Tell more, Steve. Reviews seem to indicate that Bell's premise is that everyone is okay and/or that there is no "hell" and that everyone (especially Gandhi?) is all right with God. Does Bell say that everyone goes to "heaven"? In which case, what does Bell say is or was the purpose of Jesus?
Tell more, Steve. Reviews seem to indicate that Bell's premise is that everyone is okay and/or that there is no "hell" and that everyone (especially Gandhi?) is all right with God. Does Bell say that everyone goes to "heaven"? In which case, what does Bell say is or was the purpose of Jesus?
I would advise anyone NOT to judge what Bell has to say without first having read Love Wins for her or his self. I've read a lot of reviews that unfairly oversimplify and twist his thoughts for whatever reasons the reviewers think necessary, without ever addressing the genuine issues he brings up.
Bell does NOT say that there is no hell. He examines the historic development of the conventional form of the idea, and considers whether there might be ways of defining hell that are more in line with what the gospel actually says.
Bell does NOT say that everyone is all right with God, but he does suggest (with scriptural back up), that the consequences of sin may not be what we were taught they are, and may not happen when we were taught they would happen.
It would be hard to gather and communicate Bell's whole view of Jesus Christ, because Bell doesn't go into christology to any great extent in Love Wins, but Bell does NOT believe His purpose was to rescue us from the vindictive whims of a vengeful God.
Bell does NOT say that everyone goes to "heaven," but he asks the valid question, what does the Bible actually mean by "heaven?"
It would be hard for me, Twinky, to explain in any more detail what I came away with from the book, without knowing how you have learned to understand the "kingdom of God" since leaving TWI.
Can't say I ever think about what the "kingdom of God" might or might not be - I just get on with living life, doing the best I know to do, being compassionate and forgiving and non-judgmental. I never got on the TWI bandwagon about any particular meaning. I look at what people do and say - I don't get involved in their theological disputes.
I'd agree "heaven" and "hell" are probably something quite different from what we have been taught - either by TWI or by most churches. There's probably a huge element of Greek mythology that has become incorporated into what we assume.
I don't know what becomes of people who live what seems a Godly life who have never heard of God the Father of JC; I can't think (nor ever have) that God is so mean as to banish eternally those who have lived decent lives with honorable and Godly principles - just because they lived hundreds of years ago (or even now) in Africa or Asia or Russia or the Amazon rainforest and never heard of JC. I'd prefer such a person to a "Christian" who has such a perverted view that they hurt, maim or even kill other people for not thinking as they do. Paul's epistles speak of Gentiles with the "law" written in their hearts (Rom 2:14-15 for example) in very favorable terms.
Wierwille ignored what the Bible has to say about the kingdom of God. He said that stuff only applies when the king is on the earth, and since Jesus Christ is absent, the kingdom of God is presently in abeyance.
In Luke 18:18-30, three phrases are used as synonyms, that is, all three phrases mean the same thing. Those three phrases are "to inherit/receive eternal life," "to enter into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved." Entering into the kingdom of God is the same thing as being saved.
If you look at Jesus' teachings in the gospels, he doesn't say much of anything about preparing to go to heaven when we die. He teaches a heck of a lot, though, about making ourselves fit to be of service in the kingdom of God. It's even in the Lord's prayer (of which Wierwille taught that we DARE NOT pray)!
Bell considers some of the things we've been taught about heaven and hell in light of the things Jesus taught about entering into the kingdom of God.
Can't say I ever think about what the "kingdom of God" might or might not be - I just get on with living life, doing the best I know to do, being compassionate and forgiving and non-judgmental. I never got on the TWI bandwagon about any particular meaning. I look at what people do and say - I don't get involved in their theological disputes.
I'd agree "heaven" and "hell" are probably something quite different from what we have been taught - either by TWI or by most churches. There's probably a huge element of Greek mythology that has become incorporated into what we assume.
I don't know what becomes of people who live what seems a Godly life who have never heard of God the Father of JC; I can't think (nor ever have) that God is so mean as to banish eternally those who have lived decent lives with honorable and Godly principles - just because they lived hundreds of years ago (or even now) in Africa or Asia or Russia or the Amazon rainforest and never heard of JC. I'd prefer such a person to a "Christian" who has such a perverted view that they hurt, maim or even kill other people for not thinking as they do. Paul's epistles speak of Gentiles with the "law" written in their hearts (Rom 2:14-15 for example) in very favorable terms.
But no doubt that's a different discussion.
Actually, the things you bring up, Twinky, are very much relevant to Bell's discussion.
I read the book Love Wins.... I think it is a great thought provoking book.
There is a lot of mis information on the subject matter of the book.
He does believe in Hell just one that the lock is on the inside.....I think some of this can go alone with what C.S. Lewis writes in his book but to a more extreme.
Is his views Universalist? Yes.... I would say so... Since in his theology everyone soon makes it into heaven.
1st critique of his book is that he isn't honest with the historical views of certain words on hell and the definitions of certain greek words. For instance on page 34 (on my IPAD) he addresses the issue concerning heaven with the word age. Continues the use on page 83 in the term "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25. He says that it should not be eternal and that it should be more like a period of time. When doing my research on the word I find it in places like the end of the Lords prayer. Matthew 6:13 δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην. This is how Bell would translate it with his definition: glory in the period of time (aionas) amen. I don't think Jesus meant to say glory for a period of time. I am sure in that case the context indicates exactly eternity or forever.
A month later or so Francis Chan had his book out with the help of another colleague who is more of a scholar theologian called erasing hell. He pointed out that that greek word αίὠν aion is a debated word in that community... I found that piece of info missing form his book.
He also continues talking about the writings of the 1st century rabbis and their view of hell. In terms with the word Gehenna. In his book he quotes rabbis of that time using the word as a literal eternal hell. He also says that the idea of that word as a dump didn't turn up until around the 1200s. Everyone used the word Gehenna as hell. Not everyone thought it was eternal but that is what the word was used for. Although in Bells book on page 64 he says it always meant a garbage dump on the next page he writes " So the next time someone asks you if you believe in an actual hell, you can always say, "Yes, I do believe that my garbage goes somewhere...". Why didn't Bell address these issues? I do not know. I just don't get the impression Bell is being 100% honest with what is before him.
2nd critique of his book is his view of God..... I tell people the issue I have with the book is in the title. Love Wins.... I don't think Love Wins. I think God Wins. The word holy only appears twice in the book. How many times in the bible do you get God being Holy compared to God being Love? Holiness wins. For the word only to be used twice on such a central topic. I think bell ignores his other attributes. Are they mentioned........ yes. To Bell they don't carry as much weight. There has only one attribute that has been raised to the 3rd degree of repetition. Holy In Isaiah in the throne room and the same in revelations. Again I don't think Bell has Gods character weighted correctly as it is in the scriptures.
What I found interesting is that Chan knows Bell and called him about his book. They had a good talk I guess. I found that interesting.
There is more but I think those are the two big things I have with the book. It has been some time since I have read it. If anyone wants page numbers from Chan's book Erasing Hell his (rebuttal to Bells book kinda) let me know and I can get it for you. I don't have the book nor the time to look them up. I think it is a great book asking important questions that no ones else has at least publicly. I find in either case reading books I disagree with challenges me to know what I know better or that I am flat out wrong. I just ask people with any book including Chan's book look deeper.
I just ordered a copy of Erasing Hell from Amazon.com. I'll let you know what I think after I've read it. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
P.S. - One of the things I learned while I was flushing dispensationalism from my mind was to read both sides VERY carefully!
Very True......... It just seems Francis is just more honest in the book from both sides. I can't weigh too much on Francis as it is not confirmed in my head. I hope I represented it that way as just information I found. As with all books I usually get swept away with other topics and never get to exhaustively go through them...... At least I was able to read both books through. Although the main issues is from my own research. Regarding the greek word αιων and the issue of Holiness.
Anyway...... I would love to have your book review of Erasing Hell ....... Let me know what you think.
My copy of Erasing Hell came in the mail today, but it's probably going to be two weeks before I can digest and comment on it. I have a 1,500 word paper for Constructive Theology and a 3,500 word paper for History of the Christian Church to write by this time next week.
Well... I've considered Love Wins and Erasing Hell together, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed with both.
Back in the '70s and '80s, I read a lot of Erich von Daniken's books, like Chariots of the Gods. I didn't care for them because, instead of presenting valid archaeological evidence and arguments, von Daniken cherry-picked the remains of antiquity to find things that looked like what we think flying saucers SHOULD look like, then asked provocative questions, and went on to take it for granted that his questions had been answered affirmatively.
In some ways, Bell's thinking seems like von Daniken's. Yes, the questions are provocative, and yes, he finds some passages that seem to support his thesis, but he doesn't really draw the lines that connect his passages together with each other, and with the wholeness of the Scriptures.
On the other hand, Chan and Sprinkle seem to feed back traditional interpretations without giving much critical thought to the implications of those traditions. For instance, on pages 26 and 27 they wrote, "In Philippians 1:28, Paul says that those who oppose the gospel will face 'destruction,' while those who embrace it will be saved. There's a contrast here between believers and unbelievers; each have very different destinies. In Philippians 3:19, Paul refers to the enemies of Christ whose 'end is destruction,' while followers of Jesus look forward to resurrection and glory (3:20-21)."
Chan and Sprinkle place a lot of emphasis on "destruction," but if we stop and think about it, the traditional concept of Hell is NOT a place of destruction. It is a place of INdestructable torment.
In I Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul implies that everyone, even CHRISTIANS, are going to go through a fire. In verse 15 Paul writes, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." How does this square with the traditional concept of Hell?
This is all I can post right now. I'll post more later.
Well... I've considered Love Wins and Erasing Hell together, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed with both.
Back in the '70s and '80s, I read a lot of Erich von Daniken's books, like Chariots of the Gods. I didn't care for them because, instead of presenting valid archaeological evidence and arguments, von Daniken cherry-picked the remains of antiquity to find things that looked like what we think flying saucers SHOULD look like, then asked provocative questions, and went on to take it for granted that his questions had been answered affirmatively.
In some ways, Bell's thinking seems like von Daniken's. Yes, the questions are provocative, and yes, he finds some passages that seem to support his thesis, but he doesn't really draw the lines that connect his passages together with each other, and with the wholeness of the Scriptures.
On the other hand, Chan and Sprinkle seem to feed back traditional interpretations without giving much critical thought to the implications of those traditions. For instance, on pages 26 and 27 they wrote, "In Philippians 1:28, Paul says that those who oppose the gospel will face 'destruction,' while those who embrace it will be saved. There's a contrast here between believers and unbelievers; each have very different destinies. In Philippians 3:19, Paul refers to the enemies of Christ whose 'end is destruction,' while followers of Jesus look forward to resurrection and glory (3:20-21)."
Chan and Sprinkle place a lot of emphasis on "destruction," but if we stop and think about it, the traditional concept of Hell is NOT a place of destruction. It is a place of INdestructable torment.
In I Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul implies that everyone, even CHRISTIANS, are going to go through a fire. In verse 15 Paul writes, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." How does this square with the traditional concept of Hell?
This is all I can post right now. I'll post more later.
Love,
Steve
I agree with your points (from here, as I have not read the book), but I have to add something
about that LAST point. You said that passage implies that everyone "are going to go through a fire".
I think that passage implies nothing about a PERSON "going through a fire."
It seems clear to me that the person's WORK will "go through a fire" and the person will
be untouched by it. Let's look at the verses you mentioned, in 3 different versions.
==========================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
New International Version (NIV)
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
========================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
11because Christ is the only foundation. 12-13Whatever we build on that foundation will be tested by fire on the day of judgment. Then everyone will find out if we have used gold, silver, and precious stones, or wood, hay, and straw. 14We will be rewarded if our building is left standing. 15But if it is destroyed by the fire, we will lose everything. Yet we ourselves will be saved, like someone escaping from flames.
=============================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
======================
======================
======================
I think that's what it's saying- the WORKS are tried by fire but the person
It seems clear to me that the person's WORK will "go through a fire" and the person will
be untouched by it.
(snip)
I think that's what it's saying- the WORKS are tried by fire but the person
is spared the flames no matter what.
Thanks for chiming in, WordWolf! I always value your input.
I guess much would depend, in understanding your position, on what you mean by the word "untouched."
In Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, John the Baptist is quoted as saying that he himself baptized with water, but that he who came after him would baptize with Holy Spirit and with fire. I think the passage in I Corinthians 3 may well be referring to the baptism with fire.
To what degree the person himself experiences the fire as fire is the question, it seems. I believe the word "fire" is metaphorical. If it's intended to be literal, how are a person's "works" burned? I think it is a figure comparing the baptism with fire to a trash fire, which consumes worthless things, instead of a punitive infliction of pain.
It would appear to me that the amount of pain a person would feel in letting go of his less than worthy works would depend on how much of his identity he had invested in those things. Anecdotal evidence inclines me to believe that the baptism with fire will be painful to the degree that a person attaches inappropriate importance to his works.
We've been studying Luther in our History of the Christian Church class, specifically, Luther: A Guide for the Perplexed by David M. Whitford. I don't think grace means that our sins are as free of consequence as some of Luther's followers (especially Wierwille) have imagined. But then again, I don't think the pain is eternal. I think it will only last as long as it takes for a person to change the value he attaches to worthless things.
One of my objections to the conventional view of Hell is that Augustine based it on the Platonic notion that man is a two part being: a material, mortal body inhabited by an immaterial, immortal soul. I think this idea is alien to the Bible.
Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say God formed man's BODY of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and GAVE man a living soul.
It says God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, started up man's respiration, and man BECAME a living soul. Man is a ONE-PART being, a whole dust/soul simplex animated by breath.
Souls are not immortal. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. No man can keep his soul (whole self) alive.
Souls are not immaterial. "All who touch a corpse [nephesh muth - "dead soul"], the body of a human being who has died [muth - "dead"], and do not purify themselves, defile the tabernacle of the LORD; such persons [nephesh - "souls"] shall be cut off from Israel." Numbers 19:13 (NRSV) So here we have living souls who get kicked out of Israel for TOUCHING dead souls without washing up afterwards!
Sooo.... what does a dead soul know?
On page 50 of Erasing Hell, Chan and Sprinkle wrote, "Jews in the first century used the Old Testament to build their theology. But the Old Testament doesn't say much about Hell." But the Old Testament DOES have plenty to say about what dead souls know:
The dead know not anything... Ecclesiastes 9:5
There is no reward... Ecclesiastes 9:5
No memory... Ecclesiastes 9:5
No love... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No hatred... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No envy... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No portion... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No work... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No device... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No knowledge... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No wisdom... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No remembrance... Psalm 6:5
No thanks... Psalm 6:5
No profit... Psalm 30:9
No praise... Psalm 30:9
No declaration of truth... Psalm 30:9
Nor of lovingkindness... Psalm 88:11
Nor of faithfulness... Psalm 88:11
No knowing of wonders... Psalm 88:12
Nor of righteousness... Psalm 88:12
Only forgetfulness... Psalm 88:12... no memory
Darkness... Psalm 88:12... no light
And silence... Psalm 115:17... no sound.
In the very day that a soul dies, its thoughts perish... Psalm 146:4.
The conventional idea of Hell is a fiction composed by Plato, Augustine, Dante and Milton.
I may or may not agree with Bell's universalist tendencies, but I cannot agree with Chan and Sprinkles assertion that their conventional notion of Hell is biblical.
Thanks for your review of the book.... I don't think I can agree with you on your evaluation nor your view on hell and I don't have the time to go into it deeply. I can give you a little bit of my personal beliefs.
My views were formed prior to each book.
I think there is good evidence in scripture to say that people in hell will or may be destroyed.... As the verse implies by Jesus telling the disciples not to fear the one with the sword rather fear the one who has the power to throw your soul into hell and destroy it yes I tell you fear him. I always thought about it as a possibility..... But hey I could always be wrong.
I don't know why you say their book follows tradition... It seems to me the traditional since of hell is that people will be tortured for eternity.... Are you speaking about tradition to the early writers or of how we traditionally view hell in our culture.
I have a hard time seeing that in scripture. They may be in fire and that is torture but not torture as the devil is playing around with Humans.
Your comment about page 50 seems to be not looking at the next few pages. His point is not wholly what the OT says about hell but rather what the first century Jews said about it as he quoted a few of them. He also showed how some of them even disagreed about the issue of Annihilation or not......
To me the books main point was that hell is real and that you were not going to get saved out of it.
I don't know about these concepts of destruction or everlasting torment...
All I know is it is a place I don't want to go and that once your there it's either forever or your done.
But I guess I will have to find out on the other side of this life.
Recommended Posts
Twinky
Tell more, Steve. Reviews seem to indicate that Bell's premise is that everyone is okay and/or that there is no "hell" and that everyone (especially Gandhi?) is all right with God. Does Bell say that everyone goes to "heaven"? In which case, what does Bell say is or was the purpose of Jesus?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I would advise anyone NOT to judge what Bell has to say without first having read Love Wins for her or his self. I've read a lot of reviews that unfairly oversimplify and twist his thoughts for whatever reasons the reviewers think necessary, without ever addressing the genuine issues he brings up.
Bell does NOT say that there is no hell. He examines the historic development of the conventional form of the idea, and considers whether there might be ways of defining hell that are more in line with what the gospel actually says.
Bell does NOT say that everyone is all right with God, but he does suggest (with scriptural back up), that the consequences of sin may not be what we were taught they are, and may not happen when we were taught they would happen.
It would be hard to gather and communicate Bell's whole view of Jesus Christ, because Bell doesn't go into christology to any great extent in Love Wins, but Bell does NOT believe His purpose was to rescue us from the vindictive whims of a vengeful God.
Bell does NOT say that everyone goes to "heaven," but he asks the valid question, what does the Bible actually mean by "heaven?"
It would be hard for me, Twinky, to explain in any more detail what I came away with from the book, without knowing how you have learned to understand the "kingdom of God" since leaving TWI.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Twinky
Can't say I ever think about what the "kingdom of God" might or might not be - I just get on with living life, doing the best I know to do, being compassionate and forgiving and non-judgmental. I never got on the TWI bandwagon about any particular meaning. I look at what people do and say - I don't get involved in their theological disputes.
I'd agree "heaven" and "hell" are probably something quite different from what we have been taught - either by TWI or by most churches. There's probably a huge element of Greek mythology that has become incorporated into what we assume.
I don't know what becomes of people who live what seems a Godly life who have never heard of God the Father of JC; I can't think (nor ever have) that God is so mean as to banish eternally those who have lived decent lives with honorable and Godly principles - just because they lived hundreds of years ago (or even now) in Africa or Asia or Russia or the Amazon rainforest and never heard of JC. I'd prefer such a person to a "Christian" who has such a perverted view that they hurt, maim or even kill other people for not thinking as they do. Paul's epistles speak of Gentiles with the "law" written in their hearts (Rom 2:14-15 for example) in very favorable terms.
But no doubt that's a different discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Wierwille ignored what the Bible has to say about the kingdom of God. He said that stuff only applies when the king is on the earth, and since Jesus Christ is absent, the kingdom of God is presently in abeyance.
In Luke 18:18-30, three phrases are used as synonyms, that is, all three phrases mean the same thing. Those three phrases are "to inherit/receive eternal life," "to enter into the kingdom of God" and "to be saved." Entering into the kingdom of God is the same thing as being saved.
If you look at Jesus' teachings in the gospels, he doesn't say much of anything about preparing to go to heaven when we die. He teaches a heck of a lot, though, about making ourselves fit to be of service in the kingdom of God. It's even in the Lord's prayer (of which Wierwille taught that we DARE NOT pray)!
Bell considers some of the things we've been taught about heaven and hell in light of the things Jesus taught about entering into the kingdom of God.
Actually, the things you bring up, Twinky, are very much relevant to Bell's discussion.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
I read the book Love Wins.... I think it is a great thought provoking book.
There is a lot of mis information on the subject matter of the book.
He does believe in Hell just one that the lock is on the inside.....I think some of this can go alone with what C.S. Lewis writes in his book but to a more extreme.
Is his views Universalist? Yes.... I would say so... Since in his theology everyone soon makes it into heaven.
1st critique of his book is that he isn't honest with the historical views of certain words on hell and the definitions of certain greek words. For instance on page 34 (on my IPAD) he addresses the issue concerning heaven with the word age. Continues the use on page 83 in the term "eternal punishment" in Matthew 25. He says that it should not be eternal and that it should be more like a period of time. When doing my research on the word I find it in places like the end of the Lords prayer. Matthew 6:13 δοξα εις τους αιωνας αμην. This is how Bell would translate it with his definition: glory in the period of time (aionas) amen. I don't think Jesus meant to say glory for a period of time. I am sure in that case the context indicates exactly eternity or forever.
A month later or so Francis Chan had his book out with the help of another colleague who is more of a scholar theologian called erasing hell. He pointed out that that greek word αίὠν aion is a debated word in that community... I found that piece of info missing form his book.
He also continues talking about the writings of the 1st century rabbis and their view of hell. In terms with the word Gehenna. In his book he quotes rabbis of that time using the word as a literal eternal hell. He also says that the idea of that word as a dump didn't turn up until around the 1200s. Everyone used the word Gehenna as hell. Not everyone thought it was eternal but that is what the word was used for. Although in Bells book on page 64 he says it always meant a garbage dump on the next page he writes " So the next time someone asks you if you believe in an actual hell, you can always say, "Yes, I do believe that my garbage goes somewhere...". Why didn't Bell address these issues? I do not know. I just don't get the impression Bell is being 100% honest with what is before him.
2nd critique of his book is his view of God..... I tell people the issue I have with the book is in the title. Love Wins.... I don't think Love Wins. I think God Wins. The word holy only appears twice in the book. How many times in the bible do you get God being Holy compared to God being Love? Holiness wins. For the word only to be used twice on such a central topic. I think bell ignores his other attributes. Are they mentioned........ yes. To Bell they don't carry as much weight. There has only one attribute that has been raised to the 3rd degree of repetition. Holy In Isaiah in the throne room and the same in revelations. Again I don't think Bell has Gods character weighted correctly as it is in the scriptures.
What I found interesting is that Chan knows Bell and called him about his book. They had a good talk I guess. I found that interesting.
There is more but I think those are the two big things I have with the book. It has been some time since I have read it. If anyone wants page numbers from Chan's book Erasing Hell his (rebuttal to Bells book kinda) let me know and I can get it for you. I don't have the book nor the time to look them up. I think it is a great book asking important questions that no ones else has at least publicly. I find in either case reading books I disagree with challenges me to know what I know better or that I am flat out wrong. I just ask people with any book including Chan's book look deeper.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
I just ordered a copy of Erasing Hell from Amazon.com. I'll let you know what I think after I've read it. Thanks!
Love,
Steve
P.S. - One of the things I learned while I was flushing dispensationalism from my mind was to read both sides VERY carefully!
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Very True......... It just seems Francis is just more honest in the book from both sides. I can't weigh too much on Francis as it is not confirmed in my head. I hope I represented it that way as just information I found. As with all books I usually get swept away with other topics and never get to exhaustively go through them...... At least I was able to read both books through. Although the main issues is from my own research. Regarding the greek word αιων and the issue of Holiness.
Anyway...... I would love to have your book review of Erasing Hell ....... Let me know what you think.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
My copy of Erasing Hell came in the mail today, but it's probably going to be two weeks before I can digest and comment on it. I have a 1,500 word paper for Constructive Theology and a 3,500 word paper for History of the Christian Church to write by this time next week.
Love,
Steve
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Well... I've considered Love Wins and Erasing Hell together, and I have to say I'm a little disappointed with both.
Back in the '70s and '80s, I read a lot of Erich von Daniken's books, like Chariots of the Gods. I didn't care for them because, instead of presenting valid archaeological evidence and arguments, von Daniken cherry-picked the remains of antiquity to find things that looked like what we think flying saucers SHOULD look like, then asked provocative questions, and went on to take it for granted that his questions had been answered affirmatively.
In some ways, Bell's thinking seems like von Daniken's. Yes, the questions are provocative, and yes, he finds some passages that seem to support his thesis, but he doesn't really draw the lines that connect his passages together with each other, and with the wholeness of the Scriptures.
On the other hand, Chan and Sprinkle seem to feed back traditional interpretations without giving much critical thought to the implications of those traditions. For instance, on pages 26 and 27 they wrote, "In Philippians 1:28, Paul says that those who oppose the gospel will face 'destruction,' while those who embrace it will be saved. There's a contrast here between believers and unbelievers; each have very different destinies. In Philippians 3:19, Paul refers to the enemies of Christ whose 'end is destruction,' while followers of Jesus look forward to resurrection and glory (3:20-21)."
Chan and Sprinkle place a lot of emphasis on "destruction," but if we stop and think about it, the traditional concept of Hell is NOT a place of destruction. It is a place of INdestructable torment.
In I Corinthians 3:11-15, Paul implies that everyone, even CHRISTIANS, are going to go through a fire. In verse 15 Paul writes, "If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire." How does this square with the traditional concept of Hell?
This is all I can post right now. I'll post more later.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
WordWolf
I agree with your points (from here, as I have not read the book), but I have to add something
about that LAST point. You said that passage implies that everyone "are going to go through a fire".
I think that passage implies nothing about a PERSON "going through a fire."
It seems clear to me that the person's WORK will "go through a fire" and the person will
be untouched by it. Let's look at the verses you mentioned, in 3 different versions.
==========================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
New International Version (NIV)
11 For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work. 14 If what has been built survives, the builder will receive a reward. 15 If it is burned up, the builder will suffer loss but yet will be saved—even though only as one escaping through the flames.
========================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
11because Christ is the only foundation. 12-13Whatever we build on that foundation will be tested by fire on the day of judgment. Then everyone will find out if we have used gold, silver, and precious stones, or wood, hay, and straw. 14We will be rewarded if our building is left standing. 15But if it is destroyed by the fire, we will lose everything. Yet we ourselves will be saved, like someone escaping from flames.
=============================
1 Corinthians 3:11-15
New American Standard Bible (NASB)
11 For no man can lay a foundation other than the one which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 Now if any man builds on the foundation with gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, straw, 13 each man’s work will become evident; for the day will show it because it is to be revealed with fire, and the fire itself will test the quality of each man’s work. 14 If any man’s work which he has built on it remains, he will receive a reward. 15 If any man’s work is burned up, he will suffer loss; but he himself will be saved, yet so as through fire.
======================
======================
======================
I think that's what it's saying- the WORKS are tried by fire but the person
is spared the flames no matter what.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
Thanks for chiming in, WordWolf! I always value your input.
I guess much would depend, in understanding your position, on what you mean by the word "untouched."
In Matthew 3:11 and Luke 3:16, John the Baptist is quoted as saying that he himself baptized with water, but that he who came after him would baptize with Holy Spirit and with fire. I think the passage in I Corinthians 3 may well be referring to the baptism with fire.
To what degree the person himself experiences the fire as fire is the question, it seems. I believe the word "fire" is metaphorical. If it's intended to be literal, how are a person's "works" burned? I think it is a figure comparing the baptism with fire to a trash fire, which consumes worthless things, instead of a punitive infliction of pain.
It would appear to me that the amount of pain a person would feel in letting go of his less than worthy works would depend on how much of his identity he had invested in those things. Anecdotal evidence inclines me to believe that the baptism with fire will be painful to the degree that a person attaches inappropriate importance to his works.
We've been studying Luther in our History of the Christian Church class, specifically, Luther: A Guide for the Perplexed by David M. Whitford. I don't think grace means that our sins are as free of consequence as some of Luther's followers (especially Wierwille) have imagined. But then again, I don't think the pain is eternal. I think it will only last as long as it takes for a person to change the value he attaches to worthless things.
Thanks again, WordWolf!
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Steve Lortz
One of my objections to the conventional view of Hell is that Augustine based it on the Platonic notion that man is a two part being: a material, mortal body inhabited by an immaterial, immortal soul. I think this idea is alien to the Bible.
Genesis 2:7 DOESN'T say God formed man's BODY of the dust of the ground, breathed into his nostrils the breath of life and GAVE man a living soul.
It says God formed MAN of the dust of the ground, started up man's respiration, and man BECAME a living soul. Man is a ONE-PART being, a whole dust/soul simplex animated by breath.
Souls are not immortal. The soul that sinneth, it shall die. No man can keep his soul (whole self) alive.
Souls are not immaterial. "All who touch a corpse [nephesh muth - "dead soul"], the body of a human being who has died [muth - "dead"], and do not purify themselves, defile the tabernacle of the LORD; such persons [nephesh - "souls"] shall be cut off from Israel." Numbers 19:13 (NRSV) So here we have living souls who get kicked out of Israel for TOUCHING dead souls without washing up afterwards!
Sooo.... what does a dead soul know?
On page 50 of Erasing Hell, Chan and Sprinkle wrote, "Jews in the first century used the Old Testament to build their theology. But the Old Testament doesn't say much about Hell." But the Old Testament DOES have plenty to say about what dead souls know:
The dead know not anything... Ecclesiastes 9:5
There is no reward... Ecclesiastes 9:5
No memory... Ecclesiastes 9:5
No love... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No hatred... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No envy... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No portion... Ecclesiastes 9:6
No work... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No device... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No knowledge... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No wisdom... Ecclesiastes 9:10
No remembrance... Psalm 6:5
No thanks... Psalm 6:5
No profit... Psalm 30:9
No praise... Psalm 30:9
No declaration of truth... Psalm 30:9
Nor of lovingkindness... Psalm 88:11
Nor of faithfulness... Psalm 88:11
No knowing of wonders... Psalm 88:12
Nor of righteousness... Psalm 88:12
Only forgetfulness... Psalm 88:12... no memory
Darkness... Psalm 88:12... no light
And silence... Psalm 115:17... no sound.
In the very day that a soul dies, its thoughts perish... Psalm 146:4.
The conventional idea of Hell is a fiction composed by Plato, Augustine, Dante and Milton.
I may or may not agree with Bell's universalist tendencies, but I cannot agree with Chan and Sprinkles assertion that their conventional notion of Hell is biblical.
Love,
Steve
Edited by Steve LortzLink to comment
Share on other sites
Naten00
Thanks for your review of the book.... I don't think I can agree with you on your evaluation nor your view on hell and I don't have the time to go into it deeply. I can give you a little bit of my personal beliefs.
My views were formed prior to each book.
I think there is good evidence in scripture to say that people in hell will or may be destroyed.... As the verse implies by Jesus telling the disciples not to fear the one with the sword rather fear the one who has the power to throw your soul into hell and destroy it yes I tell you fear him. I always thought about it as a possibility..... But hey I could always be wrong.
I don't know why you say their book follows tradition... It seems to me the traditional since of hell is that people will be tortured for eternity.... Are you speaking about tradition to the early writers or of how we traditionally view hell in our culture.
I have a hard time seeing that in scripture. They may be in fire and that is torture but not torture as the devil is playing around with Humans.
Your comment about page 50 seems to be not looking at the next few pages. His point is not wholly what the OT says about hell but rather what the first century Jews said about it as he quoted a few of them. He also showed how some of them even disagreed about the issue of Annihilation or not......
To me the books main point was that hell is real and that you were not going to get saved out of it.
I don't know about these concepts of destruction or everlasting torment...
All I know is it is a place I don't want to go and that once your there it's either forever or your done.
But I guess I will have to find out on the other side of this life.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Christ is the Fire.
When you take hold of it, it will take hold of you.
Good thing he's in charge of when to strike the match.
And what is destroyed/purified by himself in you.
Yeah, you watch, yourself, while being in the fire, yourself.
Who can see themselves honestly as Christ does and handle it?
Destroyed, yes, and raised again, the new man.
The candles, set in you, waiting, for it's time to fire up.
There's nothing else hot enough to be one with Christ.
Except Christ himself. Love wins, there's more in you then you ever thought.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.