Is there a Hell?

July 29, 2008

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:40 AM)
There may have been one primary lesson that the parable was mean to get across, but that does not preclude other lessons being learned and that is manifold nature of the Scriptures. You simply cannot rest on the idea that since the Jesus had one primary purpose for a given parable that there are not multilple truths to be gleaned from it. The fact is, Jesus still said that the rich man was being tormented in Hades. And it is perfectly legitimate to use that parable to show that truth. You see, the Bible is written in such a manner that any one passage can contain multiple lessons that are collateral to the primary, original focus of the passage.
So you are saying that there are two theological truths to be gleaned from this parable: 1- people won't believe the Messiah, even when he is resurrected, and 2- the nature of Hell.

Oh, I would say there is more than two truths to be gleaned.

Thanks for clarifying. As far as I know, this then is the ONLY parable in the entirety of scripture that conveys two theological issues.

Then you need to study the Parables of the prodical sun, the sower and the see, and wicked husmbandmen a little closer.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE
QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 28 2008, 04:33 AM)
Yeah, we'll just ignore the fact that the rich man was being tormented in the flame 'cause that has nothing to do with the nature of hell. Please...
As I said, it's a parable, a fictional story designed to convey a theological truth (in this case, referring to his resurrection).
The characters may have been fictional, but that does not mean the places described and the conditions they were in were fictional. Often fictional stories and movies are made about fictional people but the events and places used as the backdrop are very real. The movie Titanic for example, comes to mind.
But by the same token often fictional stories and movies are made about fictional people with totally fictional surroundings - the movie/book Lord of the Rings, or Chronicles of Narnia, for example, come to mind. Nothing suggests that the setting is a realistic depiction of Hell, and as it is a parable, there is no reason we should take it that way.

Jesus used fictional and nonfictional settings for His parables. The road to Jericho in the parable of the Good Samaritan was notoriously dangerous. Wedding feasts were very commonplace as well, and also served as a back drop. In fact, there are some in the theological world who are of the conviction that the story of the rich man and Lazarus may not have been fictional at all since it is the only parable where Jesus uses names and includes a nonfictional person, namely Abraham.

Secondly, since Jewish theology had already had the concept of a place of torment in Hades, and since Jesus was never challenged on His picture of the man burning in the flames, it is safe to say that His audience would not have seen Jesus' depiction of hell as out of step with the theology of the day.

I understand what you're saying, and I do agree. I don't agree with everything I've ever read from every scholar I've ever read or every sermon I've ever heard. Beyond that even, not all scholars agree with each other. If not all "credible scholars" agree, why do you put yourself up here as an authority on the scriptures and dictate to everyone else what is right and what is wrong - Doesn't these differences of opinion include the possibility that your understanding of Hell is wrong? I have stated that my view might be wrong (because in the end, we really don't know what the afterlife will be like). So far, you have yet to even make a concession that you might not be right and call everyone else deluded when they disagree.

That is because NONE of those credible scholars disagree about hell and the nature of it. Only the most liberal of theologians (higher critics) reject a literal hell, but when you examine the rest of their theology, you will find they also reject many of stories of the Bible has being literal, such as the plagues of Egypt, the flood of Noah the Deity of Jesus (in some cases), the virgin birth and crossing of the Red Sea. So, ususally, it seems a rejection of the biblical depiction of hell is usually accompanied by a rejection of a number of other supernatural events an occurrences in the Bible as well. I have yet to find a solid conservative mainline scholar who does not believe that sinners will suffer torment in conscious separation from God for all eternity.

Secondly, I am not setting myself up as some kind of authority on anything. I simply believe what the Bible says and I know what it says. There simply some basic, defining elements of the Christian faith that are spelled out so plainly and clearly in the Bible and are so easy to comprehend, people have needed help to misunderstand them.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE
I do get the overriding impression from you that if something agrees with your view, it's a credible source and if it doesn't, then it's wrong. And that's hardly a valid way to find the Truth to anything.
Except that is not how I arrive at the truth of a matter.
That's how you come across on the Forum.

Its not credible becuase I agree with it. I have simply learned which teachers and scholars are more competent and I choose to glean from them. I may not always see eye to eye with them on peripherals, but I know that they are quite competent where the essentials are concerned and I can put the rest on the shelf for the time being.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 29 2008, 04:40 AM)
QUOTE
But don't you see - that's the entire point I was making if you read my rationale. Jesus changes his imagery to contrast the purifying fire of God's Grace in vv49-50 with the condemnatory fires of the earthly gehenna in 43-48!
the fires of Gehenna are not condemnatory. It is the fires of hell are represented by Gehenna that are condemnatory. We simply use the name Gehenna as a namesake for that part of hell where the unrighteous dead will be tormented. It is not that anyone is saying that Gehenna was not a real place on earth, but that Jesus used it as a frame of reference, namely the place in hell where its fires will burn for all eternity.

And you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that you are mistaken on this?

That is like someone from the Flat Earth Society demanding that I admit that I could be wrong about the shape of the planet. There are simply some things are true and I am not going to surrender what is true to accomodate something else. Why would I do that?? Jesus used a trash dump where fires burned perpetually to illustrate what sinners have to look forward to. He used it as a frame of reference to illustrate a place of perpetual burning. I mean you really have to work awfully hard not to see that.

July 29, 2008

I disagree. While these may be the small issues raised within the narrative, you have to remember it was all written as one narrative. As such, the context of the narrative needs to be considerd (for example, the context of the teachings on the Sermon on the Mount encompass 3 full chapters in Matthew. Regardless of the smaller themes within, the context shows it's all part of one encompassing narrative.

One narrative yes, but that does not equal ONE context. That is why, in hermeneutics we examine the immediate context, where it begins and ends.

In a narrative immediate contexts are not necessarily interlocked as they would be prescriptive parts of Scripture Like Romans 4, 5, 6, 7, and 8. That is all one discussion, one line of thought in those five chapters. There is an overall context, but there are also several immediate contexts. Immediate contexts amount to small pericopes that stand on their own but also contribute understand the overarching object the author has in view.

Breaking it down into sections like you showed is what eventually leads to half-quotes and mis-quotes.

Not in a narrative. You need to understand that the rules of context for a descrioptive (narrative) passage are different than for a prescrictive passage like the Sermon on the Mount. In a narrative, the "context" pertains to the event being described and the interpersonal interaction that takes place within the framework of that event. Simply because two events are mentioned in the same chapter does not mean they are part of the same context and are meant to interpret one another.

The thing about the narratives is that we are not really given much a time reference between events and since they are listed one right after the other it gives the impression that they occurred back-to-back. While that may be true in some cases, just because two events are listed side-by-side, it does not necessarilty meant they are related or even occurred immediately back-to-back.

Though the fact that Jesus does leave and go elsewhere at Mark 10:1 does suggest it might be a new train of thought, but since the concepts of both being accepted like little children, and the disciples arguing who is the greatest shows that the theme is continuing through to this section. It is an unresolved issue amongst the Apostles and so is addressed again, thus forming the context of an overall narrative theme.

No, it forms a parallel theme. The context is different somewhat but the theme about James and John does parallel Jesus prior discussion about who will be the greatest in the Kingdom of heaven.

ParanoidAndroid · July 29, 2008

Then you need to study the Parables of the prodical sun, the sower and the see, and wicked husmbandmen a little closer.

Parable of the Prodigal Son - Theological issue: Return to God. You can look at this from the position of the Father/God, or the wicked son who returns (the believer) or the faithful son who holds hate to his brother (the hypocrite). But they all convey the theological truth - Return to God the Father

Parable of the Sower - theological issue: Responses from hearing the word of God.

Parable of wicked husbandmen: I'm not sure which parable this is, I'm afraid. Could you provide a passage reference, please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not sure the third parable, but the other two only convey one Truth, and I've read them both again and cannot see another theological Truth.

Jesus used fictional and nonfictional settings for His parables. The road to Jericho in the parable of the Good Samaritan was notoriously dangerous. Wedding feasts were very commonplace as well, and also served as a back drop. In fact, there are some in the theological world who are of the conviction that the story of the rich man and Lazarus may not have been fictional at all since it is the only parable where Jesus uses names and includes a nonfictional person, namely Abraham.

You have a point. I would still say it's a parable, considering it is written right after a series of other parables in the preceding chapters, and this one starts "There was a rich man" Though Lazarus and Abraham are named, the beginning does have the feel of a parable (though you are right that this is also the only parable to give names of real people).

Secondly, since Jewish theology had already had the concept of a place of torment in Hades, and since Jesus was never challenged on His picture of the man burning in the flames, it is safe to say that His audience would not have seen Jesus' depiction of hell as out of step with the theology of the day.

I think the Jews would disagree with you on that. Jews believe the dead go to "Abraham's Bosom", and it is a peaceful place where all the dead went. They had no concept of tormented hell.

That is because NONE of those credible scholars disagree about hell and the nature of it. Only the most liberal of theologians (higher critics) reject a literal hell, but when you examine the rest of their theology, you will find they also reject many of stories of the Bible has being literal, such as the plagues of Egypt, the flood of Noah the Deity of Jesus (in some cases), the virgin birth and crossing of the Red Sea. So, ususally, it seems a rejection of the biblical depiction of hell is usually accompanied by a rejection of a number of other supernatural events an occurrences in the Bible as well. I have yet to find a solid conservative mainline scholar who does not believe that sinners will suffer torment in conscious separation from God for all eternity.

I think more modern theologians would be less-dogmatic on the view of Hell. Most early scholars based their work on tradition and Hell being a remnant of RCC teaching. As you know, the Catholic Church believes not only the Bible as the sole authority on God, but also believes Tradition is of equal importance, as it also does Papal Authority (the Magesterium). That was one of the reasons why Luther et al broke off and started the Reformation. Hell was one of those Traditions though that they took with them and in many areas still exist today - though in Australia, I can say that it is not a common-taught doctrine - the overriding view is "I don't know what it will be like, but it will be bad and heaven will be better (I do admit my own view of hell-as-destruction is the minority, though I also admit the view of Hell-as-separation is theologically viable, but I don't see pain and torture in this separation).

Secondly, I am not setting myself up as some kind of authority on anything. I simply believe what the Bible says and I know what it says. There simply some basic, defining elements of the Christian faith that are spelled out so plainly and clearly in the Bible and are so easy to comprehend, people have needed help to misunderstand them.

You don't set yourself up as an authority but dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as misguided or deluded or in denial. I also make the claim that I believe the Bible and I also make the claim that I know what it says. I'm just not quite as dogmatic in applying it to things we don't know for certainty.

And you aren't willing to entertain the possibility that you are mistaken on this?
That is like someone from the Flat Earth Society demanding that I admit that I could be wrong about the shape of the planet. There are simply some things are true and I am not going to surrender what is true to accomodate something else. Why would I do that?? Jesus used a trash dump where fires burned perpetually to illustrate what sinners have to look forward to. He used it as a frame of reference to illustrate a place of perpetual burning. I mean you really have to work awfully hard not to see that.

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I can't see the truth that you see, and if that means I have to work awfully hard not to see it, then I've done a good job at missing it. Thanks for the discussion,anyway

July 29, 2008

Just another "hard worker" here. lol Good job maintaining the peace PA. You are already aware of my position to both: the original post and the manner of anothers' posts.

July 29, 2008

Parable of the Prodigal Son - Theological issue: Return to God. You can look at this from the position of the Father/God, or the wicked son who returns (the believer) or the faithful son who holds hate to his brother (the hypocrite). But they all convey the theological truth - Return to God the Father

Parable of the Sower - theological issue: Responses from hearing the word of God.

Parable of wicked husbandmen: I'm not sure which parable this is, I'm afraid. Could you provide a passage reference, please.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I'm not sure the third parable, but the other two only convey one Truth, and I've read them both again and cannot see another theological Truth.

The parable of the wicked husbandmen is found in Matthew 21 and it was a parable agaisnt the pharisees. It is parable rich in many truths.

The prodical son can be viewed from at least three different perspectives.

Even though a parable might have ONE overal primary lesson, that does not preclude many more truths and applications being gleaned from it. The whole Bible is like that. That is why Paul calls it the "manifold" (many-sided) wisdom of God.

I think the Jews would disagree with you on that. Jews believe the dead go to "Abraham's Bosom", and it is a peaceful place where all the dead went. They had no concept of tormented hell.

Yes, they did but the disagreed over particulars. The Jewish people have never been a monolith, and while there may be variations, Jesus referring to a place of torment was not foreign to the people of his day. Even today, some Jews don't believe in hell at all, some do, but only as a place of purification and so forth. It really depends on who you talk to.

think more modern theologians would be less-dogmatic on the view of Hell. Most early scholars based their work on tradition and Hell being a remnant of RCC teaching.

Those who are into the more liberal "Higher Criticism" most definitely would which is why I reject much modern scholarship. Society has a much more liberal bent and it is even reflected in our seminaries which produce graduates who don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, or reject the inerrancy of the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration. Higher critics take much of the Bible as nonliteral and they view some of the stories are just the retelling of already existing myths that the Hebrews incorporated into their own Scriptures. They reject the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and some even go so far denying that Jesus was/is God.

So yes, they would definitely reject what the Bible says about hell.

You don't set yourself up as an authority but dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as misguided or deluded or in denial. I also make the claim that I believe the Bible and I also make the claim that I know what it says. I'm just not quite as dogmatic in applying it to things we don't know for certainty

The problem is that the Bible is quite clear on the Bible and to say we cannot know for certain about hell is basically "denial." That was is a disparagement of you as a person, but to claim that the Bible is at any point ambiguous on the issue is just false. You are simply unprepared to accept that. The Bible is an unambiguous about hell as it is about heaven. Why would people be so ready accept comfortable teachings of the Bible but pretend that the less comfortable teachings of the Bible are somehow unclear?? Why wouldnt the Bible be as equally unclear about what awaits believers in the after life??? I don't find anyone claiming that we cannot know that heaven will be a place of untold pleasure and eternal bliss.

What I find interesting is the "selective clarity" that liberal theology assigns to the Bible. The Bible's teachings on heaven are clearly understood and rarely challenged, but hell is suddenly a controversial topic and the Bible suddenly lacks the ability to be clear on that matter.

Then we're just going to have to agree to disagree, because I can't see the truth that you see, and if that means I have to work awfully hard not to see it, then I've done a good job at missing it.

Whatever, you evidently sit under liberal scholarship and that has affected your outlook.

ParanoidAndroid · July 29, 2008

The parable of the wicked husbandmen is found in Matthew 21 and it was a parable agaisnt the pharisees. It is parable rich in many truths.

Thanks, I'll have a look at it tomorrow when I'm not quite so sleepy.

Even though a parable might have ONE overal primary lesson, that does not preclude many more truths and applications being gleaned from it. The whole Bible is like that. That is why Paul calls it the "manifold" (many-sided) wisdom of God.

I agree to an extent. As you say, there are three points of view (at least) in the Prodigal Son parable, but they are still points of view on the same subject (ie, we should return to the Father, who Loves us).

Those who are into the more liberal "Higher Criticism" most definitely would which is why I reject much modern scholarship. Society has a much more liberal bent and it is even reflected in our seminaries which produce graduates who don't believe in the virgin birth of Jesus, or reject the inerrancy of the Bible and the doctrine of inspiration. Higher critics take much of the Bible as nonliteral and they view some of the stories are just the retelling of already existing myths that the Hebrews incorporated into their own Scriptures. They reject the Bible's condemnation of homosexuality and some even go so far denying that Jesus was/is God.

So yes, they would definitely reject what the Bible says about hell.

I don't consider myself "liberal". i believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, and I believe God has a plan for us all. That said, I do agree with you to some extent that society is creating a lot of liberal scholars. A survey taken in England fairly recently by Anglican/Church of England Bishops claimed that only 1/2 of all bishops believed Jesus was the only way to God. That is scary. However, I think this age of liberalism has also given us a unique perspective to the Bible that was not available to previous generations. As I said, I'm not a liberal who dismisses everything as metaphor. I think if we (you and I) sat down and actually hammered out what each of us believed, we would find far more similarities than we would differences. I don't like labelling myself as to what belief I hold, because I think "Christian" is sufficient (follower of Christ), but if I were to pigeon-hole myself, I would call myself a Conservative-Mainline Protestant with a (very small) liberal leaning.

The problem is that the Bible is quite clear on the Bible and to say we cannot know for certain about hell is basically "denial." That was is a disparagement of you as a person, but to claim that the Bible is at any point ambiguous on the issue is just false. You are simply unprepared to accept that. The Bible is an unambiguous about hell as it is about heaven. Why would people be so ready accept comfortable teachings of the Bible but pretend that the less comfortable teachings of the Bible are somehow unclear?? Why wouldnt the Bible be as equally unclear about what awaits believers in the after life??? I don't find anyone claiming that we cannot know that heaven will be a place of untold pleasure and eternal bliss.

Actually, I would argue against that. I don't know what awaits me in heaven. I would completely disagree with "eternal bliss" - on a human scale, an eternity of feeling only one emotion is scary. I don't know what heaven will be like. I just know that when I get there, my saviour will be there awaiting me, and that is enough for me to know.

What I find interesting is the "selective clarity" that liberal theology assigns to the Bible. The Bible's teachings on heaven are clearly understood and rarely challenged, but hell is suddenly a controversial topic and the Bible suddenly lacks the ability to be clear on that matter.

Obviously not so clear - see section above for details

Whatever, you evidently sit under liberal scholarship and that has affected your outlook.

Only in some aspects. As I said, I definitely believe in the inerrancy of scripture, and I believe in God's sovereign control. But I also see some things that aren't so clear cut. It's what I call the "grey areas" of the Bible. There are things we know for certain - black and white; and there are things we don't know for certain. Liberal or not, Hell (and even Heaven) are not as clear-cut as anyone wants to make them out to be. As such, while I have my opinion, I am content with putting this into the "grey area" category and focusing more on the important part of Christianity - preaching the gospel, encouraging others, Loving my neighbours and my enemies and doing for them what I would do for myself - and above all, putting Christ first as Lord and saviour, Loving him, Loving God with all my heart and soul and mind, and loving my neighbour as myself. As long as I take this blueprint, I think I'm generally on the right path (and if I'm not, I don't think it's something God will send me to hell for. It's why I make such a distinction between essential doctrine (Christ died for our sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, Love God and Love your neighbours and even enemies, Trust God in all you do) and non-essential doctrines (the nature of heaven/hell, or the existence of free will, or the exact beliefs on Eschatology). Essential doctrine is essential, and if one doesn't believe that, they cannot hope to understand Christ's message. The non-essential, I think are points of..... "intellectual interest" (for lack of a better term). As with everyone, I have my belief on the matter, but I am willing to admit I could be wrong on that point, because it is not essential, it is not threatening to my salvation, and it is not impacting on the way I live my life as a follower of Jesus my Lord and Saviour.

Hope that clarifies

ParanoidAndroid · July 30, 2008

The parable of the wicked husbandmen is found in Matthew 21 and it was a parable agaisnt the pharisees. It is parable rich in many truths.

Thanks for the reference - Is this the parable found in vv33-45? I hadn't heard of it before because I have never read a translation that used the word "husbandmen". I've always seen it translated as "tenants". I've just read through it, and I can only see one key theological Truth, the Kingdom of Heaven will be given to those who are Faithful. How many theological truths do you see there?

July 30, 2008

The parable of the wicked husbandmen is found in Matthew 21 and it was a parable agaisnt the pharisees. It is parable rich in many truths.
Thanks for the reference - Is this the parable found in vv33-45? I hadn't heard of it before because I have never read a translation that used the word "husbandmen". I've always seen it translated as "tenants". I've just read through it, and I can only see one key theological Truth, the Kingdom of Heaven will be given to those who are Faithful. How many theological truths do you see there?

1. Jesus' primary focus was to show the Pharisees they had lost their positions as the spiritual leaders of Israel and their positions had been rather given to His disciples, the soon to be "Apostles." Jesus illustrates that the "wicked husbandmen" represent not only the religious leaders of Israel, but all of those leaders of Israel who killed the prophets before them.

2. The "Kingdom" is represented by the Vineyard, which Jesus uses as a metaphor for Israel. The Kingdom has name. It's name is Israel.

3. It is also a key passage to use to combat the heresy of "Replacement Theology" which is the view that the Church is the "new Israel" and that has replaced biblical Israel.

The Bible has more to say in one verse than we see at first. Charles Spurgeon said it best:

"No Scripture is exhausted by a single explanation. The flowers of God's garden

bloom not only double, but sevenfold; they are continually pouring forth fresh fragrance."

~~ angelique ~~ · August 4, 2008

I am finding that more and more Christians do not believe in a literal hell - with fire and brimestone

What do you think?

They're nuts
Could be
This is what the bible really says...

Yeah, it's real.

A vision I had:

In my vision, I am being pulled into flames and, at the same time, being pulled up to heaven. I felt like I was being ripped in two. Then, two angels came and helped to pull me out of the fire when I asked God for help.

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1182558 <-- where I posted the vision.

Anyway, to make a long story short. Another friend who was in the occult, had a similar experience. There are smells from this experiences that can't be described unless you have experienced them.

I used to not believe in hell; however, have an experience like this and you'd have no doubt whatsoever that there is a hell as mentioned in the bible.