Hell

Discuss topics raised by callers on the radio program
User avatar
jeremiah
Posts: 339
Joined: Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:58 pm
Location: Mount Carroll, IL
Contact:

Re: Hell

Post by jeremiah » Wed Jul 16, 2014 2:26 pm

Christ is saying even the most severe sacrifices on earth are worth avoiding hell.
I agree that is something like what he is saying. I disagree with you that "Universalism" makes this warning void. If restoration of the sinner to himself is God's intended purpose for that sinner in hell, then so be it, and the warnings thus remain with all their force.

I doubt it would be hard to find some past threads which have already had a go at hashing this out.
Last edited by jeremiah on Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:44 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Also unto thee, O Lord, belongeth mercy: for thou renderest to every man according to his work.

User avatar
Homer
Posts: 2995
Joined: Sat Aug 23, 2008 11:08 pm

Re: Hell

Post by Homer » Wed Jul 16, 2014 4:08 pm

But if universalism is true, "all bets are off" as far as spending any time in hell for any particular person. It has been admitted that a person might confess and be saved when confronted by Christ at judgment day. Since any conversion process post-mortem is speculative it would seem wise to let Jesus' threats and warnings stand as spoken.

On the other hand, if universalism is true and if spending some time in hell produces repentance, then the warnings Jesus gave about hell are weakened, not voided. But then those are big "ifs".

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Hell

Post by steve » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:16 pm

The above post misses a very important point. It suggests that people who have hardened their hearts against God throughout their lives could simply turn on a dime when they come to the judgment, and suddenly be truly humble and worshipful toward God, and thus avoid any time in hell at all.

First, I would say that, if it were indeed possible for such heartfelt repentance to occur immediately, would anyone object to God immediately saving that person, just as He immediately saved us upon the same conditions? How would these terms be any more objectionable in their case than in yours or mine?

Second, this post seems to assume that true conversion is a very shallow and easy thing. The human heart is not a static, but a dynamic, thing. It does not remain the same through a lifetime of rebellion, but grows harder and harder. This hardness is measured on the scale of inability to love, to appreciate grace, to worship, etc. If there are universalists who think a life-time hardened sinner can simply repent when he thinks it convenient (I am not aware of them), then I would say they underrate either the bondage of the rebellious heart, or else the depth of the necessary repentance that leads to salvation.

While I know of no universalists who make such a miscalculation, it would appear to be inherent in the theology of the above post.

I assume that any universalist who believes that some will immediately repent upon meeting Jesus is assuming those individuals to be people whose hearts remained soft and teachable (though unevangelized) throughout their lifetime. Is that unrealistic?

User avatar
steve
Posts: 3392
Joined: Thu Aug 21, 2008 9:45 pm

Re: Hell

Post by steve » Wed Jul 16, 2014 5:36 pm

Quilter2 wrote:
The Catholic church teaches purgatory. I have wondered if purgatory was not a distortion of the idea of punishment after physical death in order to bring someone to repentance, sort of a twist on the universal reconciliation position.

It seems a real possibility, and has been proposed by some writers I have read.

steve7150
Posts: 2597
Joined: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:44 am

Re: Hell

Post by steve7150 » Fri Jul 18, 2014 9:09 am

Since any conversion process post-mortem is speculative









Didn't Jonah repent postmortem? If Jonah can do it why can't any other sinner do it?

nancyer

Re: Hell

Post by nancyer » Tue Jul 22, 2014 3:12 pm

[b]My previous pastor used the phrase "it seems to me" a lot, because he understood that he doesn't know everything and that his job wasn't to tell us what and how to believe but rather, to help us get to a point of belief. Plus, I have found that most discussions on "eternity", hell, etc., come about when talking about someone who has died (not all, of course) and that makes answering the question a little dicey. Since coming to Christ I believe "hell" to be a place that is totally and completely without God. I don't believe that exists anywhere here on earth, for anyone. Even those who claim not to believe, who claim they don't care or who claim there simply isn't a god. So, hell gives them just what they "wanted", a place where no god exists. And they then realize the torment, loneliness, isolation and emptiness of a world without God, and by this, realize that God was with them all along they just didn't accept it. This is a hell I want no part of.

User avatar
Quilter2
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Hell

Post by Quilter2 » Sun Aug 17, 2014 12:57 am

I am grateful for this discussion and Steve's book because I always found it hard to reconcile the eternal torment position with the verses about proportionate punishment. I have no idea there were other views. As they say, the victor writes the history, so that is probably why we have had one 'officially orthodox' view taught all these years.

If security is conditional, then would it not logically follow that immortality is conditional? I find no mention in the OT of man being immoral. While I grew up in churches that taught 'once saved always saved' I could never get past the warnings in Hebrews and other NT passages which led me to be conditional as to salvation. If God in his providence willed that man should have free will as to whether to accept Christ, would it not follow that He also gave man as a consequence the ability to effectively choose whether he would repent and thus live, or to refuse God and perish (be punished then annihilated)? From skimming over the discussions (I am not on page 15), isn't conditional immortality just the final consequence of man refusing to turn to God?

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: Hell

Post by Singalphile » Sun Aug 17, 2014 10:23 am

Quilter2 wrote:I am grateful for this discussion and Steve's book because I always found it hard to reconcile the eternal torment position with the verses about proportionate punishment. I have no idea there were other views. As they say, the victor writes the history, so that is probably why we have had one 'officially orthodox' view taught all these years.
Hi Quilter2,

Same here. I think that just as the printing press (~15th century) led to an increase in the availability and knowledge of Scriptures and different interpretations thereof, which helped bring about the Reformation, so also the advent and ubiquity of the internet (~2000?) and all of its essentially free resources (Greek/Hebrew ancient writings, commentaries, etc.) has or will lead to even more reforming of our views.
Quilter2 wrote:If security is conditional, then would it not logically follow that immortality is conditional? I find no mention in the OT of man being immoral. While I grew up in churches that taught 'once saved always saved' I could never get past the warnings in Hebrews and other NT passages which led me to be conditional as to salvation. If God in his providence willed that man should have free will as to whether to accept Christ, would it not follow that He also gave man as a consequence the ability to effectively choose whether he would repent and thus live, or to refuse God and perish (be punished then annihilated)? From skimming over the discussions (I am not on page 15), isn't conditional immortality just the final consequence of man refusing to turn to God?
That we are not in any sense inherently immortal seems more obvious to me (Gen 3:21-22, Rom 2:7, 2 Tim 1:10, 1 Tim 6:16) than which view of hell is most correct.
I would answer your questions in the affirmative (but it largely comes down to semantics). My only quibble is with this that you wrote: "(be punished then annihilated)". The "annihilation" doesn't have to be thought of as something that happens after the punishment. Rather, the annihiliation/death/destruction can be considered as part of the punishment, i.e., the final condition or result. In other words, annihilation (in whatever way it might occur for different people) is eternal punishment, regardless of how you define "eternal" (aionios).
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Quilter2
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Hell

Post by Quilter2 » Fri Aug 22, 2014 2:30 am

Agreed. I only meant that for those who are to be punished it would precede annihilation if you hold that view.
Paula

User avatar
Quilter2
Posts: 61
Joined: Tue Feb 23, 2010 8:37 pm

Re: Hell

Post by Quilter2 » Sat Sep 13, 2014 3:12 pm

If the security of the believer is conditional on abiding in Christ, why wouldn't immortality be conditioned on salvation? Isn't that a logical deduction? Plus the Old Testament doesn't make much if any statements about 'eternal life'. The promises of blessing are generally earthly. Isn't eternal life really a result of being in the Son?

Paula

Post Reply

Return to “Radio Program Topics”