Losing the fear of an eternal hell

[Saint Steven]

All will bow the knee at the name of Jesus; some do that willingly, others unwillingly.

Not according to the definition of "acknowledge". Not a forced confession.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

 

[didactics]

Does this come from the idea that a Christian can't be demonized? (have a demon)

How does one speak for Satan? Where do the words come from? (Genesis 3:11)

Peter was inadvertently being used of Satan in thinking he was protecting Jesus. Satan had purposely tempted Jesus in the wilderness to divert Him from the cross. Innocently, Peter was doing the same thing. Quote from another Got Questions article [Why did Jesus say to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan”? | GotQuestions.org]

Thanks for the article.
I had never considered regeneration and conversion as two separate, but related, things, but they are. Two sides of the same coin, as the author put it.

Regeneration is the inward spiritual transformation and conversion is the external effect of that internal regeneration. Good stuff, thanks.

That being said, I'm still not convinced there is such a thing as "false" conversion. I think I know what you are trying to say, but am wincing at the terminology.

Sorry to be splitting hairs on this, but I think there is an important distinction to be made here. The article you provided made me even more sure of this. Because conversion is a result of regeneration.

In that regard, how can conversion ever be false? Please help me to understand, if I am being thick-headed here. Thanks.

Perhaps what you are referring to is a wheat and tares thing? (Matthew 13:37-39) So, "false" disciple is probably a good term for that. People in the church for the wrong reasons. Some of them wolves in sheep's clothing, as the saying goes.

I used the words “false disciple” because in one of my Bibles that’s what the section heading read. The section heading for Matthew 7:21-23 is as follows in The MacArthur Study Bible: True and False Disciples

Not according to the definition of "acknowledge". Not a forced confession.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

The idea though is how can one not whole-heartedly confess at the name of Jesus for those under the earth, when the lordship of Christ is revealed to them? They are under compulsion to confess because they are in agony.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I mean it shows empathy for the people outside the heaven bubble that you'd leave the bubble to join them.

I can't see how anyone can fully accept the idea of other people, and it's always other people!, being tortured forever, without shutting down our empathy and feelings. Arguments such as Jeremiah 17:9 "The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure" may be used to justify this it's really just another example of ignoring our emotions.

Another example of this is the argument we see over and over again that if there was no eternal hell, they'd be no reason to be a Christian. That the love of God or for others or even oneself doesn't seem a sufficient reason also suggests a turning away from empathy and compassion.

While it may be the case that some folks affirm ECT solely because they have sociopathic tendencies, you might want to remain open to the further data that would indicate they do so for other reasons. Otherwise, you run the risk of making yourself look myopic, Hmm, and a bit anti-intellectual at that.

Maybe stop trying so hard to push and distend your premise about how you think those who hold to ECT necessarily lack empathy and compassion, especially not into stereotypical measures---measures that for any social psychologist would be seen to be artificially constructed and a little solipsistic.

The reality is, there's a hell of a lot more that goes on into many people's current, individual views than simply that they are indoctrinated and suffer from a bit of sociopathy. Stop being reductionistic. It makes you look silly.

Besides, as Steven has already pointed out, all the views on Hell are "biblical."

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I first attended Sunday School when FDR was president. The only thing I remember is the red koolaid was really good. I attended church mostly Sunday school sporadically and became a Christian in my mid '20s while in flight school next stop Viet Nam. I had heard about hell. The only sermon I heard about hell I preached it in the mid '90s. The title was "Lessons from Hell University." I didn't have a lot to unlearn. Most of what I know I learned doing research right here.

I thought you said you went to a seminary and learned a lot of "this or that" about your own personal theology, Der Alte. Is this not true?

 

[ozso]

After all, you would agree that UR doctrine is only recently re-discovered, yes?

Not sure of the history. A good source would be Brad Jersak, if you aren't familiar. (see video below) I've watched everything I could find by him. Prolific author as well. Currently an Orthodox Priest. And a really great guy. @MMXX has been in touch with him via email and probably introduced me to Brad.

You were the one who introduced me to Brad, via the chairs video.

@David's Harp I'd say it's probably a newer thing among Protestants. I believe it has more of a long running history within the Catholic/Orthodox church. This is what Brad said to me regarding early church fathers and church history:

"Not all the fathers agreed with each other. Some are infernalists and some are universalists.

And some of the fathers preached hellfire rhetorically at Christians to make a moral point but in their hymns are unabashedly universalist. Talk about irrefutable... it’s the hymnody that leads the way and is our primary theology: “Let Every Mortal Leap for Joy”: Apocatastatic Hymnody in Orthodox Worship

But if they want to cherrypick infernalism from the fathers, that’s easy enough. Have at it. But I would have deep suspicions that they understood how they thought."

 

[Saint Steven]

Saint Steven said: ↑
Not according to the definition of "acknowledge". Not a forced confession.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

The idea though is how can one not whole-heartedly confess at the name of Jesus for those under the earth, when the lordship of Christ is revealed to them? They are under compulsion to confess because they are in agony.

Seriously?
To fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly, whole-heartedly, without reservation... is under compulsion? NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!

 

[ozso]

You were the one who introduced me to Brad, via the chairs video.

@David's Harp I'd say it's probably a newer thing among Protestants. I believe it has more of a long running history within the Catholic/Orthodox church. This is what Brad said to me regarding early church fathers and church history:

"Not all the fathers agreed with each other. Some are infernalists and some are universalists.

And some of the fathers preached hellfire rhetorically at Christians to make a moral point but in their hymns are unabashedly universalist. Talk about irrefutable... it’s the hymnody that leads the way and is our primary theology: “Let Every Mortal Leap for Joy”: Apocatastatic Hymnody in Orthodox Worship

But if they want to cherrypick infernalism from the fathers, that’s easy enough. Have at it. But I would have deep suspicions that they understood how they thought."

I noticed the linked article has a quote from Archbishop Lazar Puhalo, whom mentored Brad Jersak. So it's not like Brad is out there in the fringes of Eastern Orthodoxy. There are well known higher ups in the church who think well of him. Metropolitan Kallistos Ware was another.

 

[David Lowery]

Part of the apologetic for UR is the problems we see with Bible translation bias. Here's an example, which you may or may not be familiar with. Let me know what you think about this. Thanks.

Aionios mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46.

All these verses below use the same NT Greek word, "aionios", the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in Matthew 25:46. See bold below. This shows that "aionios" cannot mean eternal or everlasting.

Aionios, the Greek word mistranslated as "eternal" and "everlasting" in the Bible (eternal hell?)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_kfKQJfT0C8&t=770s

Interesting, I'll have to meditate, chew on the cud a bit from that word study. I've heard of something like this doctrine but thru another route. I talk to quite a bit of people in different backgrounds, different faith levels. In truth, it is written: If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:2) I try to keep this in mind so that my heart stays humble before Him. I don't have the burden of knowing everything, I just release it to Him and ask Him, what are you going to do about it?

While dwelling on what you mentioned as translation bias and reading the scriptures you laid out. Yes, that's a big problem, a lot of shifting that goes on in the minds and hearts of people with the word and overall, we need a heart condition change. As a person thinks in heart, so is he, so our thinking must be healed to start that healing in our heart. I can't escape this thought. Do you know that parable of the sower is the key to unlocking all other parables? (Mark 4:13) Let me show you something that I've never heard from the pulpit.

“Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. (Mark 4:3-4)

Look to what He says next about these birds:

And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. (Mark 4:15)

This word echoes what is prophesied by Isaiah:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. “For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the Lord, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 55:13)

Now let us read what He says in the Parable of the Mustard seed:
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” (Mark 4:31-32)

Again, the Parable of the Sower is the key to all other parables. That's why we have an explanation in 3 of the Gospels. He is really trying to tell us something by it. Why does He point to the birds of the air (Satan, his principalities) making its nests in its shade? We know the seed planted was understanding given and by this parable of the mustard seed, the smallest of understandings grow into great trees. Why is Satan and the principalities of air, inhabiting the shade of the branch?

We do not wage war with flesh and blood but by Spirit, so let the Spirit be the answer; for it is not by our power or might but by spirit. Not just any Spirit, but His Spirit. Satan will snatch the understanding of the Gospel from the hearts where the word is given to. However, our battle is not over, the seed once it reaches maturity, Satan comes and tries to inhabit our understanding, even if it is sowed. We know that the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy. He tries to inhabit our understanding to destroy what was planted.

I truly believe what you say and what I just mentioned, are connected.

 

[Der Alte]

I thought you said you went to a seminary and learned a lot of "this or that" about your own personal theology, Der Alte. Is this not true?

I meant when I first became a Christian about 56 years ago, I did not have much to unlearn. Yes, I graduated from my denomination's flagship seminary pastoral track about 39 years ago. My posts reflect my beliefs. I am neither Armenian nor Calvinist altho some in my denomination may be.

 

[Der Alte]

Interesting, I'll have to meditate, chew on the cud a bit from that word study. I've heard of something like this doctrine but thru another route. I talk to quite a bit of people in different backgrounds, different faith levels. In truth, it is written: If anyone imagines that he knows something, he does not yet know as he ought to know. (1 Corinthians 8:2) I try to keep this in mind so that my heart stays humble before Him. I don't have the burden of knowing everything, I just release it to Him and ask Him, what are you going to do about it?

While dwelling on what you mentioned as translation bias and reading the scriptures you laid out. Yes, that's a big problem, a lot of shifting that goes on in the minds and hearts of people with the word and overall, we need a heart condition change. As a person thinks in heart, so is he, so our thinking must be healed to start that healing in our heart. I can't escape this thought. Do you know that parable of the sower is the key to unlocking all other parables? (Mark 4:13) Let me show you something that I've never heard from the pulpit.

“Listen! Behold, a sower went out to sow. 4 And as he sowed, some seed fell along the path, and the birds came and devoured it. (Mark 4:3-4)

Look to what He says next about these birds:

And these are the ones along the path, where the word is sown: when they hear, Satan immediately comes and takes away the word that is sown in them. (Mark 4:15)

This word echoes what is prophesied by Isaiah:

For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven and do not return there but water the earth, making it bring forth and sprout, giving seed to the sower and bread to the eater, so shall my word be that goes out from my mouth; it shall not return to me empty, but it shall accomplish that which I purpose, and shall succeed in the thing for which I sent it. “For you shall go out in joy and be led forth in peace; the mountains and the hills before you shall break forth into singing, and all the trees of the field shall clap their hands. Instead of the thorn shall come up the cypress; instead of the brier shall come up the myrtle; and it shall make a name for the Lord, an everlasting sign that shall not be cut off.” (Isaiah 55:13)

Now let us read what He says in the Parable of the Mustard seed:
It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when sown on the ground, is the smallest of all the seeds on earth, 32 yet when it is sown it grows up and becomes larger than all the garden plants and puts out large branches, so that the birds of the air can make nests in its shade.” (Mark 4:31-32)

Again, the Parable of the Sower is the key to all other parables. That's why we have an explanation in 3 of the Gospels. He is really trying to tell us something by it. Why does He point to the birds of the air (Satan, his principalities) making its nests in its shade? We know the seed planted was understanding given and by this parable of the mustard seed, the smallest of understandings grow into great trees. Why is Satan and the principalities of air, inhabiting the shade of the branch?

We do not wage war with flesh and blood but by Spirit, so let the Spirit be the answer; for it is not by our power or might but by spirit. Not just any Spirit, but His Spirit. Satan will snatch the understanding of the Gospel from the hearts where the word is given to. However, our battle is not over, the seed once it reaches maturity, Satan comes and tries to inhabit our understanding, even if it is sowed. We know that the thief comes to steal, kill and destroy. He tries to inhabit our understanding to destroy what was planted.

I truly believe what you say and what I just mentioned, are connected.

The person you are responding to gave you some patently false information. The Greek word "aionios" does in fact mean "eternal, for ever, everlasting" etc.
At this link is the complete definition of "aionios" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.
This lexicon represents 120-160 years of Greek scholarship. To refute this lexicon would require a similar level of scholarship. Versus some anonymous poster online saying, "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too! Nuh huh!"
The 80+ resources the scholars consulted in determining the correct meaning are highlighted in blue.
Link: Daily Christian Universalist Verses

 

[2PhiloVoid]

I meant when I first became a Christian about 56 years ago, I did not have much to unlearn. Yes, I graduated from my denomination's flagship seminary pastoral track about 39 years ago. My posts reflect my beliefs. I am neither Armenian nor Calvinist altho some in my denomination may be.

Ok. That makes sense.

 

[Hmm]

Saint Steven said: ↑
Not according to the definition of "acknowledge". Not a forced confession.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Seriously?
To fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly, whole-heartedly, without reservation... is under compulsion? NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!

It's that infernal cognitive dissonance again. It gets everywhere!

 

[didactics]

Saint Steven said: ↑
Not according to the definition of "acknowledge". Not a forced confession.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11 from Strong's Concordance
S1843 eksomologéō (from 1537 /ek, "wholly out from," intensifying 3670 /homologéō, "say the same thing about") – properly, fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly (whole-heartedly); hence, to confess ("openly declare"), without reservation (no holding back).

Seriously?
To fully agree and to acknowledge that agreement openly, whole-heartedly, without reservation... is under compulsion? NO WAY !!!!!!!!!!!!

All will confess Him as Lord. This is a clear indication of what will occur at the Second Coming of Christ. Those under the earth will do so unwillingly, to the glory of God.

I don't understand it all that well, but that is how it makes most sense. Think about it, if it means what you are saying, then hell would end at that very moment. If all those in hell will confess him as Lord out of love, then they might as well be transferred to the kingdom of light, everyone of them, but there goes your notion that some will suffer in hell for a longer period of time than others.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The person you are responding to gave you some patently false information. The Greek word "aionios" does in fact mean "eternal, for ever, everlasting" etc.
At this link is the complete definition of "aionios" from Bauer, Danker, Arndt and Gingrich one of, if not, the most highly accredited Greek lexicons available.
This lexicon represents 120-160 years of Greek scholarship. To refute this lexicon would require a similar level of scholarship. Versus some anonymous poster online saying, "You're wrong and I'm right. Am too! Nuh huh!"
The 80+ resources the scholars consulted in determining the correct meaning are highlighted in blue.
Link: Daily Christian Universalist Verses

... and here I thought lexical studies within the process of biblical exegesis were but the beginning of sorrows rather than the end of it ...

Did you skip a class at seminary or something, Der Alte?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

It's that infernal cognitive dissonance again. It gets everywhere!

No, it's probably just that other people have read different exegetical books than you have, Hmm.

 

[Hmm]

No, it's probably just that other people have read different exegetical books than you have, Hmm.

Can you give me an exegetical explanation of how a decision based on fear can be freely made? If you can't, why do you think exegesis is relevant to the question?

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't understand it all that well, but that is how it makes most sense.

You don't understand it? Yes, apparently. No worries, we're here to help. - LOL

Think about it, if it means what you are saying, then hell would end at that very moment.

How tragic. Oh the horror. Would you be disappointed?

 

[Hmm]

How tragic. Oh the horror. Would you be disappointed?

QED

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Can you give me an exegetical explanation of how a decision based on fear can be freely made? If you can't, why do you think exegesis is relevant to my comment?

Do you listen to yourself when you articulate your questions, Hmm, before you commence your interlocution?

Let me see if I can exegete your question correctly, first.

If I understand you correctly-----and this comes before my having to understand the Bible correctly (that is, if it's possible for any of us to fully do so in all ways that we think are needed)---- you're wanting me to read the Bible and cull out from the Bible various proof-texts that demonstrate that free choices can be, at the same time, ensconced in fear. Am I understanding you correctly?

 

[Hmm]

Do you listen to yourself when you articulate your questions, Hmm, before you commence your interlocution?

Let me see if I can exegete your question correctly, first.

If I understand you correctly-----and this comes before my having to understand the Bible correctly (that is, if it's possible for any of us to fully do so in all ways that we think are needed)---- you're wanting me to read the Bible and cull out from the Bible various proof-texts that demonstrate that free choices can be, at the same time, ensconced in fear. Am I understanding you correctly?

You're not I'm afraid. I was hoping for, but not expecting, a straight answer to a straight question. And I was not disappointed.