HELL

[Paidion]

Paidon said: "Yes, "aidios" is the adjective to describe the chains all right. I, too, have wondered why the chains are everlasting whereas the angels who are restricted by those chains are kept there only until the Great Judgment."

Can your prove that the word means "until" without any other possible meaning?

If you are asking for a rigid mathematical-type proof, or a proof such as might be given in formal logic, the answer is "No." Besides, in other contexts, there are several other meanings.

I can only say that the primary meaning of the Greek word "εἰς" in a physical sense, is "into". It is the word which would be used in Greek when writing about someone entering INTO a room. Sometimes, the word is used in the sense that the object of this preposition is a goal or purpose of an action. For example, in Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ εἰς the forsaking of your sins."

Thus the goal or purpose of repenting (having a change of heart and mind) and being baptized was that one might be empowered to forsake his sins.

Concerning the passage about the everlasing chains, the RSV, ESV, and Philips translate the word "εἰς" as "until."
The WNT, Murdoch, and Rotherham translate it as "unto" (which is simply an older English form of "until").
Other translations render the word as "to".

[Jepne]

I will never forget when my [new at the time] husband told me that no matter what I did, he would love me. Period. It provoked me to be SURE I would do right by him! It is the same with Jesus - the more I know him and his love, the more I want to know him, do right, and spend time with him.

When I met the Lord, it was through people who radiated 'joy unspeakable and full of glory', and that same joy has been available to me ever since. These people demonstrated heaven. A big difference between them and the less happy campers who, in former years, had tried to tell me how to get to a heaven I did not believe in, and escape a hell I did not believe in by 'accepting Jesus [whom I didn't believe in] into my heart'.

Great exposition on the Gospel, Steve. We really appreciate you.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote,

Old Testament saints had very little knowledge about God, compared to ourselves. They knew nothing about a God who would deign to live and die for them, as a mortal Himself, among men. It may be that most knew too little to be expected to respond to Him without personal advantage playing a significant role.

I was hoping you would respond with your explanation of the motivating factors I cited in regard to the heroes of the faith in Hebrews 11. Is this it? Also you did not respond regarding Paul's comments about "if there is no resurrection". I would like to hear how you fit these passages in your paradigm.

You may preach whatever gospel comforts as many people as you wish, but we will all answer to God for whether we preached Christ's gospel, or the American Evangelical culture's (or our denomination's) gospel.

The mention of hell, I don't think, is comforting. Seems to me there are too many Dale Carnegie type folks today attempting to win friends and influence people.

If Christians should look into their hearts and find that they do not love God (the first and great commandment), and that they are only living as Christians to placate His wrath, what would I say to such? I would say, Get to know Jesus better, because God is quite like Him. If you can get to know Him without the result being actual love for Him (which casts out fear), then there is a deficiency in your conversion.

But the first great commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. R. C. Sproul recently commented that he couldn't honestly say there was a day in his life when he lived up to that commandment. And if you do not consistently live up to it, then it seems to me you are only better by degree that the person who loves God for sake of self.

I have commented more than once that if persecution and death for Christians ever came to us as it did for the early Christians that I would submit to the sword before I would deny Jesus. But it is easy to speak about hypothetical situations. I don't think either you or I can know for sure, any more than Peter did before he denied Jesus.

Your description of denial of self sounds like merely denying your sinful desires on a case-by-case basis. This is a secular sort of self-denial (such as a dieter or an alcoholic on the wagon engages in).

How else do we deny ourselves except as situations arise? Jesus said it is a daily thing.

There is a good chance that most such "self-denial" is done with self-serving ends in view.

Again you sound rather judgmental. What is the basis for the comment?

By contrast, the convert's "denial of self" is the denial of the reign, or lordship, of self in favor of the lordship of Christ. This is not anecdotal in the life merely, but it is the reorientation of the whole life: "No longer I, but Christ." In scripture, this is the very description of being converted. Anything less is playing at religion.

I have long maintained that Jesus is both Lord and Saviour. I think you know that, I do not understand what prompted to comment.

Well, it seems to me that announcing the fact that God raised from the dead and set on the throne of the universe the very man that the audience had earlier crucified might tend to have a chilling effect.

And what might the "chilling effect" be if they had no intimation of judgment and hell?

Regarding hell being part of the gospel message Paul wrote:

Romans 1:16-18
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17. For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
18. For the wrath of God is revealed (in it) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

The gospel is only good news for those who accept it and is rather bad for those who do not.

[steve]

John316yes,

I thought I was done arguing with you, but you raised some fair points based upon misunderstanding of specific scriptures, so I will clarify:

Jesus presented these parables that included hell as a center point of his message: "But I will warn you whom to fear: fear him who, after he has killed, has authority to cast into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him!"

Jesus didn't say this to unbelievers. He said it to His disciples when He was sending them out on an outreach. My claim is that, in preaching the gospel to unbelievers, no threat of hell was used by the apostles in Acts. Jesus said a few things about hell, but generally only to His disciples, who had already been converted and were, apparently, following Him due to other motives..

1.) The parable of the drag net "Then they sat down and collected the good fish in baskets, but threw the bad away. ... throw them into the blazing furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth."

This parable, like many others, was spoken to a crowd that did not understand (and were not permitted to understand—Matt.13:10-11) its meaning. In all likelihood, Jesus explained this parable (as He did the similar parable of the tares) "privately to His disciples" (Mark4:34). To the clueless crowds, this was a story about fish and fishing, not a description of people going to hell.

2.) The parable of the fig tree "if it bears fruit next year, fine! If not, then cut it down"

There is no reference to hell in this story. Most scholars would agree that the "fig tree" here refers to Israel during Christ's three-year ministry. This seems correct to me also. Cutting it down refers to what happened in AD 70.

3.) The parable of the rich man and Lazuras, " 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'"

This is indeed one rare occasion in which Christ mentioned the rabbinic concept of hades when speaking to unbelievers. I make a distinction between preaching the gospel (the Good News) with a mind of converting people to Christ, on the one hand, and the prophetic phenomenon of denouncing apostates, without holding out any promise or gospel to them. It is my opinion that the only time Christ clearly spoke of damnation to an unsaved audience was on a few occasions denouncing (not evangelizing) the Pharisees. This is such a case.

In any case, it does not make reference to any of our three views of hell, which only apply to that which occurs after the final judgment. This story is about the intermediate state. The judgment had not yet occurred, as the rich man's brothers were still living in the timeframe of the story.

4.) ]The parable of the wheat an the tares] "First collect the weeds and tie them in bundles to be burned; then gather the wheat and bring it into my barn.'"

Same explanation as about the dragnet (essentially the same parable).

5.) the parable of the wedding banquet, "The king was enraged. He sent his army and destroyed those murderers and burned their city." "Then the king told the attendants, 'Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.'"

The burning of the city is an unambiguous reference to AD 70. The man thrown into outer darkness (after the final judgment, I presume) was a church member who did not come in on the King's terms (quite relevant, actually, to our present topic). This parable (like the one prior to it, and almost everything else in chapters 21) is another example of prophetic denunciation and prediction of national doom—not a case of evangelism.

6) finally Mathew 25 the Judgment day.

Once again, this is not an example of the gospel being preached to unbelievers. If this chapter is a continuation of chapter 24 (which it appears to be), it was addressed to His disciples "privately" (Matt.24:3), and this was really only Peter, James, John and Andrew (Mark 13:3).

you said "preponderance of scriptural testimony seems to favor other alternatives"

Yes, I did. And it is demonstrably the case.

[steve]

Hi Homer,

You wrote,

you did not respond regarding Paul's comments about "if there is no resurrection". I would like to hear how you fit these passages in your paradigm.

Paul is not demonstrating, I think, that his primary motive for being saved is his hope of resurrection. He is describing the special challenges of his apostolic labors to win souls. He knows what awaits the lost, and is motivated by love to spare them. Elsewhere he wrote, "Knowing, therefore, the terror of the Lord, we persuade men" (2 Cor.5:11). Though he was aware of the fearful danger souls were in, he had little reason to be afraid for himself. He was already saved. In the same context, he wrote the motivation of his life: "For the love of Christ constrains us" (2 Cor.5:14).

"The terror of the Lord" is not a description of what motivated Paul to be saved or to be devoted to Christ. But it motivates him to lay his life down in the attempt to reach others. Paul's "terror" was not for his own soul. He was terrified for the fate of others. As Christ only taught explicitly about eschatology to those who were already His disciples, so Paul, for all we know, did not ever focus on eschatology in his evangelistic messages. However, Jesus' telling his disciples about hell would provide them with one motivation (among others) to reach out to those who were perishing. If there were no afterlife, there would still be reason to relate to our Creator, but less fear, in all likelihood, for the fate of the lost. If this life is all there is, what's the crisis? What's the hurry to reach so many in the shortest time possible (Matt.10:23)?

Paul greatly wanted to experience the resurrection of the just (Phil.3:11), since his love for Christ made him desire to "be with the Lord" (Phil.1:23). Paul's main motivation could hardly have been his own salvation, since he was willing, if possible, to bear Christ's curse upon himself in order to see others saved (Rom.9:3).

The mention of hell, I don't think, is comforting. Seems to me there are too many Dale Carnegie type folks today attempting to win friends and influence people.

The mention of hell, as you say, is not comforting. However many (I'm thinking you would include yourself) believe that the comfort of the gospel will be much more attractive after the sinner has been made considerably more uncomfortable by descriptions of hell. My discussion with John316yes is not about hell, but about allowing heaven, seen primarily as an escape from hell, to be the only motivation for conversion or for loving God. If you have been following this thread, you will know that this is what he and I are primarily in disagreement about.

But the first great commandment is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. R. C. Sproul recently commented that he couldn't honestly say there was a day in his life when he lived up to that commandment. And if you do not consistently live up to it, then it seems to me you are only better by degree that the person who loves God for sake of self.

I will allow R.C. Sproul to speak for himself—and apparently he has done so. He may be a fine man, but he is not my ideal role model. Jesus is. The command is indeed to love God fully. Jesus even gave this command in response to the question: "What shall I do to inherit eternal life?" (Luke 10:25-27). I would think Jesus to be the expert on such things. To love God supremely (but inconsistently) is, in your mind only a difference of "degree" from loving yourself? It seems like a difference in "kind" to me.

How else do we deny ourselves except as situations arise? Jesus said it is a daily thing.

To initially deny self, as I said, is a reorientation of life from self to Christ. If you do not think so, I will not try to persuade you, but I have known few preachers or commentators to say otherwise. Do we need to do this daily? Of course. The flesh always tried to reassert its prerogatives (Gal.5:17). However, the difference between a Christian and a non-Christian is not simply that the former exercises self-restraint and the other does not. The difference is one of whose pleasure and glory the person is living for.

I wrote:
There is a good chance that most such "self-denial" is done with self-serving ends in view.

You responded:
Again you sound rather judgmental. What is the basis for the comment?


Would you judge otherwise? Do you doubt that most people who diet or who fight off their addictions are doing this primarily for their own good? I am not talking about Christians here, as the context of my statement made clear.

I wrote:

By contrast, the convert's "denial of self" is the denial of the reign, or lordship, of self in favor of the lordship of Christ. This is not anecdotal in the life merely, but it is the reorientation of the whole life: "No longer I, but Christ." In scripture, this is the very description of being converted. Anything less is playing at religion.

To which you responded:

I have long maintained that Jesus is both Lord and Saviour. I think you know that, I do not understand what prompted to comment.

Why so touchy? I didn't question whether you have embraced Christ as Lord. If you would have followed my train of thought, my paragraph that you found so offensive (though you claim to agree with it) was not a judgment of you or anyone else. What "prompted" the comment was your explanation of the meaning of "denying yourself." I was explaining an alternative understanding of the phrase. I didn't point the finger at anybody. I am surprised that you felt pointed at.

This reaction may illustrate a difference between our attitudes in these discussions. You are not always this way, but whenever we discuss hell, it seems to throw a switch in you causing to take things personally, and to make personal swipes at me, which is not generally your manner. It is observable that this issue is an emotional one for you. It is much less so for me. You do not advocate the traditional view of hell, and neither do I. You advocate annihilationism, and I always treat that view with great respect. I am not a convinced annihilationist, but I am open to it, as well as to restorationism. You, on the other hand, are loaded for bear. I am not sure why I am your bear of choice. I have never criticized your view of hell. We both are critical of the traditional view.


I wrote:

Well, it seems to me that announcing the fact that God raised from the dead and set on the throne of the universe the very man that the audience had earlier crucified might tend to have a chilling effect.

And you responded:

And what might the "chilling effect" be if they had no intimation of judgment and hell?

Is this a serious question? Whether they had any valid understanding of hell or not, we are not told. They might have had some ideas based upon their culture or their imaginations. However, their Old Testament scriptures had not instructed them in the subject, nor did the evangelists they heard. I am afraid I cannot explain why someone would find it a fearful thing to live under God's frown, with or without a view of hell, since you profess not to know any reason to seek God's smile, apart from the threat of hell. We have fundamental differences in motivation. That should be clear enough by this point.

Regarding hell being part of the gospel message Paul wrote:

Romans 1:16-18
16. For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. 17. For in it (the gospel) the righteousness of God is revealed from faith to faith; as it is written, “But the righteous man shall live by faith.”
18. For the wrath of God is revealed (in it) from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness,

First, there is no reference I can see to hell in these verses. There is mention of "wrath" but it would be strange to equate this with hell, since the wrath to which he refers has been "revealed from heaven." This suggests that it is something made visible to all. As Paul explains his meaning in the chapter, he apparently sees the manifestation of God's wrath toward the obstinate in the fact that He has given them up to their own ways (vv.24, 26, 28). Where do you see a reference to hell in this passage?

The gospel is only good news for those who accept it and is rather bad for those who do not.

I would rather state it the case this way: The gospel is good news to those who accept it. For the rest there is no good news. The gospel itself is the good news. There is no biblical definition of the gospel that would make it "bad news."

[dwilkins]

Steve,

Could you explain your statement,"As Christ only taught explicitly about eschatology to those who were already His disciples, so Paul, for all we know, did not ever focus on eschatology in his evangelistic messages."

It seems to me that throughout Luke, Christ is talking eschatology with the Jews ("Jesus vs. Jerusalem", McDurmon), and that Paul regularly referred to a judgement about to come when attempting to evangelize unbelievers.

Doug

[john316yes]

Hey Steve, I actually agree that the wedding banquet and the fig tree pointed to the destruction of Jerusalem in A 70 and was mainly pointing to the Jews, nevertheless, the Judgment of God and his wrath is still present in these parables whether it is a temporal judgment or an eternal judgment. God has wrath and hatred toward sin and sinners, but it is a just wrath and is righteous as opposed to a murderer. Killing is not unjust if its foundation is justice.


I guess our debate about hell is going nowhere. I haven't convinced you about my understanding of an Eternal punishment. We stand at a draw. Here are your claims that I have gathered from our discussions is it fair?

1.) Eternal punishment (STEVE) does not believe the adjective, Eternal in Mathew 25, "Eternal punishment and Eternal fire" means with out ceasing or never ending.

2.) Reasons why people come to Jesus. (STEVE) believes it is incorrect to come to God and rejoice in him because of what he gives to people; that is, Eternal life, forgiveness, an inheritance, a resurrected body, a crown of righteousness, escaping eternal fire.

3.) Gospel presentation: (STEVE) It is wrong to preach the doctrine of hell when presenting the Gospel. ""


One last thing, if you would, how would you present the gospel to somebody? Also how do you deal with this verse?

"But because of your stubbornness and your unrepentant heart, you are storing up wrath against yourself for the day of God's wrath, when his righteous judgment will be revealed... But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger."

[steve7150]

1.) Eternal punishment (STEVE) does not believe the adjective, Eternal in Mathew 25, "Eternal punishment and Eternal fire" means with out ceasing or never ending.





I'm not Steve G but the adjective you referred to "eternal" is from a bible translation and as you may know the greek word used in this case "aionios" is not accepted as always meaning eternal by many people.
Also God's wrath does not have to equate with eternal punishment and in fact the bible says God's anger does not last very long. There is such a thing as punishment that need not be eternal.

The churches of the middle ages very much liked the eternal punishment translation as it gave them great power over the masses at a time when very few people could read or have access to bibles. The eternal punishment interpretation became ingrained into orthodox doctrine without much critical thought by the church leaders.

[Roberto]

Paidon said: "Yes, "aidios" is the adjective to describe the chains all right. I, too, have wondered why the chains are everlasting whereas the angels who are restricted by those chains are kept there only until the Great Judgment."

Can your prove that the word means "until" without any other possible meaning?

If you are asking for a rigid mathematical-type proof, or a proof such as might be given in formal logic, the answer is "No." Besides, in other contexts, there are several other meanings.

I can only say that the primary meaning of the Greek word "εἰς" in a physical sense, is "into". It is the word which would be used in Greek when writing about someone entering INTO a room. Sometimes, the word is used in the sense that the object of this preposition is a goal or purpose of an action. For example, in Acts 2:38

Peter said to them, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ εἰς the forsaking of your sins."

Thus the goal or purpose of repenting (having a change of heart and mind) and being baptized was that one might be empowered to forsake his sins.

Concerning the passage about the everlasing chains, the RSV, ESV, and Philips translate the word "εἰς" as "until."
The WNT, Murdoch, and Rotherham translate it as "unto" (which is simply an older English form of "until").
Other translations render the word as "to".

So it isn't really conclusive. Maybe we should say so when we present something as evidence that might not be?

[backwoodsman]

I guess our debate about hell is going nowhere. I haven't convinced you about my understanding of an Eternal punishment. We stand at a draw.

What debate? All you've done is state your view and your belief that everything else is false teaching. You won't even look at what many Christians consider solid evidence that your view is unbiblical, and you haven't made a rational case for your view or against any other, beyond tossing out various verses out of context (like the one at the bottom of the post to which I'm replying). You didn't even bother to reply to my post. There hasn't been any debate.

You have to understand that Steve and several others of us have studied this issue in some depth, and it's been discussed ad nauseum in several threads on this forum. The approach you've used so far just doesn't measure up (although it might be good for scaring simple-minded folk into poorly-informed decisions). If you want to have any hope of convincing anyone here of anything (or, for that matter, learning anything, which I hope interests you as well), you're going to have to bite the bullet and enter into an actual discussion -- read up just a little on opposing views, make thoughtful cases for your view and against others, respond to direct questions, that sort of thing.