A little over two years ago I issued my Everlasting Hell Challenge, which asked Protestant Christians who base their theology on the Bible alone to demonstrate convincingly that the traditionalist evangelical view on hell and damnation is a much clearer teaching in Scripture than the idea that hell is not a place of everlasting torment (the traditionalist evangelical view being the idea that salvation is by grace through faith alone, apart from works, and that those who don't put their faith in Jesus for this salvation will suffer forever in hell). Not surprisingly, nobody has completed the challenge. The reason for this is really quite simple though: it just can't be done.
Really, to come to the traditionalist ideas about salvation and hell requires some serious eisegesis. If you want to justify the idea that damnation is everlasting, you can't continue to believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from works and claim to remain consistent, at least not from a biblical perspective, because the only passages that hint at the duration of this judgement being forever (depending on the translation you're using as not all Bible translations do) also point to doing good works and mutilating your body as the means of avoiding this outcome.
In the end, there are only two reasons to believe in everlasting torment in hell for non-Christians. The first reason is because so many of the leaders of the Christian religion have taught it for so long and most people are too afraid or too lazy to question the teachings of these leaders and find it easier to just assume that these leaders know what they're talking about. The second reason is because you simply want it to be true that some people will suffer forever with no chance to escape and are hoping that this is what God will do.
So, in the spirit of one of television's great hosts, I am declaring a New Rule: If you want to continue teaching that non-Christians will suffer in hell for eternity you have to demonstrate your sincerity by cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye (see Mark 9:43-48). If you don't take the Bible seriously enough to take the bodily mutilation part of the damnation passages literally then there's no reason for the rest of us to take the consequences for not doing so literally. If that's too much for you, then you at least have to stop teaching that avoiding hell is based on grace rather than good works and start feeding the hungry and giving drinks to the thirsty and inviting strangers into your home and giving clothes to those who need clothing and visiting those in prison (see Matthew 25:31-46). You can't completely ignore the first half of the passages you're basing your claims on and then expect us to take the rest your theology at all seriously.
Really, to come to the traditionalist ideas about salvation and hell requires some serious eisegesis. If you want to justify the idea that damnation is everlasting, you can't continue to believe in salvation by grace through faith apart from works and claim to remain consistent, at least not from a biblical perspective, because the only passages that hint at the duration of this judgement being forever (depending on the translation you're using as not all Bible translations do) also point to doing good works and mutilating your body as the means of avoiding this outcome.
In the end, there are only two reasons to believe in everlasting torment in hell for non-Christians. The first reason is because so many of the leaders of the Christian religion have taught it for so long and most people are too afraid or too lazy to question the teachings of these leaders and find it easier to just assume that these leaders know what they're talking about. The second reason is because you simply want it to be true that some people will suffer forever with no chance to escape and are hoping that this is what God will do.
So, in the spirit of one of television's great hosts, I am declaring a New Rule: If you want to continue teaching that non-Christians will suffer in hell for eternity you have to demonstrate your sincerity by cutting off a limb or plucking out an eye (see Mark 9:43-48). If you don't take the Bible seriously enough to take the bodily mutilation part of the damnation passages literally then there's no reason for the rest of us to take the consequences for not doing so literally. If that's too much for you, then you at least have to stop teaching that avoiding hell is based on grace rather than good works and start feeding the hungry and giving drinks to the thirsty and inviting strangers into your home and giving clothes to those who need clothing and visiting those in prison (see Matthew 25:31-46). You can't completely ignore the first half of the passages you're basing your claims on and then expect us to take the rest your theology at all seriously.
Posts
23 comments:
Amen Brother!
Thank you again brother for your battle for the truth of Universal Reconciliation in Jesus Christ! Keep up the challenge.
AMEN!!!!
Your "everlasting hell challenge" was not answered by Protestant Christians because almost all were not aware of it ... not that it was any kind of intellegent, cogent argument. So you are right, it is not surprising that no one has challenged you on it. But your reasoning is wrong as to why it was not challenged.
Your statement that you cannot be a traditionalist on salvation by grace and still believe in an eternal hell is stupid. Apples and oranges. Just because one passage is literal and the other is not doesn't negate one or the other. You look for consistency and exegete the original intent.
Now I don't know for sure if Hell is eternal because there are passages to support a consuming fire and an eternal fire BOTH. So where God is silent or unclear, so must we be.
I understand you need to remove an eternal hell because that is less scary for you and your pagan friends. But don't try to play with eisegesis and exegesis and bliblical interpretation. Leave that to people who know what they are talking about.
The fact is: we don't know. Christians who say they do are lying or covering up and pagans that say they do are doing the same.
Wow, Wunder; asshole much?
Your "everlasting hell challenge" was not answered by Protestant Christians because almost all were not aware of it
More than a few were aware of it. It wasn't just posted on this site, I posted it on a couple Christian message boards as well.
Your statement that you cannot be a traditionalist on salvation by grace and still believe in an eternal hell is stupid. Apples and oranges. Just because one passage is literal and the other is not doesn't negate one or the other. You look for consistency and exegete the original intent.
It's not that one passage is literal and the other isn't. It's that half a passage is being interpreted figuratively and the other half literally, for no good reason, that brings me to my conclusions.
Now I don't know for sure if Hell is eternal because there are passages to support a consuming fire and an eternal fire BOTH. So where God is silent or unclear, so must we be.
And then there are all the passages that talk about how everyone will be saved as well. When I take all the passages into consideration I'm forced to believe that the Bible teaches Universal Reconciliation (UR).
I understand you need to remove an eternal hell because that is less scary for you and your pagan friends. But don't try to play with eisegesis and exegesis and bliblical interpretation. Leave that to people who know what they are talking about.
Cute, but I won't take the bait. Study the Universalism articles on this site (you can find them in the menu on the right) and you'll see why I believe the Bible teaches UR.
"And then there are all the passages that talk about how everyone will be saved as well. When I take all the passages into consideration I'm forced to believe that the Bible teaches Universal Reconciliation (UR)."
hmm, mind providing us with these biblical references that support your idea of universal salvation?
Off the top of my head, I would go with Romans 5
For if when we were God's enemies, we were reconciled to him through the death of his son, how much more having been reconciled shall we be saved through his life.
Paul makes a distinction here between being saved and being reconciled. We always use "saved" as if, saved from Hell. Paul would seem to use both reconciled and saved as if they had nothing to do with Hell. He states that we were reconciled to him and we shall be saved through his life. I think he uses the terms better. Jesus isn't out to save you from Hell, he is out to save your soul (redeem it).
What you focus on determines what you miss. When I was a Hell, Fire, and Brimstone man... that is all I saw. Once Universal reconciliation became clear to me, I found it all through scripture.
I do not see how Romans 5 supports your idea of universal salvation. Unless of course you read into it that way. Romans 5 is clearly talking to those who have put their faith in Christ and have been reconciled with God and have been saved through Christ. They both go hand in hand. We can't be saved unless we have been reconciled with God. Why would Paul need to spell out being saved from hell in every instance he mentions being saved? The passage you mentioned has nothing to do with universal salvation. You are playing on words. And as you say, if Jesus isn't out to save our souls from hell then why does our souls need saving? From what? Worldly sorrow? Sadness? Yes he came to end the suffering and defeat death, but for those who have put their faith in Him.
God does not desire anyone to go to hell, but the sad truth is that, because He is just and He can not look upon sin he must deal with those who have rejected His only way of reconciliation. We will all be accountable for what we know, not what me don't know. I am a big believer in those who will never know Christ will be judged on how they hold the commandments written on everyone's heart. But that is just my opinion based on scriptural references. However, God knows every man's heart and their motives and He also knows who will and will not respond to Him. But in all honesty I don't know what happens to those people who never get a chance to know Christ, however, I will trust the Lord and thank Him for saving someone unworthy such as me. I will leave those things that God has not reveal to Him and not assume things such as universal salvation, because it sounds nice. By reading your other posts I saw that you were one to not believe in free will, so from your side of the debate your point would make sense. However, the Bible makes it perfectly clear that we reap what we sow. No one's pulling our strings nor are we a product of our environment. I'm living proof of that. We all decide our own paths and decisions and if we want to use genetics and our environment as an excuse then God has given us the freewill to do so.
In closing, do not be so quick to listen to your heart, as the Bible says that the heart is deceitful.
God bless
Ben,
I know we won't see eye to eye on this, but I clearly see Romans 5 that way. We are reconciled... now he wants to save, redeem, teach us his way. God wants to create one new man out of the two. As in Adam all died, so in Christ all are made alive. For me to see it otherwise, I would have to proclaim that Adam's sin was more powerful than Christ's reconciliation.
The bible also says the heart isn't deceitful.... The bible says many things... I think the pieces we choose to quote says much more about us than it does God.
hmm, mind providing us with these biblical references that support your idea of universal salvation?
start here, then read the rest of the articles on the subject of Christian Universalism on this site here. Seriously, this whole site is essentially devoted to the topic and you need to ask? :)
Seriously Andrew, you want to read in Romans 5 what fits your idea. You take one instance in that chapter where Paul mentions righteousness for all men, but ignore the parts where Paul says that this gift of salvation overflows to the many, through who? Through Christ. And why would you seeing it any other way make you come to the conclusion that Adam's sin would seem more powerful than Christ's, because he's not saving everyone? That doesn't even make any sense. It has nothing to do with Christ's power to save, it has to do with those who have put their trust into God's perfect sacrifice and accept his salvation. If everyone is going to be saved in the end, no matter who or what they've done, then you belittle the cross and what Christ suffered, because it all becomes meaningless and sin becomes just a word. I do understand brother why you feel that universal salvation is biblical, because if you wanted to read into it that way you can, but unfortunately it's not biblical and it belittles the idea of why we need salvation in the first place. You also have to understand that Paul is usually always talking to Christian believers in his writing so you can't take what he says and then apply it to everyone. He was referring to his audience, the Christians in the other churches
And yes the Bible says many things and people have many opinions on different scriptural verses that aren't completely clear on whether that particular issue is cultural or what not. Those are topics people will always debate until Christ returns. But your idea of universal salvation is not only unbiblical, it's dangerous. You are gambling with peoples' souls here and in essence saying that it doesn't really matter if we believe in Christ or not, we will all end up saved in the end. How is that biblical? Am I missing your point here? If this is not what you're saying then please clarify.
Lastly, you can't go from one extreme to the other in your idea of God. I'm not a fires and brimstone guy nor am I someone who believes that God is a slave to love. You can't focus on one aspect of God and not the other. God is loving, merciful, and compassion, but he's also a consuming fire, jealous, and just. Don't make God fit into what you think he should be just because it makes him sound "nicer". Christ himself talked more about the dangers of hell then he did about rewards of heaven.
Hello Ben. I suggest you read the resources on this site and spend time meditating on the scriptures that are qouted in those resources and the approach that all those gentleman use to come to the conclusion that they do about Universal Reconciliation in Christ. It is easy brother, trust me I have done it, to drop by a blog and fire a few verbal missles without taking the time to read the plethora of resources that are here and think through the issues and scriptures. The Lord has also shown me how arrogant I was and sounded when I would talk down to people who believed something differnt than I did about doctrine assuming unwittingly that they didn't spend time studying the issues. I have spent time studying the issue of Universal Reconciliation in Christ,brother, and I am convinced. The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory Macdonald is a good place to start as well as Hope Beyond Hell by Gerry Beauchemin. Or like The Christian Heretic said, there are numerous links on this site to many resources. Please don't think you have it all figured out brother, because you don't and never will. I know I thought I did and the Lord showed me otherwise on many things. Blessings to you brother!
Who's right? And who's wrong? As for me, I just need the Bible, and not just bits and pieces of it that support what I stand for but all of it. We can't accept one thing that the Bible has to say and then ignore the rest that we may not agree with. :-/
And I agree with Ben, to say that ALL will go to Heaven regardless of what they have done, all that they have said AGAINST Christ and Christians is only to belittle what Jesus did for us. For me, it's hard to believe that someone who openly, consciously, willingly, and gladly denounces God and kills many who believe that Christ died for their sins, and DIED hating God and Christians would be able to find peace with those who were devout and actually found peace. Again, not only is it undermining what Christ did for us, but also undermining what other Christians had to go through for believing in Him.
Hello petite-bunni. Thank you for your honest input. However, underlying your comment I sense that you may unwittingly feel as if there are those that deserve to be in heaven and those that deserve to be in eternal torture. I don't think that that is what you really mean, but when you bring the traditional view on hell to its logical conclusion that's what it is. As scripture makes clear, I believe, none of us deserve heaven and we all deserve punishment, but when we understand the character of the Triune God as revealed in Jesus Christ we see that He will not torture someone for eternity. His punishment always has an end or purpose, namely to bring us back to Him. I pesonally hold to Universal Reconciliation in Jesus Christ and believe that some people will go to hell for a time to receive a just punishment. But, hell will have an exit, the Lord Jesus Christ! I recommend reading The Evangelical Universalist by Gregory Macdonald(pseudonym) and Hope Beyond Hell by Gerry Beauchemin. Also, the Christian Heretic's posts on this blog and all the resources he has linked to. Like I told Ben, I thought I had it all figured out, but the Lord showed me different. Thank you for your time in posting your thoughts.
Thank you Michael.
petite-bunni, to repeat what I said to Ben, read the articles on the subject (the link is at the top right of every page on this site) to understand why we believe what we do.
Michael:
No. No one deserves to be in Heaven, and I would never wish anyone in Hell, although that's where we all belong. What I'm saying is we have choices as God's children to choose between the two. Jesus or no Jesus. The wide path or the narrow path. Otherwise, why have two? He's come so that we MIGHT be saved. There isn't a guarantee there, no matter how much we want to believe it is so.
I've read a few articles of UR on this blogger's site, and they're enough for me. I'm sorry to say this, but it sounds just like the "Calvinist propaganda" that you try to fight against, the only difference is that you're on the whole other end of the spectrum.
Hello petite-bunni. I appreciate your thoughts. I think the wonderful news here is that we both believe that our Triune God has drawn us both into the wonderful embrace of Himself in Jesus Christ the God-Man! The good news is Jesus Christ! The fact that I am pretty sure we both believe that is enough for me at the end of the day. Thank you again for your thoughts. Blessings to you sister!
To the site publisher: this is a great site for Christian Universalism. I used to be heavily fundamentalistic and fire and brimstone. Then I started getting to know people who weren't Christians and I experienced something that others have experienced as well and that is that my caricatures of them were not accurate. By getting to know people for who they are, I discovered a mercy and compassion that I would not have had if I had simply retained associations with only Christian people. It's easy to condemn and yell about eternal judgment when you personally don't care about the people about whom you are speaking. Just wanted to share my experience and say thank you for this resource.
To the other commentators: one thing I find in every single blog or comments section of news articles that I read is the back and forth bickering that goes on. I want, as an aspiring psychologist, to introduce you to the idea of belief perseverance. This is where a person, regardless of the evidence presented to him, will interpret what is being said in light of what he already believes. There was a study done where people received the results of research on the efficacy of capital punishment in deterring crime. One set of data supported it, the other did not. These two sets of data were both shown to people who were for the death penalty and those who were against it. The result showed that people who started with the belief that capital punishment deterred crime found the evidence in favor to be overwhelming while they harshly criticized the evidence against it. The same was true of those originally against it except the other way around. When the study was done again, this time with the strong urging to be unbiased and objective, the results were exactly the same. This study shows that once we've made up our minds about something, we're unlikely to change what we think. Even reading evidence against our position tends to reinforce our original belief. So how do we challenge ourselves to be more objective and fair? Simple: explain the opposite position. Try and imagine how the other side could be right and seek evidence to support it. This strategy tends to reduce our belief perseverance and make us realize that the other side has intelligent reasons for believing what they believe and are not just being deceived by their wicked, unbelieving heart. Besides, if that were true, how do we know that YOU are not the one deceived by YOUR own wicked heart? I think the question makes the point. We need to listen to other people, try to get an accurate understanding of what they believe (instead of the straw man arguments often proposed - especially on this particular debate of Universalism), and try to imagine how it could be that they might be right. For me, this has created humility and an appreciaton for diversity in the body of Christ and has helped me stop accusing other people of "seeing what they want to see" when in fact I may be the one who is doing it myself.
Blessings,
Tom
Just wanted to share my experience and say thank you for this resource.
You're most welcome Tom. Thanks for your comments.
Petite-bunni's statement that "hell is where we all belong" - and hence its implication that that's where we're all going unless we explicitly acknowledge Christ as our saviour - is typical of the kind of wrongheaded thinking that perpetuates the scandalous myth of eternal torment. As George MacDonald has pointed out, it is an outrage against logic and justice that we humans should be condemned to hell (however you interpret that) merely for being what we are, ie human - as we were created by God.
The Bible is quite explicit that we are all born with an inherent tendency to sin. How ridiculous, then, to believe the lie that we are condemned to eternal death purely because we do what comes entirely naturally to us. The wages of sin is death, but that is spiritual death - a state we're all in, and from which we can and will be rescued by Christ's atoning sacrifice on the cross. But none of us will ever be abandoned to everlasting physical death, annihilation or torment.
I was brought up as an evangelical Christian, and always believed the Bible taught the doctrine of hell as everlasting punishment and separation from God. It doesn't, simple as that. Those who oppose Univeralism are, like the Pharisees, simply blinding themselves to the truth - often, and this is so very sad, because they feel that it's not right that they, being "Christians" who "deserve" the reward of Heaven (thanks to their own cleverness in choosing to believe), should have to end up sharing it with the unbelieving masses. In their theology, the rest of the world can go hang. Hmmm.
Petite-bunni's statement that "to say that ALL will go to Heaven regardless of what they have done, all that they have said AGAINST Christ and Christians is only to belittle what Jesus did for us" betrays her complete misunderstanding of the gospel of grace. The whole point of the thing, the very crux of what Christianity ought to be about, is that God loves EVERBODY unconditionally - ie His redeeming love for us is in no way contingent on any response we may or may not make to it. Surely that's the underlying truth behind all those verses in the Bible that emphasise how we should love and forgive those who wrong us - just as God does.
Of course, "bad" people will be healed of their badness - either in this life or the life to come, just as those of us who accept Christ in those lifetime have begun to be healed.
And why are the anti UR brigade so hung up on the idea that salvation is salvation from death or hell. There's nothing in the Bible that truly supports that interpretation. Jesus came to save us from our sins.
There are more verses of scripture that have to be dismissed with traditionalists to not believe in UR than ones that point towards and endless torment in scripture...It is actually easy to see once the pre-supposed lenses of damnation are taken off.
Some of my favorites...where all means ALL not some.
Isaiah 57:16 52:10
Colossians 1:20
1 Tim 2:6
1 Cor 15:22 15:28
T Tim 4:10 my favorite one to hear hellers blunder upon.
Post a Comment