There is no Hell (Moved)

[Daniel9v9]

"Death" "destruction" and "second death" are all words/terms that are synonymous with annihilation.

When we read them all together as all applying to a single thing, then that's what we are going to see and nothing else.

But I think it can also be viewed as Jesus coming as the last prophet and judge of Israel. I think Jesus had a lot more to say about their impending fate than just saying not one stone will be left atop another. It makes more sense to me that Jesus had a great deal to say about the final bloody fiery destruction in the style of prophets like Jeremiah.

No, that would be reading those in isolation and thinking of it in a limited sense. For in Revelation it says:

Revelation 20:14: "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

And the background for this lake of fire is this:

Isaiah 66:24: "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

And this:

Matthew 13:50: "And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This does not equate to annihilation, but a place of torment, which is exactly what Revelation says, and how Polycarp and the other early church fathers understood it. "Death", "destruction", and "second death" needs to be understood in light of everything God's Word says about damnation. For example, the Scriptures also say that we are by nature dead in sin, yet we are alive, naturally speaking, so the way Scriptures employ the word "death" does not signify non-existence, but rather a state.

 

[ozso]

No, that would be reading those in isolation and thinking of it in a limited sense. For in Revelation it says:

Revelation 20:14: "Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

And the background for this lake of fire is this:

Isaiah 66:24: "And they shall go out and look on the dead bodies of the men who have rebelled against me. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh."

And this:

Matthew 13:50: "And throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This does not equate to annihilation, but a place of torment, which is exactly what Revelation says, and how Polycarp and the other early church fathers understood it. "Death", "destruction", and "second death" needs to be understood in light of everything God's Word says about damnation. For example, the Scriptures also say that we are by nature dead in sin, yet we are alive, naturally speaking, so the way Scriptures employ the word "death" does not signify non-existence, but rather a state.

It's a genuine pleasure debating with you. But as I'm sure you know I'm mainly playing devil's advocate. And for the time being I'm starting to feel like I'm beginning to take it too far.

 

[The Liturgist]

I have known and known of many Christian universalists over a period of 14 years, and none of them have ever belonged to or attended "the Universalist Church".

I wouldn’t expect you to, since unfortunately, tragically, the Universalist Church was corrupted by Unitarian ideology and merged with the Unitarians in 1961, so any surviving former members of it would have left when they were young and would be very elderly.

I think this is very unfortunate because I would rather there be a distinct denomination for Universalists, because technically, for instance, in the case of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, universalism has been officially rejected as a doctrine since the Fifth Ecumenical Council, since it is a form of monergism.

The only ancient church which officially taught universalism after the fifth century was the church that now survives as the Assyrian Church of the East, which no longer believes in that doctrine.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don’t believe Annhilationism is supportable. The only two Scriptural interpretations that seem valid are Calvinism and non-Calvinism. I myself lean towards non-Calvinism, which requires me to reject Universalism because the one thing God cannot do is force us to love Him.

That sounds like a misunderstanding of UR to me. There is no forcing, only restoration. Anyone in their right mind would welcome Jesus.

 

[ozso]

I wouldn’t expect you to, since unfortunately, tragically, the Universalist Church was corrupted by Unitarian ideology and merged with the Unitarians in 1961, so any surviving former members of it would have left when they were young and would be very elderly.

I think this is very unfortunate because I would rather there be a distinct denomination for Universalists, because technically, for instance, in the case of the Eastern Orthodox and Roman Catholic churches, universalism has been officially rejected as a doctrine since the Fifth Ecumenical Council, since it is a form of monergism.

The only ancient church which officially taught universalism after the fifth century was the church that now survives as the Assyrian Church of the East, which no longer believes in that doctrine.

Alright, I'm used to people erroneously referring to Christian universalism currently as being a denomination, so I knee jerked on that.

On the once thriving UR forum called Tentmaker, when the subject was brought up about a Christian universalist church, as I recall most were against the idea. Both in posts made by members and in quotes from major UR proponents about the idea.

 

[ozso]

Indeed, to be clear, I am not saying they are the same thing, but rather that they are refuted by the same texts.

That being said I myself have great empathy for Universalists like Dr. David Bentley Hart. However, I believe the majority opinion of the Greek and Syriac fathers that being in the presence of God while hating Him would be torture, since God is a consuming fire, and thus God banishing those who do not willingly love Him to the Outer Darkness is an example of His infinite mercy. However, in failing to reciprocate God’s love, as Metropolitan Kallistos Ware wrote, it hurts us, because we are excluding ourselves from infinite joy.

In my experience UR is mainly refuted by the same texts used to refute Free Grace and OSAS. I haven't been in many annhilationism debates, so I'm not as familiar with it.

That view matches my own view that I formulated back when I was young. Pretty much the saying I've heard that heaven wouldn't be heaven for them, it would be hell. And the gates of hell are locked from the inside (C.S. Lewis).

However I've come to wonder what happens to a person when exposed to Chirist in all his glory, as Paul was. Certainly many hardened sinners and outright enemies if God, have ended up doing a 180 and became ministers and evangelists. I remember back in the day when Madeline Murray O'Hair's son William was teaming up with her denouncing God, the Bible and Christianity. And then poof he did a 180 and became a Baptist minister.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Well, if you're interested in a historical witness apart from the Scriptures, then how about the words of Polycarp, who was likely a disciple of the apostle John. Polycarp when he was about to be martyred said:

"You threaten with a fire that burns only briefly and after just a little while is extinguished, for you are ignorant of the fire of the coming judgment and eternal punishment, which is reserved for the ungodly."

So, you are free to disagree, but this is how Polycarp understood God's Word, and he died sometime between AD 155 - 160, so he was in much closer proximity to the apostles than we are. You can also find other references that concur with this among the other Apostolic Fathers. I can recommend the Apostolic Fathers by Michael W. Holmes if you're interested.

I'm already familiar with and have read this about Polycarp's perspective. I also already have the Michael W. Holmes book, among many, many others.

But thanks anyway, Daniel! I'll continue to see the issue of "Hell" as a question mark, leaning towards Annihilationism without fully subscribing to it while also seeing the New Testament writers as being slightly varied among themselves on this issue.

 

[Daniel9v9]

It's a genuine pleasure debating with you. But as I'm sure you know I'm mainly playing devil's advocate. And for the time being I'm starting to feel like I'm beginning to take it too far.

Thank you, I appreciate it! I do recognise that there are parts of the Bible that can sound like annihilation (at least to our modern ears) or in some instances even Universalism, but I'm confident that if we read everything God's Word has to say about a subject, we can understand it sufficiently, even if it employs symbolism. This is what we, in our Lutheran tradition, call the "perspicuity of Scripture". Which, contrary to what our friends in Rome believe and teach, we believe that the Bible is understandable on its own, though it's hard work. In other words, when we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we should be able to understand what the Bible means. And for this, good digital cross-reference tools are very helpful!

And if I may, let me finish on this, for the benefit of anyone who may be reading, and then I'll stop pestering you. You feel free to have the final word if you like!

It's most certainly true that our Lord prophesied the destruction of the temple and that He conflates this event with the last day (which is not wrong). However, when God's Word talks about the "lake of fire", it has a very particular meaning and cannot mean the destruction of Jerusalem, though maybe we can view the destruction of Jerusalem as a type of it. If we look up every passage that is connected with the lake of fire, we have this:

Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:10 say that the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire, and that they will be tormented forever.

Revelation 20:14 says that death and hades are thrown into the fire, and then calls the lake of fire the second death.

Revelation 20:15 says that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire.

So, even though Revelation is highly symbolic, we can gather, so far, that the imagery of the "lake of fire" is reserved for the devil and his angels, along with evildoers.

Matthew 25:41 is saying exactly the above, and that comes from the lips of our Lord, where He's clearly talking about the judgment of the world.

Matthew 3:12 and Matthew 13:40 use the same imagery of fire and connect it explicitly with "the end of the age".

Matthew 13:42 and Matthew 13:50 express that in this fiery furnace, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's good to remember here that (1) this is the same place designed for the devil and his angels, (2) this is where all unbelievers go, not just the inhabitants of Jerusalem when they are attacked by Rome, and (3) it's referred to as "the second death".

Mark 9:43-48 expresses again that unrepentant sinners will be thrown into hell, "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".

Isaiah 66:24 shows us that the lake of fire is not a NT innovation, but that this was revealed, though veiled, in the OT, and that Jesus recognises it, affirms it, and even expands on it with parables.

Damnation is no light thing, and it's difficult for us to understand its severity. But we can take comfort in that no one cares more about the sanctity of life than God, no one is more loving, merciful, and just than Him, so we can have complete confidence in His judgment. But at the same time, as good servants of the Lord, we are called to confess what God's Word says, that it may grant sinners repentance and the contrite comfort by the Gospel of Christ.

God bless!

 

[BNR32FAN]

This was a parable.

What makes you think it was a parable and not a story of something that actually took place?

 

[BNR32FAN]

I'm already familiar with and have read this about Polycarp's perspective. I also already have the Michael W. Holmes book, among many, many others.

But thanks anyway, Daniel! I'll continue to see the issue of "Hell" as a question mark, leaning towards Annihilationism without fully subscribing to it while also seeing the New Testament writers as being slightly varied among themselves on this issue.

Yeah same here, the evidence is inconclusive but like you I tend to lean more to the annihilation side of the debate because of 1 Cor 15. How can God be all in all if people are still suffering in the lake of fire? To me it makes more sense that everyone would be all in all if everyone who wasn’t written in the book of life was annihilated because they wouldn’t exist anymore.

 

[ozso]

Thank you, I appreciate it! I do recognise that there are parts of the Bible that can sound like annihilation (at least to our modern ears) or in some instances even Universalism, but I'm confident that if we read everything God's Word has to say about a subject, we can understand it sufficiently, even if it employs symbolism. This is what we, in our Lutheran tradition, call the "perspicuity of Scripture". Which, contrary to what our friends in Rome believe and teach, we believe that the Bible is understandable on its own, though it's hard work. In other words, when we allow Scripture to interpret Scripture, we should be able to understand what the Bible means. And for this, good digital cross-reference tools are very helpful!

And if I may, let me finish on this, for the benefit of anyone who may be reading, and then I'll stop pestering you. You feel free to have the final word if you like!

It's most certainly true that our Lord prophesied the destruction of the temple and that He conflates this event with the last day (which is not wrong). However, when God's Word talks about the "lake of fire", it has a very particular meaning and cannot mean the destruction of Jerusalem, though maybe we can view the destruction of Jerusalem as a type of it. If we look up every passage that is connected with the lake of fire, we have this:

Revelation 19:20 and Revelation 20:10 say that the beast and the false prophet are thrown into the lake of fire, and that they will be tormented forever.

Revelation 20:14 says that death and hades are thrown into the fire, and then calls the lake of fire the second death.

Revelation 20:15 says that everyone whose name is not written in the book of life is thrown into the lake of fire.

So, even though Revelation is highly symbolic, we can gather, so far, that the imagery of the "lake of fire" is reserved for the devil and his angels, along with evildoers.

Matthew 25:41 is saying exactly the above, and that comes from the lips of our Lord, where He's clearly talking about the judgment of the world.

Matthew 3:12 and Matthew 13:40 use the same imagery of fire and connect it explicitly with "the end of the age".

Matthew 13:42 and Matthew 13:50 express that in this fiery furnace, there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth. It's good to remember here that (1) this is the same place designed for the devil and his angels, (2) this is where all unbelievers go, not just the inhabitants of Jerusalem when they are attacked by Rome, and (3) it's referred to as "the second death".

Mark 9:43-48 expresses again that unrepentant sinners will be thrown into hell, "where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched".

Isaiah 66:24 shows us that the lake of fire is not a NT innovation, but that this was revealed, though veiled, in the OT, and that Jesus recognises it, affirms it, and even expands on it with parables.

Damnation is no light thing, and it's difficult for us to understand its severity. But we can take comfort in that no one cares more about the sanctity of life than God, no one is more loving, merciful, and just than Him, so we can have complete confidence in His judgment. But at the same time, as good servants of the Lord, we are called to confess what God's Word says, that it may grant sinners repentance and the contrite comfort by the Gospel of Christ.

God bless!

What's funny is I saw that I actually started out in this thread arguing against annhilationism using some standard verses that challenge it. What you're providing is obviously the official Lutheran take on it, and as a bishop you probably feel compelled to stick to it no matter what. Which is why I've never committed myself to a particular denomination. Although I do like the Lutheran church and I listen to Jordan Cooper from time to time. And I took instruction from a Lutheran minister on how to do home communion during the lockdowns.

 

[ozso]

What makes you think it was a parable and not a story of something that actually took place?

I just had one of those interesting experiences. I went to look up the passage I'm going to post and it was already on my phone via BibleGateway in that exact spot.

34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

“I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 13:34-35.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Yeah same here, the evidence is inconclusive but like you I tend to lean more to the annihilation side of the debate because of 1 Cor 15. How can God be all in all if people are still suffering in the lake of fire? To me it makes more sense that everyone would be all in all if everyone who wasn’t written in the book of life was annihilated because they wouldn’t exist anymore.

That's a good point, BNR32FAN, and I think I generally agree with it! It does seem difficult to think that God can be "all in all" while a number of folks are off to the side writhing in an unextinguishable, literal eternal fire that burns with an infinite metaphysical and spiritual magnitude. I know that our Universalist brethren will empathize with us on this point.

However, while you make a great interpretive point, there's another hermeneutical point at play for me, and that other point has a greater weight in how I interpret the meaning of "Hell." It's the fact that I find virtually nothing in the writings of Paul that seems to suggest that when he speaks about "eternal punishment" he is referring to a literal fire. No, I don't think Paul does so, but if we want a literal fire we kind of need to turn back and scour the Gospel of Matthew since he seems to want to use the Jewish tropes of Judgement, like "weeping and gnashing of teeth" and "destruction," in ways that do allude to an Eternal Fire. These tropes are used less so, even if seemingly similarly, in Mark and Luke and have to be read with finer care. Finding the nature of "Hell" in the Gospel of John is a different creature of study yet again.

So, I think we can see both ways in the New Testament. By contrast with these other two perspectives, when the position of Universalism is being considered, I tend to think its veracity has less substance, but this is based on how I approach and handle Hermeneutics. However, even though my evaluation of Universalism comes out by default from my Hermeneutical handling, I can still empathize with Universalistic thinking and understand 'how' a Christian in that frame of axiological reference will arrive at that perspective.

Between what seems sensible on a moral and metaphysical scale, which you nicely pointed to, and a method of Hermeneutic by which we operate and then "frame" our personal exegesis of the Bible, it makes me think the full actuality of "Hell" will be one that leads to, as you said, non-exisence.

 

[ozso]

Yeah same here, the evidence is inconclusive but like you I tend to lean more to the annihilation side of the debate because of 1 Cor 15. How can God be all in all if people are still suffering in the lake of fire? To me it makes more sense that everyone would be all in all if everyone who wasn’t written in the book of life was annihilated because they wouldn’t exist anymore.

That's pretty much the way I lean as well. I think at the end of the day, if we haven't committed to a particular doctrine, we have to go by what makes the most sense to us. Eschatology is such a tricky area. I tend to completely avoid eschatological debates in other areas. It's headache city to me.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

That's pretty much the way I lean as well. I think at the end of the day, if we haven't committed to a particular doctrine, we have to go by what makes the most sense to us. Eschatology is such a tricky area. I tend to completely avoid eschatological debates in other areas. It's headache city to me.

I concur, bro!

What I think we'd all get some good out of is to discuss our individual Hermeneutical and Exegetical methods INSTEAD of harping on specific tropes and doctrines and wrangling over them without ever really getting to the nuts and bolts of 'how' we EACH interpret the Bible. And we could do this without smacking each other in the face and insulting each other, insinuating that one or the other of us is guilty of cherry-picking or heresy or sociopathy.

No, instead of a deep, integrated, scholarly discussion among us, all that tends to happen is a constant throwing of proof-texts and singular word-studies at each other and a resort to playing the "who's got the biggest traditional authority" game. And where the issue of "Hell" is of concern, I don't think proof-texting, word-studies and appeals to tradition will help us know with certainty when we all could or should have a consensus about this or that doctrine; especially not about "Hell."

 

[BNR32FAN]

I just had one of those interesting experiences. I went to look up the passage I'm going to post and it was already on my phone via BibleGateway in that exact spot.

34 All these things Jesus spoke to the multitude in parables; and without a parable He did not speak to them, 35 that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, saying:

“I will open My mouth in parables;
I will utter things kept secret from the foundation of the world.” Matthew 13:34-35.

Yes but that was a different message in a different place to a different group of people.

 

[ozso]

Yes but that was a different message in a different place to a different group of people.

Could you elaborate on that more please?

 

[BNR32FAN]

Could you elaborate on that more please?

My point was that not everything Jesus said was a parable. I don’t see any reason why the story of Lazarus & the rich man couldn’t have been a true story.

 

[ozso]

My point was that not everything Jesus said was a parable. I don’t see any reason why the story of Lazarus & the rich man couldn’t have been a true story.

I meant what you said about a different message in a different place to a different group of people. How so? That's not like challenge, I just want to get a better understanding of what you said.

 

[BNR32FAN]

I meant what you said about a different message in a different place to a different group of people. How so? That's not like challenge, I just want to get a better understanding of what you said.

Perhaps I misunderstood you, I thought you posted that verse as evidence that the story of Lazarus and the rich man was actually a parable and not a true story.