Alternative Views of Hell

[Guest]

Now, if you'd answer mine about who the us-ward is referring to? A pronoun must refer to a noun. Look up further in Timothy.

I believe that both these and many other passages show that God wishes all mankind to be saved. Many of these passages I have quoted in previous posts.

Todd

[Guest]

Most Americans have heard of hell and know it to be a Christian doctrine. I have had unbelievers tell me they would like to hear a sermon on hell to understand what is the traditional teaching on hell.

Just because a particular view of hell may be most commonly accepted these days does not necessarily make it correct. If you read Steve Gregg's first post in this thread you will see that universalism was the accepted teaching for the first 3 or 4 centuries of the church. Augustine, in order to promote his doctrine, instigated much of today's teaching. This view was embellished with the writing of Dante's Inferno.

Todd

[Guest]

Sigh! So many verses wrenched from their context, often thrown out as though they proved a point, while the whole counsel of God is ignored. A wise man once said that it is not what the bible says that matters, but what it means.

A man says Eve gave birth to frogs. His friend replies "where did you get that idea?" Response: "Its in the Bible, in Genesis. Says right there in the scriptures tha Eve is the mother of all the living; frogs are alive aren't they?" I am reminded of much that has been said in this thread.

So it is God's will that all men be saved which supposedly guarantees universal salvation. I believe God's will is not always done. I must hasten add that in a sense God has more than one will. He has a determined will. All God determines will happen does in fact happen. God also has a desired will. It is His desire that certain things happen but He is not determined that they happen. It was not God's desired will that men live so wickedly that He had to destroy the earth in the flood. God was grieved over the state of man but in a sense it was His will because he permitted it to happen although He always has a veto. In the same way God desires all to be saved but he does not force it to happen. Forced love is no love at all.

My belief of the sovereignty of God is that nothing happens apart from His dertermination that it happen or His choosing to allow it to happen. "Not a sparrow falls apart from the Father". Not that God is busy killing sparrows but He is aware and permits their death.

In an article by Luke Post, "The Door Jesus Cannot Open", Post comments: "Suppose technology advances until manufacturers begin producing humanlike computers. These computers look and act like humans. They reason perfectly and always seem to do and say the right things. How many of us would really want one of these computer-humans for a spouse? How many people would line up to buy a 'robot-kid' rather than having a child naturally? The idea of putting robots in the place of those we love is repulsive to us, We innately recognize that no matter how perfectly something may act, if it is incapable of freely choosing its actions, it is incapable of love.....God can not force love. Forced love is a contradiction in terms and, therefore, nonsensical."

I attend a Christian Church, independent. They call us the "Indies".

[jaiotu]

Damon, the Israelites were disobedient. They were not thwarting God's will.

Er, go back and read Numbers 14:8-9. That was God's will. But compare that with what actually happened. God's will was thwarted in the short term.

Also see Psalm 78:40-41, which tells the story of the Israelites' rebellious attitude and actions after they left Egypt:

"How often did they [the Israelites] provoke Him [God] in the wilderness, and grieve Him in the desert! Yes, they turned back and put God to the test, and limited the Holy One of Israel."

In other words, they limited what God was able to accomplish through them at that point in time by thwarting His will in the short term.

God's "rest" is not about day to day putting food on the table, imho. It's about our salvation. We, believers, can now rest in Jesus Christ because He is not a liar.

Er, do a bible study on God's "rest" in the Old Testament. It's many different things.

For example, the land having "rest", meaning that it didn't have to figuratively "work" to bring forth crops (compare Gen. 3:17-19 with Gen. 5:29, Lev. 26:33-35 and Ex. 23:10-12). God giving the Israelites "rest" from their enemies (Deut. 12:10). God giving the Israelites "rest", meaning the enjoyment of the land that they were to possess (Joshua 1:13-15). Ruth and Naomi finding "rest" (that is, comfort) with their families after their husbands had died. The Ark of the Covenant having "rest", meaning that it had ceased from wandering (1 Chron. 6:31).

I simply tried to sum up the various aspects of "rest" when I replied to you.

Damon

[jaiotu]

That's interesting, Damon. Why are you not a member of a church, or why do you not regularly attend a church?

Mainly for two reasons: firstly, because the things I want to learn right now can't be easily taught in a church setting, and secondly, because there are no churches that I know of which focus on some of the subjects I'm studying now.

I'm part of a small group which focuses on two main areas of study: the first area is practical Christian living in all aspects of one's life. Since we know one another quite well, we're also quite well able to see one another's strengths and shortcomings. We try to work through those shortcomings using biblical principles. The second area is the understanding of "restoration" in all of its various aspects. (See Acts 3:19-21 and Isa. 42:22 among other places.)

Damon

[Guest]

That's interesting, Damon. Why are you not a member of a church, or why do you not regularly attend a church?

Mainly for two reasons: firstly, because the things I want to learn right now can't be easily taught in a church setting, and secondly, because there are no churches that I know of which focus on some of the subjects I'm studying now.

I'm part of a small group which focuses on two main areas of study: the first area is practical Christian living in all aspects of one's life. Since we know one another quite well, we're also quite well able to see one another's strengths and shortcomings. We try to work through those shortcomings using biblical principles. The second area is the understanding of "restoration" in all of its various aspects. (See Acts 3:19-21 and Isa. 42:22 among other places.)

Damon

My understanding of church is to worship together. Learning can take place there, but also outside the weekend service in small groups. But I guess it's another area we'll have to agree to disagree on.

Having been confronted with universalism for awhile now, I wholly reject it. It's a nice wish and if it were to be the case then I would gladly embrace it. I just don't see it in the scriptures.

I'm actually kinda tired of the topic of universalism as it seems to be creeping into many churches. I believe it is the fault of the leaders of churches as they are no longer teaching doctrine in churches. Many resort to feel good, fuzzy sermons. But God also holds teachers to a higher standard and they will have to answer for that.

As for Augustine and Dante being the first to believe in hell..............what about Jesus' very own words on the subject? He spoke of a place of eternal torment. Matthew 25 I think it is.

I know you guys dislike Augustine with a passion. I've heard Steve G. on the radio lamblasting him. But many Christians are thankful for the thoughtfulness he brought to the Christian table for discussion and consideration. It's kind of a heavy burden to prove that before Augustine no one believed the same as Augustine did. To prove that, you'd have to be a mind reader of ppl who are long dead.

Anyway, I pray y'all have a wonderful Thanksgiving. Give all your loved ones a hug and tell them why you are thankful for them. Give all praise and glory to God for establishing this wonderful country of America.


I love you all, even if you're universalists!

[jaiotu]

My understanding of church is to worship together. Learning can take place there, but also outside the weekend service in small groups. But I guess it's another area we'll have to agree to disagree on.

Who says I disagree with you? In my particular case, I think I'm best served in a small group setting, however.

[snip Universalist stuff...]

Damon

[Guest]

As for Augustine and Dante being the first to believe in hell..............what about Jesus' very own words on the subject? He spoke of a place of eternal torment. Matthew 25 I think it is.

Jesus taught in parables which were never meant to be taken literally. Take for example the one you cite in Matthew 25. If you take that literally then Jesus is teaching salvation by works. There is a message there - that God loves even the least of us and that it is important to take care of each other - but the details of what is said are not to be applied literally.

Another example of this is the following that Jesus taught.

Luke 14:26
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Now I ask, is this to be taken literally, or is there a message behind what is actually said?

Luke 8:10
He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

Todd

[Guest]

Yes Todd is right, Jesus did things to fulfill OT prophecies about the true Messiah among which were his healings his raising the dead and speaking in parables which fulfilled a prophecy that Messiah would speak in parables and dark sayings. He spoke metaphorically to people who understood metaphors from the OT but never believed in a literal eternal hell from the OT.
Just as his healings identified him to those who had eyes to see so did his parabolic language. That's why the apostles never spoke about an eternal hell THEY UNDERSTOOD!

[Guest]

As for Augustine and Dante being the first to believe in hell..............what about Jesus' very own words on the subject? He spoke of a place of eternal torment. Matthew 25 I think it is.

Jesus taught in parables which were never meant to be taken literally. Take for example the one you cite in Matthew 25. If you take that literally then Jesus is teaching salvation by works. There is a message there - that God loves even the least of us and that it is important to take care of each other - but the details of what is said are not to be applied literally.

Another example of this is the following that Jesus taught.

Luke 14:26
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters—yes, even his own life—he cannot be my disciple.

Now I ask, is this to be taken literally, or is there a message behind what is actually said?

Luke 8:10
He said, "The knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of God has been given to you, but to others I speak in parables, so that, " 'though seeing, they may not see; though hearing, they may not understand.

Todd

For some people, the passage in Luke is to be taken literally. In Muslim countries, if you convert to Christianity what happens to the believer? They are disowned and have separated themselves from their families, or they may be killed. Here in America, that is not the case. Although, if you have family members who are not believers, and whose family doesn't, you are also separated from them by your beliefs. There may be practices they want you to particpate in, but because of your faith you cannot. Who will you choose to serve, God or family? Then you also become separate or must choose to hate them or their behavior. Consider Thanksgiving: how much wine to drink? Do you follow unbelievers or practice moderation or abstain completely? What were the martyrs? They were killed for their faith. I'm sorry, but the passage in Luke is to be taken literally.

What's odd for me is that for a good part of the thread I wasn't sure who was on what side of the universalism issue because universalists were using scripture that I see completely the opposite as they do. An example is the text from Peter with the pronoun "us-ward".

As Homer aptly pointed out: context, context, context.