How Hitler and Judas could end up in heaven

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.

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.

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.

There are several truths that invalidate your assumption that the account given in Luke 16 is a "parable" rather than Jesus description of actual events and the reality which exists and awaits all of mankind behind the veil of death.

1) Unlike other parables, nowhere in the account found in Luke 16 does Jesus say this is a parable.

2) Nowhere in the account does the writer Luke the physician say that anything Jesus says or describes is "a parable".

When Jesus spoke to the people in parables he nearly always later, usually in private, interpreted and explained the real meaning of the parable to his disciples. Nowhere in this account does Jesus do this because the account is not a parable, it is a genuine description of life on the other side of the grave and EVERYTHING that Jesus says within it is to be taken at face value... it needs no "spiritual interpretation".

The final and most important point leading to the fact that Jesus account here in Luke 16 is not a parable but a genuine description if the reality if life on the other side of death is the simple fact that Jesus never uses a proper name/an individuals name in ANY of His known parables. There is not one mention of a persons name in any of the parables of Christ which are plainly declared/stated to be parables, not one! However, that is decidedly NOT the case here in Luke 16. Jesus goes out if his way to specifically state that the name if the poor man was/is "Lazarus". Lazarus' name literally means "friend if God", which, given where he ends up after his death is an indication of his faith and of his relationship with God inspite of his impoverished and wretched physical condition and circumstances in this life (so much for Joel Osteen's false "health and wealth" false "gospel"). Jesus stated Lazarus by name BUT the one thing He does not do in the account is name the rich man. Why? Well, some biblical scholars speculate that the crowd to whom Jesus was speaking were familiar with Lazarus, which, given the graphic nature of the description Jesus had given if him would make him easy to remember. As for the rich man, there was no need to state his name; given the vivid and extensive personal description Jesus gives of the rich man, his extravagant and exceedingly lavish lifestyle along with intimate information regarding his personal family ("I have five brothers"), there is no need to name him because in all likelihood the people Jesus was speaking to probably knew exactly who the deceased rich man was!

The existence and reality of life beyond the grave; a literal heaven and hell beyond death, along with the actual conditions which exist there are the focus and sincere warning of Jesus words. This is no "parable" that whose meaning and interpretation can be "spiritualized", trivialized or explained away. Jesus said exactly what he meant and each one of His words in this account mean exactly what they say. It is a dire warning concerning the reality if a literal heaven and hell, which, in the case of the latter is a place of fire and unspeakable, never ending torment from which there is NO ESCAPE FOREVER because "there us a GREAT GULF FIXED" (this is in the perfect tense in the Greek which indicates this great gulf was established at a point in time and it is permanently established (ongoing results). Jesus also totally destroys and false doctrine or notion of "Purgatory". He clearly states that one's position after death: either blessed or cursed in this place of fire and torment is permanent! There us no getting out, no escape after suffering in torment for eons because God Himself has established this "great gulf" barrier for the express purpose of preventing ANYONE from either side from EVER crossing over to the other side. After death, one's position, whether blessed in heaven or eternally cursed in hell is permenanly "fixed".

There is one more vitally important fact about what Jesus says in Luke 16 that must be addressed: Lazarus was not in heaven because he was poor and the rich man was not in hell because he was rich. Each man found themselves in their individual position because if what they had done with God in this life BEFORE they died. It all boils down to FAITH in Christ. Lazarus had "repented" and believed upon Jesus, while the rich man, had not. While alive, the rich man filled his life with his "good things" and had no place for God in his life or heart. He received all that he wanted in this life and he received it in full. However, AFTER he was dead and it was eternally too late he recognized the eternality of his damned position and the sole solution to keep every man, including his five brothers from ending up in hell: individual men need to repent; they need to have a change if heart concerning Jesus and they need to believe upon Him and Him alone unto the saving of their souls. This is why the rich man BEGS Abraham to send Lazarus back from the dead to WARN his five brothers to "REPENT" (I.e. to place their individual faith in the Lord Jesus Christ; Israel's promised messiah) lest they too end up in the same place of eternal torment. And what is Abraham's response to the rich man's request? : "They have Moses and the prophets, let them HEAR them", in otherwords: "your brothers have the Word of God, let them read it and heed its message." And what did the Lord Jesus Christ say about Moses and the Old Testament prophets? : "They testify of Me!"

But what was the rich man's response? "No father Abraham" (the Word of God and its message of salvation through faith in Jesus the Messiah was not enough for them to repent and place their faith in Jesus.) but they would be persuaded to REPENT IF someone returned from the dead to warn them about the terrors if hell and to tell them to believe in the Lord Jesus Christ. But what us Abraham's final answer and response to the rich man's request: If they are not willing to hear and heed the clear message of the Word of God concerning their dire need to believe upon the Lord Jesus Christ to save them from their sin and from hell, "neither would they be persuaded if someone arose from the dead.". Jesus' quote from Abraham is utterly true and has been factually born out in reality. The Lord Jesus Christ, the eternal Son of God bodily arose from the dead a full three days after His sacrificial death upon the cross of Calvary in order to pay the FULL penalty for ALL of the sins of ALL of mankind for all of human history. He was visibly seen, bodily alive after His death by all of the Apostles along with upwards of five hundred people! Nevertheless, the overwhelming majority of people within the nation of Israel and the entire world fail to be persuaded an to believe in Him unto the saving of their eternal souls up to this present day.

Jesus' story in Luke 16 isn't a "parable", His message is a clear warning concerning the ultimate reality which awaits each and every one if us on the other side of the grave; whether heaven or hell. The one, all important question is this:

What will you do with the Lord Jesus Christ? Will you repent, believing on Him and on Him alone receiving Him as your personal savior by faith in order to save you from your sin, and from a Christless eternity, separated from the very God who loves you and from His heaven. Or will you continue to harden your heart, rejecting the Lord Jesus Christ and the free gift of salvation that He wants to give to you? The choice is yours, but listen carefully to the warning of Jesus: "Unless you believe that I am (in me, that I am the Messiah) you shall surely die in your sins." (John 8:24)

I’m a human being. I can have a mind and a body. If I’m on a business trip and a whore throws herself at me, in the reality of what it means to be a human being - I HAVE A CHOICE TO MAKE IN MY MIND.

All right, so far...

But think a minute. What brought me to be sitting in that restaurant having dinner ? What brought that woman to that restaurant that evening ? She didn’t know I was going to be there. I didn’t know she was going to be there. We were both living our lives, and our lives intersected.

You leave your conclusion unspoken, here... and I'd like you to say it explicitly, if you're willing. You list a good many factors beyond your direct control; yes? And you also believe that God is sovreign, and that He orchestrated those factors; yes? So... please tell me if you're saying that "God is responsible for that man's sin", or not.

From our human perspective, we have free will. And we do not know what our own future holds.

Are you saying that, from God's perspective, we do NOT have free will?

Now let’s consider God’s viewpoint. There are Bible verses which say God predestinated the elect. You certainly can look them up and study them.

I have. I'd suggest that your (apparently Calvinist) definition of "predestination" is not the only hypothesis which fits those references... and your (apparently Calvinist) definition also makes absolute nonsense out of the vast majority of the Bible (and common sense).

What of everyone else ? (human sniffle, sniffle, whine) But it’s not fawewww ! What about the other people that God did not predestinate ?

:) Er... friend: melodrama can sometimes be entertaining, but it's no substitute for logic.

Woops, we’re thinking like humans again.

Simple mockery of an opposing position (or opponent) is not a valid way to prove your point, FRiend; it's an evasion, at best, and an ad hominem fallacy, at worst. The word "justice" (which I prefer to its weaker cousin, "fairness") actually does have a definition... and it's not at all inappropriate for anyone to ask whether [x] satisfies or violates that definition. That's what I seek to do, at any rate. I assure you, I'm not making any cheap appeals to emotion and/or sympathy.

Let’s be logical instead.

This implies, of course, that I was being illogical up to now, but... let that pass.

If those who are saved, S, are predestinated to be saved, what about NOT S?

Hold on. It depends rather inescapably on your definition of "predestined". (Remember your Socrates? There are three things needed for a sound argument: clear definitions, true premises, and a conclusion which logically follows from those premises [i.e. no fallacies].) Does "predestined" mean "those whom God, from all eternity, knew would ultimately be saved"? Or does it mean "those whom God positively willed to have guaranteed salvation"? Those are very different things. You mean the latter exclusively, I think... whereas I admit only a few of the ultimately-saved into the latter category (the Blessed Virgin Mary, for example), while admitting all the ultimately-saved into the former category.

Case in point: with the first definition, "S" would not equal "P"; with the second definition, "S" would equal "P". So as to your question: "not S" would equal "not P" only using the second definition (and that's only because there are no other options--it's not true, in general)... not if using the first. Your job, then, is to show that the second definition (i.e. "God positively chooses to create souls who will be damned, apart from their free choices, no matter what they do.") is correct. Good luck, FRiend!

NOT S (not saved) are not part of that group S (saved).

That's true, regardless of the above question; yes.

NOT S were not predestinated to be saved.

There's your first logical error: you assume (without making it explicit) that "S = P" and "not S = not P" (and the second does not logically follow from the first, in the general case, anyway: "a -> b" does not logically imply "not a -> not b"; the true statement "if x is a multiple of 10, then x is an even #" does not logically imply "if x is not a multiple of 10, then x is not an even #"; consider x = 6, for example)... neither of which have been proven, yet, and neither of which are logically implied by the other.

By inference can we conclude that NOT S were predestinated to not be saved?

No. See above.

Where NOT S predestinated to be NOT S, if S were predestinated to be S ?

Again, no. This would be the fallacy of affirming the inverse (i.e. assuming that "a -> b" implies "~a -> ~b").

The only flimisical argument available to us puny humans is that God predestinated S to be saved, and the rest.... he leaves that entirely up to them. They’re not predestinated to be saved, they’re not predestinated to damnation. God leaves it entirely up to them, whatever they want to do. Maybe God influences them along the way, but God does not really know what their choice will be.

Hold on. You've made a quiet (and illogical) jump from "God leaves them free" to "God doesn't know what their choice will be". Those two statements aren't at all the same thing; you know that, right?

If you're working on the assumption that "if God knows [x] from all eternity, then there's no way for [x] to have been other, and there's no way for [x] to have been free", then you're using a misunderstanding of God's Nature. God is ETERNAL--which does NOT mean that "God lives an infinite number of years". God, in His Divine Nature, is UTTERLY OUTSIDE of time; He does not "remember" things in the past, and He does not "foresee" things in the future; He *watches them happen, in an eternal 'NOW'!*. God knows what I'll be doing in 10 years, because He's there, watching me do it, as we speak! It isn't true that God is "exclusively in the year 2014", and simply "has a perfect memory" and "perfect predictive powers"; He's in all times, and all times are "now" to Him. God doesn't "remember" the crucifixion of Christ; He's there, watching it as we speak.

If God were within our timestream--if He were "forecasting" all future events perfectly--then that would be fatal for free will. But there is nothing impossible about God "knowing" my free choice in the future... because God IS WATCHING ME PERFORM that free act, eternally, as we speak.

Put it this way: let's imagine two possible situations:

1) God "programmed" the damned to be damned, and created them with that fact in mind.
2) God knew from all eternity that the damned woudl freely choose damnation.

Given only that we know that some will be saved and some will not be saved, how would you ever tell which situation is the correct one? You couldn't; there's not enough data. For anyone to insist that "God certainly willed (positively) that a portion of humanity will be damned" is for him to insist on a raw opinion, bereft of proof. (I do wonder what you do with 1 Timothy 2:4! How can God "will that all be saved" if He freely chooses to damn them from the outset? This is not a teary-eyed appeal to emotion; this is a logical demand for a reconciliation of an apparent contradiction.)

Do you see how nonsensically impossible it is to have a plan for the entire universe which determines what will happen far into the future, but in that plan leave an enormous space of possibilities which are indeterminate at the time the plan is made ?

Given your false definition of "determines", in your first phrase, I'd have to say "no".

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.

This is a real, real good document to start with, and it has Scripture proof texts you can click on:

http://www.reformed.org/documents/wcf_with_proofs/

If I dream things up in my mind, if I "hear voices telling me things", if I get "feelings" about what's right, etc., none of that is factual or true unless it's also proved when one proves it according to God's revealed Law Word, the Bible.

If I "interpret" meanings that are not in Scripture into my reading of Scripture, I'm going off the straight and narrow path.

The early Americans that first came here to avoid persecution in Europe, the Pilgrims, are well worth studying.

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.

The reason is clear:

Galatians 5:9 "A little leaven leaveneth the whole lump."

leaven representing sin; if a congregation allows gross habitual sin, the whole thing becomes a pit of sin. The Methodist Church I attended as a boy had a lesbian choir director and a wealthy married congregant who were caught together one day. Nothing was done. The Methodist Church is completely apostate. They're now just an arm of globalism, and any sins you commit will be perfectly fine with them. If you like you can say you're sorry, but hey, man, it's cool. We be groovy, man.

In a good Reformed Church, it's the most amazing thing, where they get their doctrine from on Church discipline. I mean, really, what a novel idea. It comes from the Bible ! Wow ! Who'da thunk it ! Actually using the Bible to be the rule and guide in faith and life. Instead of just listen'n to some pop tart on TV who's tellin' us God wants us to prosper ! And smile ! Wee hee !

Then there's the big fear that the Church will micromanage your life if they have Church discipline, which is not true at all if the discipline is Scriptural. In fact, good Reformed Churches are much more respectful of the family than Churches who skip Church discipline.

Finally, we get to arminian Churches like the Methodists who make up their own sins, like drinking alcohol and smoking tobacco at all. How many times have I heard "she's a good Christian, doesn't drink or smoke at all" - which, of course, is completely unbiblical. So we can be lesbian and commit adultery and fornicate, as long as we don't have a glass of wine.

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.

Judgemental. Yes ! The Bible tells the Christian that they must discern what other people are about. Are they evil, do they do evil things ? Tell them to repent. Deny them the Lord's table if they still refuse. If they still refuse, separate from them, get them out of your congregation. Once I can discern people's actions and words, that tells me when I'm with them whether I need to be prepared as I would be with an unbeliever - what can I expect from them, what precautions do I need to take. Sometimes this can be VERY important and affect long-time friendships, but it must be done if we put Christ over our earthly former buddies who are gone to the dogs.

Sorry for the rant !

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.