Posted on 03/05/2011 11:00:45 PM PST by OrthodoxKirkPresbyterian
A new book by one of the country’s most influential evangelical pastors, challenging traditional Christian views of heaven, hell and eternal damnation, has created an uproar among evangelical leaders
In a book to be published this month, the pastor, Rob Bell, known for his provocative views and appeal among the young, describes as “misguided and toxic” the dogma that “a select few Christians will spend forever in a peaceful, joyous place called heaven, while the rest of humanity spends forever in torment and punishment in hell with no chance for anything better.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
>>But if one was only there for a short time, why does the Bible got to pains the emphasize the eternity of Hell itself.<<
I think what it is saying is that their condition does not change. We have body and spririt. When we die the “first death” that is the death of the body. And it stays dead. For those that are not found in the book of life and die the second death, that is the spirit that dies. And it stays dead. In both cases it is for all eternity.
I am not absolutely married to any of my positions here because these are not bullet doctrines for me. The bible is discussing stuff that definitely falls into the category of “now we see as through a mirror dimly”. We’ll all know for sure after the first death. But now we cannot be sure. It is outside our realm of understanding.
Faith or belief (Pisteo) may be exercised as a function of the soul. As such it is without merit, but it still has an object of thinking. It is possible to have faith or to believe without the regenerated human spirit. Immediately upon saving faith, God the Holy Spirit is free by His volition to forgive the believer and immediately regenerate the human spirit.
There is another type of faith, also known as doctrine, which may be developed from perception of the believer via the believer’s human spirit. After the spirit is regenerated, the soul may be continually sanctified, via God the Holy Spirit indwelling our human spirit.
It is true that this type of faith is preceded by regeneration and is part of the sanctification process.
RR, let me throw out a couple of ideas which if you consider them, might assist in your thinking as you are studying Scripture and learning these things the faith in Christ. I say this because what I am suggesting should not be a substitute for His Word, but it might trigger the proper thinking when studying so that God the Holy Spirit continues in His work in you.
Re: death. In our culture, there is a tendency to associate death with an existential perspective of annihilationism or possibly simply a of lack of function.
Instead consider death as “a state of existence involving separation”.
So the first death is a state of existence involving separation of something(soul/soul&spirit) from the human body. The physical body may have ceased to function biologically, per the laws of the physical domain, and lost biological life.
Next, we need to identify human life.
Scripture refers to the human as possessing physical bodily life, soul life, and spiritual life. This is discernible from animals with soul and physical life.
One can argue for the dichotomous nature from OT Hebrew, but the New Testament and from our Lord Christ Jesus we also understand a three component anthropology. Since the 3 component model is the more general, while it is being studied, one might want to retain the distinctions between body, soul, and spirit. If the linguistics end uup with identical functions, then that will become obvious as they are studied, BUT considering the reborn person has a reborn spirit, things of the spirit might not be understood through Scripture unless that distinction is maintained in our thinking.
It’s been said that the 5 bodily senses are the method of perception of the body. Rationalism is the perception of the soul in its heart and mind. Meanwhile faith is a method of perception in the human spirit of spiritual things.
It might be said, using the trichotomous model, that every human born has a body and soul, while the believer who is reborn, now has a body, soul, and spirit. So all the arguments about Christians trying to convert unbelievers is hogwash. Only God can regenerate or create a human spirit and place it in a human. other humans don’t have that ability. Even God the Son didn’t perform that work, it is the work of God the Holy Spirit. Same God, but a different ministry.
There are several different types of death mentioned in Scripture. Spiritual death, Positional death, Carnal death, Production of dead works by a believer, Sexual Death, the 2nd Death, and the Sin unto Death are the ones I’ve found in Scriptural studies.
Take for example the Fall in the Garden. Something happened upon original sin. Adam and Eve did not immediately physically die. They also did not immediately loose their ability to rationalize, because they became conscious of their nakedness and they hid from God, and Adam basically said the woman made me do it. They were very well thinking and physically alive. They were not in fellowship with God from a perspective of righteousness, so it might be said they died spiritually with the righteousness of God,..i.e. a state of existence involving separation.
The ceasing to function aspect of death is frequently identified with the separation of either the soul or spirit life from the body life or the removal of life which had been imputed into the soul, or spirit, or body from that being.
Prior to the first death, every human has an opportunity for salvation from condemnation.
Environment is not required for salvation, nor does imperfect environment preclude salvation. Every time in Scripture where we see the fall of the Adversary, it comes from a situation of perfect environment. Perfect environment is not the answer for salvation. Likewise, Rome as an environment does not preclude the salvation of any person within it or from it.
Actually, I agree with much of your post and some of it is what I used to believe. But as I started really studying scripture and not just believing what “older” Christians said, I started coming away with some strong disagreements with what I had been taught. For example, I always had a hard time with the second death being a “separation from God” because nothing exists outside of his presence. It is like saying my TV exists outside the presence of electrical outlets.
IOW, I believe “death” means the end of something, not a separation, though as a young Christian I believed otherwise. After all, you pretty much HAVE to believe that if you believe in everlasting punishment as discussed in the “turn or burn” evangelism.
And I see the soul as the “mind” part of the body. The software on which the brain functions, if you will. I believe it dies with the body as with animals. Animals have one death. Humans are resurrected and go on to either eternal life, or the second death. And death is the opposite of life. It is not “life everlasting, but in torment”. That is clearly NOT what the bible says. It says some go to eternal life, and others do not. If you do not go on to eternal life you, by definition, die.
I’ve studied this issue from both perspectives. And the side I come down on is based on information in two general areas: 1. Which one seems to agree with the interpretation of most scripture on the subject (remembering words like “death” are english translations - symbols - for the Greek and Hebrew equivalents in the bible. And if they meant “separation”, the english translation would have been “separation”. And 2. Which most to be in line with the God of the bible?
I noticed that every single time in the bible that God is very displeased with a person or people and takes the “ultimate” action, his action is ALWAYS to destroy them, NEVER to torture them. It is almost as though it is to simply wipe them from existence.
I could go on, but I think you get mu gist.
I’ve considered that perspective. I find the separation perspective to provide a more spiritual insight to Scripture.
The spirit life is so unique from our scarred soul from the old sin nature that any guidance at all from Scripture is more trustworthy and veritable than anything of this world or cosmic system of thinking.
The more I’ve studied it from that perspective, the more quickly I have been able to identify spiritual perceptions from rational or physical perceptions, and concurrently can identify events in His Plan discernible from events or motives of others.
While Hell is referred to as a place of torment, that can mean a lot of things. In my interpretation, “torment” can simply mean the mental anguish of knowing that you could have been with God, but failed due to your own bad behavior.
I’m inclined to go with the idea of Hell being a dark, cave-like place where the condemned simply wander around aimlessly and everyone is completely miserable and lost knowing what could have been.
Interestingly, the idea of Hell being a place of fire and torture doesn’t seem to have appeared until medieval times. And as explained in the thread, the lake of fire is mentioned only in Revelations as being the place where Satan and his minions go after the Last Judgement. The early Christians never believed that man would go there.
Where else would Gandhi end up? Boise, Idaho? It isn't difficult to tell what happens to a person who reject Jesus as their Savior.
Piper and most others jumping to conclusions about this book have not read it.
I've never understood this argument. It's like saying how can I jump to conclusions about Mormons when I have never read the writings of Joseph Smith. We read a synopsis that this gentleman does not believe in hell and torment. Scripture, OTOH, through our Lord Jesus clearly states hell does exist and people will face torment. Why would someone want to waste their time reading something that clearly contradict scripture and the Lord Jesus unless they don't have a great deal of faith in scripture? I can understand Piper's position. It's garbage theology written by a poet. Doesn't the scriptures tell us that there is no end to the making of books?
I don’t pretend to know the eternal destiny of anyone, because the mysteries of God and his work in the hearts of people is not fully revealed to me.
Than obviously you would not make a good missionary. It is clear what the eternal destiny of people are who die in their sins if one has an elementry understanding of scripture. It is far more difficult to determine who are the tares and who are the wheat. But to know who are not going to heaven is usually very clear because they'll tell you.
The Calvin quote can be found on the Calvin College website...
No doubt you read the entire passage that Calvin struggled with this view during a time when heretics were often put to death. Today we see the results of embracing heretics and their doctrine. People like Bell are considered interesting and have points but yet people like Piper or Calvin are horrible, evil people.
We are commanded by God to put heretics out of the church. Instead we embrace them because we of a flawed concept of a "loving God".
1Jn 1:8 If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
1Jn 1:9 If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1Jn 1:10 If we say we have not sinned, we make him a liar, and his word is not in us.
John's comment was after Christ paid the price.
According to the Bible...we are sinners from birth.
OT Hell is Sheol, which is nearly Hades, and simply a holding place for the dead distinguishing between the righteous and the unrighteous dead.
Hades is the word used in the NT as well. Hades or Gehenna is simply translated as Hell. The other word for Hell in the NT occurs in 2 Peter 2:4 and is the word Tartarus.
The words are chosen carefully, but as this thread proves most often misinterpreted by the eisegeiss of the reader.
Look here for more info: http://topicalbible.org/h/hell.htm
Hell as presented in the context of your respondences to this thread isn’t reconcilable with Biblical teachings on salvation, the Atonement or the nature of God. At each point a Biblical truth conflicts with your definition and gets ignored.
There is no thief on the cross, simply a criminal(who could very well be completely righteous). Jesus didn’t say Heaven, but paradise - a completely different place.
Do the research and you’ll see it isn’t unambiguous: there is a holding place.
I appreciate you taking the time to discuss this with me but I don’t seem to be able to follow your direction. Will you be addressing the problem of God’s justification in condemning people to eternal hell and torment just because He didn’t choose them?
When it comes to Genesis 2:17 its pretty clear that Adam and Eve didn’t just drop dead the second they ate the fruit so ‘die’ in this instance clearly didn’t mean death in the regular sense. Strong’s has several definitions for the word translated into ‘die’ but which of these was meant I don’t know. Did they die? I believe the answer is yes according to the definition God had in mind when He told them. For three I believe it spread to all mankind if I understand your question correctly.
I never said we weren’t sinners. Rather, the issue of sin has been settled through faith in Christ.
If you don;t want to sin, just resist every temptation to sin, not by our own power, but through faith in Christ.
Will we always succeed? I don’t know anybody who has except for Jesus Christ Himself, but I do know that every time I sin, it corresponds to when I first fell out of faith in Christ and then missed the mark.
The point is that when we keep looking at sin as the cause for people going to hell, we are still not thinking through faith in Christ. He has paid that price.
Look at Revelation, and even at unbelievers. They are not sent to hell for sin. They are sent to hell because 1) their name is not in the Book of Life and 2) their works are insufficient from the Divine criterion to merit divine righteousness. They have no excuse, their works are not from God, so they are rewarded for their works, namely from their Father who is not God the Father, but the Adversary. When those works get rewarded, it ain’t good (from their perspective).
Lazarus and the Rich Man provide adequate guidance.
You read a synopsis about Bell that was false and slanderous. I think good missionaries will speak clearly about the Gospel and the eternal destiny through Jesus but will not place themselves in the judgment seat of God and assume they know the eternal destinies of specific individuals after they have died. 1 Corinthians 4 says “Therefore judge nothing before the appointed time; wait until the Lord comes. He will bring to light what is hidden in darkness and will expose the motives of the heart. At that time each will receive their praise from God.”
There is a clear difference between naming and challenging people’s sinfulness and rejection of Christ (which I support) and pretending you know the way the Holy Spirit will work in a person’s heart at the time of their passing. I believe there is always the possibility that some will accept the grace of Christ on their deathbed without anyone around them knowing it. For be it from me to claim I know that Gandhi is in hell when that possibility also exists for him. And that is exactly the point Bell was responding to. He was responding to someone who very definitively declared that Gandhi was in hell.
It can also go the other way. There are rumors that Leo Tolstoy rejected Christianity and embraced Islam on his deathbed. Again, I will not declare his eternal destiny, I will wait until the Lord comes and exposes the motives of the heart.
I would note that support against the concept of the original sin is explicit in the Bible.
"Yet you ask, 'Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live. The one who sins is the one who will die. The child will not share the guilt of the parent, nor will the parent share the guilt of the child. The righteousness of the righteous will be credited to them, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against them.
—Ezek. 18:19-20
You are correct. OT Hell is Sheol, which is nearly Hades, and simply a holding place for the dead distinguishing between the righteous and the unrighteous dead.
Hades is the word used in the NT as well. Hades or Gehenna is simply translated as Hell. The other word for Hell in the NT occurs in 2 Peter 2:4 and is the word Tartarus.
Look here for more info: http://topicalbible.org/h/hell.htm
Did they die? I believe the answer is yes according to the definition God had in mind when He told them. For three I believe it spread to all mankind if I understand your question correctly.
Very good. Adam and Eve did not die physically that day, but they, and all mankind in them, died spiritually that day. The human race was in an extremely serious problem.
If God is utterly Holy, and cannot allow any sin to enter heaven, then Mankind (at that point - without Christ) cannot enter in.
Therefore, if there were no remedy, they would not go into heaven. Then, the question is, where do those go who do not have the remedy (Christ) in your theology?
The T in Tulip, points directly at the problem and when one is fuzzy about the problem - that mankind (by default) is not dead in, "trespasses and sin" through Adam and their own additions, then one is fuzzy on all the rest.
From your answers, I would say, at this point you do not believe the points in ULIP, but do believe the T. And I would add that the T did not come from Calvin as many suppose but was there in Scripture all along and that the church united in 381 dealt with Pelagius's attempt to weaken the doctrine regarding sin, emphatically.
So now the question for you is, if Mankind died spiritually with Adam, where do those go who do not have the remedy (Christ)?
Perhaps my post wasn't very clear. I was responding to this statement:
Consider the following statement by the Lord, Himself:
That has nothing to do with original sin.
For as by one man’s disobedience many were made sinners, so by the obedience of one shall many be made righteous. — Romans 5:19
Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were BY NATURE the children of wrath, even as others. — Eph 2:3
For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. — 1 Cor 15:22
Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; And in sin did my mother conceive me. — Psalm 51:5
And the LORD smelled a sweet savour; and the LORD said in his heart, I will not again curse the ground any more for man’s sake; for the imagination of man’s heart is evil from his YOUTH; neither will I again smite any more every thing living, as I have done. — Gen 8:21
The word translated YOUTH there means from “birth” or “beginning of existence”.
You notice none of these say the act of sinning makes you a sinner. You sin because you have a sin nature. The Bible is replete with examples that sin is our nature and not because we have sinned.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.