Church fathers view on hell

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by steve » Tue Nov 24, 2015 1:41 pm

Hi Homer,

You wrote:
You seem to have overlooked Luke 6:12-17, where we are informed that the audience for the SOM was the twelve (them), the other disciples, and a great throng of people. I can find no commentator who does not hold the view of these three categories in the audience.
Both Matthew 5:1 and Luke 6:17, 19 mention that there were multitudes who came to hear Jesus preach. Matthew 5:1-2 also mentions that, before speaking, “His disciples came to Him [and] He opened His mouth and taught them…”

Obviously, the “them” has, as its most immediate antecedent, “His disciples.”

It is grammatically just possible, but less likely, that “them” could refer to a more distant antecedent, “the multitudes,” but this suggestion is rendered unlikely by Mark’s summary comment that Jesus never addressed the multitudes "without parables" (the Sermon on the Mount does not feature parabolic teaching), but that He explained things privately to the disciples (Mark 4:34). The content of the Sermon on the Mount fits the latter description better.

When what may have been the same sermon is recorded in Luke, we are also told there were crowds who had gathered to hear Him. We know, from other passages, that large groups followed Jesus around, even camping out for days, to hear Him and to see miracles. This does not mean that Jesus addressed the crowd 24/7 during these times. We know of cases where the crowds were camped around Him, but where He still had conversations on the side with His disciples (please see, for example, John 6:5-10).

To be told that Jesus was surrounded by curious crowds does not, in itself, tell us to whom, specifically, any of Jesus’ comments were made. The mention of the crowds sometimes simply sets the stage for reporting comments made directly to the disciples, as in the John 6 example above.

In fact, the example of John 6 quite parallels the set-up for the sermon in Luke 6—though it is a different occasion. In John 6:2-3, we are told that great crowds came to hear and be healed by Christ. Then we are told that Jesus went up on a mountain and sat with His disciples. The conversation recorded thereafter is simply between Himself and the disciples.

How does that differ from Luke 6? In verse 17, we are told that multitudes came to hear and be healed by Him (similar to John 6, and, probably, to many similar occasions). Jesus was on the slopes of a mountain (Matt.5:1; Luke 6:12, 17), as in John 6. Then Luke says that Jesus “lifted up His eyes toward His disciples, and said…” (Luke 6:20). Usually a public speaker looks at His audience. We are not informed that Jesus looked at anyone other than His disciples when He spoke this sermon (this should count for a great deal with you, since you make so much, especially in talking about hell, of the silence of scripture).

It is probably significant, also that, in this sermon, Jesus told His audience (the disciples): “Yours is the kingdom of God” (Luke 6:20). I suspect that this would not apply to the multitudes, many of whom failed to receive the kingdom.

While I will admit your point that the wording could (just barely) identify the multitudes as the audience for the sermon, all probabilities are against it, even grammatically.
I have no problem with the preaching of the gospel by all who do so. But repentance and salvation in hell is not part of the gospel. All agree that the lost wind up in hell, the faithful preacher will leave it at that.
I certainly agree with you on this. I would even go further. Judging from the New Testament sermons, it seems that a faithful gospel preacher might not even mention hell at all. There is no indication in the Bible that the topic of hell is any part of the preaching of the Gospel.
You appear to imply that you can preach what is not in the scriptures while taking exception to the early fathers "use of non-biblical expressions" in their attempt to exegete the scriptures.
I am not sure where you are drawing this implication from in my position. I have never advocated the featuring of any view of hell—whether eternal torment, annihilation or restorationism—in the preaching of the Gospel. The Gospel is the "good news" about the kingdom of God. There is no view of hell that necessarily forms a part of this message of the kingdom, as presented to unbelievers. The good news may be much better than we know, but that is outside the scope of any biblically-documented presentation of the Gospel (unless there is, possibly, a reference to it in Acts 3:21, which is disputable).

In preaching the Gospel to unbelievers, we should stick to plainly affirmed biblical features of the good news. The speculations about hell belong to the theological training of believers. We should not confuse unbelievers by the inclusion of such speculations in our preaching.

I am not sure that any universalists at this forum have ever suggested preaching the distinctives of universalism as part of the Gospel presented to unbelievers. However, there are many who believe, as in the early church, that this doctrine belongs in the theological training of educated believers.

I think it would be wonderful if all who preach and teach would use strictly scriptural expressions but I would be surprised if any can be found who consistently do so, and many who do so hardly at all.
I am quite with you on this point. We should not confidently affirm theological points that are not clearly affirmed in scripture. Nonetheless, where the Bible is unclear and a matter is thus controversial, we can reasonably compare different possible views with each other, examining their relative merits.

You seem to object to the presentation of restorationism even here in a theological forum. Yet, I do not find you objecting to the presentation of traditionalism or conditionalism here. Why not? Many biblically literate people see the biblical support for restoration as comparable, if not superior to, the support for the other views. How can one object to including it in the discussion?

If you say you do not mind it being included in the discussion, I have to wonder what it is you are objecting to. It is its inclusion here that seems to draw your fire and even your ire. I, personally, have never heard anyone preaching (or advocating the preaching of) universalism on the street corners or in evangelistic meetings.

Do you equally object to the preaching of eternal conscious torment in evangelistic settings? If not, why not? It is a much more damaging view of the biblical God than is universalism. Neither view can be proven conclusively, but, if wrong, the traditional doctrine slanders a good God by making Him a monster. It tends to leave the unbeliever with the impression of an unreasonable and vengeful deity, toward whom they feel revulsion and anger. By contrast, if restorationism preached, but is wrong, it at least presents a God who resembles the God presented in the teachings and example of Jesus. The same people who were drawn to Jesus would be drawn to this kind of God, since they are alike—like Father, like Son.

If it turned out that the two opposite views were both wrong, the traditional view has made God look worse than He really is, and the restorationist view makes Him look "better than He really is" (what a strange phrase, when applied to God—but accurate). Of the two possible errors, which one can be more damaging to the cause of Christ?

I can agree with you that universalism is not a core part of the evangelistic message. However, I hope you will agree that the inclusion of the traditional view is equally inappropriate in such presentations, and that you will bring equal vehemence in your opposition to its being preached to unbelievers.
When a scripture is spoken to people, their ideas of what is said vary. If the speaker tries to inform the people of what the scripture says, in his own words, they again form their own ideas of what is said and we are now two steps removed from the scriptures, and on it goes. Many bad doctrines have come from this.
Again, we are in agreement. It is this very concern that led me to make the observations, above, concerning the statements of the cited church fathers.

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Singalphile » Thu Nov 26, 2015 2:33 pm

Steve covers the views of the early church in his recent book. He notes that Barnabas (70-130), the writer of "The Letter of Mathetes to Diognetus" (c 125-200), and the language of Hermas (90-150) all sound like they might advocate for conditional immortality (aka, annihilationism). Irenaeus (130-200) is also said to seem to have believed in conditional immortality, all things considered. Universal reconciliation was espoused by Clement of Alexandria (c 195) and Origen (185-254) most clearly.

I have a book called "Rethinking Hell - Readings in Evangelical Conditionalism", a "pro"-annihilationism book, which also states or argues that Clement of Rome (died c 100 AD), Ignatius of Antioch (died c 107), Irenaeus (c 130-200), Arnobius of Africa (c 197-310), and Athanasius (c 197-373) were conditionalists (with many quotes as evidence).

There are others mentioned on all sides.

As Steve (in his book) and others have mentioned, it's often difficult to tell what they really thought. Quotes from the Scripture aren't enough, imo, since proponents of all the views generally each have their own way of reasonably interpreting the same words. I've read traditionalists say that all early church fathers affirmed eternal conscious torment and I've heard at least one annihilationist say that all early church fathers affirmed eternal death/destruction. Sometimes they'll say that a certain ancient Christian seemed to have changed his view later in life.

I have given up trying to figure all that out.
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Paidion » Thu Nov 26, 2015 11:31 pm

It seems to me that Jesus' teaching in Matthew 5 and Luke 6 depict two different occasions:

THE LOCATION
The Sermon on the Mount
Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. (Matt 5:1)

The Sermon on the Plain
And he came down with them and stood on a level place, with a great crowd of his disciples and a great multitude of people from all Judea and Jerusalem and the seacoast of Tyre and Sidon. (Luke 6:17)

THE KIND OF POVERTY
Spiritual Poverty
“Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven. (Matt 5:3)

Physical Poverty
“Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God. (Luke 6:20)

THE KIND OF HUNGER
Spiritual Hunger
6 “Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness, for they shall be satisfied. (Matt 5:6)

Physical Hunger
“Blessed are you who are hungry now, for you shall be satisfied. (Luke 6:21)

I am inclined to think that while the Sermon on the Mount was addressed to the disciples alone, the Sermon on the Plain was addressed to the wider group as well as the disciples.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by steve » Fri Nov 27, 2015 12:26 pm

This is one possibility. Either Jesus gave two very similar sermons, or two different versions of one sermon have been recorded. The fact that the gospel writers sometimes paraphrase, compress, and topically collect the sayings of Jesus makes it not impossible that statements made to the "poor" and to the "hungry" (as recorded in Luke) may have been paraphrased for clarity, by Matthew, to bring out the spiritual condition that Matthew knew Jesus was really intending (otherwise we would have Jesus, in Luke, saying that all economically poor people belong to His kingdom, and all economically rich people do not).

Also, Bible scholars have differed as to the location. It seems that both accounts place Jesus on a mountainside, at a point level enough for Him and His disciples to be seated together. Matthew speaks of Jesus going up to that spot, while Luke speaks of Him coming down to that spot, having ascended the mountain the previous afternoon, and spent the night up there in prayer. Both statements could apply to the same event, if Matthew is compressing the story. He said Jesus went up the mountain and taught. He omits any mention of the fact that the going up was the previous day to the teaching. He was still on the mountainside when He and His disciples, having descended from a higher point, say in a level spot.

This explanation can neither be proved or disproved. However, both passages mention a mountain, a multitude, and Jesus speaking to His disciples. These could have been different sermons on different mountains, and each reader must draw his/her own conclusions from the available data. I think one's instincts will probably be the ultimate arbiter.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Paidion » Fri Nov 27, 2015 2:39 pm

(otherwise we would have Jesus, in Luke, saying that all economically poor people belong to His kingdom, and all economically rich people do not).
Well, He didn't say, ""Blessed are all who are poor, For theirs is the kingdom of God" but, "Blessed are you poor, For yours is the kingdom of God."

This seems consistent with one of his other statements about economically rich people:

"It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich person to enter the kingdom of God.” (Mark 10:25, Matt 19:24, Luke 18:25)

And also:

“But woe to you who are rich, for you have received your consolation. (Luke 6:24 )
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Homer » Fri Nov 27, 2015 11:59 pm

There is no reason from the little Matthew and Luke said regarding the location of the SOM to believe they were describing different locations. Mount Eremos, thought for more than 1500 years to have been the location of the sermon is described as:
Once called Mt. Eremos, this is an aerial view of the Mount of Beatitudes. It is both mountainous and plains; great acoustics with the hills & contours for the thousands to hear.


Picture and comment here:

http://www.realdiscoveries.org/modules/ ... itemid=183

It is easy to see they may have been describing the same location.

It seems plain to me that the multitudes were part of the audience for both Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 5:1 (NASB)

1. When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.

Matthew 7:28 (NASB)

28. When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;

Luke 6:19-20 (NASB)

19 And all the people (Lit. crowd) were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all.
20. And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 7:1 (NASB)

7.When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum.


Both Matthew and Luke have the multitude present at the beginning and end.

thrombomodulin
Posts: 431
Joined: Sun Aug 24, 2008 6:59 am

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by thrombomodulin » Sat Nov 28, 2015 11:22 am

[moved to another thread]
Last edited by thrombomodulin on Sun Nov 29, 2015 8:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Paidion » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:01 pm

Hi Homer, you wrote:It is easy to see they may have been describing the same location.
It's not easy for me to see.
It seems plain to me that the multitudes were part of the audience for both Matthew and Luke:

Matthew 5:1 (NASB)

1. When Jesus saw the crowds, He went up on the mountain; and after He sat down, His disciples came to Him.

Matthew 7:28 (NASB)

28. When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching;

Luke 6:19-20 (NASB)

19 And all the people (Lit. crowd) were trying to touch Him, for power was coming from Him and healing them all.
20. And turning His gaze toward His disciples, He began to say, “Blessed are you who are poor, for yours is the kingdom of God.

Luke 7:1 (NASB)

7.When He had completed all His discourse in the hearing of the people, He went to Capernaum.



Both Matthew and Luke have the multitude present at the beginning and end.
I think the Matthew account was an account of a different occasion when only his disciples were present. I don't mean the twelve alone, but many of his disciples.

And great crowds followed him from Galilee and the Decapolis, and from Jerusalem and Judea, and from beyond the Jordan. (Matt 4:25)
Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain, and when he sat down, his disciples came to him. (Matt 5:1)


These two consecutive sentences strongly suggest that Jesus went up the mountain in order to get away from the "great crowds" and to be with His disciples alone. Othewise, why would Matthew write, "Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain"? If He had intended to address these great crowds, He could have stayed where He was.

I can see why you think Matt 7:28 supports your position:
And when Jesus finished these sayings, the crowds were astonished at his teaching

However, I suggest that these were crowds of his disciples. For just two verses later, we read:
When he came down from the mountain, great crowds followed him. (Matt 8:1)

Now that He has come down from the mountain, the great crowds that He avoided by ascending the mountain, begin following Him again.

Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, the content of the two sermons was rather different. The sayings addressed to his disciples as recorded by Matthew, were more of a spiritual nature, while those addressed to the great crowds in Luke's account were more of a natural nature.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Homer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:25 pm

Neither view can be proven conclusively, but, if wrong, the traditional doctrine slanders a good God by making Him a monster.
If the traditional view makes God a monster, and if the traditional view turns out to be true, will you say to God He is a monster? Why not? I would not want to be so bold as to make your argument as above.

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

Re: Church fathers view on hell

Post by Homer » Sat Nov 28, 2015 3:37 pm

These two consecutive sentences strongly suggest that Jesus went up the mountain in order to get away from the "great crowds" and to be with His disciples alone. Othewise, why would Matthew write, "Seeing the crowds, he went up on the mountain"? If He had intended to address these great crowds, He could have stayed where He was.
And how do you know this? Did you notice the comment about the "great acoustics" regarding the traditional site? Perhaps he wanted the possible thousands to all be able to hear.
Now that He has come down from the mountain, the great crowds that He avoided by ascending the mountain, begin following Him again.
What evidence is there that the multitude was not equally able to walk up the mountain?
Also, as I pointed out in a previous post, the content of the two sermons was rather different. The sayings addressed to his disciples as recorded by Matthew, were more of a spiritual nature, while those addressed to the great crowds in Luke's account were more of a natural nature.
Perhaps the difference is in that which Matthew and Luke emphasized. Given your view of inspiration, maybe wrongly emphasized? On the other hand Jesus may have given the same sermon many times as modern travelling preachers do. But if it was only for His disciples that would seem unlikely as they had already heard it. We would not expect a preacher in our churches to repeatedly give the same sermon.

Post Reply

Return to “Views of Hell”