On this board people will debate many topics but will there be debates on the doctrine of Hell? I am a traditionalist who has been reading the views of others with a different perspective such as that of Clark Pinnock who spends a great deal of words trying to explain away the traditionalist argument.
I have both editions of the book 4 Views on Hell and am about to read the arguments of the Metaphorical and Universalist perspectives. But honestly can someone be a true believer and hold to such unorthodox views on Hell? Anyone on this board hold to a non traditional view on Hell?
The doctrine of Hell
Discussion in 'Baptist Theology & Bible Study' started by evangelist6589, May 24, 2016.
Page 1 of 3
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
I guess to begin the discussion, we need to define what exactly you mean by a "traditional view of hell". It's kind of a vague term.
If you mean hell as a literal place where those who die without the grace of God will spend eternity without Him, then I hold to a traditional view.
If you don't mean that, then we'll have a debate. If that's what you believe, well maybe we've finally found some common ground.
Sent from my QTAQZ3 using Tapatalk -
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
But the book 4 Views on Hell either 1996 or 2016 version. -
As a calvinist, would say that Hell is the logical outcome if we want to keep God as being able to Judge with Holiness...
IF a non cal, would see that has God freely accomodating my "free will", for if I choose to reject him here and now, how would I like Him to force me to accept forever more? -
-
If, on the other hand, hell is also non-corporeal can it correctly be said to be a "literal" place?
Does your "traditional view" give any indication of where the "literal" hell is located (if, of course, it is corporeal). Is it in Time or in Eternity? What does "under the earth" mean in the context of Philippians 2:10, and Revelation 5:3 & 13? -
Ok, so I am furious right now at the forum. I had about 8 paragraphs typed out about this subject, but lost it all. I'll have to respond later, due to time constraints.
Edited to add: Some time just opened up. I'm going to type my post in a word document, and then paste it over, that way I won't lose it again. -
-
-
Alright, so hopefully this works this time. I’m breaking a lot of new ground here for me, as I’ve never done much of a study on hell. With that being said, there’s a wall of text incoming, but I’m open to discussion and/or correction.
Firstly, I think it’s important that we distinguish between Hell and the Lake of Fire. Revelation 20:13-15 talks about death and Hell giving up the dead which were in them, who were then thrown into the Lake of Fire. So it appears that there is a distinction to be made.
What do we know about Hell? Well, we know that it was next to paradise, also known as Abraham’s Bosom. However, we know that there was a “great gulf” fixed between them. We also know that Hell is a place of torment with heat, since we know that the rich man was so parched that he was hoping for even a drop of water to roll off of Lazarus’ finger to help quench his thirst.
Mark 9 also talks about the torment in verses 43-48. Five times in those six verses it says “the fire is not quenched”, or a variation. Three times it says “Where their worm dieth not”. So, there will definitely be torment and pain.
Interestingly enough, there appears to be a sleight contradiction here with Revelation. We know that Hell itself is not eternal, as it’s cast into the Lake of Fire later. But, the fire that Hell contains is. Basically, we just simply have to understand that the place of Hell is not eternal, but the torment is. When a soul leaves Hell for the Lake of Fire, it’s just a change of position and not a change of predicament.
We know that when Old Testament saints died, they went to paradise to await the resurrection of Christ. When Christ arose, he took the souls of the saints to Heaven. However, there’s no indication that the souls in Hell ever moved. So, we can deduce that they are still there, awaiting judgment at the Great White Throne at which time they will then be cast into the Lake of Fire.
On the subject of ethereality versus corporeality, I’m inclined to think that Hell is a literal ethereal place while the Lake of Fire is a literal corporeal place. We know that after the resurrection that all the saved will have perfect bodies and live forever basking in God’s glory (although the specifics aren’t exactly known, we just know that we’ll enjoy it). I am of the opinion that the souls of the lost will also be resurrected with perfect bodies, capable of living through eternity future in perfect torment, as opposed to the perfect joy of Heaven. I don’t have any Bible to back this up; it’s just speculation on my part.
As to the location of Hell, it’s my understanding that the historical belief is that Hell is in the center of the Earth. Certainly we know that under the crust of the Earth is molten rock. However, we’ve learned that the center of the Earth is solid. It’s possible that Hell is in a shell in the center of the earth. But it’s more likely that the idea of Hell in the center of the Earth came from the Greek’s “Hades”, which describes both the place of the dead and the deity that oversaw that domain. To the Greeks, when a man died he went to the underworld, which was thought to be literally under the earth. Interestingly enough, the Greeks gave us the tradition of putting pennies on a dead man’s eyes. They used to put coins on dead men’s eyes so that the dead person would have money to pay Charon (also Kharon), the boat keeper who could deliver them to the afterlife across the river Styx in Hades. If they didn’t have the money to pay him, they’d be stuck in limbo until they found a way to pay him. – Side note – This sounds a lot like the beginning of the doctrine of purgatory to me.
As to what the verses mean that you cited TCassidy, there are a few possibilities. One of the likely possibilities is that it is simply a reflection of the belief of the time that Hell was at the center of the earth. I think an even more likely explanation though, is that it is simply a literary device to be all inclusive. Think of a smart aleck kid who heard, “Everything in Heaven and on Earth”. He’d immediately respond with, “What if I was UNDER the Earth?” In my mind the author was simply showing that no one would be left out.
In keeping with my idea that Hell is ethereal, I would say that Hell is a literal ethereal place that is in what we terrestrials would consider another dimension. This is no different than the Angels and Demons that we know are on the Earth, but remain out of sight to us. Does Hell take the same space in the universe as the Earth, only in a different dimension? Possibly, but not necessarily. It really doesn’t matter either way.
To boil it all down, Hell is a literal place of torment where the souls of the lost await final judgment. -
I too believe hell is a place created by God for the punishment of the fallen angelic beings who rebelled against Him. Hell was not created for humans but humans are destined for hell due to sin. And that brings up the next question, "When hell is cast into the Lake of Fire, what is the nature of the Lake of Fire, and where is it?"
My point is, of course, that we tend to over-think some of these things. Hell exists because God says it exists. Hell is located wherever God put it. And Hell is horrible because God said it is.
Here is a great sermon by an old friend of mine who passed away in the late 1970s.
-
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Lots of good replies. Let me respond once at home behind my Mac keyboard.
-
-
Long post all I cam deal with at the moment. -
John 5:28-29 shows all men will be raised, and shows no indication that there are two different types of resurrection body
Romans 5:12-21 shows that because of Adam, all men die physically and because of Christ all men will be raised to "rightness of life" - physical resurrection. It is almost universally misunderstood to mean we are born headed to hell, but the wording and context just don't support that view. It is also corroborated in 1Cor 15:21-22
Then later in 1Corinthians, Paul expounded on the body that dies and the body that will be raised. He is using language which sings to the believer.....
Sown perishable, mortal, weak, dishonorable. Raised imperishable, immortal, in power, honorable.
But he also has mentioned all men being raised, ad does not distinguish a different type for unbeliever.
Interestingly, what drove me to study this indepth was nunerous debates over Paul's use of "natural vs. spiritual" bodies.
A couple of notes about that:
Most seem to understand "spiritual" as spirit-form, and "natural" as physical. But that's waaayyy off the mark.
Natural is immature and carnal. In a word, sin-wrecked
Spiritual is mature and godly. Or not sin-wrecked.
The bodies of believer and unbeliever alike will be raised not able to die. Sin-free flesh -
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
-
evangelist6589 Well-Known MemberSite Supporter
Page 1 of 3