Trying to understand hell and who belongs there (very personal issues I face)

Faith & Science Conversation
61

Sin is degenaritive, I agree on that. Your example is a bit misleading because it appears to mix forgiveness before God and consequences of our wrong decisions in this life. Examples are never perfect so perhaps this is just a misunderstanding of your writing - as English is not my native language, it’s too easy to misunderstand.

Even if God forgives us, we must face the consequences of what we have done. Reminds me of one criminal who became a believer. He was the leader of a group who called themselves Natural born killers. Jesus paid his sins and he received forgiveness. After that, he went and confessed the murders he had done. He got a lifetime in prison, after becoming a believer.
However, I agree that there is a need to be wise in how we tell about these things.

Forgiveness before God is another matter. God is Holy and cannot accept sins. There are consequences for breaking His commandments. I believe that just turning away from our wrong way is not enough for forgiveness. The first coming of Jesus and His sacrifice was an answer to that need.

1 Like
62

Thankfully, I don’t have to do anything with them because the One who said those things is the One who took care of them.

I guess I have to pull out just a few of the obligatory universal restoration passages. Here goes:

Ps 22:27-30 All the ends of the earth will remember and turn to the Lord, and all the families of the nations will worship before Thee. For the kingdom is the Lord’s, and He rules over the nations. All the proud of the earth will eat and worship, even he who cannot keep his soul alive. Posterity will serve Him.

Lam 3:31-32 For the Lord will not reject forever, for if He causes grief, then He will have compassion according to His abundant lovingkindness.

Jn 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.

Rom 5:18-20 So then as through one transgression [Adam’s] there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness [Christ’s] there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One, the many will be made righteous. And the Law came in that the transgression might increase; but where sin increased, grace abounded all the more!

Rom 14:11 For as it is written, “As I live”, says the Lord, “every knee shall bow to me [ie. repentance], and every tongue shall give praise to God”.

I Tim 4:10 It is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

I am not sure a scripture war is what is needed here. I can literally give you 4 scriptures for universal restoration for every 1 scripture you can give for eternal conscious torment. But, all that seems silly in the light of what we know of God as the creator and father of us all. As the just judge, whose judgement is mercy on every soul. Again, this is stated so many times in scripture.

It’s not a question of who has the best proof scripture. (Though, I promise you I would win. :grin:) It’s God’s character on the line. He can’t tell us to do one thing, and then at the last change the rules. Justice is as God defines it, and He has taught us certain principles that we dare not defy. Can He then do the opposite of His word to us?

2 Likes
63

If science won’t be touching on this subject, then how much less would technology ever have a remote chance of addressing these issues? These things are resolved in our hearts and minds under the guidance of scriptures - and most importantly: the Spirit. Even if we could “go back” and listen to Jesus’ words verbatim, that wouldn’t suddenly turn rebellious hearts to him - in fact it might make things even worse. If we can’t accept the testimonies of the many who walked with him, trusted him, recorded his words for posterity, then we aren’t accepting him either - nor the One who sent him.

1 Like
64

Biblical inspiration is encompassed in the recorded revelations concerning the purpose (will), nature, and character of God through propositions, narratives, and visions.

65

A rewrite:
The inspired scriptures are encompassed within the recorded propositions, narratives, and visions revealing the purpose (will), nature, and character of God.

66

Ralphie, you replied to me which is why I assumed you were responding to me. I think at the very bottom of the page the reply button should just allow a generic reply that won’t be to any specific person.

Vinnie

67

Aye, it’s allllll about what we inevitably, dispositionally bring to the party.

68

Well, to be honest, I found just about your whole post objectionable but didn’t feel the need to address it all. We all have different opinions on many things but paleography is a pet peeve of mine so I focused on that. But I found your argument highly misinformed and the framing of it questionable. For example, your use of the term skeptics was objectionable to me since in most Christian circles it carries a negative connotation whether you meant that or not. To me those who refer to proponents of biblical criticism as skeptics online suggests an unfamiliarity with their arguments and methods. “Skeptics” is poisoning the well in my mind and by the definition of the word, technically, conservative Christians are the “skeptics.” They are skeptical of the accepted opinions of educated scholars who spend their lives learning ancient languages, reading, translating and interpreting ancient texts, immersing themselves in ancient history and the culture of the time and its literary practices. Not to mention there are many orthodox Christians who engage in Biblical criticism at a professional level and accept many of its more widespread conclusions. They are not “skeptics” in the colloquial sense.

Also you stated: “The earliest manuscript we have is just a fragment of the gospel of John (and yet the skeptics don’t think that gospel was the earliest written).” and somehow used this questionable information to spring board into the possibility that we could have lost manuscripts written by the apostles that went into the canonical Gospels. Your appeal to the Ryland’s fragment was based on misinformation and is ultimately meaningless for what you were using it to convey which I take was the following:

Yes, the fact that the earliest manuscript evidence for our Gospels is from the second or third century does not logically dictate a bunch of Jews who followed Jesus did not write anything down in the years 30-60. This is so tautologically obvious and bland, one has to wonder why you even wrote it? What respectable biblical critic has ever suggested otherwise? Or are you just referring to the arguments and “scholarship” of uneducated village atheists on the internet who lack formal training?

In regards to you speculating that the disciples could have written documents the village atheist can easily speculate that they might not have. You could also suppose they could have had hairy feet and they could guess they might not have. I saw this as idle speculation.

For me, the bottom line is despite all the fighting and competing literature and theological interpretations in the early church, the only real candidates were the NT Gospels (some by proxy) since they come from the 1st century. But scholars reject traditional authorship for very good reasons. We know some gospels seem to have been lost (as they are referenced and quoted) but would they have been if an actual apostle actually wrote them and they were famous enough to be used by later evangelists writing the canonical gospels? No one in the entire church has ever heard of or mentioned them until someone in 2021, in an argument with “skeptics,” postulated that maybe the disciples wrote down facts about Jesus? It’s logically possible but hardly seems likely on a large scale considering that tracing things to apostles was a chief argument in the early church. If they did write stuff its lost and whether or not its in the NT gospels is unknowable.

Second, the mere act of concerning ourselves with the eyewitnesses writing in a church that probably expected an imminent return of Jesus is historically problematic on one level and entirely anachronistic on another as it reflects modern emphasis on written works. Many think literacy was extremely low in antiquity. The apostles would mainly have preached orally. Nothing beats listening to a good story. Some certainly could have had a few things written down or those who heard the disciples might have written down small stories and so on. But essentialy the Gospels codified stories that were being preached in many churches from the 30s-60s. They shaped and edited stories that were probably already shaped and edited to a degree (they are based on traditions received in Greek, not Aramaic which Jesus would have spoken). In other words, much of the material goes back to apostolic times (minus some things like the sayings material in John) but some of it has gone through a bit of a theological rinse-cycle at times in addition to their being some pastoral and theological creativity.

There were most certainly some writings about Jesus’ life before out gospels. There is evidence of a pre-Marcan passion narrative, evidence of a set of written conflict stories behind Mark 2:1-3:6, written stuff behind some of Acts, in addition to a now lost sayings Gospel and a bunch of other other potential written sources behind the Gospels. But even early in the second century some preferred a good, reliable preaching over what is found in books:

Papias ca. 110: “I did not think that what was to be gotten from the books would profit me as much as what came from the living and abiding voice ” ( Ecclesiastical History , 3.39.4).

I know sola scripture proponents don’t like this and try to wiggle around it calling it a topos or something because in their eyes the four canonical Gospels must have been authoritative from the beginning. Nothing could be further from the truth. There were lots of Gospels known all throughout the second century. Even early second century material looks to stem from oral preaching and influence rather than direct quotations from the canonical gospels (see Steven E. Young, Jesus Tradition in the Apostolic Fathers)… The more extensive dependence on written works happens in the middle of the second century though it was probably more or a ramp than a step.

Vinnie

69

So you think an ability to read universalism into 4 scriptures justifies ignoring 1 scripture which teaches eternal conscious torment? The usual way of reading of the Bible is to accept all 5 scriptures and see what they are all saying together. It is simply that God does everything to save all of us from our sins, but not all want to let go of their sins in order to be saved.

Ps 22:27-30 the teaching of God’s kingdom coming on the earth is not universalism.
Lam 3:31-32 The endless compassion and love of God does not equal universalism.
Jn 12:32 Drawing all men to Himself does not equal all coming to God. Matthew 22:14.
Rom 5:18-20 justification of life to all does not equal forcing all to love God.
Rom 14:11 every knee shall bow is not the same as all shall repent let alone that all shall be saved
I Tim 4:10 Just because one is savior for all does not mean all shall be saved. Quite often people just won’t do as the doctor orders.

Only if hell is something God does to people. God’s character is not on the line if hell is something people do to themselves.

God most certainly can do the opposite of what people say when claiming to speak for God, or when reading their own meaning into the words of the Bible.

70

Then I shall assume that everything you say is objectionable and not bother to read past this.

An unwillingness to apply skepticism to both sides and see bias on both sides cannot represent a perspective that I would see any value in.

71

I said just about. That was the redeeming quality of it. You have to be skeptical of all claims. That I agree with but how you framed it is what I objected to. What matters in the end is the actual evidence/data/arguments on every issue. It is not a popularity contest. Experts can also be wrong but usually we trust experts over non-experts in a lot of fields. Since this pertains to salvation and religious beliefs, many of us would rather read as much evidence for ourselves as we can. Especially in a field so ideologically motivated. Countless scholars have peered into the well of historical Jesus research only to see their own reflection staring back at them.

Vinnie

72

Nope. Never said that. You just did. By the way, what’s stopping me from saying that it’s you reading eternal conscious torment into your proof scriptures? Why is your opinion more valid than mine?

I agree completely.

This is all simply your opinion. See above.

And yet you are claiming to speak for God, and I say you are reading your own meaning into the bible. Again, why are you right and I wrong?

As I said in my previous posts, it’s not just the large amount of scripture that seems to point to universal reconciliation, but what I see of God’s character in the bible that leads me in the direction I lean.

1 Like
73

You would make a good systematic theologian! The usual way involves force-fitting competing theologies by different authors together.

74

honesty. After all, you already acknowledged that there is 1 passage to your 4 which support eternal conscious torment.

what opinion would that be. If I am forcing my opinion on you then I must have made my opinion obvious, right? Kind of hard to force my opinion on you unless I make my opinion clear.

It is not my opinion that different words are not the same words. That is simply a matter of fact.

Where?

Of course I am.

right about what? wrong about what?

Well I must admit, for me it is not just what I see in the Bible. It is also what I see in the world. I don’t think you can even read the Bible in isolation, because the meaning of the words you read in the Bible don’t come from the Bible. And then there is what you are looking for in the Bible when you read it. Someone reading it looking for ways to condemn Christianity is not going to see the same thing as someone reading it looking for something of value.

75

I will see this 4 to 1 and raise 2x lol.

Romans 6:20-23
New American Standard Bible
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in relation to righteousness. 21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death. 22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gracious gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

  • those freed through Christ are saved from sin. ( not sinless there is a difference). They are freed from the wages of sin which is death. Not eternal life and not eternal life plus torment. They either receive death or they receive eternal life.

Matthew 7:13-14
New American Standard Bible
The Narrow and Wide Gates
13 “Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. 14 For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it.

  • It says the narrow gate is hard to find and few find it. It’s a gate that leads to life. That’s leads to eternal life. However it also says that the wide gate is easy to find and that many will find it and that this gate leads to destruction. That’s death. The destruction of life. It never says everyone finds narrow or wide gate. It also never mentions a medium sized gate that leads to eternal life but one full of destruction. Just one that leads to eternal life and one that leads to destruction.

Matthew 13:24-30
New American Standard Bible
Weeds among Wheat
24 Jesus presented another parable to them, saying, “The kingdom of heaven is like a man who sowed good seed in his field. 25 But while his men were sleeping, his enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and left. 26 And when the wheat sprouted and produced grain, then the weeds also became evident. 27 And the slaves of the landowner came and said to him, ‘Sir, did you not sow good seed in your field? How then does it have weeds?’ 28 And he said to them, ‘An enemy has done this!’ The slaves *said to him, ‘Do you want us, then, to go and gather them up?’ 29 But he *said, ‘No; while you are gathering up the weeds, you may uproot the wheat with them. 30 Allow both to grow together until the harvest; and at the time of the harvest I will say to the reapers, “First gather up the weeds and bind them in bundles to burn them; but gather the wheat into my barn.”’”

Here we see a parable that represents two types of people. The wheat and the weeds. The wheat is gathered by the farmer and stored. They represent those saved by God. The weeds though are bundled and tossed into fire. They burned. When we burn tares they burn up. They don’t remain forever and ever. They are burned into ashes. Destroyed. The lost are destroyed.

Matthew 25:44-46
New American Standard Bible
44 Then they themselves also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see You hungry, or thirsty, or as a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not take care of You?’ 45 Then He will answer them, ‘Truly I say to you, to the extent that you did not do it for one of the least of these, you did not do it for Me, either.’ 46 These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”

In those verses we see another example of how the wicked receives a punishment. A punishment that is eternal. A punishment without end. One receives a blessing without end. The righteous receives eternal life. The wicked receives a punishment without end and that’s destruction. They are not eternally destroyed because they don’t receive eternal life. They receive eternal death. A death from which there is no resurrection. They remain dead always.

Hebrews 10:39
New American Standard Bible
39 But we are not among those who shrink back to destruction, but of those who have faith for the safekeeping of the soul.

One has faith which results in the safekeeping of their soul and the other shrinks back and will reap destruction.

Galatians 6:8
New American Standard Bible
8 For the one who sows to his own flesh will reap destruction from the flesh, but the one who sows to the Spirit will reap eternal life from the Spirit.

The trees bearing fruit of the flesh reaps destruction snd those bearing the spirit receives eternal life.

Again we don’t see a tree that receives eternal life plus torture and we don’t see evilness reaping eternal life through the spirit. We see destruction.

James 5:19-20
New American Standard Bible
19 My brothers and sisters, if anyone among you strays from the truth and someone turns him back, 20 let him know that the one who has turned a sinner from the error of his way will save his soul from death and cover a multitude of sins.

In these verses we read that anyone who knows the truth, and strays from it ( backslides back into unrighteousness) can be returned to the truth. If someone turns back to truth they are saved from the death of their soul.

Matthew 10:28
New American Standard Bible
28 And do not be afraid of those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

Here Jesus says don’t fear the men who can only destroy your flesh. That’s kill you. Don’t fear being murdered by men more than obeying God because God can destroy not only your body, but also your soul in hell. That’s the death of body snd soul.

John 3:16
New American Standard Bible
16 “For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life.

God says those who believe in him will receive eternal life. But those who don’t will perish. They will be destroyed. So again some has eternal life and some don’t and because they don’t they perish, die.

Revelation 21:8
New American Standard Bible
8 But for the cowardly, and unbelieving, and abominable, and murderers, and sexually immoral persons, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

They will receive the second death. That means they die a second time.

It took some time to locate and post them. It will be a few days before I can respond again to any counters.

1 Like
76

“Many Biblical scholars (his mentor Bruce Metzger included) examine the same data that Ehrman has and reach far different conclusions regarding the inspiration and Inerrancy of the Bible.”
The Invisible Things
I’m not alone when I see what look like significant contradictions in what Ehrman says.
Nothing wrong with being skeptical. Educated scholars disagree with educated bible scholars who dedicated their all to the same pursuits and not for a couple centuries but for two thousand years.
What well is being poisoned?
“…we are in complete agreement on a number of very important historical and textual questions. If he and I were put in a room and asked to hammer out a consensus statement on what we think the original text of the New Testament probably looked like, there would be very few points of disagreement – maybe one or two dozen places out of many thousands. The position I argue for in ‘Misquoting Jesus’ does not actually stand at odds with Prof. Metzger’s position that the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.” Dr. Ehrman

Perhaps Bart would consider clearing up the confusion someday. Most of what else he offers seemingly contradicts the quote above.
You believe Jesus is God. You state the crucifixion and the resurrection are the basic truths of Christianity. If you don’t mind, develop your thoughts why and upon what you rely to come to those conclusions. Most of the opinions about the gospel you have shared here, those I am familiar with, focus on the errors, misinterpretations, inadequate study or knowledge of history and scholarship. I don’t have an understanding of who Jesus is to you, nor what you draw upon to believe as you do. I am not sure in my own mind what Jesus being “fully God” means to you.
Many of my questions for you are dismissed, or I’m instructed to find your older posts (where? How do I find them?) or you criticize my opinions without presenting a properly composed, cogent rebuttal. A healthy discussion includes some back and forth. I don’t intentionally refer to verses to “proof-text” points of view per se. We rely upon the bible, and nature, personal testimony and His spirit to teach us about him and you reject most of the NT from what I gather. I think it is important to unearth every gem of truth we can mine from it. Approaching its analysis verse by verse can be very helpful and there certainly can’t be any harm in it.

As an aside, but relevant, recently, I have seen people claiming Richard Feynman isn’t all that. While liberal bible scholars are enjoying a great deal of interest by the public right now, the vicissitudes of life have a way of swinging back and revival may come knocking on the door any day.

77

Either you don’t really read what is written or you are not comprehending it. This issue was already addressed with a lengthy quote from Bart that I posted. You also asked me questions about the exclusive statements in John I addressed multiple times. I would greatly appreciate it if you could at least take the time to read what is being written if you are going to respond to it.

78

All right, my friend. One thing is for sure. Time will tell. Since I’m convinced I’m right, it would be silly of me to continue to argue the point, wouldn’t it.

I’ll see you at last in heaven. We’ll pick up the conversation then.

Until then, be safe, and God bless!

1 Like
79

On some days. Not sure if full God in the ontological sense as a distinct member of the Trinity. Jesus was representative of God on earth. God in the flesh.

What opinions of yours have I criticized without present a properly composed, cogent rebuttal? List them all and I’ll be happy to elaborate. If I instruct you to find my older posts it is most likely in the very thread you are reading and posts you had already quoted me in. This thread is one example of that. I am not going to constantly repeat things to you.

I only rely on the forest of Bible because of Him. I do not rely on Him because of the Bible. I also do not rely on the Bible for historical or scientific information. I rely on the ethical teachings of Jesus in order to see a concrete example and model of how now I should live. I use the Bible and other people’s faith to glean important messages and deep spiritual meaning as things reverberate with me via the Spirit. Beyond that, the trees or alleged “facts” and encyclopedic theological knowledge in the “Bible” is like any other human book to me.

As an example, in this thread a person is struggling with hell and I see people quoting a bunch of verses about universalism, some out of context and some in context that appear to legitimately state what they think the do. Then I see some quoting about eternity in hell, some out of context and some legitimately stating what they think they do. Watching this theological debate is like watching a dog chase its tail to me. As Mitchell said, the usual idea is to take all the passages and put them together. I don’t put (force) together conflicting theological statements into a cohesive whole. That is just me imparting my own will and ideology into scripture. That scripture has distinct theologies that contradict one another at times means we have to form a systematic theology by getting around and copingkith the diversity and my method is always looking at the bigger picture. But we also have to stress quality over quantity and form a theology in light of Jesus. Quoting verses to one another doesn’t do it and going back and forth doesn’t do it. It won’t solve this issue and it will not solve the calvinism/arminianism issues either because there are passages and ideologies supporting both sides. Sola scripture has resulted in tens of thousands of denominations. It is a futile effort, doomed to failure from the start since incorrect assumptions and methodology is held in regards to the Bible.

Mainstream biblical critics are not liberal by definition.

Vinnie

80

As I stated before, it is silly to get into a scripture war. I have been where you are doctrinally, and I know how one arrives at that position. In fact, I have thoroughly studied the scriptures on both sides for decades. It’s that important to me. That gives me an advantage since almost none of the people that hold your view are motivated to consider universal reconciliation. See my reading list above if you happen to be one of the more open minded. Or, don’t.

I will say there are 2 arguments that, for me, seem to have been the deal breakers as far as eternal conscious torment goes. But, they are logic arguments, not scriptural proofs.

First, there is the absurdity argument. God, the ultimate, victorious alpha and omega, knowing the beginning to the end, loving and creative beyond our comprehension, the essence of joy and peace, having an infinite number of universes that He can bring into being even within the bounds of His character, willfully, purposefully, chose to create a universe where, with His full foreknowledge, roughly 80 percent of the sentient creatures born on a tiny, insignificant speck of a planet are going to be tortured for eternity because they were cursed to live a life of sin for a period of time so brief that it is virtually unmeasurable. That is absurd on too many levels for me.

I understand that God, desiring to create sentient creatures with a measure of free will, might have had a limit as to how things had to be set up. Therefore, Christ, the savior of all mankind from the beginning of time was necessary just so absurdity could be prevented. After years of consideration, prayer and study, that Jesus came to restore all of creation, and in fact, accomplished that, is the only option that makes sense to me.

Second is the selection argument. Who gets selected for heaven, and who doesn’t. You may say it’s cut and dry, but if I give you enough examples of questionable situations, you will eventually have to cave and say that, in that particular case, you don’t know if that person will be saved.

Because so much is on the line, there must be an absolute zero tolerance for ambiguity in regards to who will and will not be saved. If we cannot know in even one case, then either the argument for eternal conscious torment fails or God is not just.

Rob Bell provided the best example for this in his book Love Wins in my view. I will paraphrase.

A girl is born into a christian family where dad is actually a pastor. She grows up believing all she is told about the righteousness and goodness of God, and His plan of salvation. It goes without saying she is in church every Sunday, and eventually starts to go to youth group every week. About that time, her father, with a heart full of lust, begins to rape his daughter whenever he gets the opportunity. Each time, in the very act of raping her, he quotes bible verses to her that in his mind justifies his deeds. He is never caught, and dies young as a pillar of his community, sorely missed by all.

Now a young woman, our subject cannot overcome the horror of her experience. Not for the rest of her life. She vehemently, publicly denies the god she was taught of in her youth. The god that allowed or even encouraged her father to rape her. She also denies God. In her scarred mind they are all one and the same. She goes to her grave with this unbelief in her heart.

Tell me that, or something similar has never happened, and tell me that it is cut and dry when it does. Tell me she is in hell eternally because she died in unbelief. Ridiculous!

Of course, there are almost limitless stories that could be told with varying levels of doubt as to the state of the person at the time of death. If even one situation among those stories causes you to say, “Well, God knows, and He will judge justly.”, then the argument for eternal conscious torment is lost. A determination must be achievable by us humans in every case, or God must be unjust. You cannot have it both ways.

1 Like