What if you’re wrong about hell?

[Saint Steven]

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.

I like peccadillo. (grounds for annihilation?)
I wouldn't have thought of it without the research help.

 

[Saint Steven]

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

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

I don't believe in "hell", but I can't talk about it without using the word.

 

[Ricky M]

What is your definition/description of "hell"?

Our universe is made up at the subatomic level with clusters of like charged particles, which science tells us should naturally repel each other. They call the unknown factor that keeps it all from exploding "the strong force". There are several theories as to the source of this ‘strong force’, including God’s claim that He holds it all together. Now, on that theory, God claims He spoke this universe into being out of nothingness - while science says out of nothingness, kaboom there it is. Are those really 2 different stories?

And then there’s dark matter/energy. Scientific estimates vary, but they hover around the theory that 90% of what makes up the universe, we can’t see, except for how it affects the things we can see. God says there is another realm that we can’t see, other than how it affects what we can see. And He wants His 10% back. Again, are these really unrelated?

God also says that someday He will speak this universe out of existence. Paul describes that moment, saying the elements will melt with fervent heat (2 Peter 3:7, 10, 12). Think of what results when the atom is split – intense heat and fire.

Now, the interesting thing is, that we don’t see the lake of fire (hell) appear until right after this present earth and heavens are de-created.

Could it be that the de-creation of our world creates the lake of fire?

Could it be that God lets those who loved this world more than Him, have it in its natural state apart from Him?

 

[Saint Steven]

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.

This is where the translation issues come into play. The Bible is a Damnationist text. Thus making the other views more difficult to prove BIBLICALLY. The word "hell" should not even be in the Bible. And it has since been removed in many translations.

 

[Saint Steven]

This is where not being ashamed of the gospel comes into play for me.

It seems to me that the good news is woefully absent in the gospel of Damnationism.
Accept the free gift of eternal life and be saved. Saved from what? The eternal BBQ pit.
Sounds like a gangster offer. One that you can't refuse.

 

[SarahsKnight]

Whatever it is, it's a problem you have with Jesus, and not those who preach the same as He did!

Love this generic, vague, shutdown tactic:
"If you disagree with my personal doctrine, you go against God!"

Good way to get the weaker-minded brethren who seek the truth to stop pursuing and asking questions.

 

[Josheb]

I recall you saying the article was flawed several times and that you are an Annihilationist.

Not at all. Most of the errors I see have nothing to do with my personal view of hell.

The premise Jersak is responsible for people going to hell because his view of hell might be wrong is absurd on its face. It is, as I stated, a false-cause argument. His view of hell is not at fault for people going there. His "accuser" is wrong and that accusation is incorrect no matter what my view of hell is or isn't.

And there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get a plain and simple agreement on what is verifiably a fallacious argument against Jersak.

Since that fallacy is easily addressed the labor expended in the article seems overwrought and that too has nothing to do with my view of hell. Note the fallacy for what it is and move on to the greater concerns. As you yourself have stated, that is the basis of his article. Why? Why would a fallacy be the basis of an article that doesn't note the fallacy? I don't have to be an annihilationist to see that.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to ask about the relevance of a given century.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to ask about the implication there is more than one gospel.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to question the juxtaposition of love and fear, especially if an appeal to emption is intended.

Anyone, no matter their position on hell, can observe a false dichotomy when they see it. Same thing is true and valid when observing appeals to emotion. Any poster here could have made that observation.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to point out Jersak's idea of a "Jesus-composed model" is in conflict, if not overtly contradicted, by Jesus confrontational approach in many episodes recorded in the gospels, such as Matthew 23.

My being an annihilationist does speak Jersak's concerns about endless torture, but no one else has to be an annihilationist to discuss those concerns.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to note the traditional Reformed perspective God is glorified in both justness and grace so there is therefore a basis for accepting both hell and salvation as divine mandates. And no one has to take any given position on hell to discuss this long-held and well-established position of the Church. It is, in fact, historically led to a position slightly different than my own.

Neither do I have to be an annihilationist to appeal to Romans 9, even if I do take a slight liberty with the text that is specifically about Israel and apply it to the nature of God and hell.



In short, I've broached several valid op-relevant concerns.

I don't have much of an appetite for argument.

Then take a look at your own posts because the only one arguing is you. You're on record misreading what I wrote. Glad to read you recognizing and acknowledging that mistake. Big hugs.

Now can we get back to the op? You've got a list of things to address. Discuss them. Don't argue. Discuss. Live with integrity to your own self-stated standards. You do that and we won't have any problems.


Let's start simple: If you could state Jersak's thesis in a single sentence what do you think that would be. If he means to assert two ideas then give me two thesis statements.

And tell me what your purpose in quoting Jersak's article is.




No arguing required.

 

[Saint Steven]

Could it be that the de-creation of our world creates the lake of fire?

Could it be that God lets those who loved this world more than Him, have it in its natural state apart from Him?

On a scale of 1 to 10, with ten being the highest, how would you rate that plan?
The vast majority of those created in your image abandoned to what exactly?
Could Abba really be that cruel?

 

[Saint Steven]

The premise Jersak is responsible for people going to hell because his view of hell might be wrong is absurd on its face. It is, as I stated, a false-cause argument. His view of hell is not at fault for people going there. His "accuser" is wrong and that accusation is incorrect no matter what my view of hell is or isn't.

And there's no reason I shouldn't be able to get a plain and simple agreement on what is verifiably a fallacious argument against Jersak.

I agree.

 

[Josheb]

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

Preaching to the choir, Steven. I've repeatedly stated this is your op; what are you doing with it because it isn't actually being discussed relevant to what folks bring to bear upon it. Are you able to as you please with your own op or not? Are you able to discuss it?

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?

Snotty comments do not a discussion make. Neither do conflations. Neither do straw men (annihilationists do not believe in a divine BBQ).

 

[Saint Steven]

Since that fallacy is easily addressed the labor expended in the article seems overwrought and that too has nothing to do with my view of hell. Note the fallacy for what it is and move on to the greater concerns. As you yourself have stated, that is the basis of his article. Why? Why would a fallacy be the basis of an article that doesn't note the fallacy? I don't have to be an annihilationist to see that.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to ask about the relevance of a given century.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to ask about the implication there is more than one gospel.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to question the juxtaposition of love and fear, especially if an appeal to emption is intended.

I think this has been addressed.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't have to be an annihilationist to question the juxtaposition of love and fear, especially if an appeal to emption is intended.

Anyone, no matter their position on hell, can observe a false dichotomy when they see it. Same thing is true and valid when observing appeals to emotion. Any poster here could have made that observation.

I don't have to be an annihilationist to point out Jersak's idea of a "Jesus-composed model" is in conflict, if not overtly contradicted, by Jesus confrontational approach in many episodes recorded in the gospels, such as Matthew 23.

I think Jersak would say that Jesus is misunderstood in that regard. But, I'm speaking for someone else here.

 

[Saint Steven]

I don't have to be an annihilationist to note the traditional Reformed perspective God is glorified in both justness and grace so there is therefore a basis for accepting both hell and salvation as divine mandates. And no one has to take any given position on hell to discuss this long-held and well-established position of the Church. It is, in fact, historically led to a position slightly different than my own.

The Church is the Latin/western church.
The doctrines of the Church that canonized our Bible did not align with many in the eastern church. Restorationism is not a modern notion. It was a common belief of the early church in the east.

 

[Josheb]

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

Okay.

The premise Jersak is responsible for people going to hell because his view of hell might be wrong is absurd on its face. It is, as I stated, a false-cause argument. His view of hell is not at fault for people going there. His "accuser" is wrong and that accusation is incorrect no matter what my view of hell is or isn't.

Since that fallacy is easily addressed the labor expended in the article seems overwrought and that too has nothing to do with my view of hell. Note the fallacy for what it is and move on to the greater concerns.

What is the relevance of a given century?

He writes "that gospel," and "which gospel," implying there is more than one gospel. This is incorrect; there are not multiple gospels. If this is intended to conflate the gospel of salvation with a given perspective on hell then that's a falsehood.

Why the juxtaposition of love and fear, especially if an appeal to emotion is intended?

Jersak's idea of a "Jesus-composed model" is in conflict, if not overtly contradicted, by Jesus confrontational approach in many episodes recorded in the gospels, such as Matthew 23.

The traditional Reformed perspective God is glorified in both justness and grace so there is therefore a basis for accepting both hell and salvation as divine mandates.​

I might have broached other concerns but this should be enough to give you something to discuss without arguing.

 

[LostMarbels]

I don't believe in "hell", but I can't talk about it without using the word.

Jesus. God’s Son was the Greatest 'theologian' of hell there was. (To put into terms.)

In the parable of lazarus we learn there is no exit, and no one can travel between the living and the dead, nor heaven or hell. There is a great gulf affixed.

We are told in many scriptures we have been given 'sufficient warning' to keep from going to hell.

Jesus even explains once you are dead, you no longer have the ability to accept him or his gospel. I believe in Luke 16 it is explained that at the moment of death, it is already too late to beg for mercy.

Damnationism

Forgive me. I do not practice, or reconise the authority of this construct. Man's rational is not enough for me to base my understanding. Including my own.

This is where the translation issues come into play. The Bible is a Damnationist text. Thus making the other views more difficult to prove BIBLICALLY. The word "hell" should not even be in the Bible. And it has since been removed in many translations.

Stop getting stuck on the word. The bible teaches of a place that is reality. It doesn't matter what it is called. It exists. Christ said so. We don't want to go there.

It seems to me that the good news is woefully absent in the gospel of Damnationism.

I tend to follow and advocate the gospel of Christ. A man made construct is woefully inadequate.

Accept the free gift of eternal life and be saved. Saved from what? The eternal BBQ pit.
Sounds like a gangster offer. One that you can't refuse.

Truth is, we are created beings. We literally have no options except what has been presented to us. Accept, or don't accept. We have no say in what offer is presented. That is the offer that has been given to us by our creator. And you most certainly can refuse.

 

[mmksparbud]

I like peccadillo. (grounds for annihilation?)
I wouldn't have thought of it without the research help.

Jas 4:17 Therefore to him that knoweth to do good, and doeth it not, to him it is sin.

If you have been convicted of something by the Holy Spirit and you reject it---then you are in sin.

 

[Saint Steven]

Let's start simple: If you could state Jersak's thesis in a single sentence what do you think that would be. If he means to assert two ideas then give me two thesis statements.

It seems that the introduction handles that.
The main objection to Restorationism is that, if it is wrong, those misled by it will end up in hell. A fallacy which you have already addressed. Brad gives bullet points after that. I would need to return to the article to list them.

 

[Josheb]

The Church is the Latin/western church.
The doctrines of the Church that canonized our Bible did not align with many in the eastern church. Restorationism is not a modern notion. It was a common belief of the early church in the east.

Great point. However, the Reformed perspective is not the Latin perspective and the "doctrines of the Church that canonized our Bible" preceded the "eastern church" and certainly preceded the Schism.

You've got the cart before the horse.

You're also ignoring the op and Jersak's article. Jersak is writing post-Latin, post-schism, post reformation about "Christianity without religion" and the contemporary conditions he's faced.

If you mean the discussion of this op to be a moratorium on the Orthodox view of hell then you ought to state that explicitly. You are, after all, the god of your own op and I have asked several times for you to clarify the purpose of your own op.


The fact remains: there are scriptural and logical problems in Jersak's article that have nothing to do with Latin, the east, the reformation, or my being an annihilationist. The only reason I even mentioned my pov was to establish I am not a fan of the endless-torture pov (so there's no op-relevant reason to fixate on that).

 

[Saint Steven]

In the parable of lazarus we learn there is no exit, and no one can travel between the living and the dead, nor heaven or hell. There is a great gulf affixed.

That isn't even hell. The rich man's brothers are still alive. When does "hell" come into the eschatological picture?

 

[Saint Steven]

Great point. However, the Reformed perspective is not the Latin perspective and the "doctrines of the Church that canonized our Bible" preceded the "eastern church" and certainly preceded the Schism.

You've got the cart before the horse.

It seems the church expanded from the east to the west. Who has it backwards?