There is no Hell?

[smaneck]

I find the Calvinist take on NT is more literal than any other denomination.I view their interpretation as brutally honest.

More precisely his take on Romans is more literalistic. I don't see the doctrine of predestination in the rest of the NT.

 

[Rationalt]

I am not sure how the (supposed) unambiguous words of Jesus in gospel like in Matt 10:28 and in Mark 9:43-48 (quoted by TD) can be interpreted in a different way.

Matt 25:41 is more of a warning to christians themselves, though.

BIBLE: Hell is real, hot & eternal.

a. God promises punishment to the wicked - Rom 2:6-11
(1) Everlasting fire - Matt 25:41
(2) Either everlasting punishment or life eternal - Matt 25:46
(3) Those not written in the Book of Life will cast into the second death where "they will be tormented day or night forever and ever" - Rev 20:14-15, 10
(4) Wicked tormented with fire & brimstone & "have no rest day or night" - Rev 14:10-11
(5) God lives "forever and ever" (Rev 4:9); Torment is "forever and ever" (Rev 20:10)
b. Jesus spoke of hell more than anyone else in the Bible (gehenna, 11 of 12 times by Jesus)
(1) Place of unquenchable fire - Mark 9:43-48
(2) Greater destruction than the death of the body - Matt 10:28

 

[Rationalt]

I don't see the doctrine of predestination in the rest of the NT.

There is enough of predestination. Lost sheep of israel, romans are destined to be doomed etc etc.

 

[gord44]

I find the Calvinist take on NT is more literal than any other denomination.I view their interpretation as brutally honest.

Calvinism is probably the most Biblical Christian theology from a LITERAL perspective. As Rationalt said above, it's the most brutally honest take on Christianity. Of course if one doesn't see the Bible as literal, then Calvin's arguemnts don't hold much water.

 

[dlamberth]

I find the Calvinist take on NT is more literal than any other denomination.I view their interpretation as brutally honest.

My take is that the extreme intensity of the Calvinist literal interpretation has a way of taking the spiritual content and thus the life out of scripture.

.

 

[Rajni]

I tend to take it a step further. I believe that not only did God make everything but that God IS everything. The Breath of God runs through all there is, both the seen and unseen. Thus, there is no room for Hell.



.

 

[ViaCrucis]

More precisely his take on Romans is more literalistic.

Only if you read ch. 9 in isolation.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Calvinism is probably the most Biblical Christian theology from a LITERAL perspective. As Rationalt said above, it's the most brutally honest take on Christianity. Of course if one doesn't see the Bible as literal, then Calvin's arguemnts don't hold much water.

Considering that one of the chief disagreements between Luther and Calvin (and, subsequently, Lutheran and Reformed) concerned itself over the Doctrine of the Real Presence, with Calvin saying the Presence is spiritual only--and further, other Reformed theologians such as Zwingli and Knox saying there was no Presence at all; I'm not sure that it's really all that fair to categorize Calvinism (or the broad Reformed Tradition) as having the most consistently LITERAL interpretation of the Bible.

The LITERAL interpretation of "This is My body" is, "This is Jesus' body".

Though I would further argue that nobody takes the Bible LITERALLY, consistently. Even those who I've heard say that the devil is literally a multi-headed hydra (because of how he's described in the Apocalypse) don't take everything literally.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

Considering that one of the chief disagreements between Luther and Calvin (and, subsequently, Lutheran and Reformed) concerned itself over the Doctrine of the Real Presence, with Calvin saying the Presence is spiritual only--and further, other Reformed theologians such as Zwingli and Knox saying there was no Presence at all; I'm not sure that it's really all that fair to categorize Calvinism (or the broad Reformed Tradition) as having the most consistently LITERAL interpretation of the Bible.

Good point. And if you read Calvin's commentary on Genesis, it is anything but literalistic. Luther on the other hand rejected the Copernican system on the basis of Joshua 10:12.

Even those who I've heard say that the devil is literally a multi-headed hydra (because of how he's described in the Apocalypse) don't take everything literally.

-CryptoLutheran

If they did there would be a lot of one-eyed, one-handed Christians walking around. (Of course, Origen did cut off his offending limb.)

 

[smaneck]

Only if you read ch. 9 in isolation.

-CryptoLutheran

Like Luther did?

 

[ViaCrucis]

Like Luther did?

The doctrine of election mentioned in Romans 9 needs to be tempered with the universal mercy of God mentioned in Romans 11. The problem isn't what Romans 9 says about election, the problem is when you stop at the end of chapter 9 and don't keep reading to see Paul make his full argument.

Luther--as Lutherans still do--believe in the universal mercy of God. God loves all, has mercy on all, we teach Universal Atonement, as opposed the Limited Atonement as taught in TULIP; and likewise don't hold that God's unconditional election leads to the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination, whereby the reprobate have been passed over. Quite the opposite, as Christ has died for all, and since God calls all to salvation, and that God loves all, utterly, the gift of grace is universally and unconditionally and impartially for all.

Of course, this leads to Lutheranism's funniest quirk, the Crux Theologorum.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gord44]

Though I would further argue that nobody takes the Bible LITERALLY, consistently. Even those who I've heard say that the devil is literally a multi-headed hydra (because of how he's described in the Apocalypse) don't take everything literally.

-CryptoLutheran

Good point!

 

[smaneck]

Luther--as Lutherans still do--believe in the universal mercy of God. God loves all, has mercy on all, we teach Universal Atonement, as opposed the Limited Atonement as taught in TULIP; and likewise don't hold that God's unconditional election leads to the Calvinist doctrine of double predestination, whereby the reprobate have been passed over. Quite the opposite, as Christ has died for all, and since God calls all to salvation, and that God loves all, utterly, the gift of grace is universally and unconditionally and impartially for all.

Except that Luther insisted that only the Holy Spirit could open us up to grace and since not everyone was opened up, there were clearly those who God chose not to save. The difference between Luther and Calvin on this matter, it seems to me, is that Luther believed this was a mystery embedded in God's majesty about which we should not ask, whereas Calvin was determined to give an answer.

"For He desires that all men should be saved, in that He comes to all by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him; as He says in Matt. 23:37 "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not!" But why the Majesty does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why He lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and though you should ask much, you would never find out; as Paul says in Romans 11: "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Romans 9:20]." Bondage of the Will

 

[smaneck]

Of course, this leads to Lutheranism's funniest quirk, the Crux Theologorum.

-CryptoLutheran

Ah, I see that's what you mean by the Crux Theologorum. I wasn't familiar with that term.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Except that Luther insisted that only the Holy Spirit could open us up to grace and since not everyone was opened up, there were clearly those who God chose not to save. The difference between Luther and Calvin on this matter, it seems to me, is that Luther believed this was a mystery embedded in God's majesty about which we should not ask, whereas Calvin was determined to give an answer.

"For He desires that all men should be saved, in that He comes to all by the word of salvation, and the fault is in the will which does not receive Him; as He says in Matt. 23:37 "How often would I have gathered thy children together, and thou wouldst not!" But why the Majesty does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why He lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and though you should ask much, you would never find out; as Paul says in Romans 11: "Who art thou that repliest against God?" [Romans 9:20]." Bondage of the Will

At least in the portion of Bondage of the Will you quote, nothing is mentioned about God choosing not to save.

What you're describing sounds more like what would have been called Crypto-Calvinism in the 16th century.

The Crux Theologorum means that there is an unanswerable paradox. God desires for all to be saved, unwilling that any should perish; and it is God who by His unconditional election chooses who will be saved. Does that mean there are then some whom God chooses not to be saved? By no means, for God desires and wills that all be saved. So then we must make a choice willingly of our own will? By no means, for it is God who predestines, elects, calls, and saves by His own good will. And so on, and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

The Crux Theologorum means that there is an unanswerable paradox. God desires for all to be saved, unwilling that any should perish; and it is God who by His unconditional election chooses who will be saved. Does that mean there are then some whom God chooses not to be saved? By no means, for God desires and wills that all be saved. So then we must make a choice willingly of our own will? By no means, for it is God who predestines, elects, calls, and saves by His own good will. And so on, and so forth.

-CryptoLutheran

But the way in which Luther addresses this in Bondage of the Will is to posit a dialectic between the Deus Revelatus and the Deus Absconditus. The Deus Revelatus is the revealed will by which God wishes to save everyone whereas the Deus Absconditus is the Hidden God who chooses not to save all.

 

[ViaCrucis]

But the way in which Luther addresses this in Bondage of the Will is to posit a dialectic between the Deus Revelatus and the Deus Absconditus. The Deus Revelatus is the revealed will by which God wishes to save everyone whereas the Deus Absconditus is the Hidden God who chooses not to save all.

"But why the Majesty does not remove or change this fault of will in every man (for it is not in the power of man to do it), or why He lays this fault to the charge of the will, when man cannot avoid it, it is not lawful to ask; and though you should ask much, you would never find out;"

That's the Crux Theologorum which Luther has just defined.

"Why are some saved but not others?" is the big, nagging, frustrating, terrible question of the Crux Theologorum. To which Luther responds, "You would never find out".

Because it's the big, dumbfounding, annoying question caught in the paradox between Scripture saying that God elects the some to salvation and Scripture saying that God has chosen to have mercy on all, desiring and willing that all be saved.

Luther doesn't attempt to synthesize, or harmonize, or rationalize; but instead acknowledge the paradox and say it just is.

Phrasing it as, "God has chosen not to save..." is to fall back to Calvinism, to answer the paradox by supplying the doctrine of double predestination.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

"
Phrasing it as, "God has chosen not to save..." is to fall back to Calvinism, to answer the paradox by supplying the doctrine of double predestination.

-CryptoLutheran

Except Luther insists everything is by the will of God.

"... it follows unalterably, that all things which we do, although they may appear to us to be done mutably and contingently, and even may be done thus contingently by us, are yet, in reality, done necessarily and immutably, with respect to the will of God. For the will of God is effective and cannot be hindered; because the very power of God is natural to Him, and His wisdom is such that He cannot be deceived. And as His will cannot be hindered, the work itself cannot be hindered from being done in the place, at the time, in the measure, and by whom He foresees and wills."

And again:

"The apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans, discourses on these same things, not “in a corner,” but in public and before the whole world, and that with a freely open mouth, nay in the harshest terms, saying, “whom He will He hardeneth.” (Rom. ix. 18.) And again, “God, willing to shew forth His wrath,” &c. (Rom ix. 22.) What is more severe, that is to the flesh, than that word of Christ “Many are called but few chosen?” (Matt. xxii. 14.) And again, “I know whom I have chosen?” (John xiii. 18.) According to your judgment then, all these things are such, that nothing can be more uselessly spoken; because that by these things, impious men may fall into desperation, hatred, and blasphemy."

 

[gord44]

I personally loved Luther's comments on farting and it's uses to chase away the devil.

 

[smaneck]

I personally loved Luther's comments on farting and it's uses to chase away the devil.

LOL. Heiko Oberman, from whom I took church history once dedicated a graduation speech to Luther's scatology and its relationship to the devil. I would argue that it is Luther's belief in the power of the devil that makes the biggest distinction between Luther's theology and Calvin's.