Rob Bell And Eternal Hell

[mercyngrace]

We can hope. The conundrum is the one third of the angels that fell along with Lucifer. Why would a being reject God when he has seen and experienced his presence and power?

Well, in fairness, we don't know what they have and haven't seen.

Many Jews saw the Lord but because He appeared as nothing more than the carpenter's son, they rejected Him.

[zerinus]

MnG,

The problem with the analogy offered, is that if we are truly locked in a dark room, so to speak. Well it is God who has locked us in it. I don't think he has.

Sure Paul said we did see darkly, but this doesn't mean we don't have access to light. He also said, in Ephesians 5:8 "For ye were sometimes darkness, but now are ye light in the Lord: walk as children of light:"

Bold mine MnG. I think it's a false dichotomy.

Regards,

Mudcat

Mormonism is not a "universalist" religion. It doesn't teach that everyone will be saved. There is a sin that is "unpardonable," for which there is "no forgiveness, in this life or the next". But it does teach that hell is not a permanent place for everyone, which is a biblical teaching. According to the Bible, not all the wicked will suffer the same punishment. Some will be beaten with "few stripes" while other will be beaten with "many stripes," depending on the seriousness of their sins (Luke 12:47-48). Likewise, heaven is not the same for everyone either. Some will receive a "greater reward" than others in heaven (Matthew 5:11-12; Luke 6:22-23).

[zerinus]

Well, in fairness, we don't know what they have and haven't seen.

Many Jews saw the Lord but because He appeared as nothing more than the carpenter's son, they rejected Him.

Not quite:

John 15

:

24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

[Hughes]

Well, in fairness, we don't know what they have and haven't seen.

Many Jews saw the Lord but because He appeared as nothing more than the carpenter's son, they rejected Him.

You are correct, we don't know what Lucifer, and one third of the angels saw or not. It remains a conundrum though, that 33% of the beings in God's presence would reject him. Which I don't think is comparable to the Jews, who weren't in the presence of God (as in a witness to all of his glory and power), as Jesus was clothed with humanity.

[mercyngrace]

Not quite:

John 15

:

24 If I had not done among them the works which none other man did, they had not had sin: but now have they both seen and hated both me and my Father.

This sin isn't unpardonable, though Zerinus. The Comforter wasn't sent until after the ascension.

[Mudcat]

Simply a matter of interpretation, I would imagine. And, I am probably more a philosopher than a religionist, at this point. You didn't give any specific scripture to discuss, so I'll just say that I know there is a lot scripture in the Bible that points towards God wanting all to be saved. Can he save us all? I certainly believe so. I believe that is his intention.

1 Timothy 2:1 I urge, then, first of all, that petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— 2 for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness. 3 This is good, and pleases God our Savior, 4 who wants all people to be saved and to come to a knowledge of the truth.

Libs,

My apologies for a lack of Scripture reference. There is a lot of Scripture that indicates that hell is a reality. I won't bother siting all the verses. I will site those that Christ spoke in the Gospel accounts.

Mat 5:22 But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 5:30 And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Mat 10:28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell. [This one seems to support annihilation]

Mat 11:23 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted unto heaven, shalt be brought down to hell: for if the mighty works, which have been done in thee, had been done in Sodom, it would have remained until this day.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

Mat 18:9 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Mat 23:15 Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Mat 23:33 Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Mar 9:43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mar 9:45 And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Luk 10:15 And thou, Capernaum, which art exalted to heaven, shalt be thrust down to hell.

Luk 12:5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

And then there was Christ's story of Lazarus.

Luk 16:14 And the Pharisees also, who were covetous, heard all these things: and they derided him.

Luk 16:15 And he said unto them, Ye are they which justify yourselves before men; but God knoweth your hearts: for that which is highly esteemed among men is abomination in the sight of God.

Luk 16:16 The law and the prophets were until John: since that time the kingdom of God is preached, and every man presseth into it.

Luk 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.

Luk 16:18 Whosoever putteth away his wife, and marrieth another, committeth adultery: and whosoever marrieth her that is put away from her husband committeth adultery.

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 lifted 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.

.............

Those were Christ's direct references to hell. Though there are certainly inferences by him, as well

Mat 8:10 When Jesus heard it, he marveled, and said to them that followed, Verily I say unto you, I have not found so great faith, no, not in Israel.

Mat 8:11 And I say unto you, That many shall come from the east and west, and shall sit down with Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, in the kingdom of heaven.

Mat 8:12 But the children of the kingdom shall be cast out into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 22:13 Then said the king to the servants, Bind him hand and foot, and take him away, and cast him into outer darkness; there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen.

Mat 25:29 For unto everyone that hath shall be given, and he shall have abundance: but from him that hath not shall be taken away even that which he hath.

Mat 25:30 And cast ye the unprofitable servant into outer darkness: there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 25:40 And the King shall answer and say unto them, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brethren, ye have done it unto me.

Mat 25:41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

..........

Other than those direct inferences there are metaphoric examples in Christ's teachings as well

Mat 7:19 Every tree that bringeth not forth good fruit is hewn down, and cast into the fire.

Mat 7:20 Wherefore by their fruits ye shall know them.

Mat 7:21 Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.

Mat 13:40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Mat 13:41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

Mat 13:42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Mat 13:43 Then shall the righteous shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Joh 15:5 I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing.

Joh 15:6 If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.

Most of us, self included don't like the notion of hell, and those who accept it struggle with the concept. But, I don't see how after a read through of this, one could draw a conclusion that God isn't going to separate those who want no part of him from those that do. This is what Christ taught and to disregard it, is to put our own personal struggles with his teachings above his teachings IMO.

You seem to challenge this notion, as Bell does with your rhetorical question. "Can God save us all?".. of course Bell would say, "Does God get what he wants?"

I would counter with my own rhetorical question. "Can God make us do what he wants us to do?"

I don't think he can. If he could, we would all be doing what he wants right now wouldn't we?

YES, exactly. We will know, as we glimpse his glory...and the more we "see" the more we will want that life with him.

Yes, just like doubting Thomas, some of us need more proof...and God is willing to give it.

Given the Lazarus story, I think Christ recognizes that there are some who will choose to be unpersuaded regardless of the level of "proof" they are given. Though I don't blame your partiality towards this view, I will tell you that I think your own thoughts are inconsistent with his teaching on the matter.

Oh, I think some people will spend time in a hell of their own making. I just don't think it will be eternal (and it won't be because God "requires it").

Bold mine, what do you mean by a hell of their own making? and what do you think is the determining factor in why a person goes to their own personal hell?

As for agency, I do believe we have a large degree of free will...and I do believe we create our own hells, here on earth and probably in the afterlife, as well. It's very possible, maybe even probable, that people will spend some time in those hells of their own making, now and even after death. I just don't believe it will be eternal. I think God's door is always open and we will eventually "get it" and gravitate towards him.

Bold mine, when it comes to free agency, the concept isn't measurable in degrees. It is either something we have or don't have.

[WalkerW]

The whole approach of "the Bible teaches..." is a bit naive. The Bible is not a univocal book. To assume it is is to ignore historical and cultural context. The concept of "hell" and the afterlife changed and developed over time. Those interested in this development should see Bernhard Lang, "Afterlife," Bible Review (Feb. 1988).

[zerinus]

The whole approach of "the Bible teaches..." is a bit naive.

It is a fundamental assumption of theology that scripture teaches a consistent doctrine. It is inspired of God (even though it is written by different authors), and it teaches a consistent theology. Were that not the case, theology (based on revelation) could not exist. Peter's injunction is taken at face value:

2 Peter 1

:

19 We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:

20 Knowing this first, that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation.

21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

And also Paul's:

2 Timothy 3

:

16 All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:

17 That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.

The Bible is not a univocal book. To assume it is is to ignore historical and cultural context.

The Bible is considered "uni-vocal" insofar as it teaches a consistent theology.

The concept of "hell" and the afterlife changed and developed over time. Those interested in this development should see Bernhard Lang, "Afterlife," Bible Review (Feb. 1988).

I don't plan to read the book; but I assume you have read it; so you are welcome to quote from it to enlighten us as to how it disproves that the Bible teaches a consistent theology.

[mercyngrace]

What is interesting to me about Bible references to hell is that, in spite of the use of words like everlasting, eternal, forever, this state is clearly temporary.

Not only does Ps. 16 record David's grateful praise that his soul won't be left in hell forever but the Bible indicates that Jonah was in the depths of hell for a whopping 3 days until he cried out for mercy.

Both of these instances are amazingly consistent with LDS theology. In the case of David, hell being a place of purification for telestial souls prior to the ultimate returning of the kingdom to the Father (D&C 76) and Jonah's story being a parallel of the conversion of Alma the younger (Alma 36).

The idea that hell is temporary and that words like "everlasting" are not references to time is also consistent with LDS teachings (D&C 19).

The Bible supports the LDS/Rob Bell position perfectly, IMO.

[Kenngo1969]

Two questions: (1) Who the He!! is Rob Bell? (Oh, come on! I didn't mean to swear; I was just doing it to get in a nice rhyme! ) and (2) Why should I care?

[Hughes]

What is interesting to me about Bible references to hell is that, in spite of the use of words like everlasting, eternal, forever, this state is clearly temporary.

Not only does Ps. 16 record David's grateful praise that his soul won't be left in hell forever but the Bible indicates that Jonah was in the depths of hell for a whopping 3 days until he cried out for mercy.

Both of these instances are amazingly consistent with LDS theology. In the case of David, hell being a place of purification for telestial souls prior to the ultimate returning of the kingdom to the Father (D&C 76) and Jonah's story being a parallel of the conversion of Alma the younger (Alma 36).

The idea that hell is temporary and that words like "everlasting" are not references to time is also consistent with LDS teachings (D&C 19).

The Bible supports the LDS/Rob Bell position perfectly, IMO.

So, how do you view this passage of scripture?

Rev. 20:10 And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

11 And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them.

12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.

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.

14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Based on D&C 19:10 For, behold, the amystery of godliness, how great is it! For, behold, I am bendless, and the punishment which is given from my hand is endless cpunishment, for dEndless is my name. Wherefore—

11aEternal punishment is God’s punishment.

12Endless punishment is God’s punishment.

To be consistent wouldn't that mean that the whole Lake of fire punishment is temporary?

[Mudcat]

Of course, you are right, we have access to the light in varying degrees. For God to be just, our post-mortal inheritance has to take into account the limitations of our earthly experience. Can God be just if He damns the Asian man who lived in 1000 b.c. and never knew Christ? Or my neighbor's 7 year old who died in an accident before being saved? How about the countless people who die in disease ridden squalor in Africa before receiving their airlifted Bible and rice packet from well-meaning American Christians?

What allowance does mainstream Christianity make for these people who live out their lives in, by our standard, the dark?

Bold mine. I can't proclaim to speak for all who are "mainstream Christians". There are a number of views on hell. Most agree that hell is eternal and most agree that it's a one way trip if you go there. I think at least in regards to the 7 year old, most would say the child was not yet a point in which the child would be held accountable to God.

As to the other two scenarios. I gave my thoughts to something along these lines on a thread in the archives.Here and here.

In short,I actually fall into to modes of thought when talking about the fate of the unevangelized.

Both rest upon the premise that not only is God aware of what we do, but also He is aware of what we would have done had our circumstances been different.

One possibility is that God is aware the 1000 BC Asian man and the Africans waiting for rice and a Bible would not have accepted Christ had the Gospel been presented to them, thus they were not presented with it. I don't like this view personally, it's either deterministic or compatibilistic in regards to free will. But if such is actually the case, then I would willingly recognize that God must have had sufficient reason for such action.

The speculative view I trend towards, is that God is aware of what people would have done had they been given more knowledge or more "light" if you will and is aware that the Gospel will not reach the ears of many it would be persuasive to. I also think such people would by virtue, be good stewards of what light they have been given and God would hold that in consideration and make provision for them in some respect.

In the most direct sense, I think it possible that at the future time when every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Christ is Lord, that there are those who through ignorance had never heard of him before and will arise in loving acceptance of Him and His Grace.

[mercyngrace]

To be consistent wouldn't that mean that the whole Lake of fire punishment is temporary?

I would say that it's a possibility. Yes.

Fire, in scriptural terms, often symbolizes a purifying agent or the process of sanctification. If or for how long it takes those sons of perdition, the only ones D&C 76 says will suffer the second death, to become sanctified is anyone's guess. Earlier in the thread, I posted a quote explaining Brigham Young's theory of the disintegration (for lack of a better description). I personally don't have any theories.

At this point I accept the simple answer that we don't know. And according to D&C 76, we can't know unless we are partakers of the same fate.

Still hope springs eternal.

[mercyngrace]

One possibility is that God is aware the 1000 BC Asian man and the Africans waiting for rice and a Bible would not have accepted Christ had the Gospel been presented to them, thus they were not presented with it. I don't like this view personally, it's either deterministic or compatibilistic in regards to free will. But if such is actually the case, then I would willingly recognize that God must have had sufficient reason for such action.

For the reason you gave, whichI underlined, I also dslike this view.

The speculative view I trend towards, is that God is aware of what people would have done had they been given more knowledge or more "light" if you will and is aware that the Gospel will not reach the ears of many it would be persuasive to. I also think such people would by virtue, be good stewards of what light they have been given and God would hold that in consideration and make provision for them in some respect.

In the most direct sense, I think it possible that at the future time when every knee shall bow and tongue confess that Christ is Lord, that there are those who through ignorance had never heard of him before and will arise in loving acceptance of Him and His Grace.

Agreed. I believe God will make provision and hearts will soften as ignorance is done away.

[Libs]

Most of us, self included don't like the notion of hell, and those who accept it struggle with the concept. But, I don't see how after a read through of this, one could draw a conclusion that God isn't going to separate those who want no part of him from those that do. This is what Christ taught and to disregard it, is to put our own personal struggles with his teachings above his teachings IMO.

I never said that some/many would not be separated from God. I think most of us are experiencing that separation, right now. However long that separation will be, is dependent on us, as individuals. For some, the separation may be very long, into the eternities. For others, it may be a shorter time. I only deny that it will be "forever" (although, it might seem like forever)..

You seem to challenge this notion, as Bell does with your rhetorical question. "Can God save us all?".. of course Bell would say, "Does God get what he wants?"

I would counter with my own rhetorical question. "Can God make us do what he wants us to do?"

I don't think he can. If he could, we would all be doing what he wants right now wouldn't we?

I believe God could "make us", however, he won't force us. But, will he lovingly help us and encourage us? Of course.

Given the Lazarus story, I think Christ recognizes that there are some who will choose to be unpersuaded regardless of the level of "proof" they are given. Though I don't blame your partiality towards this view, I will tell you that I think your own thoughts are inconsistent with his teaching on the matter.

For awhile, maybe. I doubt they will remain unconvinced forever.

Bold mine, what do you mean by a hell of their own making? and what do you think is the determining factor in why a person goes to their own personal hell?

People who are convinced that such a place exists, create it with their own minds, and may well experience it, after death (for awhile). There is a lot of power in our thoughts.

Bold mine, when it comes to free agency, the concept isn't measurable in degrees. It is either something we have or don't have.

I would very much disagree with that. Someone, along time ago, in explaining a Calvinist view of free will, described it as a circle within a circle. We are free to act within the confines of the inner circle, but we are also being acted upon (by God) who is the bigger, outer circle. I think that's, probably a pretty good explanation of the amount of agency we have. There are always other, outside forces, beyond our control (God, the weather, culture, any number of things that work on us, often without even our conscious knowledge). Agency is not an all or nothing concept.

Thanks for the Bible verses. I know that the Bible speaks about "hell", but I also know there are many interpretations of those verses. I don't think Jesus really taught hell in the way most Ev's interpret it, these days.

[LeSellers]

You are correct, we don't know what Lucifer, and one third of the angels saw or not. It remains a conundrum though, that 33% of the beings in God's presence would reject him.

It's a mistake to equate "the third part" from Revelation to mean 33.33333333333333333333333333....% (⅓). That's not what John wrote.

It may well be that the "third part" was a fraction, but it could also mean that there were (at least) three groups of angels (in your understanding), and the first two parts kept their "first estate", and that only Satan and his followers "kept not their first estate". It could even be that there were many more than three groups, and there was some way of distinguishing among them all such that the satanic group was the third among the many, like "the third platton", or "the third grade".

Lehi

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's a mistake to equate "the third part" from Revelation to mean 33.33333333333333333333333333....% (⅓). That's not what John wrote.

It may well be that the "third part" was a fraction, but it could also mean that there were (at least) three groups of angels (in your understanding), and the first two parts kept their "first estate", and that only Satan and his followers "kept not their first estate". It could even be that there were many more than three groups, and there was some way of distinguishing among them all such that the satanic group was the third among the many, like "the third platton", or "the third grade".

Lehi

All the verse says is "A 1/3 part". A 1/3 part of what? Is the follow up question. We don't know.

[LeSellers]

All the verse says is "A ⅓ part". A ⅓ part of what? Is the follow up question. We don't know.

Techniically, you're just a tad off.

The quotation (which I can't access right now) is "the third part of the stars of heaven" (τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). The use of the definite article implies that there were two (or more) other parts, rather than the fraction. The Greeks (like their neighbors the Jews and Romans) had no way to express fractions other than language, so we're not able to say with absolute certitude that any of the alternatives is correct.

That said, we can have some assurance that it was not a precise division into thirds.

Lehi

[Nathair/|\]

It's a mistake to equate "the third part" from Revelation to mean 33.33333333333333333333333333....% (⅓). That's not what John wrote.

It may well be that the "third part" was a fraction, but it could also mean that there were (at least) three groups of angels (in your understanding), and the first two parts kept their "first estate", and that only Satan and his followers "kept not their first estate". It could even be that there were many more than three groups, and there was some way of distinguishing among them all such that the satanic group was the third among the many, like "the third platton", or "the third grade".

Lehi

There is some lore, which I have mentioned on here before but we have a lot of new people since then, that those who were neither on the side of YHWH nor on the side of Lucifer became the Fair Folk. (I don't really buy it--I have some different ideas of my own--but it's interesting.)

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

Techniically, you're just a tad off.

The quotation (which I can't access right now) is "the third part of the stars of heaven" (τὸ τρίτον τῶν ἀστέρων τοῦ οὐρανοῦ). The use of the definite article implies that there were two (or more) other parts, rather than the fraction. The Greeks (like their neighbors the Jews and Romans) had no way to express fractions other than language, so we're not able to say with absolute certitude that any of the alternatives is correct.

That said, we can have some assurancwe that it was not a precise division into thirds.

Lehi

Well, you are of course correct. Thanks for the more nuanced discussion.

[volgadon]

The Bible is considered "uni-vocal" insofar as it teaches a consistent theology.

Pardon the pun, but does the phrase "teeth set on edge" ring any bells?

I don't plan to read the book; but I assume you have read it; so you are welcome to quote from it to enlighten us as to how it disproves that the Bible teaches a consistent theology.

It is an article, but we are well used to your theological rulings and lofty dismissal of any counter evidence.

"While King Josiah’s reform outlawed certain traditional practices concerning the dead, it did not create new beliefs to replace earlier traditions regarding life after death. A more philosophical examination of the meaning of death and the afterlife appears, however, in the Book of Job, which dates from the fifth century B.C. Continuing the trend begun in the eighth century with King Hezekiah, the Book of Job devalues the role of the dead. It recognizes that, when one’s earthly life ceases, one is cut off permanently from life on earth, without communication either way, and, perhaps worse, one is cut off from God himself. Job, in his suffering, longs to go to Sheol until the time when God will remember him, but he knows that will not be; there is no hope of this. The Book of Job proclaims that the dead have no knowledge of the living; they cannot influence those on earth. Although a dead man’s descendants may honor him, he knows nothing of it (Job 14:21).8 The communication between ancestor and offspring, so vital in polytheistic thought and ritual, disappears. The living and the dead are eternally separated"

This contrasts with the account of Saul having Samuel raised from the dead.

[Mudcat]

I would very much disagree with that. Someone, along time ago, in explaining a Calvinist view of free will, described it as a circle within a circle. We are free to act within the confines of the inner circle, but we are also being acted upon (by God) who is the bigger, outer circle. I think that's, probably a pretty good explanation of the amount of agency we have. There are always other, outside forces, beyond our control (God, the weather, culture, any number of things that work on us, often without even our conscious knowledge). Agency is not an all or nothing concept.

Your friend was a compatabilist, it seems. Of the ways Calvinists address the notion of free will, this is the most favorable position. Though compatibilism seems to recognize free will, it has it's problems. On the one hand it recognizes we have free will, but it also places God's will as sovereign over us.

In short, what we do of free will is completely compatible with God's will. Your friend very amiably stated the position, but what is problematic is, given compatibilism.

When someone freely chooses to sin, reject God, and so forth this is actually God's will that they do so. There is a contradiction in that, I think. Or at least that is the problem I see with it. I'm no expert on it, CKSalmon is the resident Calvinist compatibilist, maybe he will give his 2 cents on the matter if he is about.

Thanks for the Bible verses. I know that the Bible speaks about "hell", but I also know there are many interpretations of those verses. I don't think Jesus really taught hell in the way most Ev's interpret it, these days.

Your welcome.

Bold mine. I tend to agree with you. However, I think the Universalistic slant that Bell seems to be taking is irreconcilable with Christ's teachings.

Though there may be some emotionally appealing arguments for such, I think the view is insoluble with Christ's teachings as given in the Bible.

This is one of those spots where things get intractable, in regards to how we both see things.

I don't have much in the way to offer beyond what I have said. I suppose this is one of those things we will have to agree to that we see differently on, but hopefully love each other nonetheless.

Kindest Regards,

Mudcat

[Nathair/|\]

Didn't Paul say something about God wanting everybody to be saved?

[Libs]

Yes. I quoted that scriptue somewhere up there. 1 Timothy.

[Libs]

Your friend was a compatabilist, it seems. Of the ways Calvinists address the notion of free will, this is the most favorable position. Though compatibilism seems to recognize free will, it has it's problems. On the one hand it recognizes we have free will, but it also places God's will as sovereign over us.

In short, what we do of free will is completely compatible with God's will. Your friend very amiably stated the position, but what is problematic is, given compatibilism.

When someone freely chooses to sin, reject God, and so forth this is actually God's will that they do so. There is a contradiction in that, I think. Or at least that is the problem I see with it. I'm no expert on it, CKSalmon is the resident Calvinist compatibilist, maybe he will give his 2 cents on the matter if he is about.

Your welcome.

Bold mine. I tend to agree with you. However, I think the Universalistic slant that Bell seems to be taking is irreconcilable with Christ's teachings.

Though there may be some emotionally appealing arguments for such, I think the view is insoluble with Christ's teachings as given in the Bible.

This is one of those spots where things get intractable, in regards to how we both see things.

I don't have much in the way to offer beyond what I have said. I suppose this is one of those things we will have to agree to that we see differently on, but hopefully love each other nonetheless.

Kindest Regards,

Mudcat

Thanks for the discussion, Mudcat. We can certainly agree to disagree and still remain friends.

I agree with you that the idea is emotionally appealing, but it also appeals to my sense of "fairness" (kind of like LDS doctrine - giving those who never heard about Christ, in mortality, a chance to hear about him, in the afterlife). I don't "know" much, but I do believe a God of Love would provide an opportunity for all of us to get to know him, and not just a select few.

Thanks again for your input. Nice chatting with you.