Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/2/2002 9:37 PM (GMT -6)

Recently, I have been studying the doctrine of hell, and the destiny of the unevangelized. I am currently reading No Other Name by John Sanders and also Satan and the Problem of Evil. As a rational person I have some honest questions about the doctrine hell itself, or the afterlife in general, whether they are well founded or not, we’ll see.

In the Old Testament there seems to be very little clear statements about “hell,” or even heaven for that matter, as a destination. Hell, in fact, is not used in the Old Testament at all, rather it is only in the New Testament where the term is derived from the Greek word “gehenna,” which was essentially a dump outside of Jerusalem. It was used figuratively to describe the destiny of the wicked (along with the flames, weeping, gnashing of teeth, etc.). In Satan and the Problem of Evil you find that most scripture dealing with the punishment of the wicked in the OT are more “annihilationist” in nature, in other words that the wicked will be “destroyed” or “no more.” Additionally, most of these passages were written by the Prophets in the exile periods, so I would think they could also be considered more specific in nature than mere general statements. Furthermore, the professor of a New Testament History and Literature class that I took told me that the doctrine of “hell” as a destination came about during the inter-testamental period, a time of exile. All this leads me to a few concerns that I have regarding the doctrine of hell and the afterlife.

1.My first concern is a “progression” concern. As stated before, in the OT the punishment for the wicked was more of a destruction than an everlasting punishment, and there was no clear doctrine of a hell as a destination (unless you read into passages such as Daniel 12:2 and Isaiah 66:24). Also, since most of the passages dealing with the fate of the wicked were written by the exile prophets, you could make the case that it was more specific to their oppressors than to all of humanity. However, in the NT, the doctrine of hell as destination has been apparently established in the form of eternal punishment with all the descriptions of fire and so on. There is more reference to what some people consider everlasting punishment in duration, rather than a mere “destruction” of the wicked, but to annihilationist, I guess this would be debatable. It also appears more general to all humanity than specific. I suppose the question would be, has the doctrine progressed, and if so is it a concern? On the surface it does look like the doctrine has progressed (before the exile prophets I can’t think of, off hand, too many scriptures that deal thoroughly with the afterlife) and I guess it does concern me, if in fact there is a progression in the doctrine of punishment for the wicked? If God is always the same in qualities, how did the doctrine of hell become so much more definitive in the NT? Did it not exist in the OT and was established later or was God just not as specific about his plans for the afterlife then? If the latter is true, why would God keep people in the dark for so long about his definitive plans for destiny of the wicked and the righteous in the afterlife, this seems like an important issue. I guess to me, the annihilationist view makes more sense because you take what appears to be a change in the NT doctrine of punishment, as being figurative, so there isn’t such an apparent “progression,” however some versus a hard to take figuratively.

2.My second concern is a “motivation” concern. That is, if I take an honest, unbiased, and rational look at the situation, in which the doctrine of hell supposedly came about, do I have reason to believe these people had a motivation to establish such a doctrine of their own construct? Now if this doctrine was formed during the inter-testamental period in which Israel was in exile, rationally I would have to say, yes, there was motivation. I would imagine that if I was in exile, where my nation and my family were being treated with cruelty and injustice, and with my feelings of helplessness at the hands of these wicked oppressors, I would have good motivations for establishing such a doctrine of hell, and even heaven, as a destination. This belief would give hope to the hopeless. Because I feel helpless to stop these wicked people, I can find solace that they will suffer “justly” for their wrongs in the end, with eternal punishment. Furthermore, I can also find comfort and hope that myself and all my family and friends will be restored in the end for all the suffering with eternal paradise in heaven. So, I would say that there is a concern for such a motivation.

There is much debate about the nature of hell (everlasting punishment vs. annihilationism) and who goes there (exclusivism vs. inclusivism, etc.), however, I guess my questions are more specific to the afterlife itself. I stated these concerns about as honestly as could without bias, and I believe that God honors a sincere seeker of what is true, because He is that Truth which we seek. So I would appreciate any input (thoughts, ideas, theories, etc.) on this subject matter and I thank you for your time.

Sincerely,

David

P.s. Does any body know of many texts prior to the exile prophets that spoke of a definite afterlife, whether heaven or eternal punishment? Also, I realize that the OT was more nationalistic, that is it was centered on Israel, but I am interested to know what the Israelites thought in antiquity about the afterlife and the destiny of the righteous and the wicked.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 6/3/2002 1:47 AM (GMT -6)

Welcome to the site diamondd:

The data regarding what Jews believe about the afterlife in general and hell in particular is conflicting, both inside the Bible and out. It doesn't seem there ever was one standardized view. At the time of Jesus, the data suggests that some believed in annihilation, some in eternal suffering, some in suffering for a long (but not endless) period... and I wouldn't be suprised (thought I know of no evidence for this) if some were universalists.

There certainly seems to be development over time in the thinking on hell among biblical authors from the vague to the more specific. Its not totally clear whether this is, as many argue, as a development from a more annihilationist view to a more Persian eternal suffering view: whether its from a vague eternal suffering view to a more explicit eternal suffering view: whether its from a more vague annihilationist view to a more specific annihilationist view, or whether its a combination of all these. Despite the insistence of the proponents of various positions ,the data is opaque enough to admit of different interpretations. The issue, I think, has to ultimately be resolved by including non-exegetical / theological/ philosophical considerations.

Blessings

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/3/2002 7:24 PM (GMT -6)

David,

I understand your concerns. I too have been studying the doctrine of hell quite intensively this last semester. It has lessened in intensity since I began my summer job (waiting tables at Macaroni Grill), but it still very close to my heart because there are so many things to research and meditate on.

I encourage you to take a look at my post in the "Age of Accountability" thread. It discusses some of the issues you have brought up.

As far as the development of hell…

In the OT, you are right: "Hell" is not mentioned or even really described. Rather, it is Sheol that is discussed in reference to the afterlife, and Sheol's occupants are both the righteous and the unrighteous. It is referred to as the intermediate state by many theologians. Our concept of "Hell" comes, as you said, from "Gehenna" also referred to as the "Lake of Fire" and "the second death" (among other judgment metaphor).

As Dr. Boyd responded to you, there were many different ideas of the afterlife at the time of Christ and the intertestamental period. It should be noted that while intertestamental material is valuable, it is not canonical. The thing about Jesus is that He came from eternity (you may possibly say "from the afterlife") to show us the way, and thus His words are canonical and must be taken seriously. I see Christ somewhat as the rudder that points us in the direction of truth among the many ideas.

I don't think that you can really speak of "hell in the OT" because it isn't there. At most you can speak of the afterlife. You can possibly speak of a kind of punishment during the intermediate state (in the latter prophets and parable of rich man and Lazarus), but I don't think it is best to refer to that as "Hell" in the sense most people think of today. "Hell" as we speak of it is the *final* judgment whereas the intermediate state is just that – intermediate, not final. However, in my research I did a bit of comparison between descriptions of the 1st and 2nd death, and it is stunning how similar they are for the wicked in many respects. I've come to the tentative conclusion that while Sheol and "Hell" are distinct from one another, they are integrally connected.

Has the doctrine progressed? In a way, Yes; in a way, not really. We have to believe in progressive revelation as Christians because there is obviously quite a bit more divine revelation (at least in canonical form and from the form of salvation history) to go from today than there was at the time of Moses. Thus, yes, there is a development of theology through the history of salvation. The Hebrews were for many years quite unconcerned with the afterlife because YHWH is a God of the living, not the dead. In the exiles, they were somewhat forced by forms of persecution (like the Christians after them) to look past the present into the "big picture" of things. They knew YHWH was God of gods and that faithfulness to YHWH was the best idea. Since some did not see deliverance in their lifetime, they were forced to look past the present into the future, trusting that God will make right the wrongs, that He would punish those who wronged them. Thus, at this point, they had reason to start thinking about the afterlife and thus wrote about it. I think that it is certainly possible that God revealed this future hope to them, and thus they wrote.

[[Continued in next post]]

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/3/2002 7:25 PM (GMT -6)

But in a way it hasn't really progressed (if you think of "progression" as "evolution into a different form"). What has happened is that the truth has been expanded. It is the same truth, only now we know more. It started out with the patriarchs saying the likes of "Don't send my gray beard to Sheol in sorrow." Sheol was not ever looked upon as being a really great place to be for either the righteous or unrighteous. This is because Sheol means being dead. Later, it became more descriptive, and the experience of the righteous was distinguished a bit from the experience of the unrighteous (though it was still not a place the righteous were just thrilled to go). What is anticipated both in OT and NT by the righteous is not Sheol but the resurrection and judgment of the wicked. Hell is what happens *after* the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous. Hell, in my judgment, is the second death, the final "Sheol" in which only the wicked abide in (what I tentatively believe) is a kind of dream-like state of un-fellowship and (as Boyd puts it) an un-reality. Hell is a reality of unreality – much like a dream.

If you would like for me to, I can try to gather my notes and e-mail them to you. I have pieced together numerous passages that speak of Hell and Sheol and made comments on them. Also, I have a number of notes outlining my dream theory of Hell. It is much the same kind of concept as what Boyd describes in his second chapter on Hell in his theodicy, however, I have attempted (perhaps inadequately) to put a name on Das Nichtige through biblical and extra-biblical resources.

Whoever wants me to try to e-mail them my notes, send me a message at lan33602@obu.edu .

Sorry so long. I hope this helps some despite my long-windedness.

Blessings…

Adam

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/4/2002 11:41 AM (GMT -6)

Thanks Dr. Boyd and Adam for your responses, it is appreciated as I work through some of these issues.

First off, Doc you said:
"The data regarding what Jews believe about the afterlife in general and hell in particular is conflicting, both inside the Bible and out. It doesn't seem there ever was one standardized view.... Despite the insistence of the proponents of various positions, the data is opaque enough to admit of different interpretations. The issue, I think, has to ultimately be resolved by including non-exegetical / theological/ philosophical considerations."

David: I agree that there appears to be conflict within scripture about views of the afterlife and that we must therefore work through these issues by including "non-exegetical / theological/ philosophical considerations." However, my reasons for believing in the Bible are my reasons for even having any view of the afterlife. If it was up to my own rational the whole idea of the afterlife seems hard to swallow intellectually and seems like wishful/hopeful thinking. So if my reason (the Bible) for believing in the afterlife at all appears to be conflicting as to it's nature, then can I really be certain about much of anything regarding the afterlife? Obviously, prior to the exile prophets the Biblical writers were not too concerned with this issue, but if there is definitive view of the afterlife, certainly it must have been true for them as well as it is today. It appears to me that if this was as important an issue to God as we make it to ourselves, then God would certainly have revealed his plans to those prior to when more definitive statements started to appear. Either this issue is not important as we make it (because for hundreds of years Jews lived without definitive knowledge of an afterlife and even still today the issue remains largely ambiguous) or it is vitally important and God just chooses not fully reveal his intentions in a clear manner in scripture. The first instance is easier to accept if you hold “softer” theological positions such as inclusivism and annihilationism or non-reality (both which I am more inclined to), because you therefore spend your time more concerned with right living before God, than where you will go, because whatever the afterlife entails you leave up to God sovereign justice. However, the second instance, has more theological problems, especially for the more “hard” approaches such exclusivism, eternal conscience suffering, and in-errency or complete literal interpretations of scripture. I am really only concerned with the issue of the after life if the second instance is so. I’d much rather spend my life seeking truth and living right then trying to figure out who is going where after we die and what that entails from data that doesn’t seem to be too concise.

Adam you said:
“In the OT, you are right: "Hell" is not mentioned or even really described. Rather, it is Sheol that is discussed in reference to the afterlife, and Sheol's occupants are both the righteous and the unrighteous.”

David: I am somewhat familiar with the term “sheol.” However I haven’t studied it in great detail, but from what you’ve said and what I know, like you said there does seems to be a difference between “gehenna” and “sheol.” Second, you said that Christ is “the rudder that points us in the direction of truth among the many ideas.” However, while I agree, it seems Christ wasn’t too much more diffinitive on clearing up the particulars of the afterlife in scripture either, although I wish he would have, it make it much easier. Also, I tend to agree with you on the “progressive revelation” or “expanding of the truth” through out history, however again this works for me because I lean more towards inclusivism, annihilationsm or non-reality, etc. However, as I said previous, if I did not hold these positions it would be harder for me accept that God did not make knowledge of the afterlife known in antiquity if exclusivism and eternal conscious suffering we true. Also, I would enjoy reading your notes on these issues, my e-mail address is diamondd_777@yahoo.com.

Sorry, this was a little rushed, but I hope it makes sense. Thanks for your time and I enjoy the dialogue.

Have a good day,

David

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/4/2002 8:24 PM (GMT -6)

David,

I will indeed try to get those documents to you as soon as possible. I looked through several discs and was unsuccessful, but I'll try to get it from my other computer. I'm very glad that you are interested in studying this.

However, I think you may want to re-direct your thoughts on the importance of Hell. No, the exact particulars of Hell (or heaven for that matter) are not disclosed entirely to us. We are not given an elaborate description of the afterlife. I don't believe that the particulars (that is, a vivid description) of Hell (or the afterlife) are important. Yet that does not mean that Hell and Heaven themselves are unimportant. We are given what we need to know in order to live our lives in accordance with God's purposes. We are not given detailed descriptions because it is not really that important.

What IS important is that we recognize the existence of Heaven and Hell and we live our lives in light of that ultimate reality. It is important that we realize that Hell is an awful place that we do not want either ourselves or those we love (the whole world) to go. Hell is important to recognize and study because it is the antithesis of the life God would have us to lead. To study it is like reading C.S. Lewis's Screwtape Letters – you study it with a "This is what NOT to do." From Hell we see the importance of fellowship and the horror of a lack of fellowship with God and man. There are other reasons to recognize and study Hell, but these are a few.

We study Heaven so that we can live our lives in light of this ultimate reality. We should meditate upon Heaven daily, considering what the actions we take every moment will look like in heavenly retrospect. We should persistently be asking ourselves "What matters most in eternity," and thus pattern our lives accordingly. If you notice Christ focused quite a bit on the afterlife (or call it "eternity" if you will), and for a good reason: He is the only man who has been there; He came from eternity. He was the eternal Logos made flesh. He came warning of the dangers of wickedness, pride, and lustful living – they result in eternal death which is Hell. And He came beckoning us toward the eternal reward of fellowship in the glory of the Almighty, pleading with us to live our lives in light of this truth (and Paul after Him). Eternity is important to study and mediate on because it is the ultimate, REAL reality since it is ETERNAL. Paul said that our citizenship is in Heaven, not on earth – in reality, not the ephemeral.

Also, Jesus favorite topic was the Kingdom of God. Heaven is the Kingdom fully consummated: God's will done completely and exhaustively. When we look at what has been revealed to us about Heaven, we can better see how to be agents of the Kingdom, bringing the Kingdom to Earth (so that Bono can stop singing "I Still Haven't Found What I'm Looking For" and write "I found what I'm looking for"). What is Heaven? Fellowship, Love, when there is finally nothing to distract us ADD saints and God is all-in-all in our thoughts, words, and lives.

[continued in next post]

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/4/2002 8:25 PM (GMT -6)

While there certainly may be some value studying why there was not much focus on the afterlife in the days of the patriarch and early Hebrews, it is not what we should be primarily concerned with. We should be primarily concerned with what has been revealed to us thus far. Christ explained it to us what we need to know (there will be some form of eternal conscious punishment in Hell and there will also be death and finality). Besides, how could we possibly completely understand Eternity anyway being the temporal creatures we are? How could a 1-dimensional creature comprehend 2-dimensions? Or a 2-dimensional creature 3-d? Things un-experienced would have to be revealed by intrinsically imperfect comparison to things experienced: parables and metaphors …which is what Jesus did.

I know you directed this to Dr. Boyd, but I'll put my two cents in here too. I'm not so sure the Bible gives "conflicting" statements concerning Hell. Paradoxical, maybe, but not conflicting. Perhaps some Jews believed things that conflicted with other Jews, but I don't think the Bible conflicts with itself on this point. Rather, I think that our thinking is too small. Dr. Boyd said in his theodicy (if I remember right) that we in theology need to kind of evolve "contradictions" into "paradoxes" whenever we can. That can be done if we think of theology in non-linear terms (i.e., when we "think outside of the box"). Two central points of Christianity are paradoxes: the incarnation and the trinity. Why not recognize the afterlife as another?

That is the nature of the "reality of unreality" argument for Hell. It is not annihilationism which states that creatures cease to exist in any form of consciousness after being consumed. And it is not the traditional view which states that the wicked don't die in Hell but are alive for an eternity of deathless torture. "Reality of unreality" as I understand and believe it says that the occupants of Hell are perhaps tortured for a while but are finally consumed and cease to exist in reality. Rather, they spend eternity in a kind of conscious, dream-like state of unreality where no fellowship or life exists, but a consciousness remains. What this consciousness "thinks" about I think is probably different for each person. But I explain this more in my notes and paper.

God bless you my brother, and, again, I will try to get those notes to you. Thank you so much for this discussion. I'm sorry my posts are so long!

His Eternally….

Adam

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/4/2002 9:37 PM (GMT -6)

hey adam, thanks again for your response. also, thanks for taking the time with the notes. i jsut wanted to write briefly and say that i am not try to say that the afterlife is not important, i wouldn't spend so much of my time studying and thinking about it. I was rather just trying, in a way of thinking out loud, to question why it it may be that God did not call much attention to this subject at different points in history and maybe trying to somewhat comprehend his perspective and agenda with creation. this is a subject that i feel deeply about and i spend much time thinking about. it is of utmost importance to me. However, at the same time i am still at some what of a loss of what to think about, maybe because of it's paradoxes as you say, so i am trying to work through these issues, and allowing my self to be open to whatever truth i may discover.

also, you said:
"Two central points of Christianity are paradoxes: the incarnation and the trinity. Why not recognize the afterlife as another?"
David: I must say that i am not a big fan of paradoxes, basically it's saying that it's a theological issue that we can not solve or understand and therefore it is a paradox. with something as important as what the nature of hell is and who goes there, it would be nice to have a little more clarity than the aparent "paradoxes." this isn't jsut a small question or issue, it's the reality of life and our destinies! i am not sure we can contend ourselves to say that God ways are so much higher than ours and that it is simply a paradox when the possible effects of this "paradox" are so great. it just seems kinda like a theological cop-out without paying the intellectual price. i may be wrong. i think there are a lot more issue at hand, but that's enough for now, it's kinda late, and i'm not sure how clear i am thinking, i just wanted to respond here real quick and clarify that this topic is of great importance and we shall continue to pursue it truth.

God bless,

David

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/5/2002 4:30 AM (GMT -6)

David,

Cool. I'm glad I misunderstood you and you do think that it is an important issue. I'll try not to be so long-winded in this post… HA!

Paradoxes:

Man, I know what you are saying about the paradoxes. I have done a lot of discussions with Atheists on message boards who knock anyone and everyone for saying the likes of "God's ways are higher than our ways." They use logic to defend themselves, but logically, I can't see how they can me right. There are indeed many things that we can understand rather clearly. With every generation we have more and more experience and knowledge about the universe and life, therefore having more to be able to work from when understanding difficult theological concepts.

But to think that we can exhaustively understand everything has always seemed to me to be a act of incredible hubris. Now, I would agree that a non-paradox that truly "works" should be taken over a paradox, but when you're talking about the afterlife… I could see no other area of theology that would more logically warrant a paradox.

I mentioned the 1-dimensional creatures in a 2-dimensional world in my last post. Well, imagine if there were actually more dimensions than our 3 space dimensions and our 1 time dimension. Think about how dimensions work: length, width, height: a man going up a hill on one side HAS to be traveling the opposite direction of a man traveling downhill on the same side. Okay… throw another dimension into play, and that hard fact may not necessarily hold true. When more dimensions come into play, what looks intrinsically impossible becomes actually possible.

For years, physicists have been baffled at an amazing contradiction: the universe on a small scale (quantum mechanics) works apparently contradictory to the universe on the big scale (electromagnetism). For years, no one could answer this problem. It was apparently a contradiction. This made the scientists eventually concede to the fact that there is much more to the universe than what we see. Brian Greene puts it all into this fascinating book "The Elegant Universe."

[continued...]

hand_carved
Registered Member

Date Joined Apr 2002
Total Posts : 111

Posted 6/5/2002 4:31 AM (GMT -6)

Recently (within the last 100 years, I believe) "string theory" has been developed in physics. It spawned from this idea that there is more than what we can see. Essentially, in order for quantum mechanics and electromagnetism to be true, physicists have concluded that there MUST be at LEAST eleven dimensions (1 time dimension and 10 space dimensions….I think). Greene writes that there are even possibilities of more than one time dimension. Whoa!

Now think about it. What did we see of Christ's resurrected body? He was flesh – he could eat and drink with the disciples… and yet he could WALK THROUGH WALLS! He could just appear and disappear like it was nothing. And then…he just flies up into outer space when he leaves. Obviously our 3-D space rules didn't limit His movement as it does ours.

The Afterlife is another reality than what we have experienced. I think it is going to be so much bigger than what we can completely describe or even completely rationalize. Even physicists are acknowledging "There is more than meets the eye." How much more should theologians be admitting this?

Sorry for going into such a drawn out response to that, but it is something that I have been contemplating for a number of years but could not quite articulate until recently. I just wanted to share that with you.

Now with that said, I think I have actually been able to work a great many of the "kinks" of Hell eschatology out with my theory of the eternal "dream-like" state of the lost. Like I've stated before, it has not been tried and tested, but it seems to be very biblically based and even, arguably, historically based (although I think that we have misunderstood or misinterpreted some of the founding fathers of Christianity). So many theologians have been trapped into this 3-D understanding of the afterlife that (I think) they have been reading it into the statements of the early theologians (although this is not true of all statements of early church fathers). Pinnock and Crockett (in "4 Views on Hell") BOTH misinterpret C.S. Lewis' chapter on Hell in "The Problem of Pain" (an excellent, excellent book might I add…). In more than one of his articles, Pinnock has stated something like "Lewis seems to believe in annihilationism although he seems to contradict himself in some places." Crockett does sort of the same thing. Neither of them realize that Lewis believed that a person was destroyed and yet there remained a consciousness after the destruction. Lewis wrote only around 50 years ago. How much more could we be putting our own words into the first century theologians?

Anyway, I must get ready for work! May God bless you and keep you.

Grace and Peace…

Adam

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/6/2002 8:24 PM (GMT -6)

hey adam,
sorry i have been a little slow in responding, i've been a little busy of late. but here are some thoughts on your last post.

you said:
"But to think that we can exhaustively understand everything has always seemed to me to be a act of incredible hubris. Now, I would agree that a non-paradox that truly "works" should be taken over a paradox, but when you're talking about the afterlife… I could see no other area of theology that would more logically warrant a paradox."

David: I agree that we can never exhaustively know all there is to know, but rather with time we become more enlightened and we always should seek to know and understand all there is to understand. However, I am not quite convinced that the afterlife warrants being labeled a "paradox" on the same level as the trinity,incarnation, etc. I just don't think that because data in scripture seems to conflict on this issue that it makes it a paradox, but maybe as an opportunity to discover something new about the afterlife (which I think is what you are trying to do as well w/ the dream theory). I am not saying that we can fully understand it, and that it is not a paradox, I am just not convinced of it, the data just doesn't seem too concise on the subject matter. Which bothers me, because I think is a very important subject matter. Also, I was wondering, why exactly do you consider it a paradox, is it because of your dream theory?

I have not quite read through all your notes yet, but I guess my initial reaction to it is that it still seems cruel (albeit less cruel maybe) to have to eternally exist away from God with no retribution or end to this state. I just believe all eternal punishment in whatever reality seams like a theological problem to a God who supposedly love these condemned individuals. Hell is a real intellectual and even in some views a moral problem. I realize these are moral objections, but they are based on a biblical portrayal of God. If moral objections are to be discarded, then I believe so should the Moral Argument for God presented by CS Lewis and others. I don't think God would deceive us in are basic morality. Also I realize, that it is shared by many that people chose to separate themselves from God, but do you really believe that a person chooses and wants to exist in the worst reality eternally? Some how there souls must transfer to this reality, so away from just dying off, someone has to be doing the sending to the punishment reality. I don't think people just willing take the bus to hell. I do believe that people choose their realities, but I’m just not sure that people choose willing an eternal (duration) punishment. If we believe that it's an eternal (duration) reality in whatever sense away from God, then it's a punishment, cause someone is doing the punishing. We can not then say this was only the individual’s choice to go there, in this view God is not off the hook for the reality people go to. A criminal may choose to commit a crime, but that does not mean that he wanted to go to prison, it is still the judge (and jury) who are responsible for establishing a just punishment. SO again away from just a mere separation of God (annihilation) which seems like a horrible enough reality for a person to choose, every other eternal reality away from God seems cruel. It’s not retributive, it’s just mere eternal wrath. I know I am not God and don’t understand all that he does, but it just seems to betray my moral conscience and my thoughts of a loving God. Why would God ask us love and forgive our enemies, but then go on to let his enemies exist in eternal torment (the dream theory still seems like torment to me)? But I guess that is my humble opinion. Well enough for now. Have a great day.

-David

p.s. by the way were are you from(college), age, etc? Just wondering. I am 19 and live in minneapolis, mn and go to north central university. Also, it would help me to understand where you are coming from if you stated some of your other stances besides your dream theory, like who goes to heaven, is it by their choice, etc. thanks, again, and thanks for the notes and great conversation. This was a little rushed, hope it makes sense.

PotOnWheel
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 9890

Posted 6/7/2002 4:14 AM (GMT -6)

I always am interested in what people think of this article:

http://www.orthodoxpress.org/parish/river_of_fire.htm

Winghead
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 132

Posted 6/12/2002 3:52 PM (GMT -6)

David,

I would like to weigh in with some observations.

1. As you study hell, you will find that two words are used: Hades and Gehenna. Some suggest Jesus talked of Hell. This suggests there is an "in between place" where people might go after death, and before the final judgement, and then the lake of fire.

2. Jesus referred to hell, which suggest that the concept does have validity, even though we have very little elaboration from him or the apostles.

3. Regarding the afterlife, Jesus and the apostles talk about the afterlife as if it really exists.

4. There have been peole who did not die (e.g., Enoch and Elijah) and people who did die, but were seen again (e.g., Moses and Jesus). There seems to be evidence that the afterlife does exist.

5. I disagree that the NT just paints a picture of punishment. The NT uses many annilliationist terms as well -- destruction, consuming fire, the second death, etc. This, in conjunction with antithetical words for heaven like eternal life, suggests that views of hell that purely focus on everlasting torture might be short sighted. A balance of some kind seems to be demanded.

6. For interesting reading, see the book, Four Views of Hell.

7. I think the contemporary presentation of the gospel as "fire insurance" misses the point Jesus was making when he preached the "good news." The Good News is not that millions of people will go to hell if they do not accept Jesus Christ as their Lord and savior. The good news is that we can have restored relationship with our Creator, the God of the universe, the God who is described as being Love. Jesus taught about the Kingdom as being proleptic -- now and not yet. However, there is still that now, or "in your midst" aspect of the Kingdom. We cannot lose sight of the Joy and Peace that come from knowing Jesus Christ.

YBIC,
Winghead

"...you must love the Lord your God with all your heart, all your soul, all your mind, and all your strength.’ The second is equally important: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ No other commandment is greater than these.”
Mark 12:30-31 (NLT)

Edited by - Winghead on 06/12/2002 8:53:07 PM

diamondd
Registered Member

Date Joined May 2002
Total Posts : 42

Posted 6/13/2002 10:28 AM (GMT -6)

Hey winghead,
thanks for the imput. i think it's very interesting, and i am pretty much in agreeance with you. i just sometimes wondered why there is all the ambiguity for such an seemingly important doctrine. well, i gotta run right now, cause i am taking a trip to milwaukee to watch the twins beat up on the brewers, but i would like to add more imput later this weekend and pose a few more questions to think about. oh, and thanks for the book suggestion, is that with Clark Pinnock defending the conditional position right? i have wanted to check that one out for a little while. welp, i will talk y'all later.

God bless,

David

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 1:34 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual