HELL

[john316yes]

If there were to be no heaven or hell, would you still love God and serve The Lord Jesus Christ?


Hi Steve, thanks for the question. I don't think it possible to worship, serve, be thankful, or glorify God, in the new covenant era apart from having the knowledge of what God has done for you through the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ, the fact that he has saved us from eternal Punishment, and has given us a place in his kingdom. For you know as I know that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul says that men, by default, exchange the glory of the immortal God, trade the truth for a lie, worship and serve the creature rather than the creator, do not glorify God nor gave him thanks, and suppress the truth of God's invisible qualities and his eternal power. So no, it is not possible. If it were so, there would be no reason for God to send his Son to save us from God's wrath. With out those element,s there is no gospel. Why are Christians joyful? Eternal life and our inheritance that God has given us through His Son. Without this good news there is no gospel.

praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ!
In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living
hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead,
and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade.
This inheritance is kept in heaven for you,
who through faith are shielded by God's power until
the coming of the salvation that is ready to be revealed
in the last time.

[john316yes]

So let me ask you a question: are saying that it is possible for people to Worship God apart from the gospel? Why are people joyful after they become Christians is it because they found God or is because they learned and have understood, and have accepted what God has done for them and has given them through Jesus Christ there Savior?

See what I mean Steve? You see the Confusion? Now its like I'm talking with a cult member from the LDS Church or J.W from the Kingdom Hall. What makes it worse, is that your not just somebody that is ignorant of the truth, or is seeking answers, your someone who has a lot of knowledge and is teaching other people.

[Paidion]

Note: I find it interesting that Jude 1:6 uses aidios (aidios chains/bonds) rather than aionios. I wouldn't have thought that.

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.

There appears to be a form of menó in the NT that is sometimes translated as "lasting" (Heb 10:34 and Heb 13:14).

I do not see why anyone would translate the word as "lasting". Indeed the adjective is a form of "μενω" (menō), as you say, but every first year Greek student learns that "μενω" means "I remain."
For example the word is used in I Cor 13:13, "And now faith, hope, and love remain, these three, but the greatest of these is love."

Thus, I think Hebrews 10:34 is correctly translated by the ESV (and similarly by the RSV and Darby)

For you had compassion on those in prison, and you joyfully accepted the plundering of your property, since you knew that you yourselves had a better possession and an abiding one.

I am puzzled as to why the NASB and Philips translate the word as "lasting", and the NKJV, Webster, and YLT translate it as "enduring", unless they are slavishly following the King James tradition.

"Lasting" shows up a number of times in the OT (lasting shame, plagues, peace, etc.) too, but I can't find what Greek word was used in those instances in the Septuagint. Any thoughts on why a NT writer would use aionios rather than meno (or perhaps some other word) if both can simply mean lasting/continuing/abiding/remaining/enduring? In any case, I rather think that aionios is more complex and has no equivalent English word, as can be gathered from just that dissertation that was linked to earlier.

In the AV, NKJV, and the RSV, I have found the word "lasting" only once— in Deuteronomy 33:15, where we read of the "lasting hills" in the King James Version, and as "everlasting hills" in other translations.
The Greek word is "aenaōn" in the septuagint, which seems related to "aiōnios", and so I believe it was correctly rendered as "lasting" by the King James translators.

As for Deut 33:15 (lasting plagues), I am puzzled why translations render the word "thaumastas" as "enduring" or "lasting". The word means "wonderful" and is so translated in Mt 21:42, Mk 12:11, Jn 9:30, 1 Pet 2:9, Rev 15:1 and other passages in Revelation.

The NASB has "lasting rembrance" in Eccl 2:16, but in the Septuagint, there is no adjective modifying "remembrance".
The NASB also has "lasting peace" in Jeremiah 14:13. Again, I can find no adjective.

In summary, I continue to affirm that "aiōnios" means "lasting" in each and every instance of its occurence. So far I have encountered no other Greek adjective which means "lasting", but even if one were found that would not be greatly significant. For many words in all languages have synonyms. In English, it makes very little difference whether we describe something as "big" or as "large".

[Paidion]

I don't think it possible to worship, serve, be thankful, or glorify God, in the new covenant era apart from having the knowledge of what God has done for you through the redemption that comes through Jesus Christ, the fact that he has saved us from eternal Punishment, and has given us a place in his kingdom.

So you are saying that it is possible to love God only because of what He had done for you. Is it the same with your wife? Do you love her only because of what she does for you? Of do you love her because of her wonderful character? If the former, there must be a lot of friction between you.

A Christian loves God because of who He is— because of His magnificent character. To love Him only because of what He had done for you, seems to me to be the pinnacle of selfishness. That was pretty much the thinking of the Pharisees and other sinners. Hear the words of Jesus the Messiah:

...but I say to you that hear, love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you. To him who strikes you on the cheek, offer the other also; and from him who takes away your coat do not withhold even your shirt. Give to every one who begs from you; and of him who takes away your goods do not ask them again. And as you wish that men would do to you, do so to them. If you love those who love you, what credit is that to you? for even sinners love those who love them. And if you do good to those who do good to you, what credit is that to you? for even sinners do the same. And if you lend to those from whom you hope to receive, what credit is that to you? even sinners lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love your enemies, and do good, and lend, expecting nothing in return; and your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and the selfish. (Luke 6:27-35)

[Ian]

John316yes,

I wish I was strong enough in my faith that the attitude of "brothers" like you wouldn`t bother me, but it does. With friends like you, who needs enemies?

Eight posts so far and nothing but confrontation. Could you not at least have begun with some civility in post one, the kind of civility that even most unbelievers are capable of? You know, 1 Cor 13 and all that?

How do you know that you yourself are not the most in danger of the fate you`re bringing up. with an attitude like that?
Because Christ saved you? Where are the works in your character that are the proof of that?

[jeremiah]

Hello J316eyes,

you said:

For you know as I know that in the book of Romans, the Apostle Paul says that men, by default, exchange the glory of the immortal God, trade the truth for a lie, worship and serve the creature rather than the creator, do not glorify God nor gave him thanks, and suppress the truth of God's invisible qualities and his eternal power.

Paul said no such thing. There is a tradition of men that teaches precisely such an out of order paraphrase of Romans 1:18,23, and 25. Paul however never said "by default" men do x,y, and z; it's an interpolation.

And I second Ian's exhortation to you. The way of Christ is to build up. It would be great if you stuck around, but please relax.

Grace and peace to you.

[steve]

John316yes wrote:

So no, it is not possible.

This is pretty much what I remember Homer saying in an earlier discussion. As far as I can recall, the two of you are the first Christians I have met who have been willing to admit to this. Perhaps more would have to do so, if they were as honest. If one has not yet learned that God is intrinsically admirable and lovable (these words are huge understatements), and thinks that He must bribe people in order to gain their love, then I can see why normal, God-centered Christianity might seem hyper-pious or hyper-spiritual by contrast. I find this very sad—and very surprising—though not so much from you, since you are a Calvinist. Calvinists have such an unattractive vision of God that it is no surprise that they think it impossible that anyone would seek or love Him without His first supernaturally forcing them to.

So let me ask you a question: are saying that it is possible for people to Worship God apart from the gospel?

Adam did. Abraham did. Moses did. David did. Cornelius did (Acts 10:1-4). Come to think of it, even the Athenians did (Acts 17:23). I guess I'd have to answer "Yes," if I wish to agree with scripture. What answer would you give?

Why are people joyful after they become Christians is it because they found God or is because they learned and have understood, and have accepted what God has done for them and has given them through Jesus Christ there Savior?

I guess i would have to talk to people case-by-case in order to give you any such information about them. No doubt there are many factors involved in the Christian's joy—but none more than God Himself.

See what I mean Steve? You see the Confusion?

Yes, I think I do see it.

Now its like I'm talking with a cult member from the LDS Church or J.W from the Kingdom Hall. What makes it worse, is that your not just somebody that is ignorant of the truth, or is seeking answers, your someone who has a lot of knowledge and is teaching other people.

I guess a little knowledge is a dangerous thing, and a lot of knowledge is even more dangerous. I am not sure what your experiences with LDS and JWs may have been. Mine has been very different from the kind of open dialogue we enjoy here.

[Singalphile]

Thanks for that helpful response, Paidion.

[Homer]

I would appreciate a direct response to this question, because this is the specific crux of our disagreement. Do you agree with Homer that loving God for who He is, regardless of what He gives, is hyper-piety?

Whoa! I have been misunderstood, perhaps my fault. If a person loves God for nothing in return, that is admirable. What I took note of, that is not so pretty, is for a person nearing the pinnacle, in their estimation, of Bernard's "Ladder of Love" (I don't think any of us will ever be consistently at the top) to say derogatory things about the level of attainment of those beneath them.

Jesus invited people to come to Him for sake of self and I think we shouldn't cast aspersions on those who have done so.

If there were to be no heaven or hell, would you still love God and serve The Lord Jesus Christ?

Paul came close to saying in that case a person would be rational to "live it up":

1 Corinthians 15:19,32 New International Version (NIV)

19. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

32 If I fought wild beasts in Ephesus with no more than human hopes, what have I gained? If the dead are not raised,
“Let us eat and drink,
for tomorrow we die.”

Sometimes we hear that simple trust in Jesus as Lord and Saviour is all that it takes; other times we hear a strong implication that if you love God for sake of self your faith is worthless.

[steve]

I don't mean to misrepresent you, Homer. I simply asked a man if he could rejoice in God without knowing about eternal life, and if he would still love and serve God if there were no heaven or hell, and you responded by calling me (sarcastically) a person of "superior piety." I am saying it is not superior degree of piety to love God for Himself. What other response to such a God makes any sense? If someone does not love God for who He is, isn't it safe to say they have not truly encountered and seen Him?

Our friend John316yes may be a good example of what happens when we present a gospel to sinners that is primarily a message of escape from hell. Converts are made for whom the "hope of heaven" motivates, whereas love for God apparently would not. Can we imagine that a person who says that God is impossible to love apart from the treats He offers us is a person who understands or knows God well enough to tell others about Him? We have become so accustomed to this mentality, in American Evangelicalism, that it does not alarm some of us. It alarms me. According to Jesus, the first actual step that a person takes, in coming to Christ, is to "deny [one]self." This is not the top rung of the ladder. It is the first. As I understand it, to deny oneself means to unseat "self-interest" as the ruling motivator of life.

How did all those people in Acts get saved without being threatened with hell or promised heaven? The apostles preached Christ there—not some scheme of postmortem destinies. Read Peter's sermons in Acts 2, 3, and 10; or Paul's in Acts 13, 14 or 17. Then tell me what it was that the apostles said that convicted people's hearts and brought about their conversions. Whatever it was, it was not promises of a rosy afterlife—something that they never mentioned.

Is it possible that a denomination can place so much emphasis on salvation through water baptism that sufficient concern about genuine conversion is neglected? I don't know about your church, but most of the churches I have been in have no shortage of baptized folk. What is lacking is people who have done business with God at the level that Christ and His disciples required of those whom they baptized.