Joining Jesus on one hell of a mission to bring heaven to earth?
5 Oct 2006
Today The Times (UK) reports that the Pope is abolishing the concept of limbo – a theological hypothesis is how the Pope is quoted to have referred to it. Vatican sources are reporting that the commission of theologians set up to review the doctrine has “concluded that all children who die do so in the expectation of “the universal salvation of God†and the “mediation of Christâ€, whether baptised or not.” In other words the Catholic church is moving to a more inclusive perspective on who gets into heaven (at least for children).
It reminded me that back in July there was a great conversation on who gets saved there was even a poll and the results reflect the variety of comments expressed. As a quick reminder the four different view points are:
EXCLUSIVISM: Those who live and die without receiving Christ will go to hell, whether or not they heard the Gospel.
INCLUSIVISM: This asserts that anyone saved will only be so through Jesus, and in no other way. But it allows God’s grace and salvation to extend to others who have had an imperfect knowledge of him, i.e have not had the chance to know who he is and chose or reject him.
PLURALISM: The idea here is that all relgions point and lead to God. It does not assert that everyone will be saved though, and allows for some people to not be saved.
UNIVERSALISM: This goes further than pluralism, in that you don’t need any religion to be saved. Everyone regardless of what they believe, or have done, is saved.
(Clearly there are other view points which reject the whole notion of God/saving).
I don’t intend to repeat that conversation here but what struck me then and continues to impact on me now is that the emergent conversation is very on message about agreeing that missional is about us doing God’s will on earth as it is in heaven (bringing heaven to earth rather than us waiting to depart to heaven) but we are more silent on the flip side of the question – does that mean it’s hell like on earth already and not only that but what is our stance on the whole question of hell fullstop.
continued
Interesting stats on belief on heaven/hell are higher than stats for regular chuch attendance in bother contries. Stats for the UK (in 2000) reveal that 28% believe in Hell (cf 52% believe in heaven) and for the USA (2003) Barna survey shows 71% believe in hell (cf 78% believe in heaven).
The stats show (unsurprisingly) that heaven is more popular than hell but why else is it a topic so little talked about in our conversations? In part, I would suggest because:
- the emerging conversation tends to focus on practice to inform theology and I doubt many people are asking us, ’so heh we really want some real good teaching on hell;
- it is a doctrine that has been abused a lot by the church on those both in and outside the church (fear/guilt/manipulation/terror/and getting God’s revenge in first for him); and
- it is just a difficult subject to talk about, even without all its emotional and theological baggage (we all have friends/family who we know don’t follow Christ and therefore what is there fate?)…
Baring in mind the sensitivities of the above and recognising that this is only one small part of the emergent conversation I do have some questions/thoughts I’d like to explore with you about hell:
- if we want to be missional people (like Jesus) do we not need a balanced doctrine of heaven and hell?
- Does a doctrine of hell inform, impact and influence and shape our life and our life’s choices in a postive, healthy Christ like way (does what we do in this world echo in eternity)?
- Or can we scrap the doctrine of hell and instead just focus on/draw inspiration from heaven in being missional – we already know about how crap the world is now why worry about anything else?
First can I suggest that we unpack the doctrine of hell a bit more together, so we have some common reference points to talk about…
That’s a hell of a baggage train
Medieval/Renaissance church sermons embellished descriptions of hell found in the bible:
1) For example – the part of you that sins will be tortured for eternity – so a blasphemer hung from their tongue etc reflected, for example, in the painting of Bosch.
2) Dante’s ‘Divine Comedy’ and later Milton’s paradise lost – cedmented the image in popular consciousness that hell is an eternal torture chamber of the damned. For example Dante wrote that within the seventh circle of hell runs “the river of blood, within which boiling is/Whoe’er by violence doth injure others.”
Into the modern period and slogans like ‘turn or burn’ echo this hell of fiery torture e.g. Spurgeon preached:
“We assert, then, that there is a NECESSITY that God should whet his sword and punish men, if they will not turn. Earnest Baxter used to say, “Sinner! turn or burn; it is thine only alternative: TURN OR BURN!” And it is so. We think we can show you why men must turn, or else they must burn…”
This slogan is still one that is still heard today from anti-gay protests (note the link refers to somone’s experience of these slogans, it does not advocate using them) to baby clothes (it makes me shudder that babies who are such a reflection of creation/new life/hope can be so dressed in and made party to a hate they don’t even understand).
It is not surprising with such repugnant embellishments that christians have shied away from hell and preferred to focus on God’s love. Indeed I can onlysay how sorry I am for anyone subjected to such abuse/hate.
But in the modern day another force also seems to influence a decline in references to hell – in a fascinating article the San Francisco Chronicle highlights that in todays market driven/consumeristic approach to church/faith that hell is just not “sexy.” The article goes on to say:
“Hell’s fall from fashion indicates how key portions of Christian theology have been influenced by a secular society that stresses individualism over authority and the human psyche over moral absolutes. The rise of psychology, the philosophy of existentialism and the consumer culture have all dumped buckets of water on hell…”
Indeed the doctrine of hell has come under much welcome review as a result of the above, so that there is a growing school of thought that the church has missed the point and hell does not exist at all (at least not as the church has comprehened it for a long time). Such a view is worth exploring, if only to provide a sane calming counter balancing perspective to the traditional of hell as a fiery eternal torture chamber , even if ultimately you draw your own different conclusions.
Reflecting on the doctrine of hell is something that has its own baggage, which we will feel to a greater or lesser extent. Not least me the questios/difficulty of reconciling a loving God with the existence of a place called hell…
Hell of a way to love someone…
If God is a God of love then how can I as a Christian believe in somewhere like hell? Even if it is a sanitised version that stays within the bible descriptions it still does not sound like a loving place.
This has been a stumbling point for many, e.g. Bertrand Russell in his lecture entitled ‘why I am not a Christian’ said:
“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell. I do not myself feel that any person that is really profoundly humane can believe in everlasting punishment. Christ certainly as depicted in the Gospels did believe in everlasting punishment, and one does find repeatedly a vindictive fury against those people who would not listen to His preaching — an attitude which is not uncommon with preachers, but which does somewhat detract from superlative excellence…”
I think it is worth asking why I believe that God is a God of love in the first place? if I look at the world then I see that everything is out of synch, it’s not what it was meant to be – AIDS, war, orphans. Creation it would seem does not testify to a God of love. Neither would it appear does history which reveals a history of war, famine, genocide, ethnic cleansing. Even my conscious self speak scondemnation, reminding me where I failed, went wrong, made mistakes… It is clear to me that the world and the people in it are hurting, grieving, broken somehow/somewhere.
There is for me only one reason why I think God is a God of love – which is becaus Jesus Christ tells us/reveals it, e.g. the parable prodigal son God runs seek out, runs towards and embraces people who turn to him. Christ dying on the cross reveals God’s love by embracing all the pain, hurt and brokeness of the world and makes a way for us to follow him through the cross. As John reveals to us:
“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him.”
It is this love that God has for the world that infuses the desire to be missional, to live in the way of Jesus and be co-missioned with Jesus in saving the world. But saving the world from what? Jesus was clear that he was on a mission from God, he was God’s love in action, God made flesh, God living in the neighbourhood – there to save the world (including but not solely our souls) by asking people to believe in him, to live through him, to follow him in sacrifce and serventhood, to transform the world as he transforms us, and to extend that invitation… to offer a different way/possibility/future/hope of eternal life and heaven on earth rather then the alternative eternal death, seperation, continuation of the hell that we find already on earth…
In doing so I am making a choice to believe in/follow Jesus but what if I choose not too, what then are the consequences?
The hell I will…
If “the greatest trick the devil ever pulled was convincing the world he did not exist” is his second greatest to convince us that hell does not exist either? In other words we choose what we know rather then what we can imagine as different – it is our choice. Love freely offers love it is not forced. Love to be love has to be freely received. C S Lewis in a Problem of Pain said:
“In the long run the answer to all those who object to the doctrine of hell, is itself a question: “What are you asking God to do?” To wipe out their past sins and, at all costs, to give them a fresh start, smoothing every difficulty and offering every miraculous help? But He has done so, on Calvary. To forgive them? They will not be forgiven. To leave them alone? Alas, I am afraid that is what He does.”
It is my own human sanity, my own free will and choice that is hard to reconcile with the doctrine of hell – what sane person is going to choose new heavens and earth over hell? Which door would you choose…?
Behind door 1: eternal bliss…satisfied…fulfilled…joy…happiness… deeply fulfilled
Behind door 2: miserable forever? Nothing? eternal regret?
But we’re not sane – the bible says that we deliberately self determine against ourselves, e.g. Paul says:
“And so I insist—and God backs me up on this—that there be no going along with the crowd, the empty-headed, mindless crowd. They’ve refused for so long to deal with God that they’ve lost touch not only with God but with reality itself. They can’t think straight anymore. Feeling no pain, they let themselves go….”
My sin makes me stupid as I deliberately choose against my own long term happiness. As I rub my life against the grain of the universe I get splinters – and maybe hell is the ultimate product of all those splinters. So that, as Lewis writes in the Great divorce, “hell … begins with a grumbling mood, and yourself still distinct from it: perhaps even criticizing it…. You can repent and come out of it again. But there may come a day when you can do that no longer. Then there will be no you left to criticize the mood or even enjoy it, but just the grumble itself going on forever like a machine.”
What if hell is the logical outcome of a loving God who refuses to compel me to follow him, believe in him? If I choose to ignore God, if I say no to God and keep on saying no to him. Would it really be right after choosing to live for me, follow my dreams and refuse to exchange them for God’s whilst living that a loving God would then not freely give me what I dreamed for? As G K Chesterton observed: “hell is God’s great compliment to the reality of human freedom and dignity of human choice.”
What is hell like?
The photo might prove that hell does freeze over it and scientific legend may support this too, but what is hell really like as described in the bible rather than the bloody torture chamber of medieval myth? This is where we encounter the limitations of language, the bible writers struggle to describe the after life and high symbolism and metaphors used (true for new heavens and earth as well as hell). So for example John describes the new Jerusalem using amazing metaphors – does this mean it is literally like this – is it literally going to be like that? I think John is trying to say that the new Jerusalem goes beyond any wonderful valuable thing you can think of/imagine/experience.
The same thing then is true about the descriptions of hell in the bible. So for example hell is described as a lake of fire – where did jews get that idea from of hell being like fire and smelling of sulphur?
At the south end of Jerusalem there was a valley where child sacrifice was practised by the Amorites – the valley of Hinnon or in Hebrew form “ga ben Hinnom”– when the Jews took over ended child sacrifice but felt that valley had been desecrated so used to burn their rubbish and the remains of the animal sacrifices from the temple etc. To speed up the burning they put sulphur over it – so continual stench of death/sulphur arose from the south side of Jerusalem, in Greek the valley of Hinnom becomes “Gehenna.”
Both Jesus and John transported this idea of Gehenna in describing hell, tapping into something that was well known to their audience. So are flames literal – I don’t know? May be the flames symbolise humanity burned away to ash – and all that remains is willed darkness? As Billy Graham said: “I think that hell essentially is separation from God forever. And that is the worst hell that I can think of. But I think people have a hard time believing God is going to allow people to burn in literal fire forever. I think the fire that is mentioned in the Bible is a burning thirst for God that can never be quenched.”
C S Lewis in the Great Divorce “the difficult thing about understanding hell is that the thing to be understood is so nearly nothing…
One thing is that we can’t reconcile all metaphors, for example Hell is also called:
outer darkness – Perhaps Jesus conveying the idea of hell being an exclusion from God’s presence/goodness/light/life?
Weeping and gnashing of teeth – Perhaps Jesus talking about torment of regret – endless why? why? why? Hell then is eternal regret/frustration/ for a wasted life…
As Pope John Paul II reflected: “The images of hell that Sacred Scripture presents to us must be correctly interpreted. They show the complete frustration and emptiness of life without God. Rather than a place, hell indicates the state of those who freely and definitively separate themselves from God, the source of all life and joy.”
Hell: an exclusive destination?
Although Jesus himself taught that no one could come to the Father except through him some parts of the Church have taughtfor 20 centuries that God in his loving sovereignty may receive people who haven’t explicitly placed their faith in Christ – children, disabled etc as we don’t how much conscious awareness of Jesus is needed. In other words a more inclusive then exclusive view. Is the warning of hell then, I wonder, a call to inform/inspire mission? Rather than being avbout speculation of who ends up where, who is in/out, but instead to participate in the desire of God to invite/reveal himself?
Hell is paid – a call to join/follow Jesus in misisonal living
Shirley Guthrie, the theologian asked “to whom did Jesus address his gracious words of invitation and promise? To people who were obviously guilty, to tax collectors, prostitutes, political and social outcasts rejected by respectable people. And to whom did he address his sternest of hellfire and eternal misery? He almost never mentioned hell except when he spoke to the scribes and the Pharisees, the very moral, very religious, very complacent church going people of his day…â€
Most of the warnings pertaining to punishment/Gehenna were directed my Jesus to his own disciples as well as the Pharisees. The first great cluster of references to Gehenna, are found in the Sermon on the Mount (Mat 5:22, 29, 30), Jesus’ great sermon to His disciples in which He warned that one was in danger of Gehenna for the likes of calling someone a fool.
People have preached doctrine of hell to people outside the church – to the very people that Jesus invited in and never seemed to talk about hell with. Instead it would appear that the Jesus wanted both his disciples and those who were religiously right to be confronted by hell. With the former the warning seemed to reflect the seriousness/passion/dedication of kingdom living and with the latter to confront their own expectations as to who was in and who was out.
“I believe in…Jesus Christ his only Son our Lord; who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; he descended into hell; the third day he rose again from the dead; he ascended into heaven, and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence he shall come to judge the quick and the dead..” Apostles Creed
The doctrine of hell is a powerful motivating force for mission – not out of guilt – but from a desire for people to be know/experience/find Christ, for people to experience the opposite of hell. If hell is the skidrow of the universe, a grey dull, dreary monotone then it is in Christ that we find colour,passion, meaning/purpose, love, contentment, freedom, as Paul writes in his letter to the Ephesians:
“It’s in Christ that we find out who we are and what we are living for. Long before we first heard of Christ and got our hopes up, he had his eye on us, had designs on us for glorious living, part of the overall purpose he is working out in everything and everyone.
It’s in Christ that you, once you heard the truth and believed it (this Message of your salvation), found yourselves home free—signed, sealed, and delivered by the Holy Spirit. This signet from God is the first installment on what’s coming, a reminder that we’ll get everything God has planned for us, a praising and glorious life…”
Mission then is taking part in God’s cure of revelation, revolution, recreation/celebration…
revelation/reconciliation… of the joy, longing, love of God – no longer just fallen seperate creation but reconciled in/through incarnate Jesus…
revolution… the radical choice to choose God’s dream rather than my own, to choose his will to be done on earth rather than my own and to allow Jesus to work his will through me/us… even if it costs us everything and sees us following Christ in the way of the Cross.
recreation/celebration… not just thank God I’m saved but an open invite for everyone we know to join the ultimate party, that death is no longer the end, that the eternal life of fullness is available now, that all of us who are thirsty, hungry, weary can find home, belonging, acceptance, love, healing…
Seems to me that it is indeed a hell of a mission to join/follow Jesus in bringing/being heaven to earth…but what do you think?
Paul Mayers
Guest blogger (For an off ramp to explore Lewis and the subject of hell I recomend this lecture).
Tagged: Heaven, Hell, Key-Posts, Mission, paul-mayers
48 comments
Trackback
Comment by hepzibah
2.28 pm on 5 Oct 2006
Great post. We were not made to live on this earth, but in the Garden (Paradise). Disobedience destined us to live on the earth with fear, anger, guilt, double-mindedness, pain and grief.
All these are a precusor of eternity living with these feelings and thoughts – hell.
Paradise is achieved not through works, but through choice. If we choose to believe that Jesus paid the price for our sins, we are returned to an eternity of holiness – which means healthy wholeness.
May God bless you indeed.
Comment by dh
2.47 pm on 5 Oct 2006
Paul my answer to your final three questions are yes, yes and no.
You say “People have preached doctrine of hell to people outside the church – to the very people that Jesus invited in and never seemed to talk about hell with. Instead it would appear that the Jesus wanted both his disciples and those who were religiously right to be confronted by hell. With the former the warning seemed to reflect the seriousness/passion/dedication of kingdom living and with the latter to confront their own expectations as to who was in and who was out.”
Jesus sais these things to Believers so that they would understand the importanceof sharing the Gospel to the lost.
Maybe the Scriptures aren’t metaphors when looking at the concept of hell?
Comment by Matt
6.22 pm on 5 Oct 2006
Great article. Thanks to Paul for the work putting it together and to Jason for sharing. I’ve clipped it for future use.
Comment by Paul Mayers
6.41 pm on 5 Oct 2006
Hepzibah, Matt, thank you for your kind encouraging words.
DH you are right they might be literal… I wonder which foundation my name is at, lol, probably 11 :)
Trackback by One for the road...
6.51 pm on 5 Oct 2006
Helluva subject: missional motivation and Emerging church…
I promised the rather delicious sounding Toblerone over at Molls place that I would try to write some thoughts and have a conversation about emerging church and the doctrine of hell. I have posted my thoughts to start the conversation as another guest …
Comment by molly
2.04 am on 6 Oct 2006
Wow, Paul, great job putting thoughts into words, as usual. Lots to think about!!! Thanks.
Comment by Paul Mayers
10.30 am on 6 Oct 2006
Thanks Molls, feel free to think outloud, I know I am always impacted by your thoughts :)
Comment by James
1.27 pm on 9 Oct 2006
I agree… I’m not so sure I require a developed doctrine of hell. I’m not saying I don’t believe in it ‘as a place’ or ‘as a state’ but it doesn’t so much concern me as I think that sharing ones faith is about showing the truthfulness of the Christian narrative.
I think I draw motivation from my personal belief in life after death (heaven or hell) but I cannot show people that these beliefs are true. However, I can demonstrate through my life that receiving forgiveness and being in relationship with God, and with God’s church is a great way to live.
I guess it is up to me to show that becoming a part of God’s kingdom is about life before death and it is our experience of that life, which fills us with hope in the promise that one day we will meet Christ ‘beyond the curtain’.
I guess I don’t think bashing unbelievers over the head with unverifiable metaphysical proposition is the best way of introducing them to the Christian faith.
Comment by dh
2.35 pm on 9 Oct 2006
James, I totally agree with you on life before death. That is the most important thing while on earth. However, I feel we must share what life after death is as well. Even Jesus and Paul when talking about heaven and hell said “encourage each other with these words”. I understand the preaching and the delivery of the message of heaven and hell makes it appear like it is not important. Many non-Believers need to understand so they know “what the point is”. We need to have a relationship and at the same time as Believers look foward to when we “…see Him as He is”. Aren’t you interested in seeing the Trinity in the literal sense? Shouldn’t we help people so they won’t miss out in being apart of that glorious day? This doesn’t take away the importance of what you are saying. Discipleship and Sanctification while on earth are so important in Evangelism, greater relationship with Jesus to live a better life, etc. However, in the back of our minds we all should look forward to that day and help people by sharing the Gospel so they won’t miss out. However, I agree that is a close second to what you are saying. :)
Comment by Paul Mayers
8.40 pm on 9 Oct 2006
James – thanks for the thoughts, I don’t think Jesus intended for a metaphysical bashing – I think Jesus was selective in his focus on hell… I think it was more of a concept for those who believed for 2 reasons:
1) for discipleship – for the radicalness of living the sermon on the mount, Jesus used it as a shock tactic to say this kingdom living is serious, really serious stuff – bit like marriage really not something to enter into lightly and this is how serious it is… Just like John for instance says if we say we love God but don’t love our brother than we are liars and we don’t really love God…
2) I think it is a doctrine that encourage mission – if hell is the antithesis of life connected to/with/through God then the purpose of mission is the same as that of Jesus – reconnection with God in through in/through/with Christ, it is about life giving, life breathing, life finding in God – about life to the full, life pregnant with hope, meaning,depth, recreated, new…
Therefore I see a doctrine of hell intimately connected with life before death – it is about choosing life and helping others find and choose life – about bringing out the God colours as the message translates Matt 5:14…
Maybe as much as we talk about bringing heaven to earth we have to recognise the hell that is already on earth as well? Maybe our theology and missional focus is incomplete without a recognition of that and the realisation of God’s kingdom in christian communities is that testimony of a different way to be,cities of light, reflecting the City of Light, the Light of the world etc…
Comment by Paul Mayers
8.48 pm on 9 Oct 2006
DH I hear what you are saying – for me in sharing heaven/hell it is again coming back to what we talked about around culture – the cultural concept of hell is a hot place where the devil pokes you in the bum with a pitchfork (as a friend of mine summarised for me :)… and they don’t really believe in that either – it’s a story to keep people good, living in fear etc.
I think it’s a question of engaging people that maybe hell is a grey skidrow of the universe, a weary, dreary, forlorn, mean, aching, lonely, hateful, jealous existence – something that we experience at present as much as we also experience tastes of heaven – we drink from both cups the sweet that is bitter and the bitter that is sweet…
It is therefore not so much a case of burn you bad people whilst us good people are heading for heavenly mansions but more what we do on earth does echo through eternity… what we deliberately chose on earth effects us… if cho0sing the kingdom of God is about choosing God’s dream/reality maybe choosing my dream/reality is all I am left with, a never satisfied aching for more that can never be realised? an eternal treadmill/hamster wheel? Always running never reaching, always hungry but never satisfied etc?
Comment by dh
9.02 pm on 9 Oct 2006
Paul, I still don’t see the point in all of this. I agree that we should live for God as Believers and as Believers show those who aren’t Believers to Believe and live for Him. I think there is something important to know that there are two important realms this life and the afterlife. While on this earth we need to live for Him and be Believers. Afterlife is eternal one eternal death and the other eternal life. This isn’t metaphysical bashing but what God’s Word says. Now we mustn’t have an attitude that diminshes God’s Grace which makes heaven available since if Christ didn’t die for us we would all deserve hell. For me I make a distiction between hell and Hell if you get my drift. We all see hells in this earth but that is nothing compared with the Hell that is faced for those who aren’t Believers. We must be missional AND Evangelistic. It seems if we are only missional and never lead people into Faith where they personally accept God’s Gift available to all as opposed to rejecting God’s gift then we really do a disservice to people into thinking the consequences aren’t such to respond and we lead people away from the truth of what heaven and hell truly are. Since God’s Wrod gives literal descriptions of heaven and hell why present it as different than that or other reasons when the literal is there? Just because people are pushed away from the term hell doesn’t make it any less of a literal place where there is weeping and gnashing of teeth. I have always thought that if Believers Truly understood what Hell was the attitude of the message would change as opposed to avoiding it or presenting it as something other than it literally is. Something that should lead us into the Fear of the Lord. Not the fear that is worldly fear but the fear like Isaiah “ Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King, The LORD of hosts.â€
Metaphysical bashing? I would say to this generation what Jesus said to Thomas “Blessed are they who have not seen andyet Believe.” I believe that if we have Faith in God’s Word we can show them how to live on this earth and how that relates to the afterlife as well. Just because it is unverifyable tothem doesn’t make it any less of a reality or important in theTruth to understand the point of why we live for Him in this life: To be closer to God, Faith to Believe for Salvation, lead others into relationship, reward for those who did Believe and have relationship and avoiding being condemned already by having Faith in Christs death and resurrection and thus avoiding Hell as a location for eternity and entering into eternal life in heaven.
Comment by Paul Mayers
7.07 am on 10 Oct 2006
Hi DH, sorry, could you please clarify, point in all what do you not see?
You seem to make a distinction between missional and evengelistic, what do those 2 terms mean to you?
Do you not think you are applying the Thomas passage you quote out of context, given it was about belief in Jesus not related to hell?
I think i inicated above 3 difficulties with literal description of hell:
1) it was an actual place – Gehenna – which would have had cultural contextual connatations, bit like Jesus saying some drug filled, gang warring, poor, half abandonded neighbourhood was now hell – Jesus was pointing something people knew and making an association…
2) hell and heaven are both described in highly poetic language – the writers have to reach to try and paint a picture of something beyond our comprehension
3) the metaphors don’t reconcile so in terms of a literal description we have outter darkness and a lake of fire for instance – we cannot make composite picture – like people in the bible we are reduced to saying hell is like… heaven is a bit like…
Comment by dh
2.59 pm on 10 Oct 2006
I guess when people say it isn’t a literal place I have problems with that. I think the descriptions are not 100% but are 90% descriptions of an actual physical place. To project too much poetic or metaphor onto something that is a literal place I feel misrepresents the truth of what it is. What you are discussing is the 10% part but I think your difficulties miss the point of what Jesus was trying to get at. It may be beyond our comprehension but it doesn’t take away the fact that it is aliteral physical place. Jesus was trying to state that it was a literal place and the severity of Him drawing people to Himself by His love for people so much that He didn’t want people to send themselves to that place. Does that make sense?
On theThomas passage I was relating it indirectly to hell in that lack of Faith in Him is what dictates who is there.
On mission vs. Evangelistic:
I feel missional is how we live as a showing of the Gospel vs. Evangelistic which is stating the message of what is necessary for Faith in Christ for Salvation to begin the mission of Christ. Does that make sense? I think many people who are more missional tend to reject a direct message of what is necessary for Salvation. Kind of like observing movies that have cliff hanger endings. I’m not a fan of “Lost” but I watched acouple of episodes andit appears those who pursue a missional type of Evangelism leave un-Believers with a cliff hanger. I see so many people wanting answers and when God’s Word is so clear I see stating the answer in a loving caring way without any hesitation and confidence as the best way of evangelism.
So in conclusion on the missional vs. Evangelistic: I feelwe must combine those and not have one without the other. The terms I prefer are Evangelism to see un-Believers become believers and discipleship and Sanctification for those who are Believers living out the missional context leading to the Evangelism and thus completing the circle. What do you think?
I just don’t believe that the hells on earth are indicative of the Hell in the future.
I don’t believe that heaven is here on earth. Heaven isin the future. There is a difference between heaven and Heaven.
I think the lack of disctinction of hell vs. Hell and heaven vs. Heaven is what is concering me. Just because people can befearful of that place doesn’t mean that it isn’t that literal place as I discribed. It seemsto me that theFear of the Lord is what is lacking in the descriptions of heaven amd hell that I described.
Comment by dh
3.02 pm on 10 Oct 2006
You also mention good people in heaven and bad people in hell. It isn’t good vs. bad but Faith vs. lack of Faith that is the issue.
I still feel lake of fire and pillars of smoke contradict your versions of hell that you described. (Please read previous post in conjunction with this post.)
Comment by Paul Mayers
4.12 pm on 10 Oct 2006
DH I agree with you, it is a literal place, a valley on the south side of jerusalem… that’s my point hell can’t be described other than to say well it’s like…
thanks for your explanation of missional/evengelistic, i see where you ar ecoming from on that now
Comment by dh
6.03 pm on 10 Oct 2006
I guess I don’t see it is a valley on thesouth side of Jerusalem but to say hell is Hell I feel is taking the metaphor and the poetic beyond its original intention. The context of Hell in thepassages from the Bible was afterlife and where phsically and Spiritually people go who have no Faith in Christ. I believe it is literally hot since it says “fire and pillars of smoke”, I believe it is a pit (obviously location is unknown), it is a place of weeping and gnashing of teeth, etc.
I guess my reactionwas to this you said: “I think it’s a question of engaging people that maybe hell is a grey skidrow of the universe, a weary, dreary, forlorn, mean, aching, lonely, hateful, jealous existence – something that we experience at present as much as we also experience tastes of heaven – we drink from both cups the sweet that is bitter and the bitter that is sweet…”
I believe the Bible describes into more detail than what you describe here. I feel all Believers need to understand this and I feel that it would change our paradigm and make our hearts sad to know what happens when people reject Christ. I care about people and I don’t want them toexperience whatthey will experience at that God forsaken place. I believe it is a place where every pain will be felt physical, spiriual, etc. I think that is the point of the passages refering to hell as seperation from God, weepingand gnashing of teeth, fire and pillars of smoke, etc.
“I think the lack of disctinction of hell vs. Hell and heaven vs. Heaven is what is concering me. Just because people can befearful of that place doesn’t mean that it isn’t that literal place as I discribed. It seems to me that theFear of the Lord is what is lacking in the descriptions of heaven amd hell that I described.”
Also, there are mansions for those who Believe by Faith in Christ. There is a place that is being prepared for those who Believe. It seems you say you agree but then particular statements contradict that. If you could explain so that we can move together and grow in our understand of this it would beneficial to us within the body of Christ.
What is your take on this?
Also what is your take on my statements on missional/evangelistic?
Comment by Paul Mayers
2.23 pm on 11 Oct 2006
Hi DH, I think we are agreeing on the majors, but we are just approaching it differently – you are taking a literal approach and I am taking more of a literary one – I don’t think to that end think we need to have a full agreement, we know it’s not a fun place. For me the key is its impact on mission/discipleship not necesarrily what it will be like…
Mission/evangelism – my take is somewhat more in the middle i guess with mission involving evagelism – being a people of good news as well as living out that good news – i think under the old model people left it to the experts, the evengelists, whereas undera missionary model that is what we are – invited to join God in a mission of following Jesus and part of that mission is to extend the invitation.
Saying that I liked what you said about a cliff hanger approach (may have to steal it :) – clearly the danger is that we react against the whole evangelism model and go to the opposite extreme. It is a danger worth highlighting and a good reminder so thank you…
Comment by dh
2.46 pm on 11 Oct 2006
Paul I think we founda goodmiddle ground. I think the point for further agreement is that all people need to understand that there is an afterlife Heaven and an afterlife Hell. To go a little further. When I read about the resurection from the dead to meet Jesus in the air and the Bible says “Encourage each other with these words.” It helps me to help others to understand even more what Christ has in store for us. Isn’t it amazing that one day we will the Trinity in full Glory? To see Jesus literally in front of us rather than currently where His Spirit is with those who are Believers. In one sense it is wonderful and in another sense disheartening because for me I know I will say like Isaiah “Behold I am a man of unclean lips…”. I hope you appreciate this because I’m trying to “Encourage each other with these words.” I know I will never totally get to full knowledge of the Fear of the Lord but it seems from these posts and reposts parts of the outline are coming together and your attitde of humility helps.
I really like your missional/evangelism latest explaination. I still think that the ultimate goal is for people to “hear” the Gospel like when Jesus says “How can they hear in whom they haven’t heard and how can hear without a preacher?” That is why I take more of a “full circle approach” thanthe mission/evangelism approach. Both are incorporated but it is more of a “one plants, one waters and God gives the increase” as opposed to missional/evangelism (not you but others) who reject the Evangelism model all together. Great discussion. :) If I never see you face to face in our lifetimes, when we are in heaven, I’m definitely going to look for you. That goes for you too, Jase. :)
Comment by Paul Mayers
3.08 pm on 11 Oct 2006
lol thanks DH, i’ll be easy to find as I’ll be the one going DOH! DOH! DOH! in a quite corner ;)
Comment by dh
4.31 pm on 11 Oct 2006
Why will you be going DOH! DOH! DOH!? Just wondering. If you will be easy to find then see you then if not in this life.
Comment by Paul Mayers
4.38 pm on 11 Oct 2006
cos I’m sure i’ll be in for one major surprise after another, lol
Comment by molly
4.42 pm on 11 Oct 2006
BY the way (coming in a little late), Rob Bell recently spoke regarding Hell…
http://www.mhbcmi.org/listen/index.php
(it was the subject of the, “Jesus Wants to Save Christians” Part III). It was really interesting and made me think of Paul and this post. :)
Comment by Paul Mayers
4.44 pm on 11 Oct 2006
Thanks Molls, will check it out – i say, you’re just in time :)
Comment by Joy
2.03 am on 14 Oct 2006
Ok, Paul… here I go.
I am actually studying in the OT right now. One of the questions that has come up is about Cyrus of Ezra 1. In the group I am in, the study is very fill-in-the-blank… (and we don’t want your opinion or any controversial theology… just tell us what you put in the blank…) But here is the question I have come to: Did Cyrus consider God to be his personal God. God called Cyrus His annointed… but did he actually convert… or was that even necessary??
Last night, I watched “End of the Spear”. The Waodani (hope I am spelling that right) did not refer to God as “God” but as Waengongi. I know this sounds trite and trivial… but this really stretched my fundamental/evangelical/legalistic mind… Why are we allowing these folks to refer to a ‘god’ they had known and super-imposing Jehovah on to that god? Now I don’t know how long I really thought that… a second or two… but then of course the question is, are these folks, who believed in Waengongi already, ’saved’??
Ok, as you can see… I have a long way to go to get any understanding in all this. I realize my questions seem elementary. But this is really where I am!!
Comment by Paul Mayers
7.11 am on 14 Oct 2006
Joy – just my take but these Qs are all back to the who is in/who is out, how do we define/deliniate that boundary. From a NT perspective we can say tha people who believe in Jesus are in but then again we don’t know how much of a belief we need, Jesus talks about faith the size of a mustard seed so from a heavenly perspective what does that look like? Then again we also know that Jesus talked about not just claiming to believe but actually doing the God things of love, mercy, grace, compassion, generousity, justice as well – again do we just adopt a limited reformation perspective which emphasises faith alone or something more encompassing. I guess we just find something and try and turn it into a rule/formula/practice/law…
The worst part of it is that I then appoint myself as the gatekeeper of who gets in – people like me- and the entry requirements – what ever rule/formula I have determined.
Even within myself as I write these words I feel a clamour to define…it’s Jesus and xyz…
On the other other hand words are limited, they only express something of our own comprehension and not very well at that or put it another way, is a tree a tree still even if I call it a tree and you call it a parrot? So in both cases you cite people acknowledge God, how God interacts with that knowledge and expression I have no idea. If i engaged with these people/person what would I learn from them, what would they learn from me? Would I see Jesus in them? Would they see Jesus in me? Would we find a common way of connecting/expressing – I don’t know?
Which is a long way round of saying I don’t know, to your Qs but I appreciate you asking them anyway… what do you think is the Q in/out? Or is there a better way of engaging?
Comment by Joy
3.00 am on 15 Oct 2006
I guess that really IS the question, isn’t it… Who gets to decide who is in or who is out?
I DO NOT WANT THAT JOB!!
The Waodani believed that Waengongi was the creator God. Don’t we all have some basic belief that there is something, SOMEONE bigger??
I did not truly have an understanding of who Christ was and what He did until I was 18, and really until I was in my 20’s and married with children… But, looking back, I know that God was interacting with me. I can see it through my life from the time I was very young. Does that mean if I died at 17 that I would have gone to hell? I do not think so! I was doing the best I could with the knowledge I had!! I never rejected Jesus! My whole life was a walk towards Him!
Jesus did such a great job and making a paradox out of everything. Why would I believe He would do any different on this subject.
Ok, I’m going to listen to Rob Bell (from Molly’s Comment #22) and I am going to have to re-read this whole thing again.
It is a little disconcerting to think that most of my views on hell are based in literary fiction… (meaning Dante and Milton).
Comment by dh
3.08 pm on 16 Oct 2006
Joy you are right we don’t deside who is in and who isn’t but God’s Word says it and the boundary is clear “If you confesswith your mouth the LJ and Believe with your heart that God has risen from the dead you shall be saved.” in conjunction with “Without Faith it is impossible to please God.”
So did you do what the above passages said? I feel that is the deliniation point. Before that it isChrist interaction to get you to that point to receive Him but that wasn’t Faith for Salvation but faith leading to Faith.
Comment by Paul Mayers
3.54 pm on 16 Oct 2006
DH much as I love you bro, it is that sort of formualic praying, where we take one way that is in the scriptures and make it THE way… now I’m not saying it doesn’t have a valid application, I think there is something central to Jesus bit since we can’t answer the Q how much faith we need to please God or indeed how conscious we have to be of that faith then I am not so sure it is as black n white as your thoughts would seem to make it…
Then again it is classic reformation stuff so I understand why you say it :)
Comment by dh
4.05 pm on 16 Oct 2006
I guessI don’t see other “ways” in Scripture. I think the “how much Faith” is everything to Christ heart, soul and mind. What others are there outside of what I said? I just don’tsee that in Scripture. I mention these two for simplistic sake but there are so many other Scriptures that confirm this as well. For me why say we don’t know what it looks like when the Scriptures make it plain and give testimonies with no other ways as the only examaples? It isn’t formulaic but it is with heart, soul and mind that is the point for me.
Comment by Paul Mayers
4.29 pm on 16 Oct 2006
I know DH and it’s cool it works for you, which is great. Beliefs about Jesus no matter how passionately we assert them are not the same as belief in Jesus and a life that reflects those beliefs – I think we rob people of something when we reduce it to a couple of lines which we don’t really know how to explain/unpack/determine what God makes of that approach – it is not as if those are the standard believers pray scattered across the NT is it :)?
It’s a whole other post really and whislt I sincerely believe that you have worked beyond the box of the formula DH and are a top fellow, great thinker and fine Jesus lover and liver I feel personally that there is a whole lotta more to it than that – both profoundly simpe but profoundly complex at the same time :)
Comment by dh
5.50 pm on 16 Oct 2006
I see what you say but don’t at the same time. I knowpeoplewho say they believe in Jesus, in a secular way live for Him but don’t truly have Faith because they don’t believe Jesus is God and/or don’t believe He rose again and/or believe good works save them rather than Faith, etc. This isn’t a what works for me but what God’s Word says. To me it gets kind of nitpicky to say “this isn’t it” when that isthe outline of how one enters the Kingdom. When I state the Scripture I’m not saying this “is” the prayer but that these are the required foundational Beliefs one must have to truly say one has Faith.
I still don’t have any other examples from you of other ways than I described. I think you will find that the outline I mentioned from Scripture (I could have mentioned others) is the way. The complexity is the giving of ones heart, soul and mind. Many any one or two of these but all three is complexity. The life after entering the Kingdom isthe Sanctification and I think many times the EC gets Sanctification and Salvation jumbled around. Works don’t save a person, Faith does. Works confirm the Faith that one received that was made available to them.
Comment by Paul Mayers
6.35 pm on 16 Oct 2006
Well DH, what do I know, honestly I am sure that I have grasped very little of this and your way in is as good as any other approach we could take from the bible.
For an alt how about we take Jesus, say Mark 1 – what does he say – the Kingdom of God is at hand, repent and believe the good news – and then spends the rest of his time unpacking what that is – he doesn’t ask us to believe a collection of propositional things about him, he asks us to believe in him and that means not just hovering in the kingdom doorway but about the life that comes with it. No where do you have Jesus saying heh confess me with your mouth and believe x/y/z about me – he says basically the kingdom of God is here so join me, rething, reevaluate, find out where I am and what I am doing and come join me in the doing of it… in fact reading the gospels is a scart experienec as Jesus ignores conventions and formulas and seems to spend a lot of his time modelling exactly why the kingdom of God is good news…
Now I see your call on santification and how that is linked to salvation – my thoughts to this is that the two are linked, being saved is for me not a once experience but a daily reality, infact i think salavation is so immense that it is not something that just relates to my soul’s eternal destination but a life of salvation, of on-going good news of Jesus in every sphere, facet, dimnsion and reality of life…
But that is just me and my take – now don’t get me started on the chinese wall of faith/works lol
thank you for your ongoing exploration of all this with me :)
Comment by dh
7.35 pm on 16 Oct 2006
Repent and Believe the Good News is that “Believe Me and the onewho sent Me.” In John 3:3 it talks about being Born Again. You say Jesus says “join Me”. How is that done but by confession and Belief by Faith. In fact repent and Believe the Good News is mentioned and the understanding IS mentioned by Jesus. The other things after are after one “joins is” by Faith in Him.
I totally agree but I see it as salvation and Salvation and Sanctification is after one receive Christ by Faith. When you read Jesus hearing Peter say “you are the Christ the Son of the Living God” Jesus acknowledges that this is His conversion experience.
Just because the amount isn’t to your liking doesn’t mean that Jesus doesn’t give how to “join” isn’t specific.
I think you are still taking my views in an overexagerating way. I never condone “hovering in the Kingdom doorway”. In fact I say the responsibility for un-Believers is to Believe and for Believers to live out their lives with all of their heart, soul and mind as Holy as they can.
“Works don’t save a person, Faith does. Works confirm the Faith that one received that was made available to them.” “Not byworks of righteousnesswhich we have done…” Titus 3:5-6 Works DO though confirm Faith that isalready there. Therefore if there isn’t works then I question if there was Faith in the first place.
Comment by dh
7.56 pm on 16 Oct 2006
I guess I agree but the semantics seem different. For me I got Saved when I accept Christ when I was five, I am getting saved or having salvation (not for Salvation, I use the term Sanctification) everyday as I choose to live for Him each day. For me the views I show from Jesus are shown in ALL of God’s Word. So for me not only do I see John 3 and the like within the context of pre-Salvation and post-Salvation but I also see greater explainations within the Epistles and that the entire Scripture clarifies itself within that context of Scripture in light of Scripture.
A person isn’t going to take up Christ cross unless they Believe that Jesus is fully God or some basic presumptions of who Christ is.
John 3 and the interaction with the disciples helps in realizing what Faith, works, Sanctification, being saved and Saved is all about.
He may not explain in detail but He sure does give a thorough outline that the details become self-explainatory and even more so when onereads the Epistles.
What we shouldn’t dois give people afalse sense of security just because they obey God but don’t Believe that He is God and all of the other propositions in God’s Word. That is where heart, soul and mind comes in.
Comment by Paul Mayers
8.28 pm on 16 Oct 2006
I agree with you bro, there is a difference between believing in Jesus and believing about Jesus.
I’m sorry if you feel that I am taking your views in an over exagerated way – I don’t think you are hovering, I just feel that we often focus on getting people over the race line (which we determine) and not much about the race.
I’m not saying this is what you do/say/reflect – because I honestly believe that you are passionate about a life of discipleship.
I don’t really want to get into a knock about of verses from the bible, I appreciate the reformation and the recovery of sola fide but I feel we do try and pull faith and works apart and try to put some sort of artificial believe then do mentality in to support that – I don’t see that in my reading of the NT, I see belief in Jesus being about action as well as proposition.
Comment by dh
9.07 pm on 16 Oct 2006
Let me findout something cause I think now we are getting somewhere. What do you think about this? If people Believe IN Jesus the works will follow otherwise the Belief is ABOUT Jesus rather than In Jesus and Belief IN Jesus is what truly Saves a person. For me the action is repentence and the response to “Follow Me”. This isn’t aritifical belief in that one must Believe IN Jesus heart, soul and mind. The semantics between us is the Believing about Jesus are people who either go church but neveraccept Christ as their Savior or invited Jesus with oneor two of heart, soul and mind.
I think the difference on people without works is you state there was Faith in the first place and I state that there wasn’t but that it was faith, if you get my drift.
What do you think?
Comment by Paul Mayers
7.25 am on 17 Oct 2006
Hi DH, I think Jase is going to do something on beliefs which might be useful context to set this conversation in…
I think part of it is that belief styles are changing so that with modern people it is a case of propositional => beliefs => practices or faith to works if you like, thus from your pov I can see where you are coming from…
A more postmodern process might look like experiences => beliefs => propositions and therefore the process of belief is bound up in the doing/experiencing.
So for me follow me equates to experiencing/doing which then feeds faith in Jesus and so the circle goes round – I totally accept that the circle goes the other way to for folk…
Anywho, is that any help?
Comment by Edward Pillar
8.30 am on 17 Oct 2006
wow!!! talk about getting hot under the collar…
Hell – is it real…as for me, I’m not sure. Why – well, certainly not the trad picture of hell – suffering for ever and ever.
I think that if one does believe in that kind of hell – it has profound implications for what we think of God. What kind of God would do that?
How does get into hell? Is it by believing or not believing? I don’t think it has anything to do with believing. When JC is asked – ‘what must I do to inherit eternal life’ the answer is always along the lines of: ‘do this and you will live.
what we do is more important than what we believe. way too mny confess belief with their mouth, but actions tell the truth about our beliefs.
But, does it all really matter.
Are our souls immortal? I’m not sure about that either. the Apostle Paul speaks of ‘putting on immortality’. why would we do that if we were already immortal?
lets all chill out…
Comment by dh
2.59 pm on 17 Oct 2006
eternal hell is one where God doesn’t send people to hell people send themselves when Jesus says “they are condemned already”. God doesn’t send anybody to hell. How does onesay it has nothing to do with believing when the Bible says “If you confess with your mouth the LJ and BELIEVE with your heart that God has risen from thedead you shall be saved”?
Where in the Bible does it say souls are not immortal? How can this be said when all references of heaven and hell in the Bible state “eternity”.
Paul in reference to 1 Cor. 15:52-54 isstating this inreference to why theresurrection from the dead of the Believer is necessary. If you look at the context of the passage back to verse 50 you can see that this message was in reference to the resurrection. If you read other passages it talks about the resurrection to eternal death and the resurrection to eternal life (referenced here in 1 Cor 15:50-54. We don’t put on immortality but that Paul is explainning why the resurrection from the dead and the transfiguration of those who are not physically dead yet is necessary. The context is so important.
The reason why Jesus said “do this” is because that was what got in the way of Belief. If the person truly Believed who Jesus was he would have “done” what Jesus said.
Works based Salvation gives people a false sense of security to think that we can have Faith on our own when it is by the power of the Holy Spirit initially with a Belief response to that revelation for Salvation.
I guess Paul we shouldn’t trust our experiences. Faith isn’t based on feeling but Faith is based on understanding who God says He is. It helps a little but I still think it can lead to heart and soul Faith but it says in God’s Word heart, soul and mind to Christ.
So Paul, your concern is that modern leads to people who have soul and mind over to God but not their heart. My concern for PM nature of belief is that it leads to heart and soul but not with their mind. Does that make sense? To me all that matters is the heart, soul and mind over to Christ and that there is a moment whenever that is, if the person isa true Believer, where they can say (confess) those correctly from God’s Word by the power of the Holy Spirit that they received by Faith.
Comment by dh
3.00 pm on 17 Oct 2006
Edward, I have been “chilled out” already. I have said all this with all calm. I’m sorry if you thought it was “hot in here”.
Comment by Paul Mayers
5.36 pm on 17 Oct 2006
DH, Edward I think you are both making the point from opposite sides of the same coin – as I have been so inadequately trying to articulate – we need to have a personal connection/belief in the King but at the same time we need to believe in his teaching of the kingdom – i.e. that we do the works of the kingdom, the whole shebang of Luke 4…
DH that might also help with your concerns – it’s not just a heart beleif, or a head belief but a life belief – which works out in word, deed and action?
Edward – thanks for your reflections on hell – I think you are right that it is not what popular mythology makes out – whether or not it does not exist or not, again I direct you to the link nr the start and the conversation that was had about univerlist view – it is very thought provoking stuff…
ultimately i come down on the side of a generous inclusive as I see that hell as a place for me in motivating me for mission and for taking Christ seriously – i think the mistake that christians have made is to focus hell on those outside the faith and not follow the example of Jesus who used it with his disciples or with the pharisees…
Comment by dh
5.48 pm on 17 Oct 2006
Paul, but if you have a heart and head belief then wouldn’t a life belief follow and if not couldn’t we question the heart and head belief in the first place?
On the hell part I like this, what do you think Paul? You seem to question whether or not hell exists when the Bible isclear and gives descriptions of who is there. With the Pharisees and the disciples that Jesus spoke with, they hadn’t had Faith yet. The Pharisees never had it and when presented with the Gospel never received it and the disciples they hadn’t Believed yet the conceptsof John 3 and further understanding mentioned in Paul regarding confession heart, soul and mind and Belief that Jesus is God and will rise again. I still don’t understand how Hell can actually be looked at hell. If you get my drift. How can it be generous inclusive when the Bible gives no account of redemption after death and no other way of Salvation but by Faith in Christ alone? While popular mythogy iswrong in that it is good people go to heaven bad people go to hell. It is more those without Faith (Without Faith it is impossible to please God.) to Hell and with Faith heaven.
I too agree it motivates me to mission and taking Christ seriously, seriously enough to share my Faith so people don’t go there and also personally to be obedient to Christ for Sanctification thereafter and living for Him so others can be drawn to Christ so others can share with them for them particularly to receive Christ as well.
Comment by Paul Mayers
6.15 pm on 17 Oct 2006
I think my point DH is that when I say i believe in Jesus I am saying not only do i believe in the forgiveness of my sins, new life etc but I also believe in being good news for the poor, liberation for the oppressed, healing for the sick etc. My belief in Jesus is therefore both personal and social – it is in the King and what the King represents, what his Kingdom is about.
I am not doubting that people can have sincere beliefs in Jesus and miss the whole social/societal side and vice versa, people can believe that Christ is about economic/social/environmental liberation and miss the whole personal dimension.
From that point of view I think hell is a useful context – Christ’s kingdom is about rhe opposite to the kingdom of darkness and the hell that exists on earth – i.e. the social/public work of the gospel but God is also concerned about the personal and hell therefore acts a reminder to me that this is a serious personal business…
Far from questioning whether hell exists I am suggesting in this post whether we have asked the right questions about why hell exists – I think we as much as the bible writers did struggle to grasp hell as indeed heaven – we are therfore worry about what it is like and whether there is literal fire or not and maybe I am therefore guilty of missing the point (well I am usually guilty of that) so the post really was a beginning to unpack and reexamine what I beleive, why I beleive it and share that with folks like your kind self – of which I am profoundly grateful for allowing my mind to work even when my mouth is yapping :)
I think we both agree on hell as motivation for mission/and kingdom living and I guess that really is the point, we both agree hell is not much of a fun place so does it matter if we disagree about literal vs narrative interpretations?
Not for me anywho, but what i do appreciate is the critical thinking, patience and fun dialogue :)
Comment by dh
7.17 pm on 17 Oct 2006
“being good news for the poor, liberation for the oppressed, healing for the sick etc.” I agree but I feel that is a pursuit of Sanctification/Discipleship after Salvation.
To me the narrative doesn’t give much of a “point” in that there is an afterlife. It doesn’t make sense to think of hell as not being literal in that the Bible talks about eternal life andeternal death. I think the Bibleis clear.
I don’t see hell based on anything else but those who don’t Believe heart, soul and mind over to Christ. I don’t see the writers having trouble in that I Believe that Scripture is from God and is perfect. Hell exists for those who have already condemned themselves by being “…dead in their tresspass of sins”.
I believe strongly that hell is not figurative. I feel that Believers and non-Believers need to understand this. Why not believe it is not literal? It doesn’t make sense.
Comment by Paul Mayers
8.27 pm on 17 Oct 2006
DH I think we need to work out what we mean by literal – for me it doesn’t me hell doesn’t exist just that our understanding is limited as to what it is like, what with conflicting metaphors et al :)
Comment by dh
8.41 pm on 17 Oct 2006
What is your view of afterlife hell (I call this Hell as opposed to hells)? I call it Hell with many hells out side of that Hell (afterlife hell). When I say literal I mean this: it is literally eternal as opposed to just go away, people will weep and gnash their teeth, there is some form of fire, etc. The detail of how these take place is limited but the outline seems very descriptive and literal. What are the conflicting metaphors and are they really metaphors at all but literal with regard to afterlife.I understand that there are hells but it seems you don’t believe in Hell or that that is narrative.
Comment by Paul Mayers
9.35 pm on 17 Oct 2006
DH, I detailed my view of afterlife H/hell in the main post, particularly the sections on ‘what is hell’ & ‘hell an exclusive destination’
Comments are now closed.