.

Never the less . . . there is nothing in the text to infer that the wrath is not an objective fact of the Lamb and ONLY exists in the Human. It would have to say "hide us from the wrath that we see" where the SOURCE of the wrath is the perception of the human. It is not . . . the wrath is centered in the source "of the lamb" with no qualifications.

This is perfectly consistent with what St Isaac said. Love works both to burn and enlighten

Cool. But I think that St Isaac's posit also works well with wrath . . . because God is 100% loving while at the same time wrathful. But it is the love of His glory, the internal expressed love within Trinity, that SUPERCEDES and causes the wrath upon the human. So that in the wrath poured out upon the human, His love for the Son and the Spirit and the afront that the sin represents against the Ones that He loves is PERFECTLY MANIFEST IN JUSTICE.

Love does both burn and enlighten. Wrath does not preclude this . . . nor does anger. I believe that God in every action that He does does out of love . . . but I believe that that love FIRST starts in the triune relationships of the Godhead and is Gods FIRST priority. What greater love and bliss could there be? It is into this that God invites us . . . and when one spurns and rejects THIS LOVE . . . the love that the Father Son and Spirit have for each other . . . wow . . . it is not mans perception of wrath that causes wrath . . . but the righteous indignation of the Father Son and Spirit that someone would SPIT upon the cross that God has provided.

Here is a text:

Jer 2:12-13
12 "Be appalled, O heavens, at this,
And shudder, be very desolate," declares the LORD.
13 "For My people have committed two evils:
They have forsaken Me,
The fountain of living waters,
To hew for themselves cisterns,
Broken cisterns
That can hold no water.
NASU

God calls creation itself to shudder and be appalled at such an evil . . . what evil?

13 . . . here is the word picture.

You have a person dying and parched walking through the desert, in rags, stumbling along. Suddenly they come upon the most beautiful fountain in existence. Bright gleaming marble, ornate statues that depict the works of God, water so clean that it invites, sparkling, so pure that it refreshes the eyes and brings life . . . sweet to the taste. Picture the beauty.

Suddenly the man turns from the fountain in disgust . . . AND HE DROPS TO HIS KNEES AND BEGINS SHOVELING DIRT AND SAND DOWN HIS THROAT WHILE SCREAMING:

"I DONT WANT THAT!"

THAT is evil my friend . .. to rejct God, the fountain of living water, for dirt (in this context the idols of v 11).

Jer 2:11
11 "Has a nation changed gods
When they were not gods?
But My people have changed their glory
For that which does not profit.
NASU

This is the essence of

Rom 1:22-23
22 Professing to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.
NASU

and it is the smearing of the glory of God, the love of God in Himself for each member w/in the Godhead that causes the cross to spring forth for it exalts Gods worth, that is evil.

IMO friend this is worthy of wrath.

 

[JamesAH]

It's amazing how you guys are psycho analyzing God's personality like He's on some head shrink couch and you guys are acting like Freud charging him $200/hr

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

So God would have both an immutable and mutable aspect? His being is immutable but He also has a psyche which is ever changing?

The way that I would describe it would be like the wind and a bike rider.

Depending on the direction of the rider, the wind either aids the rider or it hinders the rider. So, take Ninevah with Jonah.

God says He will destroy the city, the people repent, God relents.

Did God change His mind . . . no, His disposition is consistent, it is our position that changes.

Likewise, when we accept the cross and Jesus' work upon it, God's disposition to us is favor, mercy and grace.

When one rejects the cross His disposition is anger, wrath and fury.

God's "love" for everyone in a generic sense does not change either of these things. Matter of fact, Gods general love does not carry with it the emotive dimension that His peculiar love does. It is generally a willingness to accept not the same position of favor that He has towards those who are His in Christ.


So OFF topic . . . but oh well . . .

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

It's amazing how you guys are psycho analyzing God's personality like He's on some head shrink couch and you guys are acting like Freud charging him $200/hr

Shoot I wish I made 200 hr typing on here! lol

 

[Mathetes the kerux]

Mathetes the Kerux,

I wanted to thank you for this great discussion. You have posed some really good challenges to my understanding. This discussion caused me to start a new a thread in TAW that asks this questions:

"What exactly is a proper orthodox understanding of God regarding "feelings" and "emotions" and the use of terms like anger and wrath in the Bible? We know that God doesn't change and thus couldn't have a series of various emotions that are illicited by our actions yet the Bible does say things that could lead one to believe that He does. How do we understand these parts of the Bible?"

I hope I get some good feedback. There is just so much to learn about the Bible and theology it's such a daunting task!

NP bro

put a link and I will come and see what happens

 

[Christos Anesti]

http://www.christianforums.com/t7466470/

 

[Christos Anesti]

The Wrath Of God - Speaking the Truth in Love - Ancient Faith Radio

Someone linked to this lecture by Father Thomas Hopko on the subject. He makes some of the same points I did regarding salvation but he also says that Gods wrath has an objective existence outside of our experience. He also says regarding it's purpose: "The wrath of God is meant to be chastising, chastening, to bring to repentance. God desires the mercy of all, and that’s why in all of the Old Testament Scriptures, the end line, the last line is always: “God will not forsake His people. God will show mercy on them. He will chasten for awhile but in the morning comes joy and gladness. He will forgive. He will show mercy. He will not destroy you forever, even though you hate the bowels of His divine mercy.” God will still be faithful to Himself as St. Paul says. He cannot deny Himself. He’s not going to be a destroyer. He doesn’t desire the death of the wicked as Ezekiel says, but he desires that the wicked would turn from his ways and live" In that sense even His wrath is a mercy and an act of love. I guess that makes sense.


I thought this part was realvent to what we were discussing regarding change and immutability:

"However, our Holy Fathers following Holy Scripture, and this came to a real head in the Palamite Controvery of the Hesychast Fathers in the 13th century, they say: “No, no. Sorry. We don’t follow that. Our God is the Living God. He acts in different ways, at different times, with different people, shows himself different.” In fact St. Gregory of Nyssa, a thousand years before St. Gregory of Palamas, he would of said: “God is different everyday, and he’s really different. He appears to us differently all the time. He acts, he hides, he comes, he goes, he weeps, he shows mercy, he forgives,” and those thing are realities. They’re not just our somehow subjective, human, imaginative, fantasy experiences. God is not the god of Aristotle. He’s not the uncaused cause. He’s not the unmoved mover. He’s not the immobile, static Supreme Being. God is not being at all.

In fact following Gregory of Nyssa, Gregory the Theologian, St. Basil the Great, Maximus the Confessor, and Symeon the New Theologian, St. Gregory the Palamas will say, all that is just baloney. God is not even being. God is beyond being and non-being. He is beyond change and non-change. The Pseudo-Dionysian writings would say that. Dionysius the Pseudo-Areopagite who wrote The Mystical Theology, he says that. God is beyond all these things. He’s completely different. He’s totally different. He’s holy. He dwells in unapproachable light. Nothing on earth can compare to Him as Isaiah says. There’s no way. But when we experience God acting, then we do experience wrath, but we also experience mercy. We know what the wrath of God is like. We know what it is to be in the hands of the living God. We know that God is a consuming fire. But we also know that God is merciful, gracious, slow to anger, abounding in steadfast love and mercy. He will not always chide, and this is what we actually find in the Bible. This is what we claim, that when we read the Bible this is what we find. "