The Role of Hell in the Gospel Message?

[Jon]

Yet I, as one who hasn't the slightest fear that I will end up in hell, find the statement disconcerting.

Steve,

I haven't been around in a while. Will hopefully be soon responding to the other posts that I haven't had time to yet. But, I had to say something about this.

Why is it that you haven't the slightest fear that you will end up in hell? The Bible says in many places that you CAN lose your salvation. If you don't see that then you've gotten that major point of the Bible interpreted incorrectly. As a guy who has read the Bible so many more times than I, how is it that you can be so blind to those passages, or take them out of context, or miss that meaning altogether? It's one of the greatest triumphs of the Devil. Blind people to the fact that hell is a potential destination, then allow them to find their own way to God through their own truth.

No one but God can know where you will definitely end up. I know I won't convince you that your salvation is not guaranteed, but at least consider that it may not be, and ask yourself what might you look at differently in the Bible with an open mind to the Truth.

Jon

[steve]

how is it that you can be so blind to those passages,

Which passages? The ones that speak about losing one's salvation? I don't think I have ever ignored those passages. Have you found, in my teaching, that I skip over such passages?

or take them out of context,

Could you give me an example of my taking a passage out of context?

or miss that meaning altogether?

Now this is a genuine possibility. There is alway the chance that the true meaning of a passage may not have been considered, due to our making the assumption that we already know the meaning—though we have not thoroughly investigated other possible interpretations. Is there some passage that you have in mind, the meaning of which you feel I am missing?

It's one of the greatest triumphs of the Devil. Blind people to the fact that hell is a potential destination, then allow them to find their own way to God through their own truth.

I never said that hell is not a potential destination. I simply said I don't have any fear that I will end up there. This is not due to me relying on "my own truth." It is because I rely on Jesus (the Truth) and know what it takes to avoid hell. I am not unaware of the dangers of apostatizing from Christ, but I have never known a moment's temptation to do so, just as I have never been tempted to participate in a game of Russian Roulette. Some things just don't hold any appeal for me.

I am not claiming that I could never, under any conditions, fall away and end up in hell. I only said I do not have the slightest fear of that happening. Similarly, it would be cocky of me to say I could never cheat on my wife, but it is the furthest thing from my mind, so that it would be legitimate for me to say that I am not afraid in the least that this will happen.

In our discussion here, the question was raised whether people would have any motivation to follow God if there were no fear of hell. I answered (appropriately, it seems to me) that I have excellent motivation to follow God, though a fear of going to hell is not on my radar. Do you disagree with this? Are you afraid that you will end up in hell? If so, then I am sorry for you. I would urge you to put greater confidence in Christ. He can keep you from going there (Jude 24).

your salvation is not guaranteed

I think it is as secure as the promises of God. Isn't there something somewhere in the Bible that guarantees the veracity of God's promises?

[steve]

Homer wrote:

The no-hell view was once a popular idea among universalists but they have seen the utility of the fires of hell.

I am surprised that the no-hell view could ever hold much sway with anyone other than full-preterists and people who reject the canonicity of Revelation. It seems clear to me that the lake of fire is what most of us regard as "hell".

You said modern universalists have changed because they finally saw "the utility of hell." Are you sure this is what lies behind their exegesis—utilitarianism? That is a rather harsh libel to raise against the integrity of people you have never met (and probably have never read). Are you able to back it up?

Also, are you sure that traditionalists are not the ones clinging to their view of hell for utilitarian reasons? Your position, if I do not misread you, is that the presentation of the gospel doesn't get the job done half so well without adding into it the teaching of hell. This certainly removes the argument from the realm of exegesis to mere utilitarianism, doesn't it?

Maybe you can recommend some universalist authors who made the case for hell on a utilitarian basis. I can't seem to find any whose views arise from anything other than straightforward exegesis. They seem to think the teaching of hell to be a deterrent to winning people to Christ, not a boon. Who have you been reading on this?

[Homer]

HI Steve,

You wrote:

You said modern universalists have changed because they finally saw "the utility of hell." Are you sure this is what lies behind their exegesis—utilitarianism? That is a rather harsh libel to raise against the integrity of people you have never met (and probably have never read). Are you able to back it up?

But you left out the last sentence of what I said which is pertinent to the point I was making:

The no-hell view was once a popular idea among universalists but they have seen the utility of the fires of hell. "Outer darkness" doesn't seem to be very popular among them, at least not here.

No one at this forum has emphasized the literal view of hell fire as much as the universalists have. It serves their purpose to make the traditional view as repulsive as they can, even though a great number who hold the traditional view (ET) do not see hell as a literal torment in fire. And historically universalists have seen it as useful, as we shall see.

And you wrote:

I am surprised that the no-hell view could ever hold much sway with anyone other than full-preterists and people who reject the canonicity of Revelation.

I think we must acknowledge that the "no-heller" view in early New England was the predominent one with such leaders as Hosea Ballou and Hannah Whitall Smith. That view has changed over the years; there is the universalism of the Unitarians and today we have the "evangelical" universalists, whatever that means ("evangelical" is hard enough to define). When I speak of "the universalists" I have no particular persons in mind to libel their integrity; I speak of the idea in general. And the idea that hell is useful goes all the way back to Origen who is said to have believed universalism was dangerous to teach. Sounds utilitarian to me, but perhaps that has a bad connotation; maybe "useful" is less offensive to you. Anyway, I have read more than once of the improvement in the universalists. After all, Jesus seemed to think warnings about hell, destruction, &c were useful.

Richard Bauchham writes about universalism in early America:

One very strong objection to universalism in these centuries was the deep-rooted belief that the threat of eternal torment was a necessary deterrent from immorality during this life. So weighty was this objection felt to be, that some who believed in universal salvation (or even in annihilation) held that this belief must retrain an esoteric, secret doctrine for the few, while hell must continue to be preached as a deterrent for the masses. Even in the nineteenth century, where such esotericism was seen to be indefensible, universalists found it necessary to meet the objection by emphasizing as much as possible the severity and length of the torments which the wicked must endure before their eventual salvation.

That has a familiar ring!

In this century, however, exegesis has turned decisively against the universalist case. Few would now doubt that many NT texts clearly teach a final division of mankind into saved and lost, and the most that universalists now commonly claim is that alongside these texts there are others which hold out a universal hope (e.g. Eph. 1: 10; Col. 1: 20).

There are two ways of dealing with this situation. One is a new form of exegesis of the texts about final condemnation, which acknowledges the note of finality but sees these texts as threats rather than predictions. A threat need not be carried out. This, as we shall see, is the approach adopted by the most persuasive of modern universalists.

A threat that is never carried out? Sounds rather utilitarian to me.

The second approach to the exegetical problem is simply to disagree with the NIT writers' teaching about a final division of mankind, which can be said to be merely taken over from their contemporary Jewish environment, while the texts which could be held to support universalism represent a deeper insight into the meaning of God's revelation in Christ. Here the doctrinal authority of the Bible is understood much more flexibly than by most nineteenth-century universalists. C. W. Emmet's essay, 'The Bible and Hell' (1917), is something of a landmark. After a survey of the NT material, showing that final division and judgment are clearly taught and hesitating to find full universalism even in Ephesians and Colossians, Emmet declares: It is best in fact to admit quite frankly that any view of the future destiny of [unbelievers] which is to be tolerable to us today must go beyond the explicit teaching of the New Testament.... [This] does not really give us what we want, and it only leads to insincerity if we try to satisfy ourselves by artificial explanations of its language. And we are in the end on surer ground when as Christians we claim the right to go beyond the letter, since we do so under the irresistible leading of the moral principles of the New Testament and of Christ Himself.'

Thus the modern universalist is no longer bound to the letter of the NT; he can base his doctrine on the spirit of NT teaching about the love of God. The same principle can even be extended to the teaching of the historical Jesus, though some have been able to persuade themselves that the Gospel texts about final judgment are not in any case authentic words of Jesus. This more liberal approach to Scripture has probably played quite a large part in the general spread of universalism in this century.

Two of the most persuasive of recent arguments for dogmatic universalism are those of J. A. T. Robinson and John Hick. We shall conclude this survey with a brief account of their positions.
Robinson approaches the texts in a way rather similar to Brunner's. The NT contains two eschatological 'myths': universal restoration and final division into saved and lost. But whereas Brunner gives both the same status, Robinson maintains that they represent 'the two sides of the truth which is in Jesus.... Though both are the truth, one [universal restoration] is the truth as it is for God and as it is for faith the further side of decision; the other [heaven and hell] is the truth as it must be to the subject facing decision.' Hell is a reality in the existential situation of the man facing the challenge of the Gospel: the seriousness of his decision must not be weakened by universalism. But universal salvation is the reality which God wills and which therefore must come about. For all that Robinson tries to give proper weight to the myth of heaven and hell, it is clear that universalism has the last word. As God's viewpoint it has a final validity denied to the viewpoint of man in decision.

You wrote:

Also, are you sure that traditionalists are not the ones clinging to their view of hell for utilitarian reasons? Your position, if I do not misread you, is that the presentation of the gospel doesn't get the job done half so well without adding into it the teaching of hell. This certainly removes the argument from the realm of exegesis to mere utilitarianism, doesn't it?

Well, Jesus seemed to think threats and warnings were useful, but perhaps I misunderstand Him. But threats and warnings are useful only with those who believe there is a God and future judgement. I believe all the threats (and promises) of the NT are addressed to such.

[steve7150]

No one at this forum has emphasized the literal view of hell fire as much as the universalists have. It serves their purpose to make the traditional view as repulsive as they can, even though a great number who hold the traditional view (ET) do not see hell as a literal torment in fire. And historically universalists have seen it as useful, as we shall see.








It serves our purpose to MAKE the traditional view as repulsive as we can? What would that purpose be? The repulsiveness of literal hell does not carry any effort whatsover on the CUs part, it clearly and graphically speaks for itself. Nothing has to be embellished to make it seem worse then it is which is grotesque whether literal flames or outer darkness. How long does it take a man to go insane when he is in solitary confinement? Outer darkness eternally sounds a million times worse, maybe worse then literal flames.

[steve7150]

Well, Jesus seemed to think threats and warnings were useful, but perhaps I misunderstand Him. But threats and warnings are useful only with those who believe there is a God and future judgement. I believe all the threats (and promises) of the NT are addressed to such.

User avatar
Homer









The existence of a future judgment is not in dispute but rather what it entails.

[Paidion]

The preaching of the gospel with John the baptizer:

The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God. As it is written in Isaiah the prophet, “Behold, I send my messenger before your face, who will prepare your way,the voice of one crying in the desert: ‘Prepare the way of the Lord, make his paths straight,’”

John appeared, baptizing in the desert and proclaiming a baptism of repentance for the forsaking of sins. And all the country of Judea and all Jerusalem were going out to him and were being baptized by him in the river Jordan, confessing their sins. (Mark 1:1-5)

Where in John's presentation of the gospel of the Kingdom do you find that he warned his hearers about hell? He did ask the Pharisees who came to be baptized who had warned them to flee the wrath to come. But he didn't specify that this wrath was "hell". Nor was that warning part of his gospel presentation.

Jesus also proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom. Jesus did warn against the gehenna of fire. But did He give that warning as part of the gospel?

Peter proclaimed the gospel in great detail (Acts 2:14-40). In his presentation, he warns his hearers to save themselves "from this crooked generation." But where, in that presentation do you find him warning his hearers about hell?

Paul proclaimed the gospel of the Kingdom (Acts 38:30,31). Paul's words when he presented the gospel are recorded many places in Acts. In which of these places do you find that he warned against hell? Indeed, where does Paul even mention gehenna (hell) in any one of the 12 letters he wrote, which form part of the New Testament?

It seems to me that making hell a part of the gospel message is a modern invention.

[PapaJ]

Making a reply to: Steve and Jon’s Comments...Steve wrote:

In our discussion here, the question was raised whether people would have any motivation to follow God if there were no fear of hell. I answered (appropriately, it seems to me) that I have excellent motivation to follow God, though a fear of going to hell is not on my radar. Do you disagree with this?

Well I don’t, but I guess Jon did. Well since nobody knows me here, let me share a little so you know my background and testimony.

Since I believe God has always been faithful to the promises He made to Israel, to bless them and curse them; I am confident after studying the Scriptures for almost 42-years that I have nothing to fear. Obviously there are some like Jon replying to Steve, have not had that confidence and because of the tradition he was raised in and teachers he has been under, he appears to be running in fear instead of walking in faith. I can honestly say I have not grown up in that fearful tradition and even though I have departed from many errors I received from my church tradition; I praise Him for putting me there until I could stand on my own.

The same for my family, in many ways they were all screwed up and they did not get saved until I was struggling with drugs and alcohol, but until I was a teen they provided me everything I needed: security, material needs, love and a sense of community with grandmothers and cousins; so I never grew up with any fear. Now I knew we were professing Christians, my parents going to Church twice a year. I went to a United Methodist Church with my best friend whose mother was my 2nd grade Sunday School teacher, but I did not go much in 3rd or 4th grade, usually I was at the Drag Strip at least twice a month. In 5th grade I was forced to attend Pioneer Baptist Church in Norwalk to babysit my younger brother and sister at church; only because a church bus came to pick us up. My mom got us up and ready like we were going to school so her and my dad could have some private time. Now I know the United Methodist Church did not talk about hell; and I’m sure the Baptist did, but I never remember hearing anything about it and never went forward to make any decisions. But twice a year I went to my Grandmothers Holiness Church in El Monte for Christmas and Easter and I don’t remember hearing about Hell or getting saved there either. I will say this, I remember seeing my grandmother at least twice a month when my parents wanted to go out and she talked about Hell all the time. She lived in fear she might loose her salvation and feared for us being raised by her son and my mom who were very worldly people heading for Hell. Well my parents quizzed us about what she said and told us we were not that bad and only bad people went to Hell, saying grandma was a little crazy. From my 6th grade until 10th grade we only went to the Holiness Church for Christmas. When I was in 9th grade all hell broke out in our family after my mother admitted to my dad she committed adultery, only after he found out he had VD. Since they both experienced divorce when they were 10-years old they swore they would never put their children through that, but for 1-year we went through so much hell we wished they had got a divorce with my parents sleeping in 2-different rooms. By this time my science teacher had convinced me I descended from Apes and there were no gods. So when my mom became a Christian, God sent two women to our house on the night she had planned to take her life, after that for a few months she forced us to go to this large Baptist Church. She wanted us to believe and accept her new found faith, but we were convinced she needed it and we were OK.

At 15 when my mom tried to get me saved, I told her I did not believe in Heaven or Hell, I prayed a prayer to make her feel good, but it never had any affect on me. When I turned 18’ I went to a special Youth Revival Night meeting, only to invite a stoner girl 17, (whose parents were making her go to the same meeting) to go with me to a drug party afterwards; where I was hoping we would get wasted and I would get lucky. Well God revealed Himself to me that night and made it clear in my mind that I needed Him in my life. I knew I was a bad sinner and instantly fear fell upon me, I heard His voice speak to me within and I knew I needed Him in my life. I stayed around asking questions to those who prayed with me, all the teens had eaten their pizza and left; I never caught up with Denise or even made it to my own Birthday (drug) Party. I went home confused but having peace with God for whatever He did in me that night. The next day I spent most of the day trying to read Daniel 9, the passage Phil Shuler was preaching from, I can’t explain it but my inability to comprehend what I was reading did not detour me from reading it again and again for hours, thinking there was some kind of hocus-pocus that turned my heart and captured my mind. I asked my mom Saturday night if she had an extra Bible I could take to church, she was shocked that I wanted to go. I told her I was not really interested in listening to Dr. Wells, but I had to talk with a Pastor to find out what happened to me on Friday night.

This time going to church was different, I was glad to be there, but I still had questions and two pastors told me to come and see them next week. My question was what happened to me? Up until Friday night I did not believe in Heaven or Hell and honestly I believed the anti-god crowd that this was all made up, the Bible was a book of made up stories and we got here through evolution. I had been very impressed with the answers and attack Mr. Stone (10th grade science teacher) laid against the Christians in my class. So here I was 3-years later wanting to know why I was willing to believe things I had openly spoken against for the last 3-years. When I was a senior in High School I mocked those Christians trying to share Jesus with me and now I was one without any argument, like Saul when God blinded him, but for me He opened my eyes to receive things I had been vocally against. I did not turn to God because I was in fear of Hell, being that I did not believe in Hell, but on that Friday night when He spoke to me, the thought of death without God did pass through my mind, but not Hell. It is my observation after 20-years of church ministry serving at every level that the preaching on Hell had produced more unfruitful professions of faith. It is a conversation I have had with many peers who have shared with me the same that they and those they have discipled experienced an awakening of God working in their life; most of them making their public profession at the end of a church service. Several of them had dropped the hard Hell Fire preaching they started their ministry with after seeing it produced many decisions but few fruitful transformations.

Sorry Jon I’ve shared a lot to say, I’ve experienced something similar to Steve and the concept of Hell had little to do with me getting saved and you are speaking from your church tradition not Scripture. After studying the Scriptures for almost 42-years I do believe in Hell and I believe there was a purpose for Jesus to confront those Jews about its truth, but he was not trying to convert anyone during His life, He was hiding the truth from some, “For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them” until the New Covenant went into effect, after His death and resurrection.

[jriccitelli]

Paidion, you said; 'It seems to me that making hell a part of the gospel message is a modern invention'

So, if you mean everything post the Garden is a modern invention, then yes it is a new thing.
God said to Adam the day that you eat you will die, it seems you are skipping past God and 30 something books and prophets of the Old Testament that warn of judgment and death.
Seems to me hell is synonymous with punishment and death.
I am sure the people Peter was speaking to have not been living under a rock their whole lives, they were probably Jewish, and like anyone living on earth today - they have heard of and are familiar with the concept of Hell (AC/DC did popularize it) so just because Peter does not allude to Hell, I am sure people were aware of Gods judgments, whatever you call them.

In fact Peter says nothing in this speech other than proclaim that was the One promised by God, and that they put Him to death, at this they gasped what should we do? (As someone spoke of on this thread earlier) What do you think they were all of sudden fearful of, once it had been revealed that they were guilty? That’s right punishment, that is why we repent, because we are guilty.

You said
'…He did ask the Pharisees who came to be baptized who had warned them to flee the wrath to come' But he didn't specify that this wrath was "hell".

Punishment, hell, torture, eternal death, this can only be a result of your not willing to believe all that the Prophets from Moses to Malachi have warned. You seem to have made punishment, and wrath into something else. Fire destroys, have you ever seen what fire does? You have inserted 'refiners fire' into every passage on wrath and punishment, where refiners fire is but in only in two or three verses, and gold in a refiners fire isn't necessarily put in the fire, but heated by fire.
Fire stands for what fire does it destroys utterly everything and anything.

And speaking of refiners fire; Not everyone is gold, fire does not turn people into gold, they would already have to be gold, as only gold would survive.

Paidion you said you are seeking the truth, I am not 'wanting' to attack anything you say, I want to agree with you. I am sure I would like you if I met you. Challanging your statements, Is like one of my very best friends with whom usually disagrees with me on these issues also, yet this all causes me to study my Bible deeper, and think deeper, which is, I hope, is my real ambition.

[verbatim]

jriccitelli wrote:

And speaking of refiners fire; Not everyone is gold, fire does not turn people into gold, they would already have to be gold, as only gold would survive.

How would you comment on this verse, Psalm 12:6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.(KJV)