Erwin certainly give the traditional Southern Baptist nutshell of the salvation message. What we are dealing with in our culture is not - in my opinion - the inability of the traditional gospel message, including the horrors of hell, to reach the unsaved, but rather the Evangelical Church's unwillingness to be unpopular within the culture. Consequently, those of us who do believe in a literal hell (ghenna, hades, firey furnace, outer darkness) as described in the Bible, and are willing to say so, find ourselves persecuted in a sense by others within our own sub-culture. This is particularly true in Christian university/seminary circles. The accusation of "being unloving"and "intolerant" is the ultimate verbal slam and is used extensively against anyone who takes the Bible literally. I actually find a much greater acceptance of Biblical truth outside of those confines.

/sigh
I was told once about life and death, the afterlife and the afterdeath, and this is how it was told to me...

"This life...this life with all it's grandeur, all it's beauty, and all it's wonderfulness...this life for an unbeliever, one who eschews Y'shua, one who says, "there is no G-d", this life...is as close to heaven as they'll ever get.
And conversely, this life...this life with all it's ugliness, rape, murder, hatred, violence, spite, war, crime, and corruption...this life for a believer is as close to hell as they'll ever get."

The bible has been quite clear...we, humans, have been forseen as eternal creatures.
We have been ordained eternal creatures by the G-d most high...Gabriel, Micheal...uh...geez, sorry I'm not up on all the angels names, but all the angels, including Satan, are eternal creatures.
And all final destinations are considered eternal...thats the annoying thing about G-d...he can be consistent to a fault.
There is no merciful annihilation with G-d, he makes eternal eternal, you get to choose how you spend that eternity.
Hence the eternal lake of fire "where their worm never dies"...an eternal existence of bitterness, envy, anger...hell then is a life unchanged from the one that was just lived, except now there is no excuse, all is known, there is no denial, and yet, there is no desire to bridge the chasm.
Look at the rich man and Lazarus...it's all right there...thats the afterlife.
The rich man isn't asking G-d, "forgive me father for I have sinned!"
No, he wants an end to the loneliness, he wants his desires met, he wants the good things, a drop of water from Lazarus's finger tip, not from G-d's finger tip, but from Lazarus's finger tip...how sad is that? So the answer he gets is just as revealing as his request revealing his motivations..."there is a chasm between you and me..."
That chasm exists, it is very real, and for those who do not bridge it with G-d...very eternal.
Hell is real...oh so painfully real, and denying it doesn't make it go away...as much as I like that idea.
No, the truth in the scriptures are unarguably clear, and I could deny that truth, thereby denying G-d's truth, or accept it. And if I accept G-d's truth, then I must submit my ego and my opinion to the truth.
Hell, whether a nasty lake of fire burning like in Dante's inferno, or a dark, lonely life outside the gates of the new Jerusalem watching the comings and goings of others...it is not a nice place to be.
Ever.
And yet...

"What we are dealing with in our culture is not - in my opinion - the inability of the traditional gospel message, including the horrors of hell, to reach the unsaved, but rather the Evangelical Church's unwillingness to be unpopular within the culture."

I hope you realize that if you prefer to gladly accept your unpopularity, you should also gladly accept the ridicule that goes with it. After all, that is what it means to be "unpopular." In your case, you should rejoice in those calling you intolerant or unloving. It's their way of letting you know that you're wildly unpopular, which you seem to believe is a virtue.

This clip got off on the wrong foot from the start. He stated, "Why would a loving God...?" He should've started with God's holiness - "A holy God must punish sin..."

What we are dealing with in our culture is not - in my opinion - the inability of the traditional gospel message, including the horrors of hell, to reach the unsaved, but rather the Evangelical Church's unwillingness to be unpopular within the culture.

I don't believe that's the case at all, really.

To me the people who really believe in the traditional doctrine of hell have had no problem asserting that belief despite the perceived or real ridicule they receive.

I think the issue is that there are lots of people who grew hearing the traditional doctrine in church, but, for whatever reason, it never quite sat right with them. I would include myself in that number. I grew up in AoG pastor's house, and I really can't say I ever was angst-filled about it, or that I ever really rebelled, but in my late twenties I started just having nagging questions about certain things. One of those was the notion of hell and how we portray it. It really wasn't until I read The Great Divorce that I started coming to a conclusion that I could at least come to terms with.

I think, on whole, people over-estimate that amount that the people sitting in their church's pews actually agree with their statement of faith.

That is a good point Dave...a Holy G-d...the American Church has forgotten that G-d is a Holy G-d.
Holiness means more than "well, isn't that just precious!"
I have found that believers who have a difficult time with hell, also have a difficult time with the concept of G-d's Holiness.
They prefer the marshmallow G-d, the big cream puff in the sky, the little squalling baby Jesus surrounded by cute lil'lambs, and lowing calfs...and unfortunately, often act in their everyday lives as if G-d were the bud with the bachelor pad and the x-box.

Perhaps that is the angle we should be arguing from...a Holy G-d, a Righteous G-d...who went out of his way to prove beyond measure that he loves us by paying the debt of sin with his own mortal life.
If only a few of us are eternal, why bother with dying on a cross...bah, just scoop up everyone, sift out the gems from the sand, and end this crappy experiment of love.
But if we are eternal...hmmm...what is he to do with people who reject the offer of salvation and eternal life with G-d?
Annihilate them? well, sorry, there is no mercy coup de'grace for anyone in eternity.
So that means that those who reject G-d are going to be having the same daily conversation with G-d that the Rich man had every second, every minute, every hour, every day, every week, every month, every year for all eternity...each answer to their request will be simple, and direct..."betwixt you and I is a chasm...neither can I come to you, nor you to I...because of that chasm."
That...is what hell is...a constant begging and pleading with a Holy G-d who tells you over and over again..."you had your chances, and you rejected each of my overtures...here, let me hit playback for you so you can see exactly where I came to you each time...see there, there, and there...and now here is your collective response to all my direct overtures to you. Yep...thats all you right there.
In hell there is no forgetting because a Holy G-d will not allow one word, one thought, one action to go unaccounted.
For anyone who teaches, or says "there is no "eternal" hell"...you are contravening the scriptures.

For the record, I don't go around talking about hell all the time - it's just that it somehow seems appropos to this particular conversation.

Phil, the fact that you had nagging questions about certain things doesn't seem relevant to what the Bible has to say about hell. Jesus didn't back away from His teaching on hell because it didn't sit well with folks, did he? And growing up in the house of an AoG pastor doesn't make a person a Christian any more than growing up in the garage would make them a car.

sheera - you and I are on the same page, how about that?

Phil, the fact that you had nagging questions about certain things doesn't seem relevant to what the Bible has to say about hell. Jesus didn't back away from His teaching on hell because it didn't sit well with folks, did he? And growing up in the house of an AoG pastor doesn't make a person a Christian any more than growing up in the garage would make them a car.

First of all, I never claimed that growing up in a Christian house somehow magically made me a Christian (I'm familiar with the old Keith Green spiel, too). I'm a Christian only because of my relationship with Christ.

Secondly, you missed the point, Melody. The point is that I don't think the traditional teaching on hell lines up very well with what the Bible actually says about the subject. Actually, the Bible seems to dwell on the subject a lot less than Christians do. The fact that I became more familiar with context of the Biblical narrative and became less comfortable with pulling bits and pieces of prooftexts from the original passages is what led me to where I am.

So I'm all for talking about what the Bible says about Hell. But to quote Inigo Montoya, my opinion on much of the discussion I hear regarding hell is, "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Phil, thus far you have said absolutely nothing about what the Bible says about hell. Please don't take offense at my English teacheresque need for one's writing to make sense, but please try to follow me here. Your comment, "...the Bible seems to dwell on the subject a lot less than Christians do." is a purely subjective statement and you give no evidence to back it up. Again, the sentence that follows, "The fact that I became more familiar with context of the Biblical narrative..." how so? "...and became less comfortable with pulling bits and pieces of prooftexts from the original passages..." why were you doing that to begin with? "... is what led me to where I am." And where is that? "So I'm all for talking about what the Bible says about Hell." You have not mentioned even one thing that the Bible says about hell. You do however quote an obscure fictional character who made a thoroughly inane statement about hell in a novel written in the 1970's as your final thought. Hmmm...

Andy, you're right, it's an interesting discussion.

Melody,

Since you seem to be championing a face value reading of the words in the Bible, then I do believe it suggests that you, as a female, remain silent. Is that not correct? Not that I agree that women should remain silent, but if one reads the Bible and simply applies what it says, how do you justify being so outspoken on such matters when the text clearly and plainly tells us that because your a woman, you have no authority to teach a man. Any other conclusion you could offer would be a relativizing of the text, which you seem to be allergic to in this discussion about hell. When you rely on the "this is what the bible plainly says" approach, then you have to maintain that position on all matters the bible speaks of, not just a few. It's the unfortunate position of someone who considers negotiation with the text an impossibility. It's the cross you bear, so to speak, and not just when it suits your doctrinal whims.

Zach, you seem to want to 'negotiate' with the text of what I have said here. You have grossly mischaracterized everything I have said and are attempting to shut me up by deflecting attention away from the subject at hand. I will not bite your bait. Neither you nor Phil seem willing to engage in a discussion of what the Bible says about hell. You don't have to agree with the Bible, but why won't you even talk about it? You aren't even willing to discuss your 'negotiated' beliefs about hell and and where those beliefs originate from (well maybe Phil did with his fictional character). Rather than asking me to further explain something I have said, you have created your own context for them. Is this how you deal with scripture?

This understanding of "hell" certainly rings more true to an Orthodox Christian understanding of both the nature of our salvation (as a real change in the state of our being to be in union with God, not merely a legal pardon enabling God to now accept us regardless of the real state of our heart) and of the Divine nature. In Orthodoxy, it would not be appropriate to talk of God's holiness or righteousness in a way that suggests that these are attributes to be contrasted with His mercy and love, as is so common in evangelicalism (represented by comments above such as those made by Sheerahkhan). Rather, God's righteousness and holiness have to do with the perfect and incorruptible nature of God's love, mercy, life, light, truth, etc., such that these are "wholly other" in quality and beyond anything we might reference by these terms on a merely human level. Human "justice" demands retributive punishment befitting the crime to "balance the scales." (Orthodox do not believe *God* was punishing Jesus on the Cross for the sin of mankind in order to be enabled to "justly" accept sinners, as is thought to be at the heart of the Atonement by many, if not most, evangelicals. Although Orthodox do understand that Jesus took the punishment intrinsic to our sin on the Cross out of love for us and in order to redeem us for God from sin and death.) God's "justice," fully revealed only in the Person of Jesus Christ and which far supersedes the OT Law (even as it fulfills it), requires a return of good for evil, forgiveness for offenses, healing and reconciliation of relationship, aid and protection for the poor and oppressed, and life in exchange for death. Salvation is the result of a change wrought in the sinful human heart, not in the heart of God which is without change and enduring it its absolute mercy and goodness, continually outpoured upon all He has made. Torment in the afterlife (what we are calling "hell") is the result of the sinner's willful and continued rejection of God (in the post mortum realization of the full light of the Reality of Who God is), not God's rejection of the sinner, Whom He continues to love. This line of Orthodox thought is most completely developed in the writings of St. Isaac the Syrian. C.S. Lewis' thought is certainly quite close to Orthodoxy in this respect.

I would respectfully disagree that evangelicals are unwilling to be popular.

I think the real issue is that we've invested so much in being unpopular for the sake of secondary and tertiary issues that when it comes time to actually address first order issues we've shot our credibility...

why would people want to trust a painful, but honest answer about certain things that comes from a community that should be marked by compassion, gentleness, honesty and love in their communication when we've been anything but those things?

Melody & Karen,

Would you both admit that there is ZERO reference to hell in the OT?

Would you both admit that hell never makes an appearance in the Gospel of John, the entirety of Acts, all of Paul's, Peter's, James', Jude's and John's epistles?

Would you admit that the word Hell in Matthew, Mark & Luke is parabolic. Jesus never actually used the word Hades (he didn't speak Greek to his listeners, but Aramaic/Hebrew). He referenced Gehenna, the dump outside Jerusalem.

All of sudden, Hell has been elevated as one of 2 final destinations of mankind.

Please don't share you traditional views or the views of Orthodoxy. Go back to the Bible and see what is actually said.

BTW, since the very first post here at OutofUr I have yet to have a single person answer the question as to why hell never comes up in Acts or ANY of the epistles - even once?

I have written a basic intro to Hell here: http://www.thepath.cc/2010/hell

Paul, respectfully, we are not disagreeing about what Scripture (OT or NT) actually says in terms of its choice of words and definitions of those specific words, but how to interpret their meaning (taken together, especially in context of the full revelation of what Christ teaches in the Gospels). Therefore, I cannot simply go back and refer to the Bible alone. It is never alone. It is always subject to our own philosophical and religious traditional presuppositions (even if our intention is to rule those out) as well as the presuppositions of the translators of whatever version/s one reads if one doesn't read and understand the original languages. It is your reading of Scripture on this issue that is the more original in the history of Christian thought, and I find this is interesting in light of cults that teach the same thing (annihilation of the damned). However, I am sympathetic also to your passion about this because I agree that there are some significant distortions that have skewed modern cultural understandings of what the Church has always taught about "heaven and hell" (meaning the ultimate destiny of both the righteous and unrighteous), such as those described here:

http://ancientfaith.com/podcasts/carlton/hell_a_modest_proposal.

"In Orthodoxy, it would not be appropriate to talk of God's holiness or righteousness in a way that suggests that these are attributes to be contrasted with His mercy and love, as is so common in evangelicalism (represented by comments above such as those made by Sheerahkhan)."

Fascinating.
I have just been accused of being an Evangelical...I'm not sure what to say to that other than thats a new one on me.

My apologies Karen, but much of what you have written is strange to me.
I attribute that to being you are talking from a Eastern Orthodox tradition which is completely and totally alien to me.
I will have to yield to your knowledge and only say that I can not comment on your religion.

Karen, you said:

"Paul, respectfully, we are not disagreeing about what Scripture (OT or NT) actually says in terms of its choice of words and definitions of those specific words, but how to interpret their meaning"

So you are basically removing the definition of the words, used hundreds of times consistently, to somehow "interpret" them.

Sheol, Hebrew for grave, is the ONLY word used in the OT to explain the state of the dead, whether to person was good or bad. ALL go to the same place and await the resurrection at the end of the age.

This is consistently what Jesus taught as well:

"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when ALL who are in their graves will hear his voice, and come out--those who have done good will rise to LIVE, and those who have done evil will rise to be CONDEMNED."

Yet, you choose to take parabolic references to a dump outside Jerusalem (Gehenna) and construct a doctrine out of it. I understand that you are leveraging tradition, but when tradition is proved wrong by scripture, tradition should be discarded. Jesus spoke of this as well (re: "traditions of men" Matt 15).

Fast forward to the Dark Ages when fear became a tremendous motivator to control people (forced conversions, purgatory, indulgences) and they were kept in ignorance by the priesthood of the Catholic Church... this is where your doctrine stems from. Not the Holy Bible.

Karen/Melody,

One thing I applaud you for is that you have the integrity to not come up with a weak argument as to why Hell is omitted from the teaching of the apostles across over 30-40 yrs of writings and real-life events (Acts).

Before you point to others (ie: me) re-inventing or re-creating doctrine, it might be good to come up with an answer on this question.

When it comes to hell, are you or I more in line with the teaching of the early church (before it apostatized into the RCC for a season)?

Paul, you're losing track of all the threads I fear; me too! But at least we are sticking with it where other, less determined bloggers have given up. So to remind you, on the first thread I answered your request:

Paul C. - "To get a sense of what Jesus really taught, we can look at the apostles for their understanding." Why can't we understand Jesus' words as HE spoke them? In the 13th chapter of Matthew the disciples came to Jesus to ask for clarification on the 'Parable of the Tares of The Field'. At the end of his numerous analogies he finishes with, "..and shall cast them [tares] into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Jesus saith unto them, Have ye understood all these things? They say unto him, Yea, Lord." (Mat. 13:50,51) Did any of the apostles seek to clarify any of this further? No, why should they when it had been made abundantly plain and they said they understood. No, Jesus did not use the term "Hell". He described a place no one wants to go. Call it what you like but a "furnace of fire where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth" is not a place I wish to go, even if you called it "Heaven".

BTW I couldn't find the comment I made about you "re-inventing or re-creating doctrine". If I did, I apologize.

Melody, Jesus final comment to them is that if they understand (based on what you quoted), thn they should basically preach the same thing:

He said to them, "Therefore every teacher of the law who has been instructed about the kingdom of heaven is like the owner of a house who brings out of his storeroom new treasures as well as old."

The question is, did they preach on a burning place called hell? Just one instance out of several thousand verses? Nope. Not one.

So either they were not true to the teaching of Jesus (see :42) or they actually understood what He was communicating. Take your pick.

I'm not trying to be rude or arrogant here, but Hell, as you understand it, is based on the traditions of men. The disciples were able to understand Jesus' illustrations and they taught the precise same message He taught.

"You are built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets. Christ Jesus himself is the cornerstone." Eph 2:20

They ALL agree as to the matter of the state of the dead, and the 2 ultimate ends of man (which occur only at the resurrection).

Not the best clip, I would enjoy hearing the whole sermon.

I don't really see him saying anything with any amount of substance. He dances between a metaphysical argument and an ontological argument for Hell yet never really comes down with concrete definitions. I think that is because of an edited clip done by someone who was looking for a particular look and did not listen for coherence.

I like Pastor Erwin a lot. But this needs more clarity.

I have a strong feeling that the majority of "our people" in our churches do not believe in the traditional hell. The deeper question is, why does it matter?

Scripture, Tradition, God & Hell.

Let me first say that I'm basically with Paul C and Phil here. I've definitely lost track of the thread. I want to add some comments that I did not read above... I think my last point might be my best.

Jesus teaches much like a Hebrew prophet.
The prophets frequently make statements about God's judgement of his people that speak of their complete and final annihiliation, but chapters later we read about their coming redemption, which shows the previous prophecies to be hyperbolic. Canonically, is it possible that Paul's references to the reconciliation of "all things" in Christ are the true and final words of redemption that show previous revelation to have been true, but also hyperbolic and not final? I'm going to stop short of writing a commentary on Revelation here.

Jesus predicts that those who don't follow him (or, his teaching) will meet Gehenna (the stank, burning, unclean refuse heap outside Jerusalem). In 70 A.D. one might say that Jerusalem and Gehenna become indistinquishable. Is this the fulfillment of Jesus' warnings about Gehenna?

Tradition:
Interesting that the Apostles and Nicene Creeds talk about judgement rather than hell, but we tend to equate judgement with condemnation and condemnation with hell and hell is...
I guess that depends.
The traditionalist position formulated by Augustine on hell was "eternal conscious torment" The observation of this state of being would add to the joys of heaven for the redeemed, serving as an eternal reminder of what they had been saved from. Of course, Augustine consigned unbaptized infants and "Christians" who had not completed the 5th century membership process to hell too.
In terms of tradition then, such innovations as an "age of accountability" and the possible optionality (word?) of baptism would be perceived by Augustine as "liberal" erosions of the holy God's consistent plan of salvation. Slippery slope? We have to recognize that Augustine's position, Lewis' position and our own positions contain much selectivity regarding scripture and the "reason" of our own social and historical contexts. Trying to consider and honor all the relevant scriptures and relevant principles of interpretation is mind-boggling and we generally end up allowing the scriptures that favor our view to be the lenses for interpreting the others. As a general idea, this is fine, but in practice it may reveal as much personal or communal self-interest as it does God's truth.
For instance:
Phil. 2 - "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father"
So then God says, "Thanks for those kind words, now most of you are off to hell for eternity. Ta ta!" ?
OR, does Romans 10 stand in perpetuity?
Romans 10:9 - "If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead, you will be saved."

On the character of God.
1. We like to say that God's holiness demands justice and that God's justice requires him to punish evil. In this schema, salvation through Jesus' death and resurrection is God's sneaky way of not having to do what his holiness requires him to do. Let's admit it, salvation is not REALLY justice, the way any of us conceive of justice! Is it a trick? Is it love>mercy>salvation TRIUMPHING (word?) over holiness>justice>hell? Yeah, I have some problems with penal substitution. I also favor N.T. Wright's conception of God's justice, which can stand more firmly with God's mercy and grace.
2. The HOLINESS>justice>eternal punishment conception of God seems to pit God (the Father) against us, while Jesus is for us. This places a major rift in the Trinity. I tend to think God is FOR US in his Triune fullness, including his holiness.
3. Is it really "just" for God to torture any human for eternity? We like to think of God as a loving father. Would any of us call a father "loving" who would torture a child for even one hour UNLESS that "torture" would somehow achieve a greater redemption? Loving fathers can be stern disciplinarians but (I think) never torturers with no objective. Of course, our new modern (C.S.Lewis) versions of hell don't conceive of hell as God's torture chamber the way Augustine did and I can see merit in Lewis' conception to a point.

Last Point - On Humans and existence. God may intend us for eternity, but is God bound to sustain us for eternity? Why would God sustain any being for eternity that was completely beyond redemption? Theologically if we believe that God sustains everything that exists, then for hell and its "citizens" to be eternal, they CANNOT be completely separated from the source of their existence, namely God. In Augustinian fashion, we must insist that God is actively sustaining the "lives" of those in hell and hell itself. If we insist upon a state of separation from God, then annihilationism makes a lot of sense of the FIRE of hell. The fire is eternal, not the burn victims.

Beyond this we get into much larger discussions about the nature of salvation, the Gospel and so on.

"The deeper question is, why does it matter?" - Elizabeth

It was a typical bittersweet reunion of best of friends after many years of not hearing from each other. Bitter because hers was a marriage-on-the-rocks. Sweet because I felt I was a god-sent-white-knight-in-a-shining-armor-with-a-mission to save her.

I did my part the best I could in "shepherding" her - from God-loves-you lights to why-man-suffer heavies. God is good. Her marriage was saved. Her family remained intact. Her career prospered. And her future looked bright.

Until...one day, I was caught napping when she asked me this startling question: "Does hell exist?"

After a couple of years of shepherding her, for the first time, I was frightened out of my wits. I didn't know why. But, all at once, I had qualms; the question hounded me to feel I would lose her. If she was harboring suspicions about the existence of hell, I mulled over with fear and trembling, then, her raising a doubt about the existence of God would not be far behind.

Again, I did my part the best I could in bringing her to light with passages in the Bible to hold at bay "the enemy the devil who prowled around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour."

To the bitter end, I toiled in vain.

She had an affair; followed later by a divorce.

Matt, thanks so much for your thoughtful reflection. Very relevant. I became Orthodox largely because of the erroneous understanding of God's "justice" and of the origin and nature of the torment and remorse of the unjust that is experienced at the Last Judgment which results from the Reformers' doctrine of Penal Substitution and understanding of hell. The deeper I reflected on the nature of the grace and love of God expressed in Christ, the less I found this interpretation of the nature of God and of the Atonement satisfying--in fact, I finally woke up and realized that if indeed this is what "God" is like (needing to punish an innocent victim to demonstrate His righteous wrath and uphold His own "honor"), I would never be able to trust or love Him. In other words, I found I was caught in a pretty ferocious "double bind" if I wanted to be saved to be like Christ. From an Orthodox perspective in some important respects the Reformers and Radical Reformers did not succeed in correcting many underlying philosophical assumptions and interpretations of Scripture from Roman Catholic error. The understanding within Orthodoxy is radically different, and though it bears a surface resemblance to some aspects of Roman Catholicism, in reality there is greater underlying philosophical agreement between Roman Catholicism and Protestantism than there is between Roman Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Here I can't emphasize enough that when it comes to proper interpretation of either Scripture or of a particular Christian group's teachings/practices, CONTEXT IS EVERYTHING!

Sheerahkhan, sorry for inadvertently lumping you in a category of Christendom you don't claim for yourself. Your comments about God's holiness nonetheless seem to show a similar influence and origin to views espoused by most modern evangelicals.

Paul C., if I have given the impression that Orthodox teaching regarding the nature of Hades and Gehenna is in any way the same as that of Medieval Roman Catholicism, I have done a huge disservice to my own faith! To correct that impression, I beg you to go to the podcasts on this issue (the first in a series of four is linked above in one of my earlier comments) by Dr. Clark Carlton to get a clearer view of what the Orthodox understanding of hell is, and is not! It will only take about 40 minutes of your time if you listen to all four. I think you will find it validates much of what you have concluded from your study of Scripture on this issue far more than it challenges it.

The Fathers of the Church taught that fear of hell/death (as ultimate destiny) could in no way save someone. Rather we know from Scripture that the origin of sin's power in the human heart is the fear of death (and in the immediate context and also in light of the practical reality of human experience as well as Scripture's overall teaching about the nature of sin and death, it is difficult to distinguish or separate the ideas of death as punishment and death as extinction). Also, I think of 1 John 4 where the Apostle talks about the inverse relationship of fear of punishment to perfection in love (perfection in love, being the consummation of the Christian's working out in their own personal life through faith the salvation wrought for all humankind in Christ). I think it would be faithful to patristic thought to say that fear of hell (as eternal destiny, regardless if this means extinction or ongoing spiritual regret and torment following final judgment), in the proportion that this serves as motivation for one's religious behavior, is rather proof that one has not yet begun to actually work out their salvation in Christ! They saw that for some kinds of people, fear of hell could serve in a limited way to get them into the Church and within hearing of the gospel where over time grace might then begin to have its work in them, but it is only faith in the gospel--in the full revelation of God's love in Christ and of His triumph over sin and death--that has the power to genuinely transform the human heart and thus save, and for most this is also what will ultimately draw them into the Church.

Hope this helps to balance what I have had to say so far. Certainly, this is just scratching the surface of the depth and breadth of Orthodox teaching of the nature of our salvation in Christ.

Interesting. To suggest that anyone willingly chooses to go to hell is insulting, not to mention incorrect. If one doesn't realize they are making this choice, then it is not a choice, is it? So hell is like a trap. You don't realize you're choosing to go there until it's too late. And at that point, an all-powerful all-loving God is powerless to save you, because the doors are locked from the inside. Easy for you to say if you're not going there, don't you think?

Look around, people. Hell is already here right now. Let`s focus on what we can do about that and leave this pointless doctrine of eternal hell behind. Unless of course you think God intended to use it as a scare tactic or a sneaky trap.

Some much talk and so little Scripture...

In response to those who are asking for more scripture - It's not because we don't know it or haven't read it, but because this isn't a forum for writing biblical commentaries and we aren't interested in prooftexting.

resources on scripture:

http://www.heraldmag.org/literature/doc_16.htm

http://www.harvestherald.com/pdf/eternal_torment_not_scriptural.pdf

I also recommend George Hunsiner's essay "Hellfire and Damnation" from his book "Diruptive Grace"

Thank you, Matt. Well said.

Rueben, like you I don't believe God is trying to hide the way of salvation from people--quite the reverse. He is not being sneaky, but we are warned throughout the Scriptures (and by the Holy Spirit speaking to our conscience) about the wiles and tremendous malice of the evil one and of the folly of our prideful inclination to depend on our own limited perceptions and abilities, through which we enter "hell" even in this life. Orthodox teaching on this issue sees this life as interpenetrated by both heaven (eternal life) and hell (death). In its teaching about hell, it is most concerned with providing us with discernment about the *present dynamic* at work within our own spiritual lives and the struggle of working out our present salvation by continually seeking to lay hold of God's grace in Christ and, with His help, resisting evil. Satan masquerades as an angel of light. If we cooperate with evil by our own pride and love of comfort and pleasure over goodness and truth, we will bear rotten fruit and if we persist on this path it will eventually bring forth death in our lives. This, too, is the mercy of God. We ought to approach the fact that God has given us true freedom of the will in light of the existence of evil with all that implies with great fear and trembling and humility. If we do, no matter how many times we stumble and need God's help to rise, God will not let us down. For those trapped in total ignorance of Christ and the Scriptures through no fault of their own, oppressed and blinded by satan, if there is even the tiniest inclination toward Him, I fully trust God will still be merciful and abundantly able to save. I, too, cannot fathom how someone could willingly cooperate with evil and continue to resist receiving God's mercy in full light of its reality, but Scripture clearly teaches that because of man's creation in God's image with the freedom of will and moral responsibility this implies, this is a true possibility and God will not force Himself on anyone. God is more than able to cause us to triumph over satan's deceptions and traps in our life, but if we are determined to keep resisting what light we have been given and taking his evil bait, what more can a loving God do than He has already done? Whether one thinks of final judgment for the one who has rejected God's grace (whether explicitly or implicitly by their life choices and persistent inclinations) as a moment of terrible regret and revelation followed by extinction or just the reality of an immortal soul entering the Presence of God without having properly prepared for that and being tormented by all they have done and become in the now clear light of the awesome purity of God's mercy and what could have been, in either case this is truly awful to contemplate! Eastern Orthodoxy teaches the latter of these two scenarios, but doesn't view the origin of the torment as God's anger and rejection (as many Western theologies suppose), but rather, ironically, the very reality of His continuing to love and extend His offer of life and mercy to the ones who have come to the place where they loathe themselves so much they cannot bring themselves to embrace it. Our social workers, courts, law enforcement workers, and medical professionals sadly encounter this self-destructive dynamic at work in people all the time! Either way, Scripture says that it is the fear of *death* (not of judgment) that produces sin in people's lives. If we believe Christ's words, we need to make every effort to lay hold of the grace of God in such a way that our lives and experience reflect the reality of His victory over sin and death. Most people don't need to be persuaded that there is a hell--though they may not call it by that name, they already live in it (though not in its fullness). Rather, they need to see evidence that God is good, that His mercy endures forever and that His offer of life, salvation and forgiveness in Christ, like all His gifts, is irrevocable and never from His end rescinded. I find it interesting that in John's vision of the new heavenly Jerusalem in Revelation that there are no gates barring the way into the Kingdom; rather the open gates are simply guarded by angels. It seems to me that this speaks of the truth that the way to (or from) heaven is never arbitrarily closed for anyone, even in the life to come.

Thirty something evangelical Christian with large struggles with hell, here. I can't wade into the conversation because I'm just starting to really study it myself. Looking forward to checking out the podcasts.

But here's the thing. It is very, very difficult for me to reconcile the idea that spending 70+ years (if your fortunate) on this earth not following God equals and ETERNITY of unspeakable torment with justice. You can say humanity chooses that by not choosing God and that God is holy and so that's just the way it has to be. But answer me this, who came up with the system in the first place? If God's hands are tied by this, then what's the point?

The xtian hokey-pokey is about more than just believing in some narcissistic, masochistic sky god who gets his giggles off torturing eternal nobodies who go around living "bad" lives according to those who deem them to be so (after all, don't we like to make up the rules?) and decide to condemn themselves to this place of fire and brimstone.

Pardon my sarcasm, but this is what I get everytime I hear this message. "G-d loves you and has a wonderful plan for your life... unless you decide to exercise free will, which he gave you, and mess it up by doing your own thing. Then he'll throw a fit and toss you into the lake of fire which he made for bad angels. But he doesn't want to, so choose him and live like he wants you to live because he has a fragile ego." Sounds like something some human concocted after The Church was dissolved long about the third century.

Sheol was talked about in the Old Testament. Paradise wasn't even mentioned until the New Testament, along with a separation between Sheol and Abram's Bosom. The whole definition of the afterlife evolved between the times of David and Jesus, up until now. Jesus didn't find it necessary to talk about what it was like after he was resurrected. He talked more about what to do while we were here than how to get that card punched to get into heaven.

I'm content to let G-d be G-d and decide who gets in. He's the ultimate judge of my faith and others'.