Theologica

a bible, theology, politics, news, networking, and discussion site

This topic based on a blog I read a couple of weeks ago. It was about the doctrine of eternal damnation. The writer called it a dangerous and insane doctrine. He claims the the Bible doesn't teach this doctrine and that believing in it can't do anyone a bit of good. Now I won't ask anyone to dispute his claims that scripture doesn't support this particular doctrine. That isn't worth our time because anyone who can read and has read scripture over time already knows that his claim can be considered insane. I just want us to focus on this aspect of the topic. Since the road to destruction is broad and the way to godliness is narrow, and therefore most people are heading for eternal damnation and only a few will receive eternal life;
1.What good can be found in this this doctrine?
2.How can we find comfort in a God that can send the majority of humanity to Hell?

Views: 313

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

Goldcitydance and Brian: Didn't I already refer to Matthew 7 in my earlier point about substantiation found in passages one that points to the plethora of ways not to be saved and another one that points to the plethora of victory in Christ (Rom 5)? Perhaps our interpretative lenses have to come out once more. Is Christ speaking of metaphorically? What's he referring to? Is Paul speaking metaphorically? What is he referring to?

etc.
Rey Reynoso said:
Goldcitydance and Brian: Didn't I already refer to Matthew 7 in my earlier point about substantiation found in passages one that points to the plethora of ways not to be saved and another one that points to the plethora of victory in Christ (Rom 5)? Perhaps our interpretative lenses have to come out once more. Is Christ speaking of metaphorically? What's he referring to? Is Paul speaking metaphorically? What is he referring to?

etc.

Rey!
What are you referring to?
I'm sorry, but I have no idea what you are talking about.
Just in case this isn't an actual case of Point 1 on winning a debate or my previous comment, I'm referring to this:
But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
Rayner Markley said:
He knows those whose desire and effort are toward righteousness and truth. He elects those. His elections are not arbitrary. Of course, human efforts and desires have no chance at all of satisfying God, so God calls and brings salvation to those elect.

Rayner, if God looks into the future to elect those whose desires and efforts are toward righteousness and truth, where does God's mercy and sovereignty fit then? I cite verse 8 of Romans 9: "Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden." If election is truly conditional, as you suggested, why would anyone say to Paul: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?" (verse 19), and why would Paul ask rhetorically: "What then shall we say? Is God unjust?" (verse 14) If election is truly conditional upon our works or desires, someone would instead say: "Then God is indeed just for blaming us, because our efforts do affect God's decision in choosing us. It is ridiculous to question Paul and God on this matter."

I would also like to note that within a short span of six verses in Romans 9, Paul belabors a single point three times - the concept that our election does not depend on man's desire or effort:

1. Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad--in order that God's purpose in election might stand: (verse 11)

2. not by works but by him who calls--she was told, "The older will serve the younger." (verse 12)

3. It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (verse 16)

Rayner, I wasn't always a believer in the doctrine of unconditional election. I was discipled by Arminians when I became a Christian. However, the more I investigate this matter biblically and philosophically, the more I become convinced about the truth of this doctrine. To me, it is hard to understand Romans 8 and 9 fully and clearly without the doctrine of unconditional election.

As for Rey's responses, I need some time to think about what you said. You raised a point I haven't thought of before.
GoldCity, God's sovereignty and mercy are evident because He devised the whole plan of redemption in the first place. He could have made a different plan or could have trashed the creation and started over. Mankind's desire and effort in no way achieve anything with God; it's God's foreknowledge that He uses to elect. Otherwise, His elections are arbitrary and are not based on justice. God is just; He cannot be arbitrary.

Brian, yes I can see that punishment brings glory if it produces reformation or redemption and it restores the balance of justice. But the lake of fire cannot achieve anything like that. It's just a holding place for evil to keep it apart from the rest of God's creation. No glory there.
Brian,

Having not read all of the 71 replies (currently) on this thread (fact of the matter is I'm too lazy), I'm not sure if this was addressed by someone else or not, but here's my $0.02 worth.

The writer of the blog aserts that the doctrine of eternal damnation doesn't do us any bit of good, right? OK...so what? Since when do we judge a doctrine on it's pragmatic value? It is either true, or it isn't (thank you Captain Obvious). The fact that some may not like it doesn't make it any less true or any more false. Last time I checked, we're created for God's glory, not the other way around. That's the problem when doctrine takes a back seat to "felt needs."

With that in mind...

1.What good can be found in this this doctrine?

Irrelevant! As stated above, it is either true, or it isn't. As Brian states in the OP, the Bible clearlt teaches eternal damnation; therefore, it is a fact and not open to debate.

2.How can we find comfort in a God that can send the majority of humanity to Hell?

Whether you want to argue the semantics of "do we choose hell" vs. "does God send us to hell" is all well and good, but doesn't answer the question. I don't think the doctrine of hell is one of those "feel good" doctrines that brings a lot of comfort. What it does do is state in no uncertain terms, that God is a God of justice and righteousness and holiness. It also teaches that sin is serious and has serious (eternal) consequences. It is the perfect counterweight for divine grace (Romans 6:23). The doctrine of grace is made that much more attractive because the alternative is eternal damnation in hell.

Finally, I do find comfort that my God is just, holy and righteous. I find comfort in the fact that God will punish wickedness. I would feel NO comfort in an earthly judge who did not give punishment that fit the crime, so why would I want that in the Judge of the universe? Moreover, I trust in the goodness of God that he will always make the best descision regarding justice.
Carl,
I know at first some of these things just seem obvious but if you'll allow yourself to step back a second you might see things differently. Your statement about the obvious was regarding "eternal damnation in hell". About eternity, are you even sure what that means? A clear understanding of the word is not simply "never ending"; it refers to the next age. Second, damnation does not simply mean "to be exiled to a dark place" The word's history came from the Latin I think, but it refers "to have judgment pronounced upon". We all will receive eternal damnation. As for the word Hell, if you study it you will find that two of its uses in Scripture -mostly New Testament- refer to the Greek ideas of places of dark torment. Only sometimes will it refer to the Old Testament's usage of Sheol not often in the NT. If you study Sheol you will not get far though, because its not that clear. Last of all, where is Hell? That's right, the Bible doesn't say....or does it? What might the belly of the earth mean? Is Dante right then? Remember we still see through a glass darkly.

Quite often people depict God all wrong. Our traditions do this. Mine is guilty. The Bible's God is much more interesting sometimes. God is love and that love is the perfect union of mercy and justice. It comes as no surprise that when people talk about this issue, very seldom do people understand how God's nature is made up of justice and mercy. Love must be both. But what if all it takes is His mercy to set the world right? Doesn't mercy by definition surpass justice? How could, in your view, God be more just than He is merciful? The fact of the matter is, there is room in Scripture for a much more complex God than the simple one you have tried to convince these others of.

What kind of justice does not have an end?
How does justice get served? At what point has the evil been done away with?
How can justice be served if the time is never served?
Who can be in Hell and who could be dead if death and Hell are cast in the lake of fire?
What does fire do (function) throughout the scriptures?
Why do we expect fire to do something else than it normally does in Scripture when we get to the issue of Hell?

I think that you might be as guilty as anyone of creating God in your own image. Perhaps God is much harder to understand. The issue of us choosing God and Him choosing us is not just people arguing over semantics. The reason people ask the questions is because we live in a world with paradoxes. Light for example; it is a wave and a particle. These things seem to contradict, but they don't. They work harmoniously and we don't know how. The Incarnation is another. The famous art work called the "Christ of Sinai" or "Pantocrater" (I think that's spelled right) depicts the two faces of Christ. One side of his face is serious and dark, the other side is brighter and hopeful. Trying to grasp only one side is simple, trying to understand both is...well...almost impossible. But the trying is the thing. To know Him as He has revealed Himself as both Leviathan and Lamb.

Most people I know believe in a universe where evil will have its big dark hole (bigger than heaven to fit everyone) with most of the world's people in it (being of course alive in some sense because of the Holy Spirit) and it will never end and this will be God's plan of putting his enemies under his feet and all things glorifying Him.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I have answered some of these; I have taken a particular stand, all the while understanding that this is the sort of issue that needs to leave room for bending. Truth be known, the Scriptures support a different view than the one you have, or I should say it suggests other possibilities. What I don't want, after actually reading all the pages, and actually trying to rethink the issue, is someone entering the conversation trying to quiet everyone down for asking the right questions; as if the answers were simple.
Rayner Markley said:
Brian, think of our prisons. The fact that they are full of people serving time to satisfy justice doesn't make our country great. The prisons don't glorify us; they shame us. The prisoners belong there of course, but each one represents a failure somewhere along the line---personal, family, society. Think of God's creation in which everything was originally good. What failed? Well, we, the epitome of His creation, failed. So rather than destroy us and start over, God carried out a plan to redeem as many of us as He could, and at great cost to Himself. The fact that He still has to punish those who reject redemption is just but not glorious; it's tragic. He has not gotten them to do what He really would like them to do.

You asked previously about Romans 8 and 9. I believe the strict Calvinist doctrine of election misses the point in those passages. God doesn't begin with election; He begins with His foreknowledge. The text doesn't explain what is meant by foreknowledge, but I take it to mean that God knows the final condition of creation and of all creatures. He knows those whose desire and effort are toward righteousness and truth. He elects those. His elections are not arbitrary. Of course, human efforts and desires have no chance at all of satisfying God, so God calls and brings salvation to those elect. No doubt Paul was greatly affected by his own experience. Although he was a most sincere seeker, his course had no chance of leading him to the truth. When God intervened in his life so dramatically, Paul was overwhelmed with the thought that God must have known and decided all along that He would bring salvation to him.

Hi, Rayner.
Sorry for the delay. I wanted to give your reply some thought. When I read what you've been writing, I get the feeling that you have some strong convictions and preconceived notions about God. I think this is typical for all of us including myself. Now although this is typical, it is also potentially dangerous because we are sinners and our minds have been corrupted by sin. Paul wrote about this in Romans chapter 1, in the second half of the chapter. It is important to identify this aspect of human nature, because it stays with us after our conversion. It rears its head by questioning God's wisdom, goodness, truthfulness and sufficiency. Just remember Eve. We must not let it become a practice for us. If we do, then we'll fall short in growing in the grace and knowledge of God. He is the bread of life. If we reject his life-giving bread for our own, we'll fall out of fellowship with him. After that happens, there is only sin to draw from. There is no “in between”. God equates himself with his word in the first chapter of the gospel of John. So we can't pick and choose what teachings we'll follow. Much time and energy was spent in the canonization of Scripture. We shouldn't disregard that when we find ourselves wandering if these teachings within the Scriptures are truly inspired.
Maybe this isn't the most useful topic for you at the moment. Perhaps it will be helpful to study Bibliology and Hermeneutics if you haven't already.
Here's a direct link;


What I think is most important is to come to God as a child. That is trusting his judgment as best. I know this isn't easy. But the alternative is to do what mankind, described in Romans Chapter 1, did. That is to change the truth of God into a lies and reshape the correct doctrine of God into a more user- friendly doctrine. This is the spiritual warfare that Paul addressed to the Corinthian church, and it's still very much an issue today (questioning the apostles authority and teachings). So be on guard. Our own sinful nature wants to reject God for who he really is. It hates him and will never serve him. It is a virus that must be quarantined so that this new nature of ours will love God and submit to all of his divine Scriptures so that we will grow into the character of his Son.
Carl Gobelman said:
Brian,

Having not read all of the 71 replies (currently) on this thread (fact of the matter is I'm too lazy), I'm not sure if this was addressed by someone else or not, but here's my $0.02 worth.

The writer of the blog aserts that the doctrine of eternal damnation doesn't do us any bit of good, right? OK...so what? Since when do we judge a doctrine on it's pragmatic value? It is either true, or it isn't (thank you Captain Obvious). The fact that some may not like it doesn't make it any less true or any more false. Last time I checked, we're created for God's glory, not the other way around. That's the problem when doctrine takes a back seat to "felt needs."

With that in mind...

1.What good can be found in this this doctrine?

Irrelevant! As stated above, it is either true, or it isn't. As Brian states in the OP, the Bible clearlt teaches eternal damnation; therefore, it is a fact and not open to debate.

2.How can we find comfort in a God that can send the majority of humanity to Hell?

Whether you want to argue the semantics of "do we choose hell" vs. "does God send us to hell" is all well and good, but doesn't answer the question. I don't think the doctrine of hell is one of those "feel good" doctrines that brings a lot of comfort. What it does do is state in no uncertain terms, that God is a God of justice and righteousness and holiness. It also teaches that sin is serious and has serious (eternal) consequences. It is the perfect counterweight for divine grace (Romans 6:23). The doctrine of grace is made that much more attractive because the alternative is eternal damnation in hell.

Finally, I do find comfort that my God is just, holy and righteous. I find comfort in the fact that God will punish wickedness. I would feel NO comfort in an earthly judge who did not give punishment that fit the crime, so why would I want that in the Judge of the universe? Moreover, I trust in the goodness of God that he will always make the best descision regarding justice.

Thank you Carl.
I like the fact the you point out that our feelings for a particular doctrine doesn't take away from its authenticity.
I think the good that can be found in this doctrine is the revelation of a holy and just God who will in the end, "uphold righteousness" (as you stated).
Furthermore, not all of Scripture is comforting or even meant to be. In the "Great Day of the Lord", God will wipe away all of his people's tears. So doctrine alone isn't enough. We also need his grace for that comfort. Just think of an unsaved family member or even an entire family, that one has been praying for, being wiped out in a day. I believe his grace is what gets us through it. Not just being thankful for our own salvation, which would strike me as narcissistic. Don't you think?
Thanks again.
God Bless You Buddy.
Christ spoke of Hell when he talked about the rich man he also talked about raise the those to life and others to judgement?

4christ

Mark Caldwell said:
Carl,
I know at first some of these things just seem obvious but if you'll allow yourself to step back a second you might see things differently. Your statement about the obvious was regarding "eternal damnation in hell". About eternity, are you even sure what that means? A clear understanding of the word is not simply "never ending"; it refers to the next age. Second, damnation does not simply mean "to be exiled to a dark place" The word's history came from the Latin I think, but it refers "to have judgment pronounced upon". We all will receive eternal damnation. As for the word Hell, if you study it you will find that two of its uses in Scripture -mostly New Testament- refer to the Greek ideas of places of dark torment. Only sometimes will it refer to the Old Testament's usage of Sheol not often in the NT. If you study Sheol you will not get far though, because its not that clear. Last of all, where is Hell? That's right, the Bible doesn't say....or does it? What might the belly of the earth mean? Is Dante right then? Remember we still see through a glass darkly.

Quite often people depict God all wrong. Our traditions do this. Mine is guilty. The Bible's God is much more interesting sometimes. God is love and that love is the perfect union of mercy and justice. It comes as no surprise that when people talk about this issue, very seldom do people understand how God's nature is made up of justice and mercy. Love must be both. But what if all it takes is His mercy to set the world right? Doesn't mercy by definition surpass justice? How could, in your view, God be more just than He is merciful? The fact of the matter is, there is room in Scripture for a much more complex God than the simple one you have tried to convince these others of.

What kind of justice does not have an end?
How does justice get served? At what point has the evil been done away with?
How can justice be served if the time is never served?
Who can be in Hell and who could be dead if death and Hell are cast in the lake of fire?
What does fire do (function) throughout the scriptures?
Why do we expect fire to do something else than it normally does in Scripture when we get to the issue of Hell?

I think that you might be as guilty as anyone of creating God in your own image. Perhaps God is much harder to understand. The issue of us choosing God and Him choosing us is not just people arguing over semantics. The reason people ask the questions is because we live in a world with paradoxes. Light for example; it is a wave and a particle. These things seem to contradict, but they don't. They work harmoniously and we don't know how. The Incarnation is another. The famous art work called the "Christ of Sinai" or "Pantocrater" (I think that's spelled right) depicts the two faces of Christ. One side of his face is serious and dark, the other side is brighter and hopeful. Trying to grasp only one side is simple, trying to understand both is...well...almost impossible. But the trying is the thing. To know Him as He has revealed Himself as both Leviathan and Lamb.

Most people I know believe in a universe where evil will have its big dark hole (bigger than heaven to fit everyone) with most of the world's people in it (being of course alive in some sense because of the Holy Spirit) and it will never end and this will be God's plan of putting his enemies under his feet and all things glorifying Him.

I'm not saying I have all the answers, but I have answered some of these; I have taken a particular stand, all the while understanding that this is the sort of issue that needs to leave room for bending. Truth be known, the Scriptures support a different view than the one you have, or I should say it suggests other possibilities. What I don't want, after actually reading all the pages, and actually trying to rethink the issue, is someone entering the conversation trying to quiet everyone down for asking the right questions; as if the answers were simple.
Why do many of you on here always say things like "God is just and holy" as a way of validating your view of a never ending hell for most of creation. Why does no one say, "God is love, therefore most of creation must burn forever?" Why not make sense of it that way. Can you? Why ignore the other side of God. Love is just, but it is also merciful.

Did anyone read my post or was it too long?

Did any of you come to conclusions about hell from scripture without scripture contradicting itself ?
I read your post, a good one at that! I can make neither heads nor tails of what hell is. There is so much folk lore tied into what is taught about it from the pulpit, that is neither biblical nor logical. I lean toward the idea that there is a merciful annihilation of sorts, only because of how merciful God has been to me, but I wouldn't bet anything on that premise. I know that I will spend eternity with my Jesus and so hell or the theology of hell isn't of utmost importance to me. It makes me sad when I see the doctrine of hell used as an attempt to scare people into conversion.



Mark Caldwell said:
Why do many of you on here always say things like "God is just and holy" as a way of validating your view of a never ending hell for most of creation. Why does no one say, "God is love, therefore most of creation must burn forever?" Why not make sense of it that way. Can you? Why ignore the other side of God. Love is just, but it is also merciful.

Did anyone read my post or was it too long?

Did any of you come to conclusions about hell from scripture without scripture contradicting itself ?

Reply to Discussion

RSS

Sponsors

Linkologica

Blog Resources

Arminian Today

Anyabwile

Bock

Called to Communion

Challies

Classical Arminianism

Craig

Christian Answers For The New Age

Christians in Context

Conversation Diary (catholic)

Continuationism.com (marv & scott)

Desiring God blog

DeYoung

First Things

Fr. Stephen (eastern orthodox)

 

Internet Monk

KJV Only Debate (jason s.)

 

Köstenberger

Lisa Robinson - TheoThoughts

Mohler

McKnight

National Catholic Register (catholic)

Parchment & Pen

Pierce

Re-Fundamentals

Resurgence

Roberts

Roger Olson

Taylor

Team Pyro

The Apologist's Pen

Untamed Spirituality

WDTPRS (catholic)

Witherington

 

Theological Resources

BioLogos

Center for Reformed Study and Apologetics

Creeds and Confessions

Christian Classics Ethereal Library

Council of Biblical Manhood and Womenhood (complementarian)

The Center for Bibical Equality (Egalitarian)

Evangelical Theological Society

Monergism.com

Reclaiming the Mind Ministries

Society of Evangelical Arminians

Theopedia

Theological Word of The Day

Tyndale House Bulletin

 

Church History

Early Christian Writings

Glimpes of Church History

 

Christian Traditions

Book of Concord

Catholic.com

Eastern Orthodox

Orthodox Catechism

 

Apologetics

CARM

Lennox

Reasonable Faith

RZIM

Stand to Reason

Tektonics

 

Bible Study

Bible Gateway

Bible Researcher

Blue Letter Bible

Bible.org

IVP New Testament Commentaries Online

 

Online Bible and Theology Education

Biblical Training

The Theology Program

 

Theology and Bible MP3s

Covenant Seminary

263 Theology Questions and Answers

Veritas Forum

 

Theologica Chat Room

MiRC Chat

Badge

Loading…

Get the Widget


Sponsor



Bible Options




© 2014   Created by Michael Patton.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service

/*============================================================================================ /*============================================================================================