---
You don't say!! I'll see your "evolving" and raise you a "restoration"!!
Posted on 06/04/2014 6:52:46 AM PDT by SeekAndFind
In certain schools of Christian thought, hell is not everlasting, but a more painful form of purgatory.
M any Christians presume that hell is a place where brutally painful punishments are inflicted on evildoers for an indefinite, and perhaps infinite, amount of time in the afterlife. Think of a medieval torture chamber with no exit — or fire extinguishers.
But this, as I argued in a recent column, makes no theological sense. If morality is good, then doing the right thing must be its own reward and doing the wrong thing must be its own punishment. To think that a sinner deserves extra, externally imposed suffering presumes that morality isn't good and that those who commit evil deeds benefit from their actions — which is another way of saying that those who do the right thing are fools.
The more theologically sound position is to hold that hell is a state of being, whether in this life or the next, in which we confront our own self-imposed alienation from what is truly good — from God, in other words. This educative punishment can be extremely painful, but the pain flows intrinsically from knowledge of our own immoral acts. It isn't inflicted on us by some external tormenter.
That, at any rate, was my argument.
Let's just say that my readers weren't universally appreciative of it. A fair number of them apparently want very much to believe that a fairly large number of people are going to be made to suffer egregiously in hell for their bad behavior in life.
I suspect that these same readers, and perhaps many more, will be equally adamant that I'm wrong to follow the implications of my argument a few steps further — to assert that Christians have reason to believe that the punishments of hell, whatever they may be, are temporary for all.
That's right: I think it's likely that if there is an afterlife, everyone — even Judas, even Hitler — eventually ends up in heaven.
Now, I'm perfectly willing to concede that several Gospel passages seem to describe an eternity of damnation for at least some people in the afterlife (Matthew 7:13-14, 25:31-46; Mark 9:45-48; Luke 16:23; John 3:36). Though I'd also like to point out that only in one verse (Matthew 25:46) does Jesus speak of something that could plausibly be translated as "eternal punishment," and in words (aeonios kolasis) that could perhaps more accurately be rendered as "eternal correction."
Then there are those contrary passages that seem to imply that God wants everyone — and perhaps even all of creation — to enjoy salvation (Romans 5:18, 11:33-36; 1 Corinthians 15:22, 28; Philippians 2:10-11; Colossians 1:19-20; 2 Peter 3:9; Revelation 21:4).
This tension — not to say contradiction — has led some thinkers to dismiss or argue away the implications of the latter passages. Of all the church fathers, Tertullian may have gone furthest in this direction, writing at length and in gory detail about the endless sufferings inflicted on sinners in hell, and even suggesting that observing these torments is an important source of the bliss that accompanies salvation in heaven.
The problem with this position is that it seems to be a form of what Friedrich Nietzsche called "Christian malice": A psychological malady in which the stringent self-denial that Christianity demands of its adherents leads them to feel intense resentment for those who are insufficiently ascetic. Nietzsche delighted in showing how this dynamic can turn Christians from preachers of love into hateful fanatics out to inflict suffering on anyone who dares to enjoy life.
Not all Christians have confirmed Nietzsche's critique as perfectly as Tertullian. Others have been driven by theological reflection to move in the opposite direction — to speculate that all people might eventually enjoy salvation in heaven, no matter how awful their worldly sins may have been.
Origen in the 3rd century and Hans Urs von Balthasar in the 20th both affirmed versions of universal salvation. Yet I find the most compelling variation in the writings of the 4th-century theologian Gregory of Nyssa — a major figure in the history of Christianity, though one more widely revered today by the Eastern Orthodox than by the Western churches.
Gregory maintained that hell resembles something like what Catholics have traditionally called purgatory: A place of sometimes excruciatingly painful purgation of sins in preparation for heaven. The pain is not externally inflicted as punishment, but follows directly from the process of purification as the soul progresses toward a perhaps never fully realized union with divine perfection. Gregory describes this process as a "constant progression" or "stretching forth" (epektasis) of oneself toward an ever greater embrace of and merger with God in the fullness of eternity — a transmutation of what is sinful, fallen, and finite into the transcendent beauty of the infinite.
Hell, in this view, would be the state of agonizing struggle to break free from sin, to renounce our moral mistakes, to habituate ourselves to the good, to become ever more like God. Eastern Orthodox theologians (and, interestingly, Mormons, who hold similar views) call it a process of divination or sanctification (theosis) that follows directly from the doctrine of God's incarnation in Jesus Christ. It is a formula found in the writings of Clement of Alexandria, Athanasius, and other ancient theologians: God became a human being so that human beings might become like God.
All human beings.
One imagines that this would be a long, painful process — rendered longer and more painful for those who have fallen furthest from God during their lives. They are the ones for whom the afterlife is truly hellish — like a climb up a peak far, far higher than Mount Everest with little prior preparation or training, no expensive gear, and no Sherpas to help carry the load. But there would eventually be progress toward God, even for the climber who starts out in the worst possible shape, and from the lowest possible point in the valley below.
And at least there would be no dungeon pointlessly presided over by satanic, whip-wielding sadists.
---
You don't say!! I'll see your "evolving" and raise you a "restoration"!!
Could be. Some of us just ask questions, too.
Appealing to “what the Bible actually says” doesn’t do much good, if you’re willing to explain/interpret away whatever doesn’t suit your personal tastes...
One more time:
“And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name.” (Revelation 14:11) It’s a funny kind of “death” which you have in mind, if the Bible says that they will have “no rest, day or night”, and that “the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever” (if they’re obliterated, then there wouldn’t be any more “smoke of their torment”, would there?).
“and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.” (Revelation 20:10) How can they be tormented, day and night for ever and ever, if they’ve been erased from existence”?
Your opinions are clouding your reading of Scripture, FRiend.
Our discussion of “aionios” is precisely your problem, since the very same word was used to describe eternal LIFE... and in the very same verse (in Matthew 25:46)! Unless you’re one of those fellows who believes that the blessed and the damned will BOTH be “obliterated” eventually (i.e. no eternal damnation, and no eternal life), then you’ll need to rethink your claim.
My friend, we have been down this road, and I don’t wish to keep repeating myself, even if you do. Good day.
Look... I can’t stop you from ducking out; and you did say, earlier, that you like the “hit and run” style (which really doesn’t seem very sincere, to be honest), but this won’t go away by ignoring it.
You claimed that “aionios” need not be limited to “forever”, but that it might also refer to “a long time”; but you offer no basis (aside from personal picking-and-choosing) for your choice to translate “aionios/n” as “a long time” when referring to torment, but translating “aionios/n” as “forever” when referring to eternal life. It seems patently obvious that you’re biased, and that you’re letting your bias control your selective “interpretation” of Scripture. Either you have an objective standard by which to tell the difference between “a long time” and “forever” (when using the identical Greek word in both cases), or you don’t. Which is it? Mere squeamishness about eternal torment is simply not good enough, FRiend; it’s up to God, not up to you.
All right... and now that I look back, you’re quite right about the “cuban leaf” vs. the “hit and run” quip—sorry about that! Reply at your leisure... but let me summarize my point (for when you come back):
1) We both agree that “aionios” could possibly mean “forever” or “a long time/an age”. Looking at that specific word won’t tell us which meaning to use. But surely you’re aware of the fact that eternal hell has been a constant belief of the Christian Church for 2000 years? Look anywhere you like; with the exception of a very few outliers, every last Church father, every last Doctor of the Church, every last Saint and even every last Protestant founder (I’d say “reformer”, but that’s not an accurate description of what they did) are all unanimous about hell being eternal and inescapable. Doesn’t that mean anything to you... especially since the vast majority of the Protestants were/are “sola Scriptura” believers?
2) “Looking at all of Scripture” sounds fine and handsome, but it can often be a cover for “if only you’d read all the Scriptures, you’d agree with ME!” St. Matthew himself uses the very same word (”aionios/n”) in obviously parallel ways in the very same story, and in the very same verse! It’s not a stretch to suppose that he meant them to be taken in the very same way. Otherwise, you’re attributing a good deal of clumsiness to St. Matthew (and to the Holy Spirit Who allowed that text to be Sacred Scripture!).
3) “Death” need not imply obliteration; only atheists are obliged to believe that. I commented on this, already; “death” and “destruction” can refer to “absolute ruin”, as well as “complete erasure”; it can refer to a permanent state of unending misery... a permanent loss of life in union with God. Scripture *does* draw a distinction between “existence” and “life”; see my comments, earlier.
So, you agree that he was in torment then AFTER he died...
RE: It’s intuitively obvious.
No it is not.
Matthew 5:32 “But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”
To help in understanding this verse: this means that if a person fornicates while married, their spouse can divorce them.
To help in understanding this verse: this means that if a person fornicates while married, and their spouse divorces them, the divorcing spouse has not caused her to commit adultery, because they’ve already committed adultery.
To use a silly analogy: Whoever pokes a hole in their boat, except when the boat already has a hole in it, causes their boat to sink. In the latter case, it was going to sink whether they poke a hole in it or not.
Poking hole in boat = divorce
Sinking equals commit adultery.
My take is that the comment about adultery is not saying that is when you can divorce your wife. Rather, it is saying that when you divorce your wife, you are making her an adulterer, unless, of course, she has already committed adultery, in which case she is already an adulterer whether you divorce her or not.
RE: Apparently. ;-)
But even if we grant that it is a parable, it is a parable that tells us that IF you live in this world like the rich man does, you end up like him. The destination is called HADES. The fate is also described. I don’t think you can say that the place and the fate is symbolic.
I wonder sometimes just how crazy and unbiblical things have to be for everyone to actually recognize a false teaching. I guess there’s no limit to what people will fall for if they just keep “evolving” their understanding of Scripture.
Two examples:
1. I was a pre-tribulationist because when I first became a Christian I attended an AG church, and that is what they taught. Also, I was brought to Christ through a Hal Lindsey book.
I was fascinated with bible prophesy so I studied it and bought books on it, etc. There were a lot of things that didn’t make sense but I figured that as I studied more and more, the questions would be answered. But they weren’t. In fact, what happened was they became more problematic. And then I broadened my studies to other theories. Short story is that I came to the mid-trib idea and it answered every single one of those questions. Needless to say, I’d prefer the “don’t worry. When it gets bad you’ll be whisked away” theory, but I study and let the chips fall where they may.
The other example is the eternal suffering in hell thingee. Same thing happened.
The Bible states in many places that we are not to tolerate gross habitual sin in the midst of our congregations.
That is why there used to be Church discipline, that now is practiced only by a relatively small remnant of Churches. ———————————————————
I think there is some truth to that. However, my church actually did do just that and it caused my sister to leave them because she thought they were being harsh. The music director was openly homosexual and they kept reprimanding him but he kept returning to the lifestyle. They finally fired him.
I think this is an interesting concept regarding me, personally, as well. My hobby is playing music. I’m a bass player in a few bands, each a different genre. I live in a dry county in the bible belt and go to a Baptist church that considers drinking a sin. Yet I have a full bar at home and play in bars in the local wet counties.
I have no problem with that because I strongly disagree with my church. But it goes deeper than that. Our Sunday school class a few weeks ago focused on alcohol. I was biting my tongue in class because I seem to know more about scripture on this subject than any member of that church, including the pastor. There is this dogmatic belief that causes them to read a scripture that talks about gluttony and drunkenness and then the fat members use that scripture to prove that any drinking is evil.
And yes, they actually brought up that the “wine” Jesus made from water was really grape juice. That’s where I lost it, removed my teeth from my tongue and tried to explain to the class that the people “in bible times” were real people with real lives in a real world, and yes, they drank WINE at weddings and that the bible even drove the point home when the wine steward commented on it being the “best wine” which most people serve first.
Yes, they still bought into the “it was grape juiece” nonsense.
And the same thing happens on other subjects to the point where I’m wondering if there is enough difference in their teachings and mine that maybe we should change churches. We don’t because the people there really are like children in their beliefs and that is a very good thing. But it can have its challenges. I do learn from them and I hope they learn from me. Those are, after all, the only two reasons for going to church. We certainly don’t need it to worship God. We can do that all day, every day, wherever we are.
Sorry. I should have responded to the post you were responding to, rather than your post. ;-)
But even if we grant that it is a parable, it is a parable that tells us that IF you live in this world like the rich man does, you end up like him.
I have a billionair relative. Strong Christian and it is very apparent in the way he treats people. His wealth is not sinful according to any scripture I read. Even the camel and eye of the needle story does not apply when you see the disciple’s response to it and Jesus’ response to them.
Only liberals think wealth is, by definition, sinful.
You are correct.
1 Timothy 6:10
“For the love of money is the root of all evil: which while some coveted after, they have erred from the faith, and pierced themselves through with many sorrows.”
Do you see the subtle change that so many have made in their minds to this original text, which makes such a great difference in meaning ?
There are other verses as well that people use to advocate for being poor as the “preferred state” of a Christian, but of course they also don’t do correct exegesis in advocating this.
Philippians 4:12 “I know both how to be abased, and I know how to abound: every where and in all things I am instructed both to be full and to be hungry, both to abound and to suffer need.”
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.