- RSS FeedSubscribe
- « Previous PostA La Carte (3/7)
- Next Post »A La Carte (3/8)
What I'd Have to Deny to Deny Hell
- 03/07/11
- 68
Everyone is talking about the existence of hell. Is hell a real place? Is it a literal place of literal torment? It seems that this issue snuck up on us a little bit. Just a month ago a book came out titled Don’t Call It a Comeback. In that book several of the “young, restless, Reformed” authors (myself included) penned chapters discussing issues pertinent to the church today: the gospel, the new birth, Scripture, social justice, homosexuality. These are some of the big issues in the church today and tomorrow. But there is no chapter on hell (the index shows only 2 references to it).
And yet here we are with discussion raging on the existence and nature of hell. This weekend, as I thought about this controversy, I allowed myself a little thought experiment. What would I have to deny in order to deny hell? If I am ever to come to the point of denying the existence of hell, what will be the doctrinal cost of getting there? Though I am sure there is much more that could be said, I came up with four denials.
I Will Deny What Jesus Taught
Jesus believed in the literal existence of a literal hell. It is very difficult to read Luke 16 (the story of The Rich Man and Lazarus) and arrive at any other conclusion except that Jesus believed in hell and that he believed in a hell of conscious torment of body and mind.
The poor man died and was carried by the angels to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried, and in Hades, being in torment, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham far off and Lazarus at his side. And he called out, 'Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus to dip the end of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am in anguish in this flame.'
Jesus also believed in the permanence of hell: “[B]esides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, in order that those who would pass from here to you may not be able, and none may cross from there to us.” In Matthew’s gospel Jesus speaks of hell as the furnace of fire, the place of weeping and gnashing of teeth. He calls it a place of everlasting fire. This would be strange language for a man to use if he believed that hell did not exist and that it was not a place of horrible torment.
If I am going to deny the existence of hell, I will need to outright deny what Jesus teaches and declare that he is wrong, or I will need to obscure what is so plain. I will need to make all of Jesus’ language symbolic and all of the meaning something other than what is clear. I will need to deny what Jesus says.
I Will Deny the Plain Sense of Scripture
Time would fail me here to provide an extensive look at the concept of hell in the Bible; time would fail me to look at each of the words associated with hell. But one does not need to be an expert on the Bible or on its original languages to see that it teaches clearly that there is life after death and that this life after death will involve joy or torment, it will involve enjoying the loving presence of God or facing his wrathful presence. This is stated explicitly in Scripture and it is stated implicitly. It is in the Old Testament and comes to full form in the New Testament. Those who wrote Scripture believed that hell existed and made it plain in what they wrote.
If I am going to deny the existence of hell, I will have to do a great deal of redefining, a great deal of reinterpreting. As with the teaching of Jesus, I will need to change what is plain to what is symbolic, I will need to take what is clear and make it obscure. There is no getting around the fact that a plain, honest reading of the Bible teaches the existence of hell.
I Will Deny the Testimony of the Church
If I am to deny the existence of hell, I will be denying what has been the near-unanimous testimony of the Christian church through the ages. From the church’s earliest days until today, hell has been understood as a place of conscious, eternal torment. The Westminster Larger Catechism offers an apt summary of what Christians have long believed: “The punishments of sin in the world to come, are everlasting separation from the comfortable presence of God, and most grievous torments in soul and body, without intermission, in hell fire forever.” Though this was formed in the days of Reformation, it depends upon the testimony of Christians who came before. And it informed generations that followed.
If I am to deny that hell is a real place, if I am to deny that hell is that kind of place, I will be turning my back on two thousand years of Christian history—on two thousand years of brothers and sisters in Christ who had great knowledge of Scripture. I’ll grant that there are times this is necessary; there are times that many Christians are wrong about many things. But such a decision must be made with great fear and trembling and only on the basis of overwhelming Scriptural evidence.
I Will Deny the Gospel
I cannot deny hell without utterly changing the gospel message. The message of Christ dying for the lost in order to save their souls will be meaningless. If there is no hell, there is really nothing to lose. And so heaven and hell must be brought to earth, they must be seen as present realities rather than future ones. The Baptist preacher J.L. Dagg said it well: “To appreciate justly and fully the gospel of eternal salvation we must believe the doctrine of eternal damnation.” If I am going to deny eternal damnation, I must radically rewrite the gospel. Gone is the gospel of sinners who have committed treason against God and who call upon themselves God’s just wrath. There are many gospels I can put in its place. But what is clear is that this gospel, this gospel of a substitutionary atonement must be a casualty. This gospel stands and falls upon the existence of both heaven and hell. Take away either one and you gut the gospel; it becomes meaningless and nonsensical.
If I am going to give up hell, I am going to give up the gospel and replace it with a new one.
Let me close with some words from the great theologian Robert Dabney. What he says here I believe as well. “Sure I am, that if hell can be disproved in any way that is solid and true, and consistent with God’s honor and man’s good, there is not a trembling sinner in this land that would hail the demonstration with more joy than I would.” It’s not that I want hell to be true, but that the Scripture makes it clear that it is true. It is not for me to dismantle the doctrine or to deny it; I am simply to believe it and to live and act as if it is true.
I am a follower of Jesus Christ, a husband to Aileen and a father to three young children. I worship and serve as a pastor at 
Releasing on April 1, The Next
Published in 2008, this book
This is a guide that calls men,
This review of the bestselling
New to the site? You can get
This is a guide written
Comments (68)
Without justice there can be no grace. There is no need for it. I still think that focusing on hell, though it may be relevant, should not be primary. The focus of the gospel isn’t justice, it is grace.
Right on Tim!
Jeremy, isn’t the focus of the gospel that justice and grace both met at the cross? The gospel is as much about justice as it is grace.
For the goespel to even make sense, for it to truly be “Good News”, we have to understand what it saves us from. We have to understand the bad news.
The gospel is as much about justice as it is grace.
I’ll need to think about it a bit more, but I’m inclined to agree. The cross is that the place where justice meets mercy as equal parts of who God is.
Well done, Tim. But do you have an extra “not” in this sentence? “I cannot not deny hell without utterly changing the gospel message. ”
Well said Tim.
The resurgence of this topic thanks to Rob Bell, is much needed with all of the focus on being “Gospel centered”. Interesting point about what a minimal role Hell played in Don’t Call It A Comeback.
I know this is a butchered quote from an unknown source (that you’ll likely know), “Without knowing what we’ve been saved from we can’t really begin to know what we’re saved to.” We simply won’t have all of the needed categories to really have a biblical understanding of salvation, and especially our approach to evangelism. How can you truly love your neighbor if you are not hopefully leading them to salvation?
“The focus of the gospel isn’t justice, it is grace.” While I agree to an extent, and have found Pastor Tullian Tchividjian very helpful with his recent sermons that have driven home your point in relation to our sanctification. Don’t overly focus on your sin, or possibly the justice that you’d receive if you don’t turn from your sin, but rather the Gospel and what Christ’s accomplishments/performance for us means to our sanctification.
However, in response to your quote, we should remember the difference between mercy and grace. Grace is getting what isn’t deserved, while mercy is NOT getting what is deserved.
Focusing on a biblical view of hell doesn’t make us sound like the guy on the corner of the street/fire and brimstone preacher, or obsessive about justice, but really should drive us to understanding the depths of Christ’s death in our place, and what he saved us from.
You would also have to deny the cross.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qOJR1A7Ip4I
A Sunday school book from the SBC that is current right now describes it perfectly. Jesus Christ was not 50% human or 50% God, but was 100% human and 100% God. Thus, the cross was 100% justice and 100% grace.
Well done, Tim. But do you have an extra "not" in this sentence? "I cannot not deny hell without utterly changing the gospel message. "
Oops.
Appreciate the straight forward word from the Word! The discussion becomes more fined-tuned when it comes to the intended nature of hell itself and why and how certain individuals are destined for it. Are the metaphors literal, symbolic or both? Is it eternal in duration or consequence? Annihilation or on-going eternal suffering? Does God send people or do the send themselves? Please do not feel obligated to post the link but I addressed these matters recently in a post “Rob Bell on hell: What I expect: http://thinkpoint.wordpress.com/2011/03/04/rob-bell-on-hell-what-i-expect/
Oops.
So, you don’t not have an extra “not”?
The reason it is primary in this context is because heretical views about hell are being addressed. Tim’s not addressing ‘Fire & Brimestone’ preaching/evangelism.
Jesus talked more about hell than Heaven. He set the precedence for what should be ‘primary’. To make hell less than Heaven is to make justice less than grace. They must be held in the balance. Grace, within the context of justice demands the spotlight… we don’t have to add any emphasis for either.
I understand what you would have to DENY in order to not believe that hell exists… but think about what I’d have to ASSUME in order for your post to even make sense.
1. I will assume that the corpus of the christian canon accurately reflects the teachings of a first century nomad uttered in an oral culture and written after his death.
2. I will assume that the text of scripture, rendered in English, dramatically influenced by the Latin interpretation of third century Greek theology can be understood “verbatim” in North American culture 2000 years later… an assumption that I honestly can not and do not hold about any other writing from antiquity.
3. I will assume the church got this doctrine right. That’s funny, you seem to assume that the church got the canon of scripture absolutely correct, but you also deny that the church got the institution of its papacy right. Dude… that stuff was all happening at the same time. Who’s picking and choosing here?
4. I will assume that my Gospel is the correct one… that of all the ideas held by the 7 BILLION PEOPLE on the planet that I, yes I, Marty Ryl, have a coherent understanding of not only how the God of the universe works, but also how he plans to eternally torture everyone who disagrees with me.
“Disbelieving hell” is actually about a lot of assumptions that most people honestly can’t intellectually justify… not a bunch of circular and self-supporting propositions that must be “denied”
I’m not sure you’ve read anything by an evangelical annihilationist… you don’t have to deny any of these things. But regardless of what you’ve read at least read this quote by John Cooper, who does believe in hell:
“[The story of the rich man and Lazarus] does not necessarily tell us what Jesus or Luke believed about the afterlife, nor does it provide a firm basis for a doctrine of the intermediate state. For it is possible that Jesus simply uses popular images in order to make his ethical point. He may not have been endorsing those images. He may not have believed them himself because he knew them to be false. If we then return to the initial question—what does this passage tell us about the intermediate state?—the answer may be, “Nothing.” The dualist case cannot lean on this text as a main support.” (Body, Soul, and Life Everlasting, p. 126).
Marty, once you deny the authority and innerrancy of Scripture you don’t have anything solid to stand on for your beliefs.
Michael, once you embrace the authority and inerrancy of scripture you don’t have anything solid to stand on except your own presuppositions.
Granted, what follows is not the best prose, but suitable for a “comments” section. There is a lot here to discuss, and I don’t think Tim has been forthcoming in regard to the assumptions he makes in interpreting the reality of heaven and hell. So, here goes a few thoughts on the matter.
I think it’s important to distinguish “existence” & “the reality” of the thing we’re talking about.
For example, I don’t think hell exists as a place, because the word “place” invokes a particular segment of space/time. God has created the universe and called every last square inch thereof “good”. Where is hell in the fabric of space/time? Do you believe that heaven is a place above or outside of space/time? If so, what is the point of calling creation “good” if the goal of human kind is to escape creation and “go to heaven”? (This latter point is called Gnosticism.) Further, if heaven is outside of space/time, how am I to understand Revelation where God said “the dwelling place of God is with man” and this book clearly discloses the unification of heaven and earth. Shouldn’t a doctrine of hell have to agree with a doctrine of creation?
Our inherited (for both secularists and evangelicals and everyone else) cosmic framework has heaven “up there”, earth “here” and hell “down there.” Think the works of Dante here. So, when we speak of going to heaven or hell, this is the common cosmic framework through we interpret these directions. God thus becomes the arbiter of who goes where, “separating the sheep and the goats” as it were. While plausible, I don’t think this framework comports with the whole of scripture.
The whole of scripture points to a unification of heaven and earth, rather than a two or three storey cosmic framework where heaven and earth are separated. Scripture points to a one-storey cosmic framework, where the work of Christ, inter alia, joins(ed) heaven and earth. “And he carried me away in the Spirit to a great, high mountain, and showed me the holy city Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God.”
What to make of hell? Jaroslav Pelikan said that the ancient church people understood the word “death” to mean “relapse into non-being.” So rather than going to the bad-people “place”, going to hell is to be complete separated from everything, and moreover, the One Who Is Good. Eternal separation from the goodness of God with no recourse to fix the problem? Sounds like torment to me.
So is it Scripture that requires to be reinterpreted, as Tim alludes to, or is it our framework through which we understand Scripture that has to be reinterpreted?
Why does this matter? I noted earlier that the pagan world in which we live has the Gnostic, three-storey cosmic framework. So when they hear us talk about heaven and hell, that’s how they understand things. One approach is what evangelicals do and that is to quote Scripture even more loudly and hope the message gets across. Another approach is to do what Bell appears to be doing and just get rid of the lower storey. Neither of these approaches, however, attacks the root problem, which is the Gnostic, three-storey cosmic framework of Biblical interpretation.
For a particularly helpful discussion on this cosmology, see here
http://fatherstephen.wordpress.com/christianity-in-a-one-storey-universe/
Marty,It seems contradictory to say that placing yourself under the authority of Scripture leads to yourself being your own authority. Submitting to the Bible is an act of abdication.
Going a little futher with what you said (“If there is no hell, there is really nothing to lose.”). If there is nothing to lose then there is nothing to fear. So what sense would there be in the following: “But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who, after He has killed, has authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” - Lk 12:5
And so we remember:”Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.” - Ecclesiastes 12:13
Great job Tim.
You choose to place yourself under the authority of the Bible.
I choose to determine truth on the basis of rational observation.
We both choose. You choose one, I choose the other.
No matter what you choose, it is you doing the choosing. You have the authority to pick your authority. Get it? You are picking your authority just as much as I am.
Marty,
We all presuppose things. (See, I just did it).
What you are arguing is that your presupposition is better then mine. I wish that folks who deny the authority of Scripture would understand that your belief in such is as valid as my belief in the authority of Scripture. But the tone of your posts makes it seem that you are more brilliant because you figured out people have been “duped” into believing a myth.
Doesn’t that sound a bit like what a Christian believes? We believe that the father of this world, Satan, has “duped” you into believing the myth that Scripture isn’t the Word of God.
You’re doing the same thing that you get onto the others for. While I agree you have freedom to do so, I would much more appreciate you acknowledging that. If you did, you wouldn’t be acknowledging that you are definitely wrong, but that you could be wrong.
I am thankful you posted this. Too often we don’t think through the implications of what we believe. I recently read some books by Robert L. Short (The Peanuts ones) and he does not believe in a literal place that is Hell, but a “hell on earth.” This belief really sucks because with Jesus saying people will hate us because of him and the trials that come with that, as well as all the other heartache that Christians experience, Jesus didn’t really accomplish anything. Hell on earth would still be experienced!
I could totally be wrong. Absolutely. no disagreement from me there. In fact its likely that I’m wrong about a lot of things.
Read the original post Challies wrote. Does he sound like he thinks he might be wrong about hell?
Of course you guys think that I’m duped by rationalism (which is “satan” in your language, funny). This is fine. I think you’ve been duped by a bunch of circular, unfalsifiable assumptions. The point isn’t whether or not we think each other is duped, the question is about the difference between commitments to rational investigation and commitments to unfalsifiable beliefs.
So here’s the problem: it was my willingness to keep learning, questioning, and thinking that foreshadowed my leaving Christianity in the first place. Your suggestion that I should be willing to admit that I’m wrong that got me thinking that well, yeah, maybe I’m wrong. So, let’s talk about how wrong we could be. I’m all for it. Are you?? Really?
“If I am going to deny the existence of hell…I will need to make all of Jesus’ language symbolic and all of the meaning something other than what is clear. I will need to deny what Jesus says…I will need to change what is plain to what is symbolic, I will need to take what is clear and make it obscure…I am going to give up the gospel and replace it with a new one.”
As the dissenters in the comments have illustrated.
“The focus of the gospel isn’t justice, it is grace.”
I’d actually agree with this as literally stated — the *focus* of the gospel is grace. Remember “gospel” means good news — the gospel itself is the message that we are saved from wrath through Christ. However, for that message to make sense, it is dependent upon the reality of justice, as manifested in Hell.
So what I’m saying is, denying Hell diminishes the gospel, but the gospel itself is not the entire theological doctrine of divine justice and our rescue from the wrath to come, all of which is true and necessary to believe, but “the gospel” is merely the news of our rescue. Talking about how we deserve eternal Divine wrath isn’t really “good news,” so I don’t think that’s “part of” the gospel, even though it is essential to the gospel’s meaning. If that makes sense.
@BV Thanks for posting this. I agree. I don’t believe the traditional view of eternal suffering fits the Scriptures any better than the view that there is a real hell, with real, horrible torment for the damned, but ending ultimately in annihilation. In fact, if you read all that is written about hell in both the OT and NT, with your mind open to the possibility of an non-eternal hell, it’s amazing how much better the Scriptures support the latter view. And you don’t have to deny any of Tim’s points to be able to hold this position. I haven’t yet come across a convincing argument against this position that I believe was hesitantly proposed by John Stott. Would be very grateful if anyone can point me to a good article that refutes Stott’s view on hell by appealing to the plain meaning of Scripture, not church tradition, reformation theology or rational/logical deduction.
Right on Tim
so do you believe in hell or not?
If hell does not exist and even if an annihilation position were true , would that that not impact any desire to preach Christ and Him crucified. If God’s wrath , which hell will be , does not truly exist ,then the message of the cross becomes unintelligible nonsense. The question would be , why? What purpose if one can believe the “chia pet” god and ultimately be in heaven , for what reason did Jesus die so brutally .
Then even if annihilation is the ultimate end of those who don’t believe so what. Well one would say ,its better to spend eternity with a loving God . What if I don’t desire that but figure 70 plus years more or less living like Charlie Sheen is fine by me . So let me indulge in sin and pleasure for ultimately if I will no longer exist , why worry . There will be no ultimate justice.
The truth of hell shakes me to my core . But if one denies it ,then in real terms , the type of Christianity they have is something other than what the Bible reveals . Is is Liberalism and as Machen rightfully pointed out , its not Christian but a whole new religion .
It is times like these that have driven me back to the Bible study we had long abandoned for pizza parties and youth dance shows. I have learnt alot from reading systematic theology. Through bible study I have come to realise the importance of understanding the foundational doctrines and tenants of Christian faith. Thanks Rob Bell but no thanks. I too will have alot to deny before I deny the doctrine of Hell. If there is no Hell then I need no Savior. If I need no savior then Jesus died in vain which then implies that love doesn’t win -Rob wins.
Marty wrote: “Read the original post Challies wrote. Does he sound like he thinks he might be wrong about hell?”
I’ve quickly read through Tim’s post a couple times, and it seems his meaning is clear. Not to put words in his mouth, but: That there is no humble indication that he may wrong about his beliefs is not an indication of his lack of humility but rather his complete trust in the authority of Scripture after having been around the block with them for a while. He does not stand on his own wisdom but on the wisdom of the Bible. For Tim and other like-minded believers like myself, if you can convince us of the illegitimacy of the text (which many in the past 200 years have tried to do, and failed) then you have convinced us of the illegitimacy of our faith and all the beliefs contained within.
Tim, thank you for the post. I think you did a brilliant job of showing how the central teachings of Jesus come full circle. As shown in some of this debate and many areas of Christian dialogue, one can get lost/confused by trying to sort out the details of every Biblical reference, story and concept. And in no means to discount the entire word of God, but keeping it simple leads to understanding.
We are all sinners. We love God and accept his grace when called or we receive hell as punishment for our sins. Our duties now - love God and love other people.
We can argue about what hell really is, whether everything of God makes human sense, or we can live in simple faith as we are called to.
As the dissenters in the comments have illustrated.
Indeed!
Has anyone read the book by Bill Wiese of his vision/encounter in hell? I watched the video and read his book as well. He has a lot of scriptures highlighting the topic of hell. I don’t know if Tim ever reviewed this book though…
Jackie
And by the way, what do I say to someone who says to me, “Prove that there is a hell!”?How does a believer go about answering this challenge?ThanksJackie
I posted it to my Facebook with a part of this comment. Evidently FB only allows you to post so much.
This subject keeps rearing its head every 20 years or so. From Conditional Immortality to Annihilationism, it just keeps coming up because people don’t like to think it is Righteous Judgment. But it is. As Jesus said. If you don’t gather with me you scatter abroad.(Mat 12:30) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
I use to debate this topic years ago. Conditional Immortality raised its head up after John Stott affirmed he wasn’t sure if he held to the doctrine of Hell as it has been taught in the Church.
The people I discussed the issue with didn’t see sin as a thing that was eternal. They couldn’t see that sinning against and Eternal Holy God was worthy of such a punishment.
The thing that was stumping to them though was that our sin did keep others from knowing and coming to Christ for Salvation.
(Mat 12:30) He that is not with me is against me; and he that gathereth not with me scattereth abroad.
(Isa 53:6) All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the LORD hath laid on him the iniquity of us all.
To lead someone away from Christ did have eternal consequences. So the sin was eternal and should be punished in accordance with it. To scatter abroad or turn others away from Christ to their own way was a sin with eternal consequences.
The problem is that we think as men. We only think on a level as men. We don’t understand that sinning against a Holy Righteous Beautiful Being deserves this punishment. first and foremost as a reason. We have to bring it down so they can understand that depriving someone of Eternity is an Eternal thing. I believe this is true because men can’t see God as He is.
Thanks Tim for bringing this up.
Randy
Yes, Tim reviewed 23 Minutes in Hell.
What a great post that helps clarify the importance of a strong understanding regarding the doctrine of salvation! I’m so thankful for the multitude of Christians who are using this situation in which false doctrine is trying to be disseminated to the world, in order to clarify the true teachings of Christ. Sometimes I think this is what the parable of the wheat and tares is all about - strengthening the teachings of Christ in the midst of controversy. Thank you so much Tim for being a voice that puts the gospel first.
I never said Hell is endless. I said it’s AEONIAN. An eon and an eternity are not the same thing. Check your Greek, friend.
Hell is an awful reality, the best space my Father can make for those who do not like the One who has eternally embraced them. But please, don’t use this sad reality to paint MY Father into a sadistic ogre who is worse than Hitler.
Peace,Jesus
Well, what I would point out to you is:
“the question is about the difference between commitments to rational investigation and commitments to unfalsifiable beliefs.”
That is your presupposition. You presuppose that rational investigation is god (by that I mean ultimate authority) and that self is what determines truth.
I presuppose there is a God and rational thinking comes from thinking that He is God and I am not. I presuppose that truth is something outside of myself. I can understand parts of it, maybe most of it, but I will never be able to rational understand it all.
Is it possible that I or Tim is wrong? Any intellectually honest person would have to say yes.
I think that THE central defining aspect of Hell is ‘separation from God’ I do believe it to be a place of torment, but that torment is primarily due to the absence of God. If there existed a lake of fire with tormentors abundant; however God was present there… then that would not be Hell (it would be more like really hot high school). The opinions posted here (even Marty’s) have strengthened my belief that Hell is to be shunned and Heaven is to be gained. Peace and God’s blessings to you all…
Very nicely done, Tim.
Thank you.
Personally, I’d have to deny that I deserve to go there (hell), but I can’t do that. For I am deserving of temporal and eternal punishment, aside from my Lord Jesus.
“Hot high school” — LOL, love it! I don’t see Hell as separation from God. When you get right down to it, how can an omnipresent God be absent? Know what I mean? The psalm says that “even if I go down to Hell, behold thou art there.” And Revelation says that the torments of the fiery lake happen “in the presence of the Lamb.” The way I see it, it’s the very presence and love of God that is painful to those who wish to fight it. Like Solomon said, when your enemy shows you kindness, it’s like having hot coals dumped on your head. Whaddya think?
The more I think about it, the more I am sure that I could never dissuade you (or Challies) from your conviction of the supremacy of scripture: everything you believe is built upon the unquestionable conviction that it is divine. I get it: you CAN’T question it. It underpins everything you believe, I agree!
Psychologically speaking - it’s exactly the same as trying to convince a Muslim that the Koran is not divine. Your defense mechanisms are precisely the same: This is my foundation. I will not question my foundation. End of dialogue.
I’ll say this one more time and then just be quiet unless otherwise engaged in dialogue here: Your faith is not built on the Bible - your faith is built on what you believe ABOUT the Bible… just as a Muslim’s faith is built upon a set of beliefs/presuppositions about what the Koran is.
Unless we are ALL willing to discuss the nature of our own assumptions, we don’t seem to have much left to discuss, eh?
I thank both Susan and BV for their comments.
Sorry Tim but I don’t agree with what you claim to have to deny to “deny Hell.” At the most you’d have to deny the teaching of the Church on this but as a Baptist you already go against the vast majority of Christians and Church teaching on the topic of baptism, right?
@Marty, I appreciate your comments here. I too sometimes see a Bibliolatry problem going on around here. The Pharisees of every age study the Scriptures diligently because they think that in them they have eternal life. These are the very Scriptures that testify about me, yet they refuse to come to me to have life. They prefer a Jesus of their own manufacture, one who fits neatly into their “Reformed” boxes.
Marty,
Your faith is built on what you believe about the Bible as well.
I’m very willing to discuss our assumptions.
What you believe about the Bible is that it is not trustworthy of being a foundation to build upon.
What I believe is that the Bible is trustworthy as a foundation to build upon.
In our culture, you are in the “right” or “default” for starting with the assumption that the Bible or its adherent must be guilty til proven innocent. There was a point in our culture where I would have been “right” or in the “default” where people who disbelieved the Bible were guilty til proven innocent.
Tim - Well said. Well reasoned. It was a pleasure reading it through it.
All I can say is that this storm regarding Rob Bell’s new book is nothing but a good thing. It is uncomfortable and not very pretty… but it is a good thing. This type of conversation is better out in the open. If we didn’t know before … we know now who is who and what they stand for. This will strengthen the faith of some … and will challenge the faith of others. Are we standing on the Rock? Or have we built on the sand…?
I discovered your site only after this controversy erupted. So right there yet another good thing that comes out of this ;)
Press on!
Hey Tim! Thanks for this blog about hell. I agree with you that there is no way around Jesus’ teaching on this subject. Also, how can we really preach the good news of salvation without mentioning what we are being saved from? Is there no warning of what is to come to the people who don’t repent?
I know that right now there is a lot of controversy about hell because of Rob Bell, but I think the truth is many churches are silent about hell. They would not deny it in their doctrine, but they deny it in their practice. They are leaving it out when it should be mentioned and this is helping no one. This is especially true it seems in youth ministries.
As a high school pastor, I’ve been surprised how positively young people respond to biblical teaching on hell. At our last baptism many of them mentioned how this was helpful in them responding to the gospel and how they had not been taught hell elsewhere. I recently wrote a blog about this: http://www.churchforhighschoolers.com/blog/youth-ministries-that-go-to-h…
My prayer is more of us will echo what Jesus said about hell! Thanks for doing this here Tim!
(I am reading Don’t Call It A Comeback right now and you are right, a chapter on hell would have been great!)