Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Hmm]

Presumably God would have foreseen that the vagueness in the Bible about heaven and hell would lead to different interpretations and the arguments we see today about Infernalism, Annihalism and Universalism.

Did He have a good reason for keeping things so undefined?

Mark 4:11-12 seems to suggest so when it talks about why Jesus used parables:

11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables, 12 in order that
‘they may indeed look but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ ”
​

Is it a deliberate ploy intended to make us reflect on these things as honestly as we can?

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth?

Would it have been impossible for Him to have been clearer because our natural fear of the unknown, of "that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Shakespeare), would have led us to interpret His words to conjure up the infernalist vision of something like ECT whatever He had said? The purpose of such a vision would be to justify and authenticate our fears to ourselves.

Or are there other reasons?

This is quite a gloomy topic but the the Good News is that God comes to find us in our misunderstanding and fear and brings us home. This is the universalist vision.

 

[public hermit]

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth

I'm inclined to think the ambiguity is related to God's desire that we live the life now. What's that old quip? Christians are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good.

 

[Hmm]

Christians are so heavenly minded they're no earthly good.

Love it!

 

[d taylor]

Why would a believer want to put effort/thought into a place (lake of fire) they are not going.

Not sure if you realize, heaven is not the final place a believer will spend eternity. It will be on the new earth.

Some believers will never go to heaven.

 

[Hmm]

It will be on the new earth.

Looking at your signature, is this going to be flat too?

 

[chevyontheriver]

Presumably God would have foreseen that the vagueness in the Bible about heaven and hell would lead to different interpretations and the arguments we see today about Infernalism, Annihalism and Universalism.

Did He have a good reason for keeping things so undefined?

Mark 4:11-12 seems to suggest so when it talks about why Jesus used parables:

11 And he said to them, “To you has been given the secret of the kingdom of God, but for those outside everything comes in parables, 12 in order that
‘they may indeed look but not perceive,
and may indeed hear but not understand;
so that they may not turn again and be forgiven.’ ”
​

Is it a deliberate ploy intended to make us reflect on these things as honestly as we can?

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth?

Would it have been impossible for Him to have been clearer because our natural fear of the unknown, of "that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveler returns" (Shakespeare), would have led us to interpret His words to conjure up the infernalist vision of something like ECT whatever He had said? The purpose of such a vision would be to justify and authenticate our fears to ourselves.

Or are there other reasons?

This is quite a gloomy topic but the the Good News is that God comes to find us in our misunderstanding and fear and brings us home. This is the universalist vision.

Scripture is not a book of systematic theology. Treating it as a book of systematic theology leads to confusion among those who try to force that. True there are some chapters here and there which are systematic theology but over all it is not. Treating it as a whole work of systematic theology is a misuse of Scripture.

Scripture was intended to be used in and among the community of believers, always in continuity with that community of believers over time. Going solo is another misuse of Scripture.

 

[Saint Steven]

Why would a believer want to put effort/thought into a place (lake of fire) they are not going.

Not sure if you realize, heaven is not the final place a believer will spend eternity. It will be on the new earth.

Some believers will never go to heaven.

This seems to confirm the topic question. (thanks)
It adds yet another place to the list. (which is fine)

What are your thoughts on the new earth where we are going?
What is that about? Who ends up there? Who doesn't?

 

[Saint Steven]

Going solo is another misuse of Scripture.

What do you mean "Going solo"?

 

[Saint Steven]

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth?

Good topic, thanks.
This question, quoted above, caught my eye.

Seems to be exactly what happened. The emphasis on an eternal destiny became the primary driver of the church.

There was a topic a while back where the question was asked: "If there was no afterlife, would you still follow Jesus?" (something like that) I was shocked at the majority response. A firm and resounding, "No. With no afterlife it would be pointless." (something like that)

No value was seen in a right relationship with God, in the here and now, if there was no "reward" of heaven.

To that end the church has labels. The "lost", the "saved", the "Elect", predestination, etc. Us and them.

 

[chevyontheriver]

What do you mean "Going solo"?

Using Scripture to derive teachings outside of the community of faith over time. Particularly the worst abuses of Sola Scriptura where through clever wordplay novel doctrines are proposed contrary to St. Victor’s maxim about what was believed everywhere, by all, over time.

 

[Saint Steven]

Did He have a good reason for keeping things so undefined?

I blame the confusion on humankind, not on God. The translators put their own bias on the texts, which led to a mess that we have to sort out.

And perhaps we aren't supposed to sort it out. God is not limited to a biblical text when he wants to speak to us. And frankly, how could he when the translation is such a mess? When reading/studying, we need to let God speak through the text.

We are so caught up in hairsplitting words, and "learning" apologetics, that we miss the boat entirely. Where is the critical thinking?

1 Corinthians 2:13 NIV
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words.

 

[Saint Steven]

Using Scripture to derive teachings outside of the community of faith over time. Particularly the worst abuses of Sola Scriptura where through clever wordplay novel doctrines are proposed contrary to St. Victor’s maxim about what was believed everywhere, by all, over time.

Thank you.
On this basis, do you dismiss all of Protestantism?
Where do we go from here?

 

[RDKirk]

Good topic, thanks.
This question, quoted above, caught my eye.

Seems to be exactly what happened. The emphasis on an eternal destiny became the primary driver of the church.

There was a topic a while back where the question was asked: "If there was no afterlife, would you still follow Jesus?" (something like that) I was shocked at the majority response. A firm and resounding, "No. With no afterlife it would be pointless." (something like that)

No value was seen in a right relationship with God, in the here and now, if there was no "reward" of heaven.

I think there is a difference. It's like asking a soldier, "Would you want to fight and kill or be killed in a war that would have no end and no reason?"

 

[Andrewn]

Presumably God would have foreseen that the vagueness in the Bible about heaven and hell would lead to different interpretations and the arguments we see today about Infernalism, Annihalism and Universalism.

1Ti 2:4 Who desires all people to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

2Pe 3:9 The Lord is not slow in keeping His promise, as some consider slowness.Rather, He is being patient toward you—not wanting anyone to perish, but for all to come to repentance.

From previous discussions, I've come to see the choices as follows:

1) God's true desire is that only few people be saved (Calvinism).

2) God's desire is that all people be saved but He cannot accomplish this because of people's free will (most Christianity).

3) God's desire is that all people be saved and He will accomplish this (UR).

Is it a deliberate ploy intended to make us reflect on these things as honestly as we can?

Or was it because that Jesus didn't want us to think too much about heaven and hell but instead to focus on living a Godly life while on earth?

It is probably a deliberate plan to make us reflect on heaven and avoid gloomy hell regardless of what it may be truly like.

 

[Mark Quayle]

God gives us more specific knowledge than our 'concrete'-thinking minds want to acknowledge. At seeing it fulfilled, what seems to us now as perhaps a riddle of riddles, I believe, we will in Heaven figuratively 'smack our foreheads' in happy amazement, thinking, "It was right there in front of me, in plain language! I should have seen it!"

Most things of Scripture are "spiritually discerned", by which I don't mean they are not plainly stated or clearly understandable, but that there are larger truths to them, hidden to us by our own blindness and ignorance (I don't say that to our shame (nor am I claiming it is not shameful), but as a simple fact), that we will not fully know until we get there, and see him as he is.

One huge hint: This life, (AND THE NEXT), is about Christ, and not about us and not about any one of the things we look into, and desire to understand so badly, thinking he has not sufficiently described it. For more directly applicable information, see John 17, for starters, and Genesis 1 and the beginning of John 1, and the last two chapters of Revelation (21 and 22) (and the rest of Scripture, for that matter!).

 

[Saint Steven]

From previous discussions, I've come to see the choices as follows:

1) God's true desire is that only few people be saved (Calvinism).

2) God's desire is that all people be saved but He cannot accomplish this because of people's free will (most Christianity).

3) God's desire is that all people be saved and He will accomplish this (UR).

That's a great way to break it down to the essence.
And it seems to me that each view is built on a presupposition.
A chosen, or inherited, lens to view everything through.

 

[Saint Steven]

[QUOTE="Mark Quayle, post: 76764176, member: 410020"God gives us more specific knowledge than our 'concrete'-thinking minds want to acknowledge. At seeing it fulfilled, what seems to us now as perhaps a riddle of riddles, I believe, we will in Heaven figuratively 'smack our foreheads' in happy amazement, thinking, "It was right there in front of me, in plain language! I should have seen it!"

]Most things of Scripture are "spiritually discerned", by which I don't mean they are not plainly stated or clearly understandable, but that there are larger truths to them, hidden to us by our own blindness and ignorance (I don't say that to our shame (nor am I claiming it is not shameful), but as a simple fact), that we will not fully know until we get there, and see him as he is.[/QUOTE]
Thanks.
On that basis, how important is it for us to "get it right"? (since we won't really know until we get there)

 

[chevyontheriver]

Thank you.
On this basis, do you dismiss all of Protestantism?
Where do we go from here?

Not at all.

Sola Scriptura has a conglomeration of different meanings depending on who you talk to. I would dump it as counter-productive and start over. Because nobody actually functions without tradition, even if they loudly proclaim they follow no tradition. Those who most loudly proclaim they have no tradition seem to me to be among the greatest abusers of the meaning of Scripture.

I would replace it with Prima Scriptura, which is what the more traditional Protestants are actually trying to practice. And what seems to be the Catholic position found in Dei Verbum from Vatican II.

Sola Scriptura is a kludge. It isn’t found in Scripture. It isn’t historical. Luther invented it so he could claim some authority for himself against the Church. But then the Peasants Revolt claimed it against Luther and he wasn’t so pleased. It has been the principle for fracturing Christianity ever since.

That does not invalidate all of Protestantism. It does mean that Protestantism needs to work on its foundation. Semper reformanda. That’s a good Protestant principle stolen from Catholicism. It’s time for some more rounds of successive approximation, so we all point in the same direction. We all have some realignment to do.

Christianity is in a mess at the moment. We are caving in to the spirit of this age. If we are to stand we need each other to hold each other up. The goal should be to go with Scripture first, and to find that in accord with St. Vincent of Lerins. It will look more Catholic than some would like. It would satisfy what Protestants wanted in the first place.

I said Christianity is in a mess. This particular mess is far bigger than the Reformation. We all fall, Catholic and Orthodox and Protestant in a matter of years, or we can become a coherent remnant standing as a witness to Christ offering the world it’s last alternative to destruction.

Prima Scriptura (Scripture First) and not Solo Scriptura (naked Scripture out of all historical context)

 

[d taylor]

This seems to confirm the topic question. (thanks)
It adds yet another place to the list. (which is fine)

What are your thoughts on the new earth where we are going?
What is that about? Who ends up there? Who doesn't?

Not much is said in The Bible, but i am guessing it will be like this earth, because as this current earth was fashioned for humans. I believe the next earth created will also be for human habitation.

Who ends up there, people who have received God's free gift of Eternal Life, by trusting/believing in The Messiah for God's free gift of Eternal Life.

Now in the end, who will that be, who has trusted in the Messiah. Well i really can not say, will the person who never in their life, heard of The Messiah so they can trust in Him. What does God do with these people. Could He resurrect them during the millennium and give them a chance to believe ??

The Rapture and the Age of Accountability – Grace Evangelical Society

 

[d taylor]

Looking at your signature, is this going to be flat too?

Why should the new earth be different than the current creation.