Why is scripture so fuzzy about heaven and hell?

[Saint Steven]

... 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 ??

That's a very important question. Thanks.
This parenthetical statement is very interesting in light of that.

Romans 2:14-15 NIV
(Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

 

[Saint Steven]

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

I wonder about the size of the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:15 and following)
How big would the earth need to be to support such a structure? And it is taller than our current atmosphere. (dome, as you say?)

 

[Maria Billingsley]

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.

It is not about heaven or hell, it is about The Kingdom of God. This is what Jesus Christ of Nazareth preached about over and over, His Kingdom and our part in it.
Blessings.

 

[BobRyan]

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?

Everything in the Bible is questioned, doubted, alternate views etc..

If the Bible says God did something in 7 days - literal evenings and mornings - Genesis 1 -- then many Christians will say "oh no that does not mean what it says..."

It does not get any easier than that.

So the fact that many varied points of view exist - does not mean that it is not plain in the Bible.

 

[d taylor]

I wonder about the size of the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:15 and following)
How big would the earth need to be to support such a structure? And it is taller than our current atmosphere. (dome, as you say?)

Well from a plane earth perspective, how far does land extend beyond what has been name Antarctica.

As the bottomless pit has not end, as God states Have you comprehended the breadth of the earth? Tell Me, if you know all this.

The New Jerusalem ( a perfect squared cube) fits perfectly fine on God true creation.

But not so well on sciences fabricated earth

​

 

[Der Alte]

@Hmm
Scripture is not fuzzy about heaven and hell. Certain religious groups inject doubt into the subject because they choose to believe that there is no "Hell" no "eternal punishment" etc.

 

[Hmm]

Everything in the Bible is questioned, doubted, alternate views etc..
...
It does not get any easier than that.

Do you find questioning things easy?

Or do you find it impossibly hard?

 

[Hmm]

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)

I agree and I'm a (reluctant) Protestant - I seem to use that qualifier more and more. The prognosis for the church as a whole seems pretty gloomy at the moment. Let's hope we can get our proverbial together before it's too late. Throwing out ECT categorically as the moral outrage it is is the first step in to reconnect to the wider world IMO.

 

[Hmm]

@Hmm
Scripture is not fuzzy about heaven and hell. Certain religious groups inject doubt into the subject because they choose to believe that there is no "Hell" no "eternal punishment" etc.

But I'm talking about scripture, where the word "hell" doesn't appear ( we have Sheol, Hades, Tartarus etc instead, all of which carry a different meaning), and neither does "eternal punishment" (Jesus said "kolasis aionios" which means an age-lasting correction). I'm not talking about (most but by no means all) English translations of scripture as I know you're aware from previous lectures sorry discussions.

 

[BobRyan]

Everything in the Bible is questioned, doubted, alternate views etc..

If the Bible says God did something in 7 days - literal evenings and mornings - Genesis 1 -- then many Christians will say "oh no that does not mean what it says..."

It does not get any easier than that.

So the fact that many varied points of view exist - does not mean that it is not plain in the Bible.

Do you find questioning things easy?
Or do you find it impossibly hard?

constantly doubting and questioning is pretty easy -- even a 5 year old can do it. But systematic learning and paying attention to details - now there is where success is found.

 

[BobRyan]

But I'm talking about scripture, where the word "hell" doesn't appear ( we have Sheol, Hades, Tartarus etc instead, all of which carry a different meaning), and neither does "eternal punishment"

ok agreed - but we see the term used to describe a place of torment and suffering which in Rev 20 is an event that happens on planet Earth after the 1000 years - according to scripture. Torment and suffering in what the Bible calls "a lake of fire" which apparently causes the world as we know it to "pass away" and is not merely the point where God "destroys both body and soul in hell" Matt 10:28

 

[chevyontheriver]

I agree and I'm a (reluctant) Protestant - I seem to use that qualifier more and more. The prognosis for the church as a whole seems pretty gloomy at the moment. Let's hope we can get our proverbial together before it's too late.

Early Protestants did have SOME things that they were right to complain about. About half of Luther's 95 Theses were on point from a Catholic perspective. My point is that what should have been a reform movement ended up an unending series of schismatic movements lasting now 505 years. All sides were to blame, and while the original issues are mostly solved it will take a lot of serious figuring to solve all of the new problems.

We hang separately unless we decide to hang together. So far, we are hanging separately.

Throwing out ECT categorically as the moral outrage it is is the first step in to reconnect to the wider world IMO.

ECT? Electro Convulsive Therapy? Evangelicals and Catholics Together? Something else? Sorry. I don't know what ECT you mean.

 

[Hmm]

constantly doubting and questioning is pretty easy -- even a 5 year old can do it. But systematic learning and paying attention to details - now there is where success is found.

Okay, so do you have an answer to the questions raised in the OP that demonstrates this "systematic learning and paying attention to detail" or are you merely reciting the words like a 4, or possibly a precocious 3, year old?

 

[Tom 1]

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.

Ideas about an afterlife changed a lot over the time the bible was written.

 

[Hmm]

Early Protestants did have SOME things that they were right to complain about. About half of Luther's 95 Theses were on point from a Catholic perspective. My point is that what should have been a reform movement ended up an unending series of schismatic movements lasting now 505 years. All sides were to blame, and while the original issues are mostly solved it will take a lot of serious figuring to solve all of the new problems.

We hang separately unless we decide to hang together. So far, we are hanging separately.

ECT? Electro Convulsive Therapy? Evangelicals and Catholics Together? Something else? Sorry. I don't know what ECT you mean.

Makes sense.

By ECT I mean "Eternal Conscious Torment", a PC infernalist term for what used to be known as eternal torture back in the good old days.

They'd probably accept Electro-Convulsive Therapy but almost certainly not Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

 

[chevyontheriver]

But I'm talking about scripture, where the word "hell" doesn't appear ( we have Sheol, Hades, Tartarus etc instead, all of which carry a different meaning), and neither does "eternal punishment" (Jesus said "kolasis aionios" which means an age-lasting correction). I'm not talking about (most but by no means all) English translations of scripture as I know you're aware from previous lectures sorry discussions.

Israel was late in figuring out the specifics of the afterlife. So we didn't have a complete view in the OT and it isn't totally complete even in the NT. And of course the situation changed at the death and resurrection of Jesus anyway. Which makes a Sola Scriptura understanding of the afterlife kind of difficult.

The Jews pray for their dead, just as Catholics and the Orthodox do. Apparently Jews and Catholics and Orthodox see some benefit for doing so. Catholics took this into account in the idea of purgatory. The Jews have not defined such a thing but do not contradict it. The Orthodox want nothing to do with purgatory because if is Catholic, but functionally they pray for the dead as if there was a purgatory. The Catholic idea is that those who die in Christ but still need some polishing are polished there and admitted to heaven when they are ready.

When considering an eschatology, do consider that the Biblical eschatology is not all the way complete. And that prayers for the dead and even purgatory can fit into a more complete eschatology. Those might even make more sense of what Scripture provides than any hard and fast denial of either.

OT - partial first steps toward an eschatology
NT - incomplete eschatology
Patristic - more elements understood by the Church

 

[chevyontheriver]

Makes sense.

By ECT I mean "Eternal Conscious Torment", a PC infernalist term for what used to be known as eternal torture back in the good old days.

They'd probably accept Electro-Convulsive Therapy though but almost certainly not Evangelicals and Catholics Together.

Thank you for the clarification. I should maybe have guessed, but for the life of me I couldn't.

I subscribe to more of an eternally and deliberately chosen cold exclusion from the love of God. God does not torment those he loves, but when they choose to go without God it is a hard and ultimately loveless choice, which may end up causing some regret, but not enough to want to accept fellowship with God.

While I can hope that such a hell is empty, I suspect it will not be, having already been populated with those who told God 'non serviam'. It's a common enough statement even today. I take them at their word even while I hope they change their tune.

 

[BobRyan]

I wonder about the size of the New Jerusalem. (Revelation 21:15 and following)
How big would the earth need to be to support such a structure? And it is taller than our current atmosphere. (dome, as you say?)

depends on whether the size includes the foundation and whether that foundation is where foundations normally are -- below the surface.

Given that the wall around the city is only 216 feet high - it appears that most of the vertical 1500 miles for that cube ends up below the surface once it embeds itself into the Earth - with the wall near the top being the point where the city is above ground.

An "easy solution" some would say - but I don't mind the solution being easy.

 

[Hmm]

Thank you for the clarification. I should maybe have guessed, but for the life of me I couldn't.

I subscribe to more of an eternally and deliberately chosen cold exclusion from the love of God. God does not torment those he loves, but when they choose to go without God it is a hard and ultimately loveless choice, which may end up causing some regret, but not enough to want to accept fellowship with God.

While I can hope that such a hell is empty, I suspect it will not be, having already been populated with those who told God 'non serviam'. It's a common enough statement even today. I take them at their word even while I hope they change their tune.

That make me feel pretty safe, thanks!, because the chances of me ever saying 'non serviam' is pretty remote - I had to copy and paste it because I couldn't remember it even for a couple of seconds!

Just to try to give a universalist response to the free will question you raise, I think the idea is that if we haven't responded positively to God in this life, He won't just give up on us but He'll remain the Good Shepherd and continue to recover us in the next. If we're created in the image of God, however bad we are in this life, we can only tarnish and occlude the image, not destroy it completely, so God will always be able to work on us, or woo us perhaps more accurately, and remove all the delusions we have that are keeping us from Him, and once we see Him more clearly, we'll gladly embrace Him out of love. This is the purification of the Lake of Fire etc. Removing our delusions and pride will probably hurt like fire, just like removing a tooth does, but it's done out of love, as is hopefully the case with our dentist, and as we get to know God better this burning fire will gradually be experienced as warmth and light.

The presumption, of course, is that our death on earth is not the end of our relationship with God.

 

[ViaCrucis]

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.

At the end of the day the Bible really doesn't concern itself much with the subject of life after death. As I've heard N.T. Wright often say, the Bible is far more concerned with life after life after death. Resurrection and the renewal of all creation. It is that hope that is brought into our present through faith that we operate and live in the here and now of the world as disciples of Jesus through love.

"Now these three remain: Faith, hope, and love."

-CryptoLutheran