Why people reject the reality of Hell

[PuerAzaelis]

Indeed. But as it happens Taylor’s view is that this decline must be understood in a very complex series of conditions. Unless we understand the conditions we’ll continue to merely bombard each side instead of make real progress.

 

[David's Harp]

Indeed. But as it happens Taylor’s view is that this decline must be understood in a very complex series of conditions.

Oh, it's always very complex with these philosophers isn't it? A far cry from the simple Faith we are called to:

2 Corinthians 1:12
"For our rejoicing is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our conversation in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward."

[EDIT]: I've been regretting the first sentence that I wrote in this post. It isn't always so. Thanks to PuerAzaelis for helping to bring me a conviction on this. I'll leave it as it stands to show my error.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

As you say.

 

[P1LGR1M]

On the older view, wrath had to be part of the package. The sense of salvation was inseparable from that of our having fallen, being degraded. This in turn was inseparable from that of deserving punishment; deserved punishment has to be meted out. God owes this to his honour, [...]. So some people fry in Hell; and the others are only saved because Christ offered “satisfaction” for them. This was the heart of the juridical-penal understanding of the atonement.

But in the anthropocentric climate, this no longer makes sense, and indeed, appears monstrous.

Do you mind if I ask you, are you the author of this?

I'd also like to ask, as a Catholic, do you feel that the concept of "God owes it to His honor" to judge men? Does Scripture present God as being Just to the extent that He will not allow sin to go unpunished?

Do you take the view, "...some fry in Hell (interesting phrase, by the way); and others are only saved because Christ offered "Satisfaction" for them?"

Does God judging men in the everlasting terms He used when He taught about the judgment of those that know not God and obey not the Gospel (as He has commanded)—seem monstrous to you?


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Indeed. But as it happens Taylor’s view is that this decline must be understood in a very complex series of conditions. Unless we understand the conditions we’ll continue to merely bombard each side instead of make real progress.

The only real progress that is made in discussions like these on forums like this is when those who discuss and debate these issues are able to be honest about the discussion and debate. Because there is no real accountability imposed for the presentations and members are allowed, without rebuke, to represent that which is in direct conflict with the Word of God—those members are allowed to remain in their error.

This is not according to the guidelines we have been given as the Body of Christ. There is to be discipline and order, and what we see on all forums is chaos and lack of discipline.

If the Body of Christ were to be obedient to that which we are commanded to do there would be far less discord in the Body.

Those presenting philosophies easily shown to be in error do not demonstrate a willingness to seek truth, but to proof-text their own brand of "Christian" doctrine. Because they are encouraged to do so, and are not rebuked by those they might credit authority to, and are not held accountable for their teachings—false doctrine thrives.

And while it might seem to be a waste of time to debate and discuss these issues, for some that will read these discussions there will be a reasoned response to the discussions and debates, and they will be armed to do battle with those who toss out Church Discipline and engage in rogue doctrines that have been rejected for Millennia.

God bless.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Do you mind if I ask you, are you the author of this?

I'd also like to ask, as a Catholic, do you feel that the concept of "God owes it to His honor" to judge men? Does Scripture present God as being Just to the extent that He will not allow sin to go unpunished?

Do you take the view, "...some fry in Hell (interesting phrase, by the way); and others are only saved because Christ offered "Satisfaction" for them?"

Does God judging men in the everlasting terms He used when He taught about the judgment of those that know not God and obey not the Gospel (as He has commanded)—seem monstrous to you?


God bless.

I'm not Professor Charles Taylor.

At the moment I tend to the view that God indeed punishes, but like Karl Barth, I am a hopeful universalist. That is, I can't put myself in a position to reach a definite conclusion, but I can allow myself to hope, like Barth, that at the end of days Hell may exist, but it is empty.

It seems to me that this is a middle position between hard universalism and those who are dead set against the decline of hell.

God's punishment, in other words, may not be sempiternal in the sense of lasting for an infinite period of time, but it may still last a very, very, very, very long time, until God's justice is quite satisfied.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

I have several questions. I may start new threads I don't want to hijack this one.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I have several questions. I may start new threads I don't want to hijack this one.

If they are relevant to the topic—ask away!

God bless.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

The only real progress that is made in discussions like these on forums like this is when those who discuss and debate these issues are able to be honest about the discussion and debate. Because there is no real accountability imposed for the presentations and members are allowed, without rebuke, to represent that which is in direct conflict with the Word of God—those members are allowed to remain in their error.

This is not according to the guidelines we have been given as the Body of Christ. There is to be discipline and order, and what we see on all forums is chaos and lack of discipline.

If the Body of Christ were to be obedient to that which we are commanded to do there would be far less discord in the Body.

Those presenting philosophies easily shown to be in error do not demonstrate a willingness to seek truth, but to proof-text their own brand of "Christian" doctrine. Because they are encouraged to do so, and are not rebuked by those they might credit authority to, and are not held accountable for their teachings—false doctrine thrives.

And while it might seem to be a waste of time to debate and discuss these issues, for some that will read these discussions there will be a reasoned response to the discussions and debates, and they will be armed to do battle with those who toss out Church Discipline and engage in rogue doctrines that have been rejected for Millennia.

God bless.

...

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm not Professor Charles Taylor.

Okay, just curious, lol.

At the moment I tend to the view that God indeed punishes, but like Karl Barth, I am a hopeful universalist. That is, I can't put myself in a position to reach a definite conclusion, but I can allow myself to hope, like Barth, that at the end of days Hell may exist, but it is empty.

Do you think there will be "a moment" in the future that you might decide Scripture does not teach that God will judge all men?

Do your (or my) "hopes" impact Bible Doctrine?

Let me just ask this: do see an everlasting condition for Gehenna Hell, the Lake of Fire, in the following words...

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

...?

And is it jumping to conclusions that since two men—the Antichrist and False Prophet—are cast into the Lake of Fire, that the conclusion both suffer the same fate is a realistic conclusion?

It seems to me that this is a middle position between hard universalism and those who are dead set against the decline of hell.

Again, I see it (as it was given) as sympathetic to "rethinking Hell."

God's punishment, in other words, may not be sempiternal in the sense of lasting for an infinite period of time, but it may still last a very, very, very, very long time, until God's justice is quite satisfied.

Again, what do the following words...

Revelation 20:10
And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

...seem to be saying?

And let me ask this: If Christ taught that there was sin that could not be forgiven, does that mean there is sin that cannot be forgiven, and if one's sin cannot be forgiven—what does that mean?


Mark 3:28-29
King James Version

28 Verily I say unto you, All sins shall be forgiven unto the sons of men, and blasphemies wherewith soever they shall blaspheme:

29 But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

...

You are welcome to point out the reason for your contempt for my statement.

And I will add that I appreciate you making my point for me.

God bless.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

Do you think there will be "a moment" in the future that you might decide Scripture does not teach that God will judge all men?

Do your (or my) "hopes" impact Bible Doctrine?

Let me just ask this ...

God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.

 

[P1LGR1M]

God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.

I can understand that.

None of us like the fact that men and women will reject God's will and go into Eternal Separation. That is why we preach and teach the Gospel, so that we might make an impact in the lives of those who are lost, who are blind to the Gospel.

But we have to remember that we cannot change hearts. Minds, yes, but hearts—only God can do that because He is the only one that enlightens the natural mind.


God bless.

 

[FineLinen]

No, He speaks of everlasting punishment no less than three times in Matthew 25.

There are no "two clean animals" spoken of, there is no unclean animal spoken of, and the five foolish virgins are cast out of the Kingdom where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out. They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins. They, however, are pure virgins!

Regarding the two clean animals, I suggest you concentrate your attention on the Old Covenant listing of clean & unclean animals. Both sheep & goats are clean animals!

These (clean animals & virgins) shall go into aionios kolasis.

 

[Der Alte]

...

The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out. They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins. They, however, are pure virgins!
Regarding the two clean animals, I suggest you concentrate your attention on the Old Covenant listing of clean & unclean animals. Both sheep & goats are clean animals!
These (clean animals & virgins) shall go into aionios kolasis.

News flash. There ain't no literal sheep or goats.

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: ​

There are only "all nations" whom the king on His throne separates the way a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. No literal sheep or goats. And the virgins are not among "them on the King's right hand," to whom the king says "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"

 

[P1LGR1M]

The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out.

No, the foolish virgins are cast out:


Matthew 25
King James Version

1 Then shall the kingdom of heaven be likened unto ten virgins, which took their lamps, and went forth to meet the bridegroom.

2 And five of them were wise, and five were foolish.


Nothing about clean and unclean animals, but five wise and five foolish virgins.

In view is The Kingdom of Heaven, and what it is likened to.


11 Afterward came also the other virgins, saying, Lord, Lord, open to us.

12 But he answered and said, Verily I say unto you, I know you not.


Being known of the Lord is a familiar concept, as is not being known of the Lord (Matthew 7:23; 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9), and it always speaks of those who are rejected by God because they rejected God Himself.

They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins.

That sure is a nice way to put being refused entrance to the Kingdom.

They, however, are pure virgins!

I see nothing in the text to indicate "pure virgins," only that they are foolish and are refused entrance to the Kingdom when Christ returns.

Regarding the two clean animals,

There are no two clean animals in the text.

Just another wresting of Scripture as an attempt to rationalize universal salvation. And it simply doesn't fit the teaching.

I suggest you concentrate your attention on the Old Covenant listing of clean & unclean animals.

Why not concentrate on the Old Testament teachings that would be relevant to this teaching?

Such as the gathering of the Nations for judgment?


Isaiah 66:23-24
King James Version

23 And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord.

24 And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.


"All" come to worship the Lord, but not all of them will be alive. This speaks of Christ's Return. And it is an Old Testament basic knowledge that the "All" refer to those who have been redeemed of the Lord.

Christ gives this Prophecy an eternal context in His teachings:


Mark 9:43-44
King James Version

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.

Both sheep & goats are clean animals!

Not in Matthew 25.

Sorry, but sheep and goats represent believers and unbelievers. Most people can see that and don't try to rationalize the text to wrest its meaning.

These (clean animals & virgins) shall go into aionios kolasis.

Actually, it is pretty clear that it is the unbelievers only that go into everlasting punishment:


Matthew 25:46
King James Version

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


Only the righteous will enter into Eternal Life.

Just as Christ also taught here:


John 3:3
King James Version

3 Jesus answered and said unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto thee, Except a man be born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God.


We have been given the New Testament to understand the New Covenant promised to Mankind beginning in Genesis 3:15. Trying to merge and blend teachings might convince those who have no sincere desire to understand God's will for man, but it isn't going to deceive sincere Bible Students.

You can seek to impose your teaching into this passage all you like, but it isn't going to change what for most is easily discerned.


God bless.

 

[wendykvw]

God certainly judges and punishes. And no, my hopes do not impact Scripture in the least. I'm quite willing to admit that universalism is a heresy. It's just a heresy which I unfortunately have some sympathy with.

A link if you are interested.
Did the Fifth Ecumenical Council Condemn Universal Salvation?

 

[BobRyan]

News flash. There ain't no literal sheep or goats.

Mat 25:31 When the Son of man shall come in his glory, and all the holy angels with him, then shall he sit upon the throne of his glory:
Mat 25:32 And before him shall be gathered all nations: and he shall separate them one from another, as a shepherd divideth his sheep from the goats: ​

There are only "all nations" whom the king on His throne separates the way a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. No literal sheep or goats.

True but the text says "AS a shepherd divides" sheep from goats. It does not say people are literally sheep.
In John 10 Jesus "is the door" - but not literally a wooden door.

And the virgins are not among "them on the King's right hand," to whom the king says "Come, ye blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world:"

You are mixing illustrations and claiming that those illustrated by the wise virgins in one story cannot be the same as those "blessed of my father" in another. That sounds like a preference to me.

 

[BobRyan]

The pure (clean) virgins are not cast out. They are not making the grade of the Master's gaze, and are therefore not able to partake of the high place of the wise virgins. They, however, are pure virgins! .

Nothing in Matt 25 is good for the foolish virgins other than they started off ok.

There is no "saved anyway" , "have a good eternal reward anyway" etc for the foolish.

In Matt 7 they are saying this "22 Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’

 

[Der Alte]

True but the text says "AS a shepherd divides" sheep from goats. It does not say people are literally sheep.
In John 10 Jesus "is the door" - but not literally a wooden door.
You are mixing illustrations and claiming that those illustrated by the wise virgins in one story cannot be the same as those "blessed of my father" in another. That sounds like a preference to me.

As I just told another poster. I believe that Jesus said what He meant and meant what He said. The virgins had already been dealt with before Jesus mentioned the analogy of the sheep and goats. Jesus did not include the virgins among those divided to the left and right, why should we? If you need a proof text this ain't the one.