Ep. 93: Conversion

[ScottBarger]

Jim, i snipped out the part that is central to your position. I think you make a fair point against people using the statement, "I think God is God and therefore he can do whatever he chooses" without any sort of basis for what they mean. I do agree with that statement. Scripture teaches us that God doesn't kill people to prove a point with no basis behind it. The difference between you, Scott, Mitch and others versus a position than My position, and more or less Tony's, is we believe God is Just as well.

Mike, I absolutely believe God is just, and said so on the podcast. My problem is that eternal torture as recompense for being born sinful does not seem just to me (love and justice are attributes of God, sadism is not, I don't think), therefore I do not believe the present-day iteration of hell that most evangelicals embrace to be true. On the other hasnd, as I pointed out in the podcast, if it turns out that eternal torture IS just recompense for being born sinful, then it will happen. From my current perspective, however, that conclusion is absurd...but I could be wrong.

The whole grounding for justice is found it God, so, your sense of justice I think is grounded in objective truth and basically correct. And he will not judge those who innocently came to the wrong conclusions. But he has no obligation to exult them into an eternally glory of perfection that cannot be imagined by the human mind. They will just get what fairness demands. I am confident that whatever that is, it will be fair. The opportunity to have lived in God's universe is a gift of grace itself. There are a lot of potential individuals that never got that chance.

I agree about God's judgment being fair and just. What I don't understand is the conclusion that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a gift of grace itself, especially if you have concluded that eternal torture is the just recompense of being born sinful (I am not sure what your thoughts are regarding the doctrine of hell, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth). If it is true that eternal torture awaits all those who do not understand or accept the Gospel, then it seems to me that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a woefully inadequate benefit when you consider the risk involved (most people who have lived have not accepted the Gospel and will therefore be tortured forever).

Another point, it seems that you are referring to abortion in your comment above, to which I would respond that unless God is also eternally torturing the souls of aborted children, abortion is an act of mercy as it removes from the unborn the potential of eternal torture. Given the options: A) a relatively brief time spent in God's universe with a very high potential that you will be tortured for ever when you die or, B) No time spent in God's universe but no potential to be tortured for ever, I would choose "B," how about you?

[mikedsjr]

Scott, I didn't mean to misidentify you. I apologize. My intent didn't quite come out properly, i guess.

*addendum*
my position was you don't recognize the traditional view of those who reject Christ end up in the lake of fire. So you do reject a form of justice handed out in scripture which is similar to Jim, if I understand Jim correctly.

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

I agree about God's judgment being fair and just. What I don't understand is the conclusion that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a gift of grace itself, especially if you have concluded that eternal torture is the just recompense of being born sinful (I am not sure what your thoughts are regarding the doctrine of hell, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth). If it is true that eternal torture awaits all those who do not understand or accept the Gospel, then it seems to me that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a woefully inadequate benefit when you consider the risk involved (most people who have lived have not accepted the Gospel and will therefore be tortured forever).

Another point, it seems that you are referring to abortion in your comment above, to which I would respond that unless God is also eternally torturing the souls of aborted children, abortion is an act of mercy as it removes from the unborn the potential of eternal torture. Given the options: A) a relatively brief time spent in God's universe with a very high potential that you will be tortured for ever when you die or, B) No time spent in God's universe but no potential to be tortured for ever, I would choose "B," how about you?

Yes, I share your aversion to being tortured forever for a finitude of sins or being a sinner. The first three years I was a Christian, I had this as a pet peeve and discussed it with Christians whenever I could. But I came to understand the bible better and realized that God is fair. So whatever happens to those who "die in their sins" as Jesus said, will be fair and just.

What is more amazing is that God is going to take some sinners, draw them into a new relationship with Himself, and glorify them with himself in heaven for eternity. This is what is more amazing and so, those who stumble over hell and refuse to come to God through Jesus because of this issue are really going to regret it in one way or another. If at the very least of missing the opportunity to be in the perfect universe to come.

[Ryan]

So whatever happens to those who "die in their sins" as Jesus said, will be fair and just.

Here here Tony. I think often when people think of "eternal torment" they get the idea that its just going to be an equal punishment across the board, Hitler and Gandhi (as two example that are often thrown out - I'm not claiming either's fate, not my place) receive the same punishment. But, Revelations 20:13 (in addition to Psalms 28:4, Isaiah 59:18 and others) tells us that those not found in the Book of Life are judged "according to what they had done." so Hitler and Gandhi did not have equal deeds and therefore the judgment against them will not be equal either.

[Ryan]

My problem is that eternal torture as recompense for being born sinful does not seem just to me (love and justice are attributes of God, sadism is not, I don't think), therefore I do not believe the present-day iteration of hell that most evangelicals embrace to be true. On the other hasnd, as I pointed out in the podcast, if it turns out that eternal torture IS just recompense for being born sinful, then it will happen. From my current perspective, however, that conclusion is absurd...but I could be wrong.

Scott,
You might be interested in this snippet from J.Warner Wallace (from the Please Convince Me Podcast) that I just got in an email at this very moment, seems perfectly suited to the conversation:

OBJECTION: The idea that our temporal, finite sin on earth should deserve an eternal punishment of infinite torment in hell is ridiculously inequitable. The punishment does not fit the crime. Why would God torture infinitely those who have only sinned finitely?

RESPONSE: It’s important to define the nature of "Hell" and "sin" before a discussion of the eternal nature of punishment can have any meaning or significance. Objections to the eternal nature of Hell result from a misunderstanding of four principles and terms:

We Fail to Understand the Meaning of Spiritual “Torment”
The Bible tells us that those who are delivered into Hell will be tormented, and the degree to which they will suffer is described in dramatic, illustrative language. But the scripture never describes Hell as a place where God or His angels are actively “torturing” the souls of the rebellious. “Torture” is the sadistic activity that is often perpetrated for the mere joy of it. “Torment” results from a choice on the part of the person who finds him or herself suffering the consequences. One can be in torment over a decision that he or she made in the past, without being actively tortured by anyone.

We Fail to Understand the Insignificance of Sin’s “Duration”
If someone embezzles $5.00 a week from their employer’s cash register, they will have stolen $260.00 over the course of a year. If they’re caught at the end of this time, they would still only be guilty of a misdemeanor in the State of California (based on the total amount of loss). Although the crime took a year to commit, the perpetrator wouldn’t spend much (if any) time in jail. On the other hand, a murder can take place in the blink of an eye and the resulting punishment will be life in prison (or perhaps the death penalty). The duration of the crime clearly has little or nothing to do with the duration of the penalty.

We Fail to Understand the Magnitude of God’s “Authority”
If your sister catches you lying about your income last year, you might lose her respect. If the IRS catches you lying about your income last year, the resulting punishment will be far more painful. What’s the difference here? It certainly isn’t the crime. Instead, we recognize that the greater the source of the code, rule or law, the greater the punishment for those who violate the code, rule or law. If God is the Highest Authority, we should expect that violations of His “laws” would result in significant punishment(s).

We Fail to Understand the Depth of Our “Sin”
Finally, it’s important to remember the nature of the crime that eventually leads one into Hell. It is not the fact that you kicked your dog in 1992. It’s not the fact that you had evil thoughts about your teacher in 1983. The crime that earns us a place in Hell is our rejection of the true and living eternal God. This rejection of God’s forgiveness is not finite. People who reject Jesus have rejected Him completely. They have rejected him as an ultimate, final mortal decision. God has the right (and obligation) to judge them with an appropriate punishment. To argue that God’s punishment does not fit our crime is to underestimate our crime.

While I wish he would have mentioned the judgment "according to what they had done" and what that means for the entire scenario, it is none the less something to think about.

[scomsjw]

Finally, it’s important to remember the nature of the crime that eventually leads one into Hell. It is not the fact that you kicked your dog in 1992. It’s not the fact that you had evil thoughts about your teacher in 1983. The crime that earns us a place in Hell is our rejection of the true and living eternal God. This rejection of God’s forgiveness is not finite. People who reject Jesus have rejected Him completely. They have rejected him as an ultimate, final mortal decision. God has the right (and obligation) to judge them with an appropriate punishment. To argue that God’s punishment does not fit our crime is to underestimate our crime.

There is something offensive about this type of statement. It is explicitly saying that those of us who have not accepted Jesus are guilty of a dreadful crime. A crime deserving the most horrendous punishment. So I will be punished for what I believe. Not what I do but what I believe. Yet I do not have any control over what I believe unless I force myself to stop thinking.

[Ryan]

There is something offensive about this type of statement. It is explicitly saying that those of us who have not accepted Jesus are guilty of a dreadful crime. A crime deserving the most horrendous punishment. So I will be punished for what I believe. Not what I do but what I believe. Yet I do not have any control over what I believe unless I force myself to stop thinking.

Well, it might be offensive, but ... the truth often is. However, he doesn't say someone "who doesn't accept" he says "rejection" those aren't exactly equal to one another, you can not accept because you didn't hear or because you were clueless, or just didn't have enough information, but to reject something you have to be given the information and make a willful decision... but, it is also the reason I wish he had talked about the judgment "according to what they had done" portion of the equation as spoken of in scripture. However, you don't have to stop thinking in order to have control over what you believe, in fact that seems, to me, to be an oxymoron. You have control over what you believe because you haven't stopped thinking. Matthew 7:7 and Luke 11:9 both say “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you." Many other passages talk about earnestly seeking God and He will reveal Himself to you. It is when you stop seeking that you don't find... if you want to know the truth don't stop thinking, but do it earnestly, not just making up your mind because you think God doesn't exist (not sure what you believe, just saying "you" as in anyone reading this).

Before someone says "earnestly seeking something that doesn't exist is fruitless" I ask this, what is more fruitless, to seek something and not find it (chances are you will find something else that you weren't expecting to find) or not finding something because you didn't bother to look for it?

[JustJim]

I think I almost agree, in that the things done in ignorance and without evil intent are not as bad as those done with intent and awareness. And I think God is fair and will take all things into account. In fact, he is the only person who has the true perspective on how each person was thinking, what they knew and when they knew it. The problem is, we have all acted with intent, caused pain and suffering and even when we thought out little sin was not hurting anyone, many times it did, in the long run. So even if we agree on the idea that sin is lack of love, selfishness, greed etc.. we have an issue that needs to be dealt with. But God is also a king, and there are divine commands that should be obeyed. Even if you didn't hurt anyone, yet rebeled against God's divine commands, this would be a sin as well....

Yes, there would still be issues to be dealt with surrounding the bad choices we make. They would be dealt with by forgiveness, justly, as a reflection of unconditional love. The punishment would fit the offense. Divine commands? You mean like the Ten Commandments? Long, long before there were any "divine commands" issued by God, it was already understood that murder, adultery, stealing, lying, etc. were wrong. We didn't need any 'tablet-ized' reminders from God to know right from wrong. This whole idea of "rebelling" against God or his commands comes out of a distorted understanding of what would be important to a God who not only loves his creations, but IS love. Human beings have made God out to be an egotistical despot of a king - preoccupied with satisfying his own need for glorification, worship and obedience from his subjects -and biblical authors incorporated that image and idea into their writings. But it makes no sense at all for God to be simultaneously a despot and a God of love.

Where do you get this idea that he is a servant king? If it is from Jesus, you should read the other things he said as well. (I know you have) God has greatness in every one of his attributes, love is one, but holiness, knowledge, power, existence, etc... So, yes, love is his nature and the greatness of his love is his nature.

There ya go... I agree. Being great in holiness, knowledge, power, existence, etc. is not the least bit incompatible with love, mercy, and forgiveness.

God gives life and has the right to take it away. Life is like a lease, you can be evicted anytime the owner desires.

I'm sorry, but the implication of that concept makes God out to be fickle -- absorbed in his own power. You would try to justify things like the atrocities of the OT by claiming God can do whatever he chooses to do, so too bad for us, rather than understanding that God didn't do those things. The authors who said God did those things were wrong. They were conceived of and carried out by grotesquely evil, cruel, human beings.

Having the right to take away life "as he pleases" is overshadowed by God's love and his desire to create life. It wouldn't "please" God to arbitrarily take away life or to take lives as punishment for, by any sensible understanding of justice, minor infractions.

Where do you find the evidence for the God you claim is passively weak, a servant of man (genie) and only loving and not just? Please give some evidence for this creature you claim is god?

I don't know where you get all that crap from the things I've said. Passively weak? A genie? A servant of man? Only loving and not just? None of that fits anything I've said about the nature of God. None of that fits what I believe about the nature of God. We obviously have contradictory ideas of what passivity, weakness, service, love, and justice mean.

Maybe you should edit the bible and take out the parts you think are not of God and publish a true bible?

That's just silly. I don't think ANY of the Bible is "of God"; it's ONLY "of man". But that is not to say that many of the things it contains are not beautiful, valuable, insightful, useful, profoundly wise, and written by people who were "inspired" to express their enlightened views about the nature of God and the way they perceived our relationship with God to be. Like I said before, it's the most fantastic thing I've ever read. But I can appreciate it, use it, learn from it, be inspired and awestruck by it -- without revering it as the words of God as they were "breathed into" the minds of its authors who then wrote down exactly what God wanted them to say. That's just laughable. And absolutely unsupportable.

Also, there are many, many things the Bible contains that are certainly, verifiably, "not true". I just skip over and ignore them as I come across them. IMHO, most of the Old Testament is crap. The New Testament is much more in line with how I perceive and understand the nature of God.

I am sorry that the act of Jesus, being submissive to the kind of death he suffered as a display of his love for you, is cliché.

Don't try to lay that guilt trip on me. The whole idea of God requiring a horrible blood sacrifice and death as a requirement for my salvation - from his own wrath - was his own idea! He could have avoided that whole traumatic scenario by patiently teaching, correcting, forgiving, setting the example himself (Jesus), adjusting, re-adjusting, and repeating that process to gradually bring us all to where he knows we're supposed to be. Oh, wait! That IS how he's doing it!

But if you keep searching, maybe you will realize this cliché reveals the kind of God we have. There is a lot more to the truth revealed in the bible than just logical evidence that will cause people to bend their knees in worship and obedience.

God doesn't want people to bend their knees in worship and obedience. He wants them to love him and to love each other. Period.

But think about that for a moment. If God exists, he could certainly reveal himself so strongly that everyone would be forced to submit to his authority. But this is not what God wants. He is looking for those who want him as their King, ruler, purpose and leader. So, he is ontologically distant just enough to allow freedom, which leads to sin, which leads to judgment and also leads to a gracious way to create free individuals who will be changed, never able to sin or make ignorant bad decisions as you say.

Nonsense. God isn't looking for a fan club of worshipping groupies who submit to his every whim. And why don't you understand that if God is leading us to be "never able to sin", he could have done that in the first place? If being "unable to sin" doesn't negate free will in heaven, then he could have created 'Adam and Eve' "unable to sin" right out of the box here on Earth.

Jim

[JustJim]

Jim, i snipped out the part that is central to your position. I think you make a fair point against people using the statement, "I think God is God and therefore he can do whatever he chooses" without any sort of basis for what they mean. I do agree with that statement. Scripture teaches us that God doesn't kill people to prove a point with no basis behind it. The difference between you, Scott, Mitch and others versus a position than My position, and more or less Tony's, is we believe God is Just as well.

Well, then you've misunderstood me. Or we have dramatically different ideas of what "just" means. If you told your child not to eat the last piece of cake because it would make him sick, and he ate it anyhow, would you ground him in his super-heated room, with a bed of broken glass, on a diet of stale, moldy bread and no water for the rest of his life? Of course you wouldn't. That would not be "justice". The punishment would not fit the "crime" of disobeying you by eating the cake. Instead, you'd probably mete out a more appropriate punishment, and also explain to him that you didn't mean the cake would make him sick now (since he didn't get sick after eating it, and was aware of that), but rather, it would eventually lead to high cholesterol, diabetes, obesity, etc. and would make him sick or even kill him. That would be a "just" response to his disobedience.

Romans 3:10 says there is no one good.

Paul got that (among other things) wrong. There is no one perfect, that's true, but there are many, MANY people who are very, very GOOD people - both in their hearts and in their actions. I should know. I'm one of them! And I know many, many others who are as good as I am or better! Falling short of my own moral standards doesn't mean I'm not a good person, especially if I am remorseful and repentant and committed to do better from now on.

The most important commandment in scripture is to Love the Lord your God with all your heart, soul and mind. Every single day you and i fail at this. I'm guilty. You're guilty. We are all guilty. Very few make it through a day without failing at this. yet what you are telling me is that God, Holy and perfect, should not punish a crime against him, which that is what sin is, but just forgive and forget because He isn't Just, but only Love.

I'm not saying God shouldn't punish "crimes" (as you call them, even though I think that lends an inaccurate and overly harsh connotation of evil or malice to them) against him or against anyone or anything. I'm saying in order to be "just", the punishment must fit the crime. Eternal damnation and separation from God does not fit the "crime" of disobedience.

The issue comes down to scripture and rightly understanding it. i'm not perfect. I rely on many others that have far more understanding to help me put the pieces together that i don't get.

So do I. But I think part of "rightly understanding" scripture includes a willingness to try to understand it in the context of other things in nature, in our relationships, and in our experiences. It also means being willing to view scripture in the light of its own cultural and historical contexts, which may not line up with what we have learned since then, and when there are obvious contradictions between current understandings of reality and ancient uninformed misunderstandings of reality, current understandings win out, and should be used to re-examine our previous understandings and interpretations. IOW, what the Bible says and means to us should always be in a state of flux, changing and flowing with new information that becomes available or as new ways of understanding old information are uncovered.

Jim

[tonyenglish7]

Scott,

I agree about God's judgment being fair and just. What I don't understand is the conclusion that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a gift of grace itself, especially if you have concluded that eternal torture is the just recompense of being born sinful (I am not sure what your thoughts are regarding the doctrine of hell, so forgive me if I am putting words in your mouth). If it is true that eternal torture awaits all those who do not understand or accept the Gospel, then it seems to me that the opportunity to live in God's universe is a woefully inadequate benefit when you consider the risk involved (most people who have lived have not accepted the Gospel and will therefore be tortured forever). Another point, it seems that you are referring to abortion in your comment above, to which I would respond that unless God is also eternally torturing the souls of aborted children, abortion is an act of mercy as it removes from the unborn the potential of eternal torture. Given the options: A) a relatively brief time spent in God's universe with a very high potential that you will be tortured for ever when you die or, B) No time spent in God's universe but no potential to be tortured for ever, I would choose "B," how about you

Yes, I agree, eternal torture is not the recompense for being born sinful. I was not referring to abortion, I was referring to the opportunity to be among those who ended up being a part of the actual universe. Jesus said regarding Judas, it would have been better for him if he had never been born. So, yes, there are some for which it would have been better....Because of their free decision to sin.

But life itself is a gift of grace. To have been chosen to exist, to see the stars, to relate with others, and yes the very opportunity to seek and find God, amazing... Many squander the opportunity and will regret it. But what an amazing plan of life that God thought up and actuated.

So let me ask you, based upon your extensive study of the word of God, what do you think will happen at the judgment? Will Judas be released in to Glory with God? Usama bin Laden? Is there a termorary judgement? Extinction? What are your thoughts?

[mitchellmckain]

Yes, I share your aversion to being tortured forever for a finitude of sins or being a sinner. The first three years I was a Christian, I had this as a pet peeve and discussed it with Christians whenever I could. But I came to understand the bible better and realized that God is fair. So whatever happens to those who "die in their sins" as Jesus said, will be fair and just.

Which really just comes down to saying, Tony, that you are confident that God is fair and just but that you really don't know how this bit about being tortured forever for trivial things could fit into that. It suggests that there are most likely things going on and things involved which you just don't know anything about, right?

The only difference with me, from both Tony and Scott is that I cannot just leave it there. I have to at least be able to imagine a way that such things are compatable and logically fit together, so that I can at least say that this is sensible possibility. And so I have done so, but the result is that I find a picture of what is going on the makes a lot more sense of many many different things. It may not cater to a hard headed stance that everything which is true must be found in the Bible but then such a hard headed stance is irrational and stupid, because it is patently obvious that there are many many things which are true that cannot be found in the Bible, even things which are CRITICAL to the definition of Christianity itself like the doctrine of the Trinity. Though, yeah yeah, I know, I know, you can find support for the doctrine of the Trinity in the Bible and I certainly think it is the understanding that best fits with the Bible as a whole, BUT I also find plenty of support for my view on this other matter that is at least as good if not better than this so called Biblical evidence for the Trinity, which is frankly extremely thin if you have to justify it to someone with this kind of hard headed stance that everything which is true must be found in the Bible. Such are the double standards of people.

Finally, it’s important to remember the nature of the crime that eventually leads one into Hell. It is not the fact that you kicked your dog in 1992. It’s not the fact that you had evil thoughts about your teacher in 1983. The crime that earns us a place in Hell is our rejection of the true and living eternal God. This rejection of God’s forgiveness is not finite. People who reject Jesus have rejected Him completely. They have rejected him as an ultimate, final mortal decision. God has the right (and obligation) to judge them with an appropriate punishment. To argue that God’s punishment does not fit our crime is to underestimate our crime.

There is something offensive about this type of statement. It is explicitly saying that those of us who have not accepted Jesus are guilty of a dreadful crime. A crime deserving the most horrendous punishment. So I will be punished for what I believe. Not what I do but what I believe. Yet I do not have any control over what I believe unless I force myself to stop thinking.

Yes I quite agree and also it has that definite flavor of something that serves the religionists rather than any kind of loving powerful God. Thus I find it far far more likely that the origins of this thinking is in the motivations of self-serving human beings than in any kind of God that people would want to serve or admire in any way. This is an idea that was devised for the religionist to beat others over the head with to make them captitulate to demands that they change their thinking to believe the way that they do. In this the atheists are simply those with the courage and intellectual honestly stand against them. I cannot find fault with that.

[mikedsjr]

Jim,
When you base goodness on man, you're correct. There are plenty of good people. But when you base it on the 10 commandments there is none good.

You gave your example. The problem is you believe your good enough. Your example is an innocent child who commits disobeys once and gets an incredibly harsh punishment, as if this equates to what I've been explaining. It's not.

Here is an appropriate example: a child is born to his father and from birth he hates his father, despite the fathers love. The child spits on his father, mocks his father, seeks other men to be his father, do things contrary to his commands, do good in spite of his father as to please other men, uses his fathers name as a curse word yet tells others he loves his father or maybe says he doesn't have a father. And he does this till death.

This is why no one is good One can say they love God but they hate him. That is not good. Everyday they live this hate out. Every moment. Every thought is done without the one true God in mind. That is the case with every single individual before God. Why Gods people are justified by His grace , they are drawn by His irresistable revelation He gives and in mans free will is changed to choose God without fail. No one can resist the grace of God for salvation.

You might be disgusted by that stance, but it holds to what scripture says in it's context without adding philosophy or external sources.

[ScottBarger]

So let me ask you, based upon your extensive study of the word of God, what do you think will happen at the judgment? Will Judas be released in to Glory with God? Usama bin Laden? Is there a termorary judgement? Extinction? What are your thoughts?

I am not sure about "extensive" study of the Bible, but here are my thoughts in as concise a form as I can manage:

I think the following view of hell and salvation is weak:
1) Hell = eternal torture
2) All sinners go to hell when they die
3) The only way to avoid eternal torture is to accept the Gospel
4) As believers, we have the ability to share the Gospel in such a way that other hell-bound sinners can avoid eternal torture.

If the above is true, then in my opinion the ONLY moral response on the part of believers is to spend every waking moment sharing the Gospel. If we EVER take ANY time to do anything other than that which is necessary to sustain our own lives or to share the Gospel we have become grotesquely selfish and by every biblical standard are NOT Christian. How can we claim to follow Jesus in a life of self denial if we consider our temporary comfort of higher value than the eternal destiny of another human being? I believe that we cannot.

This has caused me to conclude that most Christians fall into one of two categories: 1) They do not believe the doctrine of hell that I describe above, or 2) they are not really Christians. I fall into the first category, and I believe that most of the biblical writers do as well - primarily because this "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" attitude towards evangelism is absent from the text (as far as I can tell). In fact, I think that the vast majority of the Bible is concerned with how we respond/relate to God and how we respond/relate to other people. Furthermore, it seems to be focused at least as much on the temporal consequences of these relationships as it is the eternal.

So what is hell/judgement all about? My opinion...

Like I said earlier, I think that God's judgment will be just and good (the righteousness of God is indisputable from a biblical perspective). Now, it may be the case that I am so flawed in my perspective that I cannot see the truth of the matter, namely, that it actually is good for someone to be tortured for all of eternity because they were born a sinner, lived the life of a sinner, and died having not accepted the Gospel of Jesus. But I can not bring myself to believe that it is good or fair or just that this happens. I would further argue that if the discontinuity between what we mean by “good” and what God means by “good” is so great that eternal torture for billions of people can actually be considered a “good” thing, then we are hopelessly without a moral compass - having no way of actually knowing what is good and what isn’t.

I am not sure that hell actual does mean eternal torture by fire. There are several other ways of viewing hell and the punishment of the wicked that seem to be more just and still fall within the boundaries of orthodoxy. Among them, annihilationism or the idea that hell is self imposed separation from God that a person can escape if they choose (more or less CS Lewis’ perspective, if I remember correctly).

I would add that the lake of fire imagery of Revelation 20-21 allows some latitude for interpretation, especially when we take into account the fact that part of the post-judgment new creation described in chapter 22 is a tree of life that offers “healing to the nations.” What need for healing if death has already been conquered (chapter 20) and wicked are eternally damned?

Initial thoughts, most are still half-cooked as this part of my theology is still a work in progress.

[mikedsjr]

Mitch, once again you misdefine sola scriptura.

Scott, the answer is #2.

[mitchellmckain]

So let me ask you, based upon your extensive study of the word of God, what do you think will happen at the judgment? Will Judas be released in to Glory with God? Usama bin Laden? Is there a termorary judgement? Extinction? What are your thoughts?

I am not sure about "extensive" study of the Bible, but here are my thoughts in as concise a form as I can manage:

I think the following view of hell and salvation is weak:
1) Hell = eternal torture
2) All sinners go to hell when they die
3) The only way to avoid eternal torture is to accept the Gospel
4) As believers, we have the ability to share the Gospel in such a way that other hell-bound sinners can avoid eternal torture.

If the above is true, then in my opinion the ONLY moral response on the part of believers is to spend every waking moment sharing the Gospel. If we EVER take ANY time to do anything other than that which is necessary to sustain our own lives or to share the Gospel we have become grotesquely selfish and by every biblical standard are NOT Christian. How can we claim to follow Jesus in a life of self denial if we consider our temporary comfort of higher value than the eternal destiny of another human being? I believe that we cannot.

This has caused me to conclude that most Christians fall into one of two categories: 1) They do not believe the doctrine of hell that I describe above, or 2) they are not really Christians. I fall into the first category, and I believe that most of the biblical writers do as well - primarily because this "damn the torpedoes, full speed ahead!" attitude towards evangelism is absent from the text (as far as I can tell). In fact, I think that the vast majority of the Bible is concerned with how we respond/relate to God and how we respond/relate to other people. Furthermore, it seems to be focused at least as much on the temporal consequences of these relationships as it is the eternal.

That selection of alternatives just isn't right Scott. My guess is that you are equating being Christian to some standard of morality. That just isn't what Christianity is about. I think that Christians who hold the above view don't want to take one iota away from the imperative to share the gospel at every opportunity but they are fully capable of acknowledging their moral inadequacy (AS EVERY CHRISTIAN SHOULD!) with regard to this. My problem with this is that sharing this version of the gospel amounts to peddling lobotomies at the point of gun (threat of eternal damnation), that requires more than an admission of that their integrity is lacking, but also an additional surrender of their intregrity -- that is what some people will not do and should not do.

So what is hell/judgement all about? My opinion...

Like I said earlier, I think that God's judgment will be just and good (the righteousness of God is indisputable from a biblical perspective). Now, it may be the case that I am so flawed in my perspective that I cannot see the truth of the matter, namely, that it actually is good for someone to be tortured for all of eternity because they were born a sinner, lived the life of a sinner, and died having not accepted the Gospel of Jesus. But I can not bring myself to believe that it is good or fair or just that this happens. I would further argue that if the discontinuity between what we mean by “good” and what God means by “good” is so great that eternal torture for billions of people can actually be considered a “good” thing, then we are hopelessly without a moral compass - having no way of actually knowing what is good and what isn’t.

I quite agree with that!

I am not sure that hell actual does mean eternal torture by fire. There are several other ways of viewing hell and the punishment of the wicked that seem to be more just and still fall within the boundaries of orthodoxy. Among them, annihilationism or the idea that hell is self imposed separation from God that a person can escape if they choose (more or less CS Lewis’ perspective, if I remember correctly).

I do not think that annihilationism is supportable for quite a few pragmatic reasons. Oblivion is just too sweet an alternative, frankly. People in their childishness want to embrace irresponsiblity and thus escape the consequence of what they do, and oblivion is a very sweet way of doing so that people choose quite often when they believe in it. Furthermore I think this cuts the heart out of the whole motivation for believing in any religion at all, which I think is very fundamentally an affirmation of the meaning of life, for that meaning derives from understanding that what we do matters!*[1] Thus the whole point of religion is that the consequences of what we do CANNOT be escaped! Frankly without that conviction I sincerely believe that the future of religion would eventually fulfill the preditions of those that say it must die out and be forgotten, as we become more rational people.

This is certainly complicated by the fact that many have turned Christianity into a religion where such an escape from the consequences of their actions is something that a priviledged few get to enjoy. And I condemn that distortion of Christianity for the same reasons.

There is a difference between the death of the spirit and the spirit ceasing to exist, though the death of the spirit may in many respects have something of the aspects of sleeping and numbness, but I think there are also aspects of torment and misery as well. My thoughts go back to Jesus words about those whose spirits are dead in Luke 9:60 "leave the dead to bury their own dead", very much implying that a lot of people in the world are like the walking dead -- and I think it is a kind of numbness where their awarness of the spirit has fallen so that it is much like the spirit is asleep. But, I don't think the numbness of these people is complete and that numbness is their way of dealing from the torment and misery of their lives. But by the power of God those who are spiritually dead and still physically alive can be awakened and thus their spirit be brought back to life, but I think there is good reason to believe that otherwise they continue in such a state forever. Once they let their misery drive them from embracing life (and learning) they no longer open themselves up to going in any other direction.

I would add that the lake of fire imagery of Revelation 20-21 allows some latitude for interpretation, especially when we take into account the fact that part of the post-judgment new creation described in chapter 22 is a tree of life that offers “healing to the nations.” What need for healing if death has already been conquered (chapter 20) and wicked are eternally damned?

That is too much of a leap from a very black and white picture of things. Its not like people are divided into those who purely good and those who are purely evil. It is my conviction that the only dividing line that can be made here is between those who are willing to change and those who are not. Thus you have those who choose to be healed and those who refuse, and the only damnation required by God is that He accepts the choice of those that refuse and leaves them alone, and without God pestering them or even the inspiration of God in creation all around them, I don't see how they would ever change. The universalist seems to think that God would never accept their choice and would keep trying, and that could also be an apt description of hell where God really is the tormentor, but I don't think that really makes sense in the context of the Gospel where our choice during our lives is clearly said to be so important. No I think the answer to the problem of those who are simply out of the reach of missionaries is that they are not out of reach of God and that God's way of reaching them is not limited to the organizations and dogmas of Christianity.

--------------------------

Mitch, once again you misdefine sola scriptura.

..only in your imagination. I made no definition of Sola Scriptura in this thread, which is not to say that our definitions of Sola Scripture are not different, since I have little doubt that they are different. I prefer defintions that make sense and fit with the facts of the world rather than the irrationalities of those who refuse to look at the facts.

Scott, the answer is #2.

So the answer is that you are not really Christian???



*[1] Which is not to say in any way at all that atheist's lives are meaningless. In their case, I think they are responding to the life-deny things they have seen in religion and thus in their case it is a rejection of that religion that is an affirmation of life. From my perspective this is a wholly religious motivation and thus a religious perspective in its own right.