|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 16:08:08 GMT -5
For cognitive dissonance to exist you have to hold on to two (or more) contradictory viewpoints. There is zero cognitive dissonance once you let go of the "burning in Hell" scenario because the contradiction ceases to exist. Either I have a state of cognitive dissonance or I don't. You can't have it and not have it at the same time. When you think of hell it creates a cognitive dissonance for you so you have decided there is no hell. You have had to find something to relieve the cognitive dissonance and believing there is no hell does it for you. What happens when you think there is a hell - it creates cognitive dissonance so you have decided there is no hell to ease that dissonance. You don't have the 2 at the same time. You use one to replace the other. Hell creates dissonance for you so you replace it with believing there is no hell. You use/create a thought or belief to relieve the dissonance. For me the thought a hell does not create dissonance so I don't have the create a belief to nullify the dissonance. The concept of hell certainly creates a dissonance for you. There is nothing wrong with dissonance as we all have it every day of our lives. It's part of being human and trying to make sense of the world. It is how beliefs are formed in our search for answers. The concept of eternal Hell did create a cognitive dissonance for me. Now that I no longer believe in it there is no further dissonance. People are uncomfortable with cognitive dissonance and they will always seek to relieve it in one of several ways. One of the ways is to change the cognition, i.e. what you believe, and that is what I have done. There are other ways, and one of them is denial. I suggest that most of the Christian world is in denial about the actual consequences of eternal Hell, and what that says about the nature and character of God. The evidence of that denial is that Hell is rarely mentioned by Christians who believe in a loving God. You can't speak about the love of God, the sacrifice of His Son, and then, oh by the way, if you don't believe this doctrine, the loving God is sending you to Hell, well, actually no, you're sending yourself there because God would never do that, so it's you, not God after all. Whew. Also let's not confuse cognitive dissonance, which is very precisely defined, with ambiguity, paradox and contradiction. Cognitive dissonance causes stress or denial or a combination of the two. No, we shouldn't live with it.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 16:20:56 GMT -5
I posted this recently on another thread on the subject of Hell so here goes again. Hell is no myth and it would be so much easier to accept the plight of those who are not saved if it was. In Matthew 25:46 “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” however, eternal punishment can have only one meaning. The unbroken usage of the adjective ‘eternal’ excludes the idea of ‘endlessness’ and forbids us to go the way of universalism in saying that our Lord is teaching here a very long period of corrective detention. The notion of ‘eternity’ in the New Testament excludes the idea of termination; and the noun ‘punishment’ wherever used signifies painful experience. Furthermore the Greek word kolasis (punishment) is a sharing of the fate of the ‘devil and his angels’ as in verse 41, that is the second death of Revelation 21:10 and 14 with all its frightful realities of a final and irreversible change of place and state along with continuing personal life. Can the precise terms used by our Saviour in this passage point in any other direction? New Testament Scholar, Leon Morris observes that ‘the same adjective is applied to both punishment and reward.’ - One group to eternal punishment and the righteous (v37) to eternal life. Morris writes: Jesus is not speaking of some small experience that would be but for a moment, but of that which has no end. He leaves his hearers in no doubt as to the solemnity of what he is saying. Eternal issues are involved, and this is so for those on his right hand and on his left. The above seems to skirt around the issue, but I think you're saying that the word "aionios" means eternal. So, is there a time before eternity began? How would you interpret the phrase "pro chronos aionios" found in 2 Tim 1:9? This phrase would translate as "before time eternal", if "aionios" means "eternal", that is. It's actually translated as "before the world began" indicating a certain malleability to the word "aionios".
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 16:32:49 GMT -5
Clearday - yes, I understand that it is probably a parable. But if it is, what is the metaphoric meaning that you draw from it? What do you think the "hell" that Jesus referred to was? At the risk of not trying to read in far too much to the parable, the story is simply about: The misery of a self-focused, selfish life. The misery of pride vs the peace of humility. The vanity of covetousness. The finality of a wasted life. Probably some more, but that's it off the top. It's a great parable, but certainly not designed to inform you about all the details of the afterlife of heaven and hell. Neither are well defined anywhere in the bible, and the writers who do try to refer to it, do so with different images and hence all the confusion about heaven and hell today. I say don't sweat the afterlife, get the lessons relevant for this life.....which is what the rich man and Larazus parable is all about!
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Apr 7, 2014 16:35:33 GMT -5
What Hat: You might not think of God as a God of wrath and maybe that is where your dissonance comes from with regard to belieiving there is a hell.
As Irvine Grey stated: For the born again believer there is no conflict between the love of God and the wrath of God. Christians talk about both not just His love as you said.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 18:02:09 GMT -5
Clearday - yes, I understand that it is probably a parable. But if it is, what is the metaphoric meaning that you draw from it? What do you think the "hell" that Jesus referred to was? At the risk of not trying to read in far too much to the parable, the story is simply about: The misery of a self-focused, selfish life. The misery of pride vs the peace of humility. The vanity of covetousness. The finality of a wasted life. Probably some more, but that's it off the top. It's a great parable, but certainly not designed to inform you about all the details of the afterlife of heaven and hell. Neither are well defined anywhere in the bible, and the writers who do try to refer to it, do so with different images and hence all the confusion about heaven and hell today. I say don't sweat the afterlife, get the lessons relevant for this life.....which is what the rich man and Larazus parable is all about! Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 18:16:47 GMT -5
It doesn't make much difference to me what you call it - "hell" or "place of punishment". I also draw from the words of Jesus the understanding that there is a separation between those who are "saved" (for want of a better word) and those who are not. "And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed; so that they that would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence". I'm not sure where you're going with that. The issue is purely one of whether hell is eternal or not. The Bible speaks of people coming out of Hell. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Can we assume from that that the "rich man" could also be delivered up from Hell? I don't think you went far enough in your reading of Rev 20. Consider v.15 - "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". It would seem likely to me that the rich man would end up in the "lake of fire" or whatever you like to call it. That would be his ultimate destination after the judgement since his name would be missing from the "book of life".
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 18:50:37 GMT -5
I'm not sure where you're going with that. The issue is purely one of whether hell is eternal or not. The Bible speaks of people coming out of Hell. Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. Can we assume from that that the "rich man" could also be delivered up from Hell? I don't think you went far enough in your reading of Rev 20. Consider v.15 - "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". It would seem likely to me that the rich man would end up in the "lake of fire" or whatever you like to call it. That would be his ultimate destination after the judgement since his name would be missing from the "book of life". I'm familiar with it. It doesn't answer my question to you about people being delivered up from Hell, and in fact, raises more questions, since it concerns the Second Death. Is the "lake of fire" where Satan is thrown after the Second Death the same as Hell after the first death? I feel we take a lot of liberty in linking all these different terms together to indicate the same place, our common notion of Hell in the hereafter. Perhaps these terms are different because they mean different things in different contexts. You'd think if there was a singularity called Hell the name would be consistent throughout the Bible. Also, the translators have taken liberty in taking three distinct words, each with their own historicity and context, and translating them all as Hell. The words are sheol, hades and gehanna. There are also terms like aionios pyr, aionios olethros and aidios desmos. All these terms for one place, or are some of the uses metaphoric, and is the Hell after the first Death the same as the lake of fire after the Second Death? Perhaps the lake of fire is not a place of torment but a place of final destruction. How does 1 Cor 3:11-15 fit into all this? Is it referring to the Hell after Death and linking up with Rev 20:13? Is it referring to the process in which we find the "rich man". If you object to that linkage then on what grounds do you link the "rich man" to a Dante-esque Hell?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 18:53:13 GMT -5
At the risk of not trying to read in far too much to the parable, the story is simply about: The misery of a self-focused, selfish life. The misery of pride vs the peace of humility. The vanity of covetousness. The finality of a wasted life. Probably some more, but that's it off the top. It's a great parable, but certainly not designed to inform you about all the details of the afterlife of heaven and hell. Neither are well defined anywhere in the bible, and the writers who do try to refer to it, do so with different images and hence all the confusion about heaven and hell today. I say don't sweat the afterlife, get the lessons relevant for this life.....which is what the rich man and Larazus parable is all about! Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about. There is certainly no indication of the permanence of Hades in the parable. The fact that they were reconstituted as recognizable human beings on sight makes it even more of a fable-like tale. There is only one intention of the parable: to convince people to change their ways now because they can't change after death. He used the colourful images to scare the bejabbers out of his listeners into changing their lives to be more empathetic, compassionate and humble in this lifetime. The reason so many of the afterdeath images conflict and are unclear is that even if John, Jesus or Paul knew all about it intimately, it is doubtful it could be explained in a way that the human mind can comprehend. Some of the Rev images are pretty wild and can hardly be taken literally and must be viewed metaphorically.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 19:04:59 GMT -5
What Hat: You might not think of God as a God of wrath and maybe that is where your dissonance comes from with regard to belieiving there is a hell. As Irvine Grey stated: For the born again believer there is no conflict between the love of God and the wrath of God. Christians talk about both not just His love as you said. Indeed, that is a different element of dissonance I have not been able to shed. I certainly can accept the idea of the wrath of God. While the notion of eternal Hell is fairly easily dispensed with on a close study of Scripture, and especially in light of the actual history of the Church, the general concept of the wrath of God is unimpeachable. We have evidence of it ready to hand, because suffering and decay are wired into Creation. The idea of Hell as a temporal place of torment is also not difficult to accept as we have plenty of examples of it right here on Earth.
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 19:17:46 GMT -5
At the risk of not trying to read in far too much to the parable, the story is simply about: The misery of a self-focused, selfish life. The misery of pride vs the peace of humility. The vanity of covetousness. The finality of a wasted life. Probably some more, but that's it off the top. It's a great parable, but certainly not designed to inform you about all the details of the afterlife of heaven and hell. Neither are well defined anywhere in the bible, and the writers who do try to refer to it, do so with different images and hence all the confusion about heaven and hell today. I say don't sweat the afterlife, get the lessons relevant for this life.....which is what the rich man and Larazus parable is all about! Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about. Such separations do always occur in a specific context. We like to create more or less enduring divisions of classes of people in our minds, like those who are born again and those who are not, but generally Jesus is categorizing specific behaviors. In this case, it's the rich man ignoring the plight of the needy. And if Jesus is always pointing to specific behaviours, what then does it really mean to be "born again"? I think we put things into the wrong order when we say it's "born again" leads to "heaven" leads to "behaviour on Earth". I believe that "born again" leads to "behaviour on Earth" leads to "heaven". Jesus never said that if you ignore the plight of the needy, but are "born again", that he would just let that go. God will bring every work into judgement.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 19:22:45 GMT -5
Is that in the Hitchhiker's Guide or somewhere else? Somewhere far from Salt Lake City! Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 19:25:30 GMT -5
Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about. There is certainly no indication of the permanence of Hades in the parable. The fact that they were reconstituted as recognizable human beings on sight makes it even more of a fable-like tale. There is only one intention of the parable: to convince people to change their ways now because they can't change after death. He used the colourful images to scare the bejabbers out of his listeners into changing their lives to be more empathetic, compassionate and humble in this lifetime. The reason so many of the afterdeath images conflict and are unclear is that even if John, Jesus or Paul knew all about it intimately, it is doubtful it could be explained in a way that the human mind can comprehend. Some of the Rev images are pretty wild and can hardly be taken literally and must be viewed metaphorically. However I look at this, the idea that the gulf between the destinations of Lazarus and the rich man could somehow be bridged after death is nonsense and flies in the face of the point Jesus was making (however metaphorical a viewpoint one may wish to take).
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 19:53:24 GMT -5
I don't think you went far enough in your reading of Rev 20. Consider v.15 - "And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire". It would seem likely to me that the rich man would end up in the "lake of fire" or whatever you like to call it. That would be his ultimate destination after the judgement since his name would be missing from the "book of life". I'm familiar with it. It doesn't answer my question to you about people being delivered up from Hell, and in fact, raises more questions, since it concerns the Second Death. Is the "lake of fire" where Satan is thrown after the Second Death the same as Hell after the first death? I feel we take a lot of liberty in linking all these different terms together to indicate the same place, our common notion of Hell in the hereafter. Perhaps these terms are different because they mean different things in different contexts. You'd think if there was a singularity called Hell the name would be consistent throughout the Bible. Also, the translators have taken liberty in taking three distinct words, each with their own historicity and context, and translating them all as Hell. The words are sheol, hades and gehanna. There are also terms like aionios pyr, aionios olethros and aidios desmos. All these terms for one place, or are some of the uses metaphoric, and is the Hell after the first Death the same as the lake of fire after the Second Death? Perhaps the lake of fire is not a place of torment but a place of final destruction. How does 1 Cor 3:11-15 fit into all this? Is it referring to the Hell after Death and linking up with Rev 20:13? Is it referring to the process in which we find the "rich man". If you object to that linkage then on what grounds do you link the "rich man" to a Dante-esque Hell? I can't answer all your questions because, frankly, I don't know. How it appeals to me (and I accept that this is just my personal view) is that in Luke 16, Jesus is talking about what happens after death but before the judgement. Rev 20 is dealing with what happens immediately before and after the final judgement (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet). What is crystal clear to me is that I am responsible now for living in such a way that I reach my desired haven. When I die, I believe that my destiny is settled and cannot be changed. I link the rich man to "hell" purely on the words of Jesus.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 20:02:09 GMT -5
There is certainly no indication of the permanence of Hades in the parable. The fact that they were reconstituted as recognizable human beings on sight makes it even more of a fable-like tale. There is only one intention of the parable: to convince people to change their ways now because they can't change after death. He used the colourful images to scare the bejabbers out of his listeners into changing their lives to be more empathetic, compassionate and humble in this lifetime. The reason so many of the afterdeath images conflict and are unclear is that even if John, Jesus or Paul knew all about it intimately, it is doubtful it could be explained in a way that the human mind can comprehend. Some of the Rev images are pretty wild and can hardly be taken literally and must be viewed metaphorically. However I look at this, the idea that the gulf between the destinations of Lazarus and the rich man could somehow be bridged after death is nonsense and flies in the face of the point Jesus was making (however metaphorical a viewpoint one may wish to take). I think the real point is that upon death, the gulf between the wasted life and the virtuous life cannot be bridged retroactively, it's too late.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 20:39:46 GMT -5
However I look at this, the idea that the gulf between the destinations of Lazarus and the rich man could somehow be bridged after death is nonsense and flies in the face of the point Jesus was making (however metaphorical a viewpoint one may wish to take). I think the real point is that upon death, the gulf between the wasted life and the virtuous life cannot be bridged retroactively, it's too late. What is a wasted life? In contrast with a virtuous life.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2014 20:47:50 GMT -5
I think the real point is that upon death, the gulf between the wasted life and the virtuous life cannot be bridged retroactively, it's too late. What is a wasted life? In contrast with a virtuous life. Sort of like "he was wasted at the party last night."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Apr 7, 2014 22:26:26 GMT -5
What is a wasted life? In contrast with a virtuous life. Sort of like "he was wasted at the party last night." So someone who has been incapacitated by alcohol/drugs has lived a wasted life? Or is it mainly a matter of a person's beliefs?
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 22:42:15 GMT -5
There is certainly no indication of the permanence of Hades in the parable. The fact that they were reconstituted as recognizable human beings on sight makes it even more of a fable-like tale. There is only one intention of the parable: to convince people to change their ways now because they can't change after death. He used the colourful images to scare the bejabbers out of his listeners into changing their lives to be more empathetic, compassionate and humble in this lifetime. The reason so many of the afterdeath images conflict and are unclear is that even if John, Jesus or Paul knew all about it intimately, it is doubtful it could be explained in a way that the human mind can comprehend. Some of the Rev images are pretty wild and can hardly be taken literally and must be viewed metaphorically. However I look at this, the idea that the gulf between the destinations of Lazarus and the rich man could somehow be bridged after death is nonsense and flies in the face of the point Jesus was making (however metaphorical a viewpoint one may wish to take). Well, there are a surprising number of people who would disagree with you. This has nothing to do with a metaphorical point of view. In fact, much of the universalist literature takes a very literal view of Scripture. Perhaps you can explain the verses that contradict your view! [Later - okay, I see you addressed that in a later post]
|
|
|
Post by What Hat on Apr 7, 2014 22:49:43 GMT -5
I'm familiar with it. It doesn't answer my question to you about people being delivered up from Hell, and in fact, raises more questions, since it concerns the Second Death. Is the "lake of fire" where Satan is thrown after the Second Death the same as Hell after the first death? I feel we take a lot of liberty in linking all these different terms together to indicate the same place, our common notion of Hell in the hereafter. Perhaps these terms are different because they mean different things in different contexts. You'd think if there was a singularity called Hell the name would be consistent throughout the Bible. Also, the translators have taken liberty in taking three distinct words, each with their own historicity and context, and translating them all as Hell. The words are sheol, hades and gehanna. There are also terms like aionios pyr, aionios olethros and aidios desmos. All these terms for one place, or are some of the uses metaphoric, and is the Hell after the first Death the same as the lake of fire after the Second Death? Perhaps the lake of fire is not a place of torment but a place of final destruction. How does 1 Cor 3:11-15 fit into all this? Is it referring to the Hell after Death and linking up with Rev 20:13? Is it referring to the process in which we find the "rich man". If you object to that linkage then on what grounds do you link the "rich man" to a Dante-esque Hell? I can't answer all your questions because, frankly, I don't know. How it appeals to me (and I accept that this is just my personal view) is that in Luke 16, Jesus is talking about what happens after death but before the judgement. Rev 20 is dealing with what happens immediately before and after the final judgement (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet). What is crystal clear to me is that I am responsible now for living in such a way that I reach my desired haven. When I die, I believe that my destiny is settled and cannot be changed. I link the rich man to "hell" purely on the words of Jesus. Certainly Jesus links the rich man to Hell, but what is Hell exactly? "If Hell is real, then why ...."
|
|
|
Post by snow on Apr 7, 2014 23:48:12 GMT -5
i'm gonna disagree that "Sending someone to eternal hell is murder"...when God starts handing out "the second deaths" it will be justice at play not murder... No it would be murder. However, there is no hell so we don't have to go there after all. If anyone thinks they are right and will be saved and the other religion is wrong and will not be saved then it is their imagination that is damning people to hell, not God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 0:10:34 GMT -5
I can't answer all your questions because, frankly, I don't know. How it appeals to me (and I accept that this is just my personal view) is that in Luke 16, Jesus is talking about what happens after death but before the judgement. Rev 20 is dealing with what happens immediately before and after the final judgement (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet). What is crystal clear to me is that I am responsible now for living in such a way that I reach my desired haven. When I die, I believe that my destiny is settled and cannot be changed. I link the rich man to "hell" purely on the words of Jesus. Certainly Jesus links the rich man to Hell, but what is Hell exactly? "If Hell is real, then why ...."you still can't escape these verses: Luk 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day: Luk 16:20 And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores, Luk 16:21 And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores. Luk 16:22 And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; Luk 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. Luk 16:24 And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luk 16:25 But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented. Luk 16:26 And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. Luk 16:27 Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house: Luk 16:28 For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment. Luk 16:29 Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. Luk 16:30 And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. Luk 16:31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. and its not a "parable" when jesus tells us he speaking a parable(32+15 times in the NT)he calls it a "parable" before he speaks not once is the story above called a "parable"...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2014 0:39:20 GMT -5
i'm gonna disagree that "Sending someone to eternal hell is murder"...when God starts handing out "the second deaths" it will be justice at play not murder... No it would be murder. However, there is no hell so we don't have to go there after all. If anyone thinks they are right and will be saved and the other religion is wrong and will not be saved then it is their imagination that is damning people to hell, not God. I suppose one could argue that assigning someone to eternal hell is not murder but capital punishment. However, even humans in many countries are better than that and do not allow such heinous acts of killing. I wonder if God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Apr 8, 2014 0:45:53 GMT -5
No it would be murder. However, there is no hell so we don't have to go there after all. If anyone thinks they are right and will be saved and the other religion is wrong and will not be saved then it is their imagination that is damning people to hell, not God. I suppose one could argue that assigning someone to eternal hell is not murder but capital punishment. However, even humans in many countries are better than that and do not allow such heinous acts of killing. I wonder if God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better? Ah, I think that you a point there!
Since humans made God in their image (not the other way round like the bible says) maybe God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better?
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 8, 2014 2:07:48 GMT -5
I posted this recently on another thread on the subject of Hell so here goes again. Hell is no myth and it would be so much easier to accept the plight of those who are not saved if it was. In Matthew 25:46 “And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life,” however, eternal punishment can have only one meaning. The unbroken usage of the adjective ‘eternal’ excludes the idea of ‘endlessness’ and forbids us to go the way of universalism in saying that our Lord is teaching here a very long period of corrective detention. The notion of ‘eternity’ in the New Testament excludes the idea of termination; and the noun ‘punishment’ wherever used signifies painful experience. Furthermore the Greek word kolasis (punishment) is a sharing of the fate of the ‘devil and his angels’ as in verse 41, that is the second death of Revelation 21:10 and 14 with all its frightful realities of a final and irreversible change of place and state along with continuing personal life. Can the precise terms used by our Saviour in this passage point in any other direction? New Testament Scholar, Leon Morris observes that ‘the same adjective is applied to both punishment and reward.’ - One group to eternal punishment and the righteous (v37) to eternal life. Morris writes: Jesus is not speaking of some small experience that would be but for a moment, but of that which has no end. He leaves his hearers in no doubt as to the solemnity of what he is saying. Eternal issues are involved, and this is so for those on his right hand and on his left. The above seems to skirt around the issue, but I think you're saying that the word "aionios" means eternal. So, is there a time before eternity began? How would you interpret the phrase "pro chronos aionios" found in 2 Tim 1:9? This phrase would translate as "before time eternal", if "aionios" means "eternal", that is. It's actually translated as "before the world began" indicating a certain malleability to the word "aionios". I think it is important to consider the interpretation of this in its context: [8] Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony about our Lord, nor of me his prisoner, but share in suffering for the gospel by the power of God, [9] who saved us and called us to a holy calling, not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began, [10] and which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Saviour Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel, [11] for which I was appointed a preacher and apostle and teacher, [12] which is why I suffer as I do. But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. [14] By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you.(2 Timothy 1:8-14 ESV) In verses 9 and 10 Paul is looking at the source of our salvation and he tells us’ not because of our works but because of his own purpose and grace, which he gave us in Christ Jesus before the ages began.’ If we trace the river of salvation to its source we must look right back beyond time to a past eternity. The apostles actual words are ‘before eternal times,’ an expression variously rendered, ‘before the ages began’ ESV; ‘before the world began,’ AV; ‘before time began’ JBP and ‘from all eternity’ NEB. In order to put beyond question the truth that God’s destination and election belong to eternity and not to time, Paul uses the aorist participle to indicate that God actually gave us something ( dotheisan) from all eternity in Christ. What he gave us was ‘his own purpose and grace’, a hendiadys for ‘his own purpose of grace.’ His saving purpose was not arbitrary but gracious. It is plain, therefore, that the source of our salvation is not our own works . For God gave us his own purpose in Christ before we did any good works, before we were born and could do any good works, indeed before history, before time, in eternity. The Paul ends with a victory note that tells us that he has no doubt about his salvation and every born again believer should be able to say with Paul, But I am not ashamed, for I know whom I have believed, and I am convinced that he is able to guard until that Day what has been entrusted to me. [13] Follow the pattern of the sound words that you have heard from me, in the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus. [14] By the Holy Spirit who dwells within us, guard the good deposit entrusted to you
|
|
|
Post by irvinegrey on Apr 8, 2014 2:37:14 GMT -5
Do you think Jesus hated everyone, when he certainly hated sin...what you are saying clearday is the same. Is Irvine saying that he hates everyone who is not a Christian? This again is what you are saying. To me wanting to offer salvation to people is love not hate. Plenty of hate from Muslims towards Christians though. I agree the word hate was not what I picked up in the opening post. Personally, I think many Christians, not only Irvine Grey, are in severe cognitive dissonance, if they play the friend, while thinking privately that a Muslim acquaintance is going to Hell for not accepting Jesus Christ. The only way I can reconcile Jesus to a commitment to redemption, or being a propitiation for sin, is that there is no such thing as Hell as we tend to conceive it. Your statement shows how little you know and understand believers who are truly born again of the Spirit of God. Show me someone who claims to be a Christian and has no passion and concern for the lost and I would suggest that their profession is mere lip service but not from a heart that is strangely warmed by the grace of God. Every born again believer should have a concern for the eternal destiny of their fellow man and that does not mean developing friendships that are insincere. God chose us to win others for His Kingdom: [16] You did not choose me, but I chose you and appointed you that you should go and bear fruit and that your fruit should abide, so that whatever you ask the Father in my name, he may give it to you. [17] These things I command you, so that you will love one another. (John 15:16-17 ESV) The born again believer is an ambassador for Christ: [17] Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come. [18] All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; [19] that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation. [20] Therefore, we are ambassadors for Christ, God making his appeal through us. We implore you on behalf of Christ, be reconciled to God. [21] For our sake he made him to be sin who knew no sin, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. (2 Corinthians 5:17-21 ESV) There is no place in the New Testament Church for a silent witness and we too are constrained by the love of Christ to share the message of reconciliation with those who do not know Christ as Saviour – we IMPLORE you on behalf of Christ be reconciled to God. The challenge to every Christian is well expressed by the Scottish preacher, Robert Murray McCheyne: When this passing world is done, When has sunk yon glaring sun, When we stand with Christ in glory, Looking o’er life’s finished story, Then, Lord, shall I fully know— Not till then—how much I owe.
If this to you is ‘severe cognitive dissonance’ then I praise the Lord and say give me more of it because ‘ I have only one life, It will soon be past, Only what is done for Christ will last.'
|
|
|
Post by kencoolidge on Apr 8, 2014 5:38:36 GMT -5
I suppose one could argue that assigning someone to eternal hell is not murder but capital punishment. However, even humans in many countries are better than that and do not allow such heinous acts of killing. I wonder if God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better? Ah, I think that you a point there!
Since humans made God in their image (not the other way round like the bible says) maybe God will start to behave better once humans start to behave better?
DMG I think the book of Judges gives you some historical evidence of just that. Scofield talks about the 7 episodes of Israels rebellion, retribution,repentance,restoration in the book of Judges. jmt ken
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 8, 2014 8:45:48 GMT -5
Yes, I would agree with that (apart from the question mark in my mind as to whether it is a parable at all). But one point that strikes home to me is the permanant separation in the afterlife between the redeemed (if you like) and those who are not. It seems clear to me that this was a point Jesus wished to make and He knew what he was talking about. Such separations do always occur in a specific context. We like to create more or less enduring divisions of classes of people in our minds, like those who are born again and those who are not, but generally Jesus is categorizing specific behaviors. In this case, it's the rich man ignoring the plight of the needy. And if Jesus is always pointing to specific behaviours, what then does it really mean to be "born again"? I think we put things into the wrong order when we say it's "born again" leads to "heaven" leads to "behaviour on Earth". I believe that "born again" leads to "behaviour on Earth" leads to "heaven". Jesus never said that if you ignore the plight of the needy, but are "born again", that he would just let that go. God will bring every work into judgement. For sure, each individual will stand before God and give an accounting of themselves and only of themselves. Kind of like what Jesus told Peter when Peter asked Jesus what John would do....Jesus said something like "What is that to thee? Mind your own business and follow thou me!" paraphrasing there!
|
|
|
Post by sharingtheriches on Apr 8, 2014 8:57:40 GMT -5
I'm familiar with it. It doesn't answer my question to you about people being delivered up from Hell, and in fact, raises more questions, since it concerns the Second Death. Is the "lake of fire" where Satan is thrown after the Second Death the same as Hell after the first death? I feel we take a lot of liberty in linking all these different terms together to indicate the same place, our common notion of Hell in the hereafter. Perhaps these terms are different because they mean different things in different contexts. You'd think if there was a singularity called Hell the name would be consistent throughout the Bible. Also, the translators have taken liberty in taking three distinct words, each with their own historicity and context, and translating them all as Hell. The words are sheol, hades and gehanna. There are also terms like aionios pyr, aionios olethros and aidios desmos. All these terms for one place, or are some of the uses metaphoric, and is the Hell after the first Death the same as the lake of fire after the Second Death? Perhaps the lake of fire is not a place of torment but a place of final destruction. How does 1 Cor 3:11-15 fit into all this? Is it referring to the Hell after Death and linking up with Rev 20:13? Is it referring to the process in which we find the "rich man". If you object to that linkage then on what grounds do you link the "rich man" to a Dante-esque Hell? I can't answer all your questions because, frankly, I don't know. How it appeals to me (and I accept that this is just my personal view) is that in Luke 16, Jesus is talking about what happens after death but before the judgement. Rev 20 is dealing with what happens immediately before and after the final judgement (which, obviously, hasn't happened yet). What is crystal clear to me is that I am responsible now for living in such a way that I reach my desired haven. When I die, I believe that my destiny is settled and cannot be changed. I link the rich man to "hell" purely on the words of Jesus. I have gotten the impression that "hell" is the "grave after earthly life", though admittedly it also speaks of hell as Hades....but Hades has taken on the atmosphere of "fire" and suffering in that fire as the rich man was suffering needing for Abraham to send the poor beggar down into the depths of Hades to give him a spot of water to cool his tongue! Also we read that Jesus went down into hell to deliver the prisoners there...those who had died and who had looked to Jesus' day and they were to be brought into connection with the gospel of Christ in reality and will know resurrection before those on earth will be transfigured and drawn into heaven with Jesus and his saints! The pit of fire seems to be something that is of great suffering...I've heard workers and a preacher or two speak that the pit of fire will be a torment and not unlike that of the rich man, because those people thrust into that will suffer because of not being able to be with God or see His face. Now in Revelations it also speaks about different types of sinners that apparently have not repented that will be "outside the gates of heaven"....again tormented in their minds, hearts and souls that they are not able to enter into heaven as the saints can! I can almost imagine how that would feel and that would be "so close" and still not able to open the doors of heaven and enter therein. The "sins" mentioned are not the unfogiveable sin and yes, adultery is one of them....
|
|