What if you’re wrong about hell?

[Saint Steven]

For people like that, I just say, "Do you want me to follow Scripture regardless of feelings or any human sentiments or reservations, OR NOT? Because if you're saying I should turn back to the eternal torment/immortal souls doctrine even after finding the conditional immortality stance to have far greater and clearer backup in Scripture, to 'play it safe', then don't continue to give me the BS argumentation during debates on this topic that I and other conditionslists only reject eternal torment on account of personal emotion, faulty 'human reasoning', or wanting to 'water down the Gospel'."

Thanks for your post.
Could you outline the conditionslist position for us? Thanks.
I've heard the term, but am not sure what it means exactly.

I might need to add that to my list of final judgment doctrines. (if it belongs there)
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Restorationism

 

[Saint Steven]

Misrepresent your views or mine again and I will ignore your posts.

Wow. Did you really write that? (seems so) - lol

 

[Saint Steven]

The plan of the Triune God from the foundation of the world is now complete.

God is now all in all.

What about that mess called "hell" that was swept under the carpet?
How long will it burn?

 

[LostMarbels]

Spiritual death is in the here and now. It doesn't come to us in the afterlife. (curious term - afterlife)
We are already dead in Adam number one. Adam number two, Jesus, came to give us spiritual life in the here and now.

Saint Steven said: ↑
As you already know, there are two kinds of death. Physical and spiritual.
Jesus paid for our spiritual death by giving us spiritual life.

Yes, I understand that as a christian, but what is that message to the unsaved?

To someone that is not saved.... 2 differnt Adams. 2 differnt deaths. Jesus paid for our spiritual death by giving us spiritual life. They are looking at you like you have 3 heads right now. Confused as all get.

Consequence of actions is easily understood. The forgiveness of, or pardoning of actions is also easily understood. For the babe in Christ, even the unsaved, the concept of God's punishment being reserved for the devil, and his fallen angels, is easily understood.

Then you get into more details concerning grace, punishment, the second death, Jesus as the second Adam, and so on, as one matures in faith.

My line of reasoning is based on this statement:

So, if you are truly afraid that people will go to hell, DO NOT tell them about it.

How does that work?

 

[Der Alte]

What about that mess called "hell" that was swept under the carpet?
How long will it burn?

The only folks sweeping hell under the carpet are UR-ites.

 

[Saint Steven]

Consequence of actions is easily understood. The forgiveness of pardoning of actions is also easily understood. For the babe in Christ, even the unsaved, the concept of God's punishment being reserved for the devil, and his fallen angels, is easily understood.

I agree that this is a common understanding. But I don't agree that it is true.
Jesus came to give us abundant life. If you don't have that, he is the source.
Simple as that.

Hell (for lack of a better term) is not the punishment for being "bad". (for lack of a better term)
And heaven is not the reward for being "good". (for lack of a better term)

The main issue is relational. The restoration of a broken relationship with God.
This is God's long-term plan. A restored relationship with humanity and a restored creation. All things will be made new.

Saint Steven said: ↑
Spiritual death is in the here and now. It doesn't come to us in the afterlife. (curious term - afterlife)
We are already dead in Adam number one. Adam number two, Jesus, came to give us spiritual life in the here and now.

 

[Saint Steven]

How does that work?

Statistically speaking (don't ask for the data, I don't have it, this is my understanding of what is being said by Brad Jersak here) a person is MORE likely to reject faith in Christ if the threat of hell is part of the presentation. So... (read quote below)

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, if you are truly afraid that people will go to hell, DO NOT tell them about it.

 

[Josheb]

Seriously?
That is the basis, NOT THE CLAIM of the article. Be fair.

You are arguing a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, I didn't say it was the claim of the article, I said it was the claim of the person he built his article upon. To claim Jersak is responsible for going to hell is absurd. How is anyone responsible for events they did not cause?

Go back and re-read my op-reply. The point being made is the matter of the other person saying Jersak is at fault for people going to hell if his views are wrong is 1) fallacious and 2) easily addressed.

If you disagree with that then explain that dissent.

 

[Josheb]

Of course you would say that. You're an annihilationist. Which is a concessional stage between Damnationism and Restorationism. All three views of the final judgment have biblical support. Take your pick.

Have you anything about Jersak's article to discuss?

I've provided there or four points for conversation. What are you doing with them beside dismissing them? This is your op. What are you doing with it?

 

[SarahsKnight]

Thanks for your post.
Could you outline the conditionslist position for us? Thanks.
I've heard the term, but am not sure what it means exactly.

I might need to add that to my list of final judgment doctrines. (if it belongs there)
- Damnationism
- Annihilationism
- Restorationism

For all intents and purposes as of now, it is the same as annihilationism. The thought that hell is a place of literal destruction instead of eternal conscious torture.

I just personally prefer to call it conditional immortality, or conditionalism, to put a greater emphasis on the fact that, in harmony with the above view of hell/Gehenna/lake of fire being literal and final destruction, the Bible gives almost zero indication or hint that we have inherently immortal souls, but rather, it almost could not be more plain in teaching that death is a literal cessation of life, like a sleep, and that ONLY in Jesus Christ can we attain immortality, the hope to one day be raised raised back to life and never have to die again. In other words, that only believers in Christ, the saved, will have immortality, while the unbelieving will NOT live forever (not even in some eternal torture chamber the theologians call "hell").

 

[Josheb]

Universalism is permitted in this forum
Terms of Service and Christian Forum Rules | Christian Forums

Yep. I got that message several posts ago. Have already addressed it.

 

[Saint Steven]

You are arguing a distinction without a difference. Furthermore, I didn't say it was the claim of the article, I said it was the claim of the person he built his article upon. To claim Jersak is responsible for going to hell is absurd. How is anyone responsible for events they did not cause?

Go back and re-read my op-reply. The point being made is the matter of the other person saying Jersak is at fault for people going to hell if his views are wrong is 1) fallacious and 2) easily addressed.

If you disagree with that then explain that dissent.

My apologies. I misunderstood what you saying. I thought you were disagreeing with the article on that basis, rather than disagreeing with the objection that was being presented to Brad. Thanks for the clarification. On that basis we are in agreement. (bliss)

 

[Josheb]

Not really moving the discussion along imho.

I was asked a question and I answered it. The response, a quote mine and "Not really moving the discussion..." is what's not moving the discussion. But it is another misrepresentation of what was posted so let me show you how this is done.































.

 

[Josheb]

Wow. Did you really write that? (seems so) - lol

Right back at you, Steven. The entirety of that post was off-topic in your own op.


Jersak reports to want to have an inviting conversation about hell, one he imagines is "gospel-based" and "Jesus-composed," and his belief the gospel "does not place hearers under an ultimatum that triggers a flight impulse." While there are few statements in that article with which I can agree I think he's wrong in both content and method and there is a lessen for us all to apply observing those errors.

And I invite you, the author of this op, to discuss these matters.

And you are not doing so.

And, yes, I really did write that.

 

[Saint Steven]

Have you anything about Jersak's article to discuss?

I've provided there or four points for conversation. What are you doing with them beside dismissing them? This is your op. What are you doing with it?

I recall you saying the article was flawed several times and that you are an Annihilationist. The latter seemingly the main driver of the former. I don't have much of an appetite for argument. But don't let that stop you. - lol

 

[Josheb]

My apologies. I misunderstood what you saying. I thought you were disagreeing with the article on that basis, rather than disagreeing with the objection that was being presented to Brad. Thanks for the clarification. On that basis we are in agreement. (bliss)

Great. Big hugs.

Care to discuss any of the concerns I've broached? Would you like me to summarize them again?

 

[mmksparbud]

Here's a curious thing, Carl. (several things actually)
There are three place in which every knee will bow and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord. I have bolded the third one. (see Phil.2:11 below)
Now read the definition of "acknowledge" at the bottom of this post.
What do you make of that?

Philippians 2:10-11
that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
in heaven and on earth and under the earth,
11 and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
to the glory of God the Father.

1 Corinthians 12:3
Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says,
“Jesus be cursed,” and no one can say, “Jesus is Lord,” except by the Holy Spirit.

Romans 14:9
For this very reason, Christ died and returned to life so that
he might be the Lord of both the dead and the living.

Romans 10:9
If you declare with your mouth, “Jesus is Lord,” and believe in your heart
that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.

Note on "acknowledge" in Philippians 2:11
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).

acknowledge
verb
Save Word
To save this word, you'll need to log in.

Log In

ac·knowl·edge | \ ik-ˈnä-lij , ak- \
acknowledged; acknowledging
Definition of acknowledge


transitive verb

1 : to recognize the rights, authority, or status of They acknowledged him as their leader.
2 : to disclose knowledge of or agreement with She readily acknowledged her mistake.
3a : to express gratitude or obligation for acknowledge a gift
b : to take notice of failed to acknowledge my greeting
c : to make known the receipt of acknowledge a letter
4 : to recognize as genuine or valid acknowledge a debt
Synonyms & Antonyms Choose the Right Synonym More Example Sentences Learn More about acknowledge
Synonyms & Antonyms for acknowledge
Synonyms

• admit,
• agree,
• allow,
• concede,
• confess,
• fess (up),
• grant,
• own (up to)

Antonyms

• deny

Visit the Thesaurus for More
Choose the Right Synonym for acknowledge
acknowledge, admit, own, avow, confess mean to disclose against one's will or inclination. acknowledge implies the disclosing of something that has been or might be concealed. acknowledged an earlier peccadillo admit implies reluctance to disclose, grant, or concede and refers usually to facts rather than their implications. admitted the project was over budget own implies acknowledging something in close relation to oneself. must own I know little about computers avow implies boldly declaring, often in the face of hostility, what one might be expected to be silent about. avowed that he was a revolutionary confess may apply to an admission of a weakness, failure, omission, or guilt. confessed a weakness for sweets

To acknowledge does not mean you do so with a repentant heart.

 

[Saint Steven]

Right back at you, Steven. The entirety of that post was off-topic in your own op.

Horrors. Am I not god of my own OP ???
I should be able to do as I please, right?

Isn't that how the god-thing works according to Damnationists and Annihilationists? God can BBQ you because... well, who's going to stop him?

 

[Saint Steven]

Great. Big hugs.

Care to discuss any of the concerns I've broached? Would you like me to summarize them again?

If summarizing includes condensing, that would be great. Thanks.
Otherwise... Zzzzzzzzz… TL/DR

 

[LostMarbels]

I agree that this is a common understanding. But I don't agree that it is true. Jesus came to give us abundant life. If you don't have that, he is the source. Simple as that.

We had 'abundant life' in the garden. What happened? And how does God plan to restore that life to us?

(for lack of a better term)

I simply couldn't care less about semantics, as long as the meaning referenced is readily understood. No need to keep doing that.

Hell (for lack of a better term) is not the punishment for being "bad". (for lack of a better term)
And heaven is not the reward for being "good". (for lack of a better term)

(for lack of a better term) No kidding.....

The main issue is relational. The restoration of a broken relationship with God.This is God's long-term plan. A restored relationship with humanity and a restored creation. All things will be made new.

I agree. A relationship is the main purpose. One does not however get to write off everything they find offensive, just because it playcates to their sensibilities. This place of torment and punishment is taught by Christ himself in the gospels. If Christ spoke about it, as his follower, it stands to reason I am to follow suit.

Statistically speaking (don't ask for the data, I don't have it, this is my understanding of what is being said by Brad Jersak here) a person is MORE likely to reject faith in Christ if the threat of hell is part of the presentation. So... (read quote below)

Saint Steven said: ↑
So, if you are truly afraid that people will go to hell, DO NOT tell them about it.

Jesus and his gospel is a rejected capstone, that became the cornerstone of salvation, and stubs toes. People constantly walk into it, and find it offensive. This is where not being ashamed of the gospel comes into play for me.