|
|
Post by Josh on Feb 28, 2012 17:48:23 GMT -8
I've heard some folks asserting lately that "hell is now" as opposed to a state in the afterlife, and for the life of me I can't see what possible good biblical evidence could support the claim.
Mind you, I do believe there are hellish places, things, and states in this life. But how could one take Scripture seriously and deny that there is a future, after-death state* for some that could be described as "hell", "torment", or "punishment"?
* I can see how one can make a good case from Scripture that "hell" might be temporary or finite, but that's not the question I'm asking.
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 3, 2012 9:53:10 GMT -8
OK, I don't have time right now to bring my arguments about this topic. But I try in the future. Just couple of thoughts:
Galatians says that all this sinners ( adulteress, liars, religious, sinners in general etc.) people that still live in sin right now will not enter the Kingdom of God.
The bible also says that The kingdom of God is Peace and Joy in the Holly Spirit. Even us Christians can live in sin. Thus a lot of us are not really experiencing peace and joy In the Holy Spirit.
In my opinion separation of the Kingdom of God put us in Hell OR IS HELL right here. So Christians or non christian that live in sin, live in hell because they don't experience the peace and joy of The Lord. Separation from God's dependence is Hell because our soul is alone and tormented.
That is why there is so much depression in the church.
For me the value of Humans is much higher than the idea of them being temporally or eternally burned. eventually humans will learn that they can be happy and alive only with God. And that can happen in this life or the next. Grace does not stop ever............
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 3, 2012 16:00:40 GMT -8
Of course when we live against the truth, it is miserable. And hell, in the common vernacular, can often be a word used for what is miserable. So, in the same sense that I might refer to having the flu as "hell", I might refer to the current struggle with sin.
But the Bible often uses the term "hell" (and the associated term Hades) very specifically to describe a state of torment after our earthly life:
Luke 12:5, for instance:
But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.
Luke 16:22-23
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In Hades, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side.
Likewise, see that physical death and hell are linked together in the book of Revelation (Rev. 1:18, etc.)
And, if hell is now, what is the "second death" of Revelation 20?
Revelation 20:11-15 (New International Version)
11 Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12 And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13 The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15 Anyone whose name was not found* written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.
*note the exclusatory language here. Even if one holds that these folks will eventually be reconciled to God, it's clear that they will intially, after the judgment, be separated from Him.
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 4, 2012 21:05:58 GMT -8
Luke12.
He has the authority to throw us in hell ( separation from God) just as we have.
We can experience separation from God and hell in our spirit after we die, no idea how that looks thou. Maybe the rich man know...He seems to want to repent trying to help his family.
Luke 16.
If the rich man was able to communicate with God ( or saints) that means that there is still a communication line between dead people and God. I think you agree with that ( temporary hell). It means that God still give people grace?
Revelation 20.
They were judged based on what they had done?. How can they be judge based on what they had done if works are not saving a person. What ? they did the work of believing? Jesus wrote everyone in the book of life, then he threw death and Hades into the lake of fire which I believe means that torment is gone forever just as separation from God is gone forever.
So, if hell is death... is gone now and everyone is alive in Christ. Why is this so scandalous? The gospel is the good news that Christ died for everyone. I don't have a problem with God saving everyone. Sometimes we may feel that we work so hard and we get the same salary. But I think what we can experience here on earth with God is totally worth the effort.
The question is when are we enter the kingdom of God ? Now, or after we die? I think that is the difference between a believer and a unbeliever. It makes sense for the believer to experience the reality of God now and the unbeliever not so much.
All this wonderful works that we are doing to save people are helpful and good because we teach them to experience the reality of God now and because of that they lives are blessed.
The main problem is that the church itself is not really believing much beyond the basic facts. So our realities are only gonna manifest based on our believe and willingness to hear more from God.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 6, 2012 17:30:20 GMT -8
I'm unclear. Here it sounds like you're consenting that there is a hell after death, but later it seems like you're not when you suggest that the Lake of Fire might symbolize the end of hell.
But, as we see here in Revelation 20:10:
And the devil, who deceived them, was thrown into the lake of burning sulfur, where the beast and the false prophet had been thrown. They will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
the Lake of Fire isn't the end of post-mortem torment. And the most-mortem torment in the case of at least the beast and the false prophet (and presumably those who follow them) (see Rev. 14:11) will last "for ever and ever". Christian universalists may interpret the phrase (rightly or wrongly) "for ever and ever" as meaning "for ages and ages", but still it's clear to them that the bible teaches there will be a punishment after the final judgment.
I'm confused by your comments on Rev. 20:13. Are you saying you disagree with it?
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 21, 2012 7:30:40 GMT -8
please check this out, it cover hell and the presence of God questions. Please make sure you are listening to the end to hear his arguments.
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 21, 2012 8:39:58 GMT -8
Josh, just to respond to your question.
I believe people experience hell here and they may experience hell after life.
And really I am OK with the ambiguity of the gospel about this subject and others. There are many verses that prove both sides of this argument or other subjects for that matter.
Are we OK with the idea that we might not know? Or do we need to know everything to understand his love/?
I think he already gave us everything.... and His love is so enough.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2012 19:11:55 GMT -8
Josh, just to respond to your question. I believe people experience hell here and they may experience hell after life. And really I am OK with the ambiguity of the gospel about this subject and others. There are many verses that prove both sides of this argument or other subjects for that matter. Are we OK with the idea that we might not know? Or do we need to know everything to understand his love/? I think he already gave us everything.... and His love is so enough. I think there is scripture that could reasonably be marshalled to back up the traditional three views on hell: eternal conscious torment, annihilation, or the eventual salvation of the lost from hell, but I don't think there is ANY credible biblical evidence for the idea that there is automatic salvation for all upon death. I do think that God probably doesn't want us to know for sure which of the three reasonable views above is completely accurate. He could have made it clearer, but he didn't. And I see some wisdom in that. We have enough evidence to have trust in a good God, but enough warning about hell to not want to "roll the dice". |
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 21, 2012 19:27:20 GMT -8
please check this out, it cover hell and the presence of God questions. Please make sure you are listening to the end to hear his arguments. I see that it's over an hour and I'm already having trouble with the first 5 minutes of "effortless gospel" and how there's no need to "please God", both of which can easily be refuted with Scripture, as I've shown elsewhere. I'm sorry. If I had unlimited time in life to dig through every pile of hay to find the kernels of truth, I would, but I just don't think Crowder merits it, when there are other spokespeople who can deliver it more readily. I'm willing to discuss this with you, but, personally, I'm done giving Crowder my attention. |
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 21, 2012 21:47:36 GMT -8
I understand your position Josh. I would be more sensitive to other people's positions though because I don't think the tone and wording of your last response was a good way to promote the sharing of a variety of beliefs on the forum.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 22, 2012 18:56:31 GMT -8
If you are interested in summing up Crowder's thoughts on this subject, I would gladly interact with them. But my personal experience so far with him is that there is too much simplistic half-truth to wade through that it's not worth my time.
I don't really have a lot of respect for Crowder's positions because I think he is misleading Christians- whether purposefully or through sloppiness, I don't know. But my conviction about his ministry is that all told, it is having more of a negative than positive effect on the advancement of the kingdom in the world. He messes with doctrines I think are pretty fundamental to Christianity rather than secondary, so the stakes are higher to me. It would be disingenuous for me to pretend that I hold his views in equal esteem to others on the subjects he pontificates on.
That said, I celebrate that even he has a "voice" on these forums (through others like you), and the conversation, though heated at times, can bring forth light and truth to everyone involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 23, 2012 16:33:57 GMT -8
It would be hard to summarize everything. If the basic things that he mentioned like, not trying to please God the wrong way, were so easily misunderstood and literally disregarded, I see no point. Lets move on.
All he said is that if we think that we can please God to love us more than he already does, we are wrong.
We please God because he loved us first, while we were sinners he loved us; we please him out of love and not out of fear. There is nothing wrong with that.
He said there are way to many verses that talk about salvation for all. And that there are verses that talk about hell and fire for some. Its a mystery, we can't have all the answers.
I personally didn't find any fundamental doctrines that he is messing up with, actually more secondary ones. But one thing for sure , he pisses off religious people a lot. Oh and I would like to know one case of sloppiness that he had. I'm very curious about the assumption.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 28, 2012 16:54:28 GMT -8
|
|
|
|
Post by freebirdro on Mar 31, 2012 9:58:20 GMT -8
He does call himself a "hopeful universalist" in that he humbly has hope that all will be saved, just as God wills that none should perish. He likes to leave the view of hell as a mystery, and I think that's an acceptable view. It doesn't go against the gospel or God's nature. Is kind of my view to. I just don't see the God of love hurting us more than we hurt each other or ourselves.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 31, 2012 10:18:47 GMT -8
I wish he said it the way you're saying it, but that's not what I'm hearing him say. I'm hearing him say "we shouldn't try to please God" and I think that is very misleading and dangerous. A lot of people are going to hear that and run off thinking that they shouldn't strive to please God in any way. A lot of people are going to hear him and think that the Christian life is effortless in every way and then when they encounter necessary effort they will either deny it or be disappointed with the claims they were sold. Teachers have a responsibility to look out for these things.
This "teaching of only one side of a paradox" is what I'm calling "sloppiness". Basically, it's not using the "full counsel of scripture" in a balanced way.
I'd agree, there are a lot of verses that seem to support (and very well might) the eventual salvation of everyone. I don't know how he would support the claim that hell and fire are "for some" (how does he know how many?)
Where I think he starts messing with more fundamental doctrines is in his simplistic assessment of "new creation". He's very confusing/ inconsistant in his statements on the reality of sin in the life of the Christian. I think that certain aspects of the doctrine of sanctification are pretty fundamental- especially the importance of stressing that though in Christ we are all set apart, we are not all yet morally perfect.
I think John thought this was pretty fundamental when he wrote "If we say that we have no sin, we are deceiving ourselves and the truth is not in us." (1 John 1:8). If you'd like to debate this verse, we can do that*, but can you see how I could see this verse (assuming it is referring to the ongoing presence of sin in the life of the believer) as suggesting that Crowder is messing with fundamental doctrines? I mean, "deceiving" and "without the truth" are pretty strong words. Wouldn't you agree that whoever John is describing here, John thinks they are messing with primary doctrines?
*I still haven't seen a good reason to think this verse is merely referring to pre-conversion sin.
|
|
|
|
Post by Josh on Mar 31, 2012 10:54:59 GMT -8
He does call himself a "hopeful universalist" in that he humbly has hope that all will be saved, just as God wills that none should perish. He likes to leave the view of hell as a mystery, and I think that's an acceptable view. It doesn't go against the gospel or God's nature. Is kind of my view to. I just don't see the God of love hurting us more than we hurt each other or ourselves. Vio, I'm sorry I side-tracked this thread into a discussion of John Crowder himself. That would probably be a better separate discussion. (maybe I can separate it out?) I realize you were just trying to throw in his voice on the topic of hell. |
|
