HELL

[Singalphile]

John316yes,

Please also consider that "eternal punishment" (if you accept that aionios includes the concept of "eternal", as I do) is not the same thing as "eternal punishing" or "eternal conscious suffering". If the punishment is death/destruction, then it would be eternal death/destruction, which is consistent with other Bible passages (2 Thess 1:9, Rev 20:14, John 3:16, etc.). This also seems similar to the way "aionios/eternal" is used in other passages like Heb 6:2 and Heb 9:12. In the former (Heb 6:2), there is "eternal judgement", which I think refers to a judgement with eternal consequences, not an eternal process of judging.

This is what Steve (and others, I think) said earlier when he mentioned that the meaning of aionios as eternal is not a problem for an annihilationist like myself (90% anyway).

I held the traditional view until about 1 year ago, maybe. I had no reason to question it and have never been taught anything else. After studying the relevant passages, I changed my mind. That's all. If you can change it back, then that's fine. I have no problem with any of the views. I assume that God's punishment will be just and exactly what people deserve no matter what it consists of.

Gotta go. Thanks for your thoughts.

[steve]

One last thing, if you would, how would you present the gospel to somebody?

I take this as a sincere inquiry. I understand the gospel to be the good news about the kingdom of God. This message, according to the book of Acts, is that Jesus has been enthroned as King and that all are obliged to surrender to His claims upon them. This requires repentance on the part of those in rebellion against Him. It requires faithfulness (or "faith"—the Greek pistis can mean either) in our relationship with Him. Since He is a King, He is to be obeyed. In my book on hell, which will not be published until October, I sumarize the Gospel of the Kingdom from the specimens recorded in the preaching of the apostles. Here is the summary:

Acts, we would have to conclude that the main elements of this message were as follows:

1. Long ago, God made promises to the patriarchs and to David that a King of David’s lineage would be permanently enthroned in David’s place—one called the “Messiah,” or “Christ.” (Acts 2:16–21, 25–31; 3:18, 22–25; 4:11; 10:43; 13:27, 29, 32–35; 26:22);

2. These promises have been fulfilled in Jesus of Nazareth, the Promised One, whom God publicly endorsed by working acts of power through Him before many witnesses (Acts 2:22; 3:13, 16; 10:38–39; 13:23);

3. Jesus had enemies who crucified Him, but God restored Him to life, after which He was seen by witnesses, prior to ascending to His throne at the right hand of God (Acts 2:23–24, 32–35; 3:14–15, 26; 4:10; 5:30–32; 10:39–41; 13:28–35; 17:31; 26:23);

4. Since Jesus has been enthroned, it is incumbent upon all people to acknowledge His royal prerogatives (or “lordship”), and to repent of their rebellion against Him. To those who do this—embracing Him as Lord and Messiah (King)—He will graciously grant amnesty for all past rebellion (Acts 2:36–39; 3:19–20; 4:12; 5:31; 10:43; 13:26, 34, 38–39; 17:30–31; 26:23.).

These are the elements of every substantial presentation of the gospel recorded in the ministries of Peter and Paul. It may seem strange to us in some particulars, e.g.,

1. No emphasis on the atonement (though Paul retrospectively mentions it in his summary of the gospel as preach in Corinth—1 Cor.15:3);

2. No appeal to the Law to bring about conviction of sin (the use of the law in this way was not "the Way of the Master");

3. No mention of heaven or of hell, though, in one sermon, there is passing mention that there will be a day of judgment (Acts 17:31);

4. No mention of a need to "accept Jesus into one's heart" (not a biblical phrase);

5. No altar call or sinner's prayer.

I am not saying that these five features would never be legitimate to include in our evangelizing, in some cases. I am only saying that they were apparently not a part of the central message of the gospel (since they could be omitted). We might think that such a presentation as we find in Acts would not really get very good results (no bribes or threats attached). It worked out pretty well, though, in the first century. I wonder if Paul would consider our typical preaching to be "another gospel" (2 Cor.11:4/ Gal.1:8).

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."

It is not problematic. It is a good representation of what I believe to be true. However, it was written to the saints in Rome (Rom.1:7), not to unbelievers.

[dwilkins]

In talking about the elements of the original gospel and how successful it was I wonder if we aren't glossing over the fact that the original gospel was generally given to a crowd of people whose national history was pointing towards this event, and that due to Daniel's prophecy they were looking for fulfillment in the immediate future. In other words, we have no world wide narrative that is generally accepted by non-Christian nations where they expect something to happen soon, and the presentation of the gospel is simply our version of what is about to take place. Without this narrative preparation in that generation I don't think either the message or the effectiveness of it would have been the same.

Doug

[steve]

You make a good point, Doug. I do think the message is the same, though. In non-Jewish settings, certain features would require more development (point #1 especially). Among pagans, Paul had to go all the way back to the creation to establish even who God is (Acts 14:15; 17:24).

I believe the elements of the message remain the same, however they may have to be couched or ramped up to with any given audience.

[john316yes]

I am not understanding what you mean ... Sorry Steve ...

The book of Acts and the preaching of the first century that is. The audience that they delivered the message were to Jews and Greeks. Each group had a different understanding of God, and each groups sins were different: One was guilty of murdering the Messiah and denying the scriptures, the other was guilty of Sexual immorality and Idol worship. The message was shaped in a way that the hearer could understand. They had to fill in gaps of information for the Greeks.

I give up man ... Your Gospel presentation sounds right, but you say it in a wiered way ... Jesus is the King, and he fulfilled the prophecies about himself, He also demands people every where to repent and surrender to him, he grants forgiveness, but there is something strange here, things that I have never heard before.

Here is what I know i get my theology mainly from the book of Romans.:

The Law: Conviction of sin.

The Gospel that saves you : Jesus died on the cross for our sins according to the Scriptures, He was Buried according to the Scriptures, and God raised him to life, he was seen by witnesses.

1) Believe in Jesus Christ to save you from the wrath of God (The Gospel message)
2.) Follow Jesus Christ: become his disciple, love Jesus, Leave your sinful lifestyle, Let God's word renew your mind.
3.) Joy: Your saved, Eternal life, Resurrection, Eternal inheritance, Crown of righteousness.

Steve : You have complicated things. Its strange because some of the things that you say although are accurate, the order of you theology is bent. I'm not sure why ...


JESUS IS OUR SAVIOR!

[Paidion]

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

Roberto, what are you trying to say? Who is this "we" who is "presenting something as evidence that might not be"? Are you hinting that I have done that?

All I did was make the following comment:

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.

What is this "something" you think I was presenting as evidence?

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

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.

Wasn't the idea of hell and judgment current in Jewish thought at the time of the Apostles? At least the idea of reward and punishment after death is known to have been widespread in the ANE from Egypt, to Persia, and around to the Greeks.

so Paul, for all we know, did not ever focus on eschatology in his evangelistic messages

Did the apostles need to hammer on it? In our own age many of those who are not atheists have some idea of a judgment to come after death; even though not Christians still have some concept regarding this, however wrong it is. As one non-Christian once told me he thought he was okey because his good outweighed his bad. I'm sure those Peter preached to on the Day of Pentecost recognized they were in big trouble with God.

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.

And where have I professed that? My contention is that a person who comes to God for sake of self is accepted by Him. And you disparage them. That is our bone of contention on this thread. Did not Jesus say the bronze serpent held up by Moses was a type of Him? And did they not look upon the serpent in faith, motivated by self interest, and receive the promise?

One elderly local gentleman turned his attention to Christ. I expressed my happiness for him and he replied "I didn't want to miss the bus". Should I have said "better think again buddy"?

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?

I think it goes way beyond "giving them up to their own ways. Note Paul's further reference to his gospel:

Romans 2:15-16, New American Standard Bible (NASB)

15. in that they show the work of the Law written in their hearts, their conscience bearing witness and their thoughts alternately accusing or else defending them, 16. on the day when, according to my gospel, God will judge the secrets of men through Christ Jesus.

Are we to think that it was part of his gospel and he never preached it?

I remain interested in your explanation of the motivation of the heroes of faith in Hebrews 11. Were they motivated by self interest or no?

[Singalphile]

steve7150 wrote:
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.

Steve7150, that reminds me: Roman Catholics (and perhaps others) rely as much on the official teachings of their leaders as on the Bible itself. Therefore, "hell" doctrine is not something that is at all debatable or unclear for at least ~50% of self-described Christians.

You do make some serious accusations there, though (doctrine chosen for political purposes and/or without critical thought). I don't know enough to refute what you say, but I also would need some sort of evidence before I accepted it.

[Edited: Removed some unnecessary stuff.]

[dwilkins]

It seems to me that since all of the Gehenna talk in the New Testament is aimed at Israel as a threat of national destruction (mirroring Jeremiah 7, Isaiah 66, etc.) and the term "hell" is ambiguous and used to translate a number of Hebrew and Greek terms (including OT concepts of national destruction as well as individual destiny), the key is to determine Israel's role in the whole story. I'm going to start another thread to hopefully flesh this out, but the basic point is that if all of the "hell" references end up tied to Israel and destruction in 70AD then there is no mention of a negative eternal outcome anywhere in scripture. If all of the "hell" references refer to Israel under punishment, but Israel is used as a foil to teach about how God is going to deal with all men, then I think that is an argument for annihilation (the individual's destiny matching the Israelite national destiny in 70AD). I think it's important that though Jesus seems to use Gehenna and Hades as references to national punishment and destruction, he was fully aware that the Hellenized definition of Hades was being used by Jews in his generation and did nothing to disabuse them of their definition of it, which might indicate a double meaning.

Doug

[steve7150]

but Israel is used as a foil to teach about how God is going to deal with all men, then I think that is an argument for annihilation (the individual's destiny matching the Israelite national destiny in 70AD). I think it's important that though Jesus seems to use Gehenna and Hades as references to national punishment and destruction, he was fully aware that the Hellenized definition of Hades was being used by Jews in his generation and did nothing to disabuse them of their definition of it, which might indicate a double meaning.







I think if there were a double meaning the Apostles would have spelled it out especially considering the importance of spending eternity in hell. We have warnings about "wrath" and "judgment" but eternal punishment is something way beyond this IMHO.
The Israel as a foil point is a good point but again is it an eternal destruction since in Ezekial 16 it says Israel will be raised after her sister Sodom. So is Israel raised simply to be destroyed yet again or is there a possibility of something more?