There is no Hell?

[Jane_the_Bane]

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.

I don't think it's the biggest difference.

Both with regards to theological theory and social practice, Lutheranism has consistently turned out to be the more humane, compassionate and philanthropic option out of the two. It's not a coincidence that societies with a strong Calvinist/Reformed influence tend to be considerably more merciless and cut-throat.
Just compare the USA and Britain to protestant parts of Europe, such as Scandinavia or even Germany.

 

[Illuminaughty]

I didn't really understand that thinking either. To be cast away from the presence of God eternally is the punishment of hell and yet God is everywhere. "If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there." Psalm 139:9. I think people would have to throw out either that understanding of hell or the idea of God being omnipresent. They don't mesh that well together.

Some Eastern Orthodox theologians say that hell is the presence of God. Sinners don't like being in his presence so they suffer extreme feelings of remorse and the burning of conscience. That might be a less contradictory formulation.

Personally I would say that hell is right around us here one earth and we don't really need to die to see it. With things like rape, war, child abuse, and the holocaust we have all the hell we could ask for. Paradise can be here too but it's not as easy to find.

 

[gord44]

Some Eastern Orthodox theologians say that hell is the presence of God. Sinners don't like being in his presence so they suffer extreme feelings of remorse and the burning of conscience. That might be a less contradictory formulation.

Indeed.

When I used to be into Eastern Orthodoxy, there was an article called 'the River of Fire'. It pretty much was all about you mentioned. Look it up. It's worth the read.

 

[smaneck]

I don't think it's the biggest difference.

Both with regards to theological theory and social practice, Lutheranism has consistently turned out to be the more humane, compassionate and philanthropic option out of the two. It's not a coincidence that societies with a strong Calvinist/Reformed influence tend to be considerably more merciless and cut-throat.

There is some truth to that, although it is harder to get more cut-throat than the way the Germans used Luther's writings on the Jews.
Personally, I like Luther better. For all his heat, he at least had a heart. Calvin strikes me as colder, as someone suffering from a hardening of the categories.
What annoys, me though, are all of the civilization textbooks that point to the doctrine of predestination as the difference between Calvin and Luther. You can't read Bondage of the Will and come to the conclusion that Luther didn't preach predestination. Did he teach double-predestination? Did any of the Reformers use that term? But Luther did say the following:

"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."

 

[smaneck]

Indeed.

When I used to be into Eastern Orthodoxy, there was an article called 'the River of Fire'.

River of Fire? That sounds very Zoroastrian.

 

[gord44]

It was written by an orthodox bishop. http://http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

 

[smaneck]

It was written by an orthodox bishop. http://http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Here is what your article said:

"In the New Creation of the Resurrection, God will be everywhere and in everything. His light and love will embrace all. There will be no place hidden from God, as was the case during our corrupt life in the kingdom of the prince of this world. The devil's kingdom will be despoiled by the Common Resurrection and God will take possession again of His creation. Love will enrobe everything with its sacred Fire which will flow like a river from the throne of God and will irrigate paradise. But this same river of Love — for those who have hate in their hearts — will suffocate and burn."

Now compare it with what I wrote about the soteriology of Zoroastrianism.

"Tradition has it that during the final 3000 years after Zoroaster three Sayoshants or Benefactors will be born at 1000 year intervals. The origins of this belief is unclear but passages in the Gathas themselves do suggest that He taught that after Him would come "the man who is better than a good man- the one who will teach us for the physical existence and for that of the mind, the straight paths of salvation to the true things with which Ahura Mazda dwells-- who is faithful and resembles You, O Mazda." But later legends spoke of this series of three saviors who would each be born of virgins, miraculously impregnated with the seed of Zoroaster. . . .

The final savior will bring the complete and final victory of good over evil. This time the sun will stand still for thirty days. All disease and death will be overcome. The dead (both man and beast) will be raised and proceed to the last judgement where everyone will see his good and evil deeds. The metal of the mountains will be melted, leveling the mountains (symbolizing that which divides us) and making a river of metal flow upon the earth. Everyone will be made to pass through this river, which will feel like warm milk to the righteous but will bring anguish and pain on the wicked. It is from purifying properties associated with molten metals in Zoroastrianism that the conception of hell as a place of burning torment was derived. But while the torment is real, its purpose is purification not punishment. Thus purified, all will be given the gift of immortality, forever uniting body and soul. Ahriman will be utterly destroyed, having been consumed by his own demon, rage. Note that within this system there is no eternal hell. If Ahura Mazda is to win the final victory *all* of His creation must be ultimately redeemed. [Ahriman was not created by Ahura Mazda.] The continued existence of hell would infer the continued existence of evil."

Time and the Containment of Evil in Zoroastrianism

 

[gord44]

Who knows. I was just supplying the article. Its contents no longer interest me personally. Just saw that it was brought up a few times in this thread so figured I would share.

 

[Rationalt]

...
"All things whatever arise from, and depend on, the divine appointment; whereby it was foreordained who should receive the word of life, and who should disbelieve it; who should be delivered from their sins, and who should be hardened in them; and who should be justified and who should be condemned."

That view appears to be consistent with some contents in the bible. The story about biblical Lord hardening the heart of Pharaoh comes to mind.
exodus/9-12 : Ref: Exodus 9:12 But the LORD hardened Pharaoh's heart and he would not listen to Moses and Aaron, just as the LORD had said to Moses.

From the link it can be seen that John 12:40 , Romans 9:18 , Joshua 11:20 among others convey the idea of predestination.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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."

But, again, these need to be placed along with the other side, that of the will of God to save all. "For God has consigned all to disobedience so that He might have mercy on all. (Romans 11:32).

That's what makes the Crux Theologorum annoying. One doesn't take one side or the other, but affirms the two equally, in spite of the fact that they are contradictory and rationally irreconcilable.

Calvin took the rational approach. Calvinism is a rational exposition of the doctrine of election, it makes sense, it's clear, it's clean, and can be systematically studied and explained.

Lutherans have no problem recognizing Calvinism as a very rational approach to the idea of election; but we'd say that's exactly where Calvinism goes awry. By the same token, the Arminian approach is also systematic and rational; but it too suffers from the same faulty mechanism of attempting to take the irreconcilable paradox and reconcile it using human reason. And that's the basic problem with the Reformed approach broadly, whether in its Calvinistic or Arminian expression, it's too systematic, too mechanistic.

The Lutheran approach is weird, it's messy, and it doesn't really make sense as it's basically irrational.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gord44]

The Lutheran approach is weird, it's messy, and it doesn't really make sense as it's basically irrational. -CryptoLutheran

Is Lutheran's view on election/predestination kind of a mix of the two?

 

[smaneck]

That view appears to be consistent with some contents in the bible. The story about biblical Lord hardening the heart of Pharaoh comes to mind.

That is precisely what Luther is alluding to.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Is Lutheran's view on election/predestination kind of a mix of the two?

It's really more of a neither.

Strictly speaking the Lutheran view of election itself "looks" a lot like Calvinism: God has unconditionally elected those whom He has predestined in Christ to salvation, there is no room for "free will" which Lutheranism says doesn't exist as the will isn't truly free, it's held in bondage to sin and thus the will acts contrary to God. In other words, we can't choose God, we can't give our "yes" to God, it is God who acts, God who wills, God who elects, God who calls, and God who effectually accomplishes this work through the Means of His Word and Sacraments to our benefit. Faith itself is the work of God, created in us, a gift infused in us by His effectual working and grace through Word and Sacrament by our union with Christ and His righteousness being imputed to us, justifying us.

Calvinism takes this further, saying that since it is God alone who does all these things, and since we cannot offer our willful yes to God's offer, and if there are those whom God has predestined, elected, and called; then it must be that everyone else has been passed over, and are therefore "predestined" to damnation (hence "Double Predestination").

Lutherans say no, while that is a rational conclusion, it is contrary to Scripture that speaks of God's universal mercy, and His will and desire that all be saved. As such, God's Gospel call goes out to everyone, God loves everyone, it is the will of God to reach and save every person without exception. God is unwilling that any should perish.

If these two ideas seem contradictory, it's because they are. That's the paradox.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[gord44]

If these two ideas seem contradictory, it's because they are. That's the paradox.

Cool. I like paradox's!

 

[smaneck]

The Lutheran approach is weird, it's messy, and it doesn't really make sense as it's basically irrational.

-CryptoLutheran

I think the major difference in their approach is that Calvin is a systematic theologian whereas Luther is a Biblical theologian. And the Bible, even when read through Pauline lenses, tends to be messy, weird and sometimes irrational.

 

[ViaCrucis]

I think the major difference in their approach is that Calvin is a systematic theologian whereas Luther is a Biblical theologian. And the Bible, even when read through Pauline lenses, tends to be messy, weird and sometimes irrational.

I once read, and I think it holds true, is that Luther is one of the last medieval theologians, whereas Calvin is one of the first modern theologians.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[smaneck]

I once read, and I think it holds true, is that Luther is one of the last medieval theologians, whereas Calvin is one of the first modern theologians.

-CryptoLutheran

Luther's concept of the devil (which is very central to his theology) is very different than the medieval one, however. People in medieval Europe tended to think of the devil tempting them to do this or that. For Luther the devil got inside your head, saying things like "Are you sure you are really saved?" The devil only bothered tormenting Christians because everyone else was already his. So unlike Calvinists (not Calvin himself) who might imagine they are 'saved' because they are healthy, wealthy and wise, Luther would consider the fact that the devil is tormenting you as to whether you are saved as the best evidence that you *are* saved.

Luther's theology is indeed full of paradoxes, some of which I rather like.

 

[Rationalt]

That is precisely what Luther is alluding to.

One has to agree that their views are not in contradiction with the bible.

 

[Illuminaughty]

To the credit of Lutherans I believe they do try to take into account the whole range of statements made in the various books of the Bible when it comes to that issue rather than taking the easy way out by stressing some and ignoring others.

I tend to think the paradox comes about because the different Biblical authors didn't necessarily agree with one another on that issue to begin with though. I don't see how some of the statements made in Romans and James could be understood as being compatible for example. It would make more sense to say the two authors had different views. Luther had trouble meshing the two and even considered removing James. In the end he was convinced that it was a legitimate part of the tradition so he had to find a way to simultaneously teach both positions. The Calvanist and Armenians often end up attacking that position as self contradictory but they tend to ignore more then a few troublesome verses in order to come to their clean (relatively) contradiction free positions.

 

[smaneck]

T Luther had trouble meshing the two and even considered removing James. In the end he was convinced that it was a legitimate part of the tradition so he had to find a way to simultaneously teach both positions.

Although Luther dares not go so far as to remove James from the scriptures, I can't think of a single instance where he taught it. And I've read a lot of Luther's works.