He's just meaner than the last guy...

"There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear; for fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not reached perfection in love" 1 John 4.18 NRSV.

Its too bad Piper enjoys flaunting misconceptions on what the Bible says about hell from the pulpit, while brushing off Jesus' central message of the Kingdom.

A novel idea and suggestion for Piper - read the Bible through the eyes of its writers, not the reformers.

Please visit my blog at http://thisisamess.blogspot.com/

When an enemy combatant is mortally wounded and in great pain, a noble soldier often administers a "coup de grace," to provide a merciful death.

Is not God as grace-full as the noble soldier? Would he not put mortally wounded, enemy combatants out of their misery?

I appreciate the C.S. Lewis comment under NT Wright's video about hell being a completed state, not an ongoing state. If God transcends time, perhaps the hell experience is eternal, yes, but also completed and done.

Coup de grace.

Base on what I read in the bible, I am not persuaded by Piper that wanting to escape hell is an acceptable basis for being given entry to heaven. Just as wanting to go to heaven to continue earthly relationships, wanting to escape hell is self-focused, rather than God-focused.

I have the utmost respect for this man. He is very sincere. But as it pertains to this excerpt, I believe he is in error.

He says, "Hell is real. Edwards knew it."

I wonder: can he say, "Hell is real. Paul knew it." or "James knew it." or "John knew it."

If he can find a single reference to hell in Acts - when it would have been most appropriate in dozens of cases - or in an epistle, than he would have a case.

Heaven and earth may pass away, but the word of Edwards shall endure forever.

hell and eternal concious punishment aren't in the bible? hell & heaven not motives for mission in the Scriptures? I think ya'all need to read the bible.

Suddenly the words of Jesus Christ himself are being ignored. Wow! "So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." Mat 13:49,50.

Paul C: Jesus knew it!

actually, later on in this message, Piper goes into detail about why fear of hell, alone, is not enough to give someone eternal life, but rather a love of Christ. That being said, I do believe his focus on the Reformers can take away from his message, so I will agree with the bulk of you on this point.

This is just diatribe. I would have expected from someone of his stature that he had something positive and constructive to say, instead of using "reds under the bed" type of alarmism. He is simply trying to breed fear rather than understanding. Perhaps we do need to fear hell, but what is the basis for saying this, other than the fact that, well, Jonathan Edwards said so and he must know.

The problem with this is not so much his understanding of hell (that's another debate!), but his emphasis of it. Yes, a "hell" is spoken of in scripture, but there are few details and it certainly isn't a major focus at any point.

Piper seems to be calling for much more of an emphasis on hell in the pulpit, but it is only the reformers/puritans he can call on to justify this. THAT is the main problem with the video, and what needs justifying.

Melody said > Paul C: Jesus knew it!

Melody, my question was: why do you think that there is not even a hint of the word hell (or a depiction of it) in the book of Acts? Any of Paul's letters - just one? How about John or James?

I am not trying to threaten you here - just asking a logical question.

After all, in the very quote you mention, 2 verses down (Matt 13:52), Jesus says:

“Therefore every scribe who has been trained for the kingdom of heaven is like a master of a house, who brings out of his treasure what is new and what is old.”

In other words: tell people what I'm telling you. Why didn't they preach on hell - at all? Isn't that a tad irresponsible if hell actually exists?

I believe in final judgment and the destruction of those who reject the gospel of Christ. They will be destroyed in the lake of fire - "which is the second death" (not a literal lake).

But today the "gospel of Hell" has become a central theme. Obviously not central enough though (hence the video above).

The problem here is that Piper did not make this video as to debate NT Wright's video about a biblical defense for the existence of Hell.

This video is from a sermon to people who presumably share his conviction that eternal Hell is a biblical idea. His message then is to not cower from it.

I wish Out of Ur would post a video that gave biblical and historical arguments that refute Wright's, just to be fair.

"I believe in final judgment and the destruction of those who reject the gospel of Christ. They will be destroyed in the lake of fire - "which is the second death" (not a literal lake)."

Paul,
You are selectively choosing passages to bolster your argument. The totality of the bible contradicts your "belief."
The very words that describe eternity in heaven are also the very words that describe an eternity of separation from G-d.
I see where you are coming from, but I also see where you are erring as well.
You should look beyond the book of Acts into the rest of the tome, I think you'll find that there are some adjustments you need to make to your thinking.

It's hard to square Piper's comment that drilling wells for clean water is somehow defective Christianity the Matthew 25:31-45.
Especially the phrase in v. 35, "....I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink...."

Yeah, I love it: Edwards knew it - you should know it. Edwards is the gold standard!

I agree with Shannon, the 2 videos so far have presented different views, but they don't match up in a debate style. Piper is kind of a blowhard, but I like how he went about finding common ground between the social justice and evangelism factions in his congregations. Maybe a little theologically deficient there, but really a great message of finding things to agree upon in serving a common mission.

How can you escape hell if you are predestined for it?

sheerahkahn,

You said, "You are selectively choosing passages to bolster your argument."

What passages have I selectively chosen?

In Rev 20, regarding the lake of fire, John tells us what it is: "the second death" (an unrecoverable state. All man dies the first death, but we are resurrected at the return of Christ). Death is finally destroyed, "swallowed up of life" (as Paul says in 1 Cor 15).

I am making the following points:

1. Hell is not a concept that we see in the OT. Please clearly demonstrate otherwise.

2. Hell does not appear once in the Gospel of John, Acts, any of Paul's letters. Neither in the other epistles. There were dozens and dozens of places it would have been appropriate if indeed there is a burning place of eternal torment called hell.

3. The references to Hell we see in the 3 Gospels a lot of the time referenced Gehenna which was the burning, putrid, worm-infested dump outside Jerusalem

Here is a question: could Mr. Piper have substituted Jonathan Edwards with any one of the apostles and made the same case? If so, based on what scripture(s).

I ask you (or anyone) to explain why there is no mention of Hell in Acts, Paul's epistles and so forth. And yet, it is being held out as a teaching that must be taught?

Isaiah used the imagery of unquenchable fire and the undying worm in which it appears Jesus picked up. At a minimum it is interesting that Jesus, the greatest teacher of love in human history uses hell/eternal judgment as a motivation for moral living and something worthy of escape. If so, Piper is right. Love and Judgment, paradoxly are two different sides of the same coin

I'm not addressing the issue of hell, Paul. I'm addressing the issue of your idea of the "second death" being the finality of existence for those who are not found in the book of life.
In the matter of hell, I am in agreement with you...though I came to this conclusion long ago, so I'm not debating that issue at all.
What I am addressing is that we, all of us, are eternal creatures, and whether we are found to be in G-d's good graces or not, we are eternal creatures. Not by our choice, but by the will of our maker.

There will be those who are resurrected into eternal glory, and those who are resurrected into eternal shame. You have allowed one subject, hell, to influence your entire thinking on the matter of eternity...and therein is where you are erring.

sheerahkahn,

So if you agree there is no hell, what happens throughout all eternity to those who do not receive eternal life? What do you mean by "eternal shame"?

How do you interpret the "second death"?

"So if you agree there is no hell, what happens throughout all eternity to those who do not receive eternal life?"

I did not agree that there is no hell, Paul.
I meant that I'm in agreement with you about how hell is interpreted by our current culture.
As for the question, I already answered that...they are resurrected as well. Albeit, in the second stage.

"What do you mean by "eternal shame"?"

Look it up, Paul, Daniel and Isaiah discuss this topic at length.

"How do you interpret the "second death"?"

I want you to follow Daniel and Isaiah's thought processes. Once you go through that, then read Revelations, 22. All of it.
I think you are in for a very...unexpected surprise.

Now, something I've discovered in my studies...more is said by what goes unsaid than what is directly pointed out.

In all seriousness, have fun rediscovering the beauty and joy of reading the bible. I know I did.

This videos are fun but lacking the context for the fights people want to have here.

@N.T. Wright - Many of the comments aimed at Wright's analysis of hell (in the previous post) didn't put them in perspective. I also urge people to read his book, "Surprised by Hope," or those who claim he's not biblical to bore through one of his 500+ page books exegeting the New Testament.

@Piper - I know his rationale for hell is deeper than this, but it's so telling that his public argument on this occasion (as others have pointed out) amounts to this: "Edwards believed it, I believe it, you should believe it." Calvinists are so darn cut with their name dropping.

sheerahkahn,

In your last comment you say: "I did not agree that there is no hell, Paul."

But in the previous comment to that you said: "In the matter of hell, I am in agreement with you..."

So please forgive my confusion as to what you are putting forward.

The question I put to others I put to you:

- Why was the doctrine of hell never mentioned - even in passing - throughout the entirety of the Gospel of John or the Book of Acts? Why did none of Paul's epistles have hell mentioned just once? Wouldn't Romans 1 have been appropriate, or maybe Galatians? Based on what was going on in Corinth, a nice warning of eternal burning would have cleared up a whole lot. But no.

Why? And yet it is trotted out as an essential teaching despite the fact that none of the apostles even mentioned it - once.

So this should take us back to the gospels where it is mentioned. An honest reader will look at how many times Jesus used the term hell referring to the dump outside Jerusalem (gehenna) and how many times he used it parabolically to make his point.

Paul C.

The word "hell" isn't used in the epistles because they were written to places outside of Israel where no one would have any idea what the hell the Hinnom Valley was.

Therefore, although you won't read the word "hell", you will certainly find the implications of it as explained clearly by Jesus.

Just one example is 2 Thessalonians 1:9
"They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might..."

Dave,

You prove my point exactly. Obviously the Valley of Hinnom/Gehenna is not the place people will be cast into. We would agree on that much... that it was a metaphor. A parable. Jesus was pointing to a place that everyone saw and went to everyday. It was an unrecoverable state, plagued with fire and worms. In short: a 3rd world dump.

Not unlike this image: http://www.who.int/features/2007/photo_contest/colour/18_co_shaju_global_warming.jpg

But outside of Israel, the concept of Hades (a underworld of torment and burning) was alive and well. In fact, we get the present belief of hell more from pagan sources than we do from the Bible.

In the scripture you quote, this is exactly what I believe. If you read it carefully, people receive "everlasting destruction" (annihilation) represented how? "Shut out from the presence of the Lord". That's what I was arguing above regarding the "Second Death" (Rev 20).

Paul, concluding annihilation from those words is not self-evident. I'm not saying they don't teach that, I'm just saying that it's not as self-evident as you make it appear to be.

I'm sorry I don't have my PH.D or anything so this is obviously over my head. But how many times did Jesus have to describe hell for us to believe it exist?

John Piper is strongly calvinist, yes? Could someone explain why a calvinist would teach on hell to persuade people into heaven? Is it to awaken the elect? Otherwise, it seems futile if you're truly a calvinist.

Wright was asked specifically what hell was or was not. He relied on the words of a man in the Sistine Chapel. Piper was preaching a sermon referencing a larger topic from the perspective of Edwards. Out of Ur simply culled it. Does not help the debate. Have them sit toe to toe and talk about the scriptures. Now that would be discourse.

It seems there's much confusion among viewers who are saying that he's somehow mean-spirited and thinks that bringing clean drinking water to people who have none works against the gospel. I would question whether these viewers were really paying attention to what he was saying.

It's good to provide relief and show the gospel in tangible ways. But if those doing that relief work aren't addressing the spiritual needs of the people they are serving, then they are merely giving them a more comfortable, healthier road to hell.

There's much talk about being the hands and feet of Jesus, and little talk about being the voice of Jesus. Christ wasn't mute during his time on earth, so the body of Christ shouldn't be afraid to speak words of truth and life into the people it serves.

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
Matthew 25:46

Paul C: "I ask you (or anyone) to explain why there is no mention of hell in Acts, Paul's epistles and so forth."

"Hell is the traditional English translation of the Hebrew word Sheol, found 65 times in the Hebrew Bible, and of the Greek word Hades, used 26 times in the Apocrypha and 10 times in the New Testament. In the NRSV these words are simply transliterated into English, and the translation "hell" is reserved for Gehenna.

"Both Sheol and Hades refer to a general dwelling place of souls after death (Gen.37:35; Acts 2:27). Since this sphere was mainly supposed to be found in the underworld (Num. 16:30; Matt. 11:23), it was also called "the pit" (Isa. 38:18), "the bottomless place" (Luke 8:31; Rom.10:7), or "the lower parts" (of the world; Ps. 63:10; Eph. 4:9 [Latin inferiors partes, cf. "inferno"])....

"Parenetic concerns of Jesus and his followers dominate other passages in which hell (called Hades, the abyss, Gehenna, and, in 2 Peter also tartarus) is represented as an instrument of divine punishment (Matt. 5:22,29; 11:23 par.; 18:9 par.; Luke 8:31; Heb. 10:27; 2 Pet. 2:4; Jude 6; Rev.9:1-2, 11; 17:8; 20:3). Matthew was especially concerned with this negative aspect of hell, BUT NEITHER JOHN IN HIS GOSPEL NOR PAUL IN HIS LETTERS DEVELOPED IT (Emphasis mine)." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible)

Paul C, you're correct. Indeed, why no mention of hell? I don't know. My guess is as good as anyone else.

For Acts, perhaps the author focused more on recording the 30-year progress of Christianity after Jesus' death and resurrection, and mention of hell would have appeared out of joint.

For Paul's epistles, perhaps Paul was just being prudent in steering clear of mention of hell (the "rich" seeming destination) so his generous rich/upper class converts (Rom. 16:23, 2 Cor. 8:1-5, Rom. 15:25-33, Philem. 2:22, 1 Cor. 16:19) would not take offense.

For John, perhaps due to the fact that John's theology is a theology of life and his mention of hell would have appeared out of whack.

Paul C, what's your own guess?

Good video and conversations after. This is a hard issue to sort out, but I believe many of the comments here are being (purposefully?) unfair to John Piper (the same was true of Wright). As is often the case, we bring our own prejudiced ears to the conversation and hear what we want to hear. I am no different. That said, I can't square many of the comments based off the video above.

Again, Piper was careful not to criticize the desires of those motivated by social justice issues, in fact I think he wasn't even suggesting a hierarchy with them and eternal matters. I think the reason for his impassioned plea, was to serve as a corrective to so many of us who have run toward social justice because it is so palatable to our hearers, neglecting the eternal realities of our faith (or lack thereof) in Jesus Christ.

Indeed, even the strong reaction to his words here come due to leaders who view preaching on such matters to be "old news" or "old ways". And we are so convinced we have found a better way. How arrogant we have become...we no longer listen, we no longer learn.

For me the thrust of his corrective words came in his comments that if we give water without looking toward Living Water we are only fattening each other up for slaughter. Man does not live on bread alone...

The bottom line: both are needed. But Piper stands as (admittedly too often alone) as a prophet declaring the things to come. I pray we don't forget.

Of course Hell is there quite a lot in the Bible (especially in Revelation and the Gospels).

But it's mostly there either in messages to suffering churches, or to the religious people who think they're ok.

It's hardly used at all in messages to non-religious non-Christians.

"still: Paul C, what's your own guess?"

still, sorry for the delayed response (weekend). The reason for the omission of hell from the Gospel of John is simply because of this: the promise of the gospel and the rejection of it is either life or death. You'll notice this in John 3:16, John 5, John 6, John 11. All the way through. Jesus is offering life from the grave (when he returns - the resurrection), not heaven.

Similarly, this is the message in Acts. Also in ALL of Paul's epistles ("The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life.")

All the way through the scriptures, you see the final destinations of mankind highlighted. Contrary to generic Christian thought, it is NOT heaven and hell, but eternal life and death.

For example, see Psalm 49:

"Like sheep they (the ungodly)are destined for the grave, and death will feed on them.
The upright will rule over them in the morning (the resurrection); their forms will decay in the grave (sheol), far from their princely mansions."

To Daniel the angel said:

"As for you, go your way till the end (of the age). You will rest, and then at the end of the days you will rise to receive your allotted inheritance (the resurrection)."

No heaven. No hell. Life from the grave.

In Revelation 21, we see New Jerusalem COMING DOWN OUT OF HEAVEN, to take up residence on this earth. At that point (not now) death is swallowed up in victory and loses it sting. But it still has a sting now (in that we die).

When we die, we are dead - there is an absence of life. Stephen is dead. Paul is dead. Peter is dead. They are awaiting the resurrection at the time of Jesus' return:

"For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive. But each IN HIS OWN TURN: Christ, the firstfruits; THEN, WHEN HE COMES, those who belong to him."

Quoting Paul, the Apostle: 2Co 5:1 "For we know that if our earthly house of this tabernacle were dissolved, we have a building of God, an house not made with hands, ETERNAL IN THE HEAVENS.

2Co 5:2 For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed upon with OUR HOUSE WHICH IS FROM HEAVEN."

Quoting Paul C: "Contrary to generic Christian thought, it is NOT heaven and hell, but eternal life and death."

Quoting Paul the Apostle:
2Co 5:2 "For in this we groan, earnestly DESIRING TO BE CLOTHED WITH OUR HOUSE WHICH IS FROM HEAVEN.

2Co 5:6 Therefore we are always confident, knowing that, whilst we are at home in the body, we are absent from the Lord:

2Co 5:8 We are confident, I say, and willing rather to be ABSENT FROM THE BODY AND TO BE PRESENT WITH THE LORD."

Quoting Paul C: "When we die, we are dead - there is an absence of life."

Quoting Luke the Apostle: 23:39 "And one of the malefactors which were hanged railed on him, saying, If thou be Christ, save thyself and us.
Luke 23:42 And he said unto Jesus, Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom.
Luke 23:43 And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, To day shalt thou be with me in paradise."

Melody, those are very common scriptures and I expected someone to bring them up. But when you look at the context (as well as Paul's other comments) something becomes clear. For example, in 2 Cor 5, you can't just select the 2 verses you did and build your doctrine.

Look down a few verses to v. 10:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive what is due him for the things done while in the body, whether good or bad."

In the very same vein of thought you mention above, Paul concludes that we must appear before Christ in judgment. You will agree that this happens at the return of Christ, I'm sure, not when we die.

Paul makes this clear elsewhere:

2 Tim 4: "Now there is in store for me the crown of righteousness, which the Lord, the righteous Judge, will award to me ON THAT DAY—and not only to me, but also to all who have longed for his appearing."

Also, please see the scripture I quoted in 1 Corinthians 15: Christ the firstfruits, THEN we that are his AT HIS COMING.

This is when we receive eternal life - at the resurrection.

If you want to look further at this, go to John 6:

:39: "And this is the will of him who sent me, that I shall lose none of all that he has given me, but raise them up AT THE LAST DAY."

:40: "For my Father's will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up AT THE LAST DAY."

:43: "No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him, and I will raise him up AT THE LAST DAY."

:54: "Whoever eats my flesh and drinks my blood has eternal life, and I will raise him up AT THE LAST DAY."

4 TIMES in a single chapter - referring to the resurrection of life.

It also appears in the account of Lazarus and elsewhere.

You quote the account of the thief on the cross and the promise made. If we agree that paradise is the presence of God (as per 2 Cor 12 - Paul's experience), the question is: Did Jesus go to Paradise that day?

No - a little after his resurrection, what does he say to Mary: "Jesus said, "Do not hold on to me, for I have not yet returned to the Father."

Very clear, no?

You have to look at the entire body of scripture - not just 5 or 6 verses. Look at what the OT believers thought. Look at Hebrews 11 - they all died in faith and are still dead. As Peter says on the day of Pentecost, "Dave is both DEAD and BURIED" (he also says, "He is NOT ascended into the heavens...")

Paul C - none of the scriptures you quote refute the ones I quoted but rather enhance the meaning of them. You tell me I "... can't just select the 2 verses you did and build your doctrine." Isn't this what you have been doing? - btw, I left out the verses in between only for the sake of brevity. I fail to see how verse 10 is germaine to where the soul goes at the point of death of the earthly body. One does not preclude the other.

You appear to be trying to imply through your select verses that we do not have a soul- seperate from the body - that exists when we die in this earthly body. Am I reading you correctly?

Ahh, the wonderful and difficult book of Hebrews. Is Enoch dead? Heb 11:5 "By faith Enoch was taken away without experiencing death. He could not be found, because God had taken him away." Where is he?

Who are the "cloud of Witnesses" in Heb 12:1 "Therefore, having so vast a cloud of witnesses surrounding us, and throwing off everything that hinders us and especially the sin that so easily entangles us, let us keep running with endurance the race set before us..."

Melody,

Based on what I can gather from your reasoning, believers/Christians go to heaven when they die.

I was simply pointing out that this is not the case.

I refuted your reference to the thief on the cross (he didn't go to paradise, did he? How do we know? Because Jesus himself tells us he didn't go 3 days later).

I also refuted the fact that, by using 2 Cor 5 to build a case that when we die, we go to be in the presence of God, as false. We know this because of v. 10 that speaks of the final judgment (which occurs at the resurrection. Which occurs at the return of Christ).

This is the reason I brought in John 6. Do you see that when a person dies, they don't go to heaven?

I am not selecting 2 verses and building a doctrine. I am trying to illustrate that the body of the Bible clearly points to a resurrection - at the end of the age at the return of Jesus.

Did you read 1 Corinthians 15? "Christ the firstfruits (from the grave), THEN they that are his, AT HIS COMING."

Again, I suggest looking at the OT as well to see what was taught and believed. It was death, followed by a resurrection.

I might also suggest 1 Thess 4:

"For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:"

Where are they until then? Dead. They are not alive. Stephen "fell asleep". David is "both dead and buried".

Jesus said (John 3:13), "NO ONE has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man."

Thoughts?

Melody, you may also want to consider Hebrews 9:27:

"Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment..."

After we die, we are dead. At the return of Christ we are resurrected. Hence the term, 'resurrection' (bringing to life that which was dead).

Paul, I would not dispute any of the verses you cite - in fact, they all seem to point to judgement AFTER the bodily resurrection of believers. I am totally confused at how you draw the conclusions you do based on the scripture you use.

Where is Enoch?
Where is the thief on the cross? Where is Paradise?

Hmm...

I think you are confused...hmm...you leave me with a lot of questions, but I'm not sure how to approach this as I consider this medium to be a tad handicapped.
How to do this...
Alright, I want you to think before answering...read, read, read, and then think, think, think...alright...okay...here we go, lets see where this goes.

Rich man and Lazarus.
Teaching by Y'shua.
Both men are dead, and yet both are quite aware of their surroundings.
Why?

The descent of the Beautiful City, Jerusalem, the home of the living G-d, where the tree's of life are at, all post second resurrection, all post second judgement, all post lake of fire episodes, etc, etc, etc...right...and yet...there is this little tidbit...
"14"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and may go through the gates into the city. 15Outside are the dogs, those who practice magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters and everyone who loves and practices falsehood."

Why are there still dogs, practicioners of the magic arts, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices falsehood still hanging around out side the gates, and why are they not allowed to go into the city?
But your argument up thread, says...uh boy...what did you say...hang on...here we are..." I believe in final judgment and the destruction of those who reject the gospel of Christ. They will be destroyed in the lake of fire - "which is the second death" (not a literal lake).

How do you reconcile the text with your belief?

Melody,

I do believe in a coming judgment, at which time the resurrection occurs. What does this mean? Until the resurrection (bringing that which is DEAD back to life), which occurs at Christ's return, we are dead.

We are not in heaven/paradise and the ungodly person is not in a place of torment called hell. They and we are simply dead - without life. The final judgment comes at Jesus' return.

As Peter declares on the day of Pentecost:

"David is both DEAD and buried (not in heaven)" He is awaiting the resurrection. Paul is dead. Peter is dead.

You ask about the implications of Enoch or the thief on the cross.

Re Enoch (or Elijah) - Jesus said, "NO ONE has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven—the Son of Man." He did not taste death like a regular man, but he was taken and was "not".

ALSO, the author of Hebrews states:

"All these people (incl Enoch) were still living by faith when they died. They did not receive the things promised; they only saw them and welcomed them from a distance."

What is the PROMISE? Life from the grave.

Re the thief on the cross, this is best answered by what happened to Christ. Did he ascend to paradise on the day he died? No. We know this by his interaction with Mary at the tomb 3 days later ("I have NOT YET ascended...").

Do you think Jesus went to paradise on the day he died? Scripture says NO (Jn 20).

Paradise is the presence of God in heaven (2 Cor 12:4). No man has ever ascended there.

Do you see how scripture can answer scripture? Very plainly: when a person dies, they remain dead (not in heaven/paradise/presence of God).

How does tie into the discussion on hell?

If I'm correct, you believe that when a person dies they either go to heaven or hell. Scripture does not bear this out (as per above comments). See Heb 9:27 - judgment occurs at Jesus' return.

The final destination of man is either eternal life from the grave or eternal death.

Hell is a construction of man, based loosely on Jesus' references in parables.

This is the reason no mention of doctrine of Hell is made - at all - by:

- the Gospel of John
- Acts
- Paul's 13+ epistles
- James
- Peter
- John's 3 epistles
- THE ENTIRE OLD TESTAMENT (39+ books)

Doesn't that strike you odd?

The only thing you can lean on is 3 Gospels and Revelation: references in parables (referring most of the time to Gehenna) and symbolic language.

A Divine Proposal for Paul C. and Melody

Don't you both know that the essence of your present debate broke ground during the Hellenistic and Roman periods between the two ideas concerning the fate of the soul after death?

Please read below:

"The first [idea] was that of resurrection, that is, that at the end of time the soul would be rejoined with the body and each person would then receive reward or punishment. The concept is found in the Hebrew Bible only at Daniel 12:2: "And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt." A modification of this idea was that only the righteous dead would be resurrected to share in the messianic age.

"The second idea was that the immortal soul lived on after the death of the body, and immediately received its reward or punishment. This idea is vividly illustrated in the Testament of Abraham (ca. 100 CE), which depicts the judgment of souls after death. Each soul is brought before Abel, son of Adam, for judgment. The deeds of the soul are weighed in the balance: the righteous received salvation, but the wicked are given over to fiery torments (Test. Abr. 12-13).

"The tension between these two ideas continued in rabbinic Judaism and Early Christianity....In early Christianity, the tension of the 'already' of immortality and the 'not yet' of resurrection continued to exist, but was transformed by the death and resurrection of Jesus. This is best illustrated by the teaching of Paul....in certain groups, such as the community of John, the notion of the bodily resurrection was overridden by the spiritual life of the believer in Christ...Neither view has become dominant, and both continue to exist in tension in Judaism and Christianity until the present." (The Oxford Companion to the Bible)

Paul C, Melody, rather than split hairs and sweat blood on the battle royal between the two ideas above, why not meet halfway in a common ground - Reward or Punishment. Then, to be relevant to this Out of Ur conversation, debate on the proposition:

Resolved, That Reward and Punishment is an essential part of preaching.

Correction:

Resolved, That Reward or Punishment is an essential part of preaching.

still - the entire point of this UR series is to debate the existence of hell. This is what Paul C and I are doing. This is a friendly conversation - though passionate at times. Paul and I are neither splitting hairs nor sweating blood. I assume that there are several more video clips of other theologians/preachers to come in this series. Plan for the discussion to continue. Being challenged to substantiate what we believe is truly a Biblical requirement. I'm unclear as to what makes your proposal divine.

Exactly Melody. Hardly sweating blood are we? Let alone trying to knock each other out - just a friendly discussion still.

You all do realize that Piper is a student of the guy who wrote: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

Whose most magnificent crucendo in the sermon is "after spending countless year upon year, age upon age, millenia upon millenia in suffering, you will look at what you just suffered and realize that it was just a dot compared to the endless agony that lies ahead of you." (JE paraphrased).

Piper is being a loyal disciple of Jon Edwards.

What nonsense! Hell was clearly a part of Jewish belief in the Old Testament. One only has to read Daniel, Ezekial, Isaiah among other parts to see that. Jesus refers to a place of great suffering and gnashing of teeth several times as where those who do not follow Him will end up. John wrote the Book of Revelation, didn't he? The Book of Acts is a history of the early church not a dissertation on theology, although some is presented in the speeches of Paul and others as a consequence of recording historical moments.

Paul who took the historical teachings of and the others were Jews who took the historical teachings of Judaism for granted. Paul's epistles focused on the new news for the most part. All the epistles focus on how to live life as a follower of Christ. Only Romans and Hebrews delve deeply into the historical basis for coming of Christ and following Him. Not every epistle discusses exactly the same thing. to use absence in certain books as support for argument is specious.

Paul focused on the positive of going for the goal of a heavenly reward. He infers a worse circumstance for those who do not, but does not specify what that worst circumstance might be for the most part. Annihilation is not a worse circumstance. It is no circumstance at all. that was Piper's primary point for those who cared to listen, context or not. I see a lot of prejudgement and prejudicial argument, but no open minded discussion here. I do see a lot of arrogance. Making rules for God. Such nonsense!

Tnam of God He gave to Moses most literally translates "I am He who is eternally present tense". Today, yesterday and tomorrow are all now for God. Once this life is over and we are in the true presence of God we will know, partly, what that means. He is the only being who has eternal presence, always was, always will be. We will never fully comprehend what that means. Basically when I was born, He IS there. When I answered the call, He IS there. When the day comes when I will die, He IS there. I don't fully understand how that is, but He says it, so it is so. We call that faith. Most of the arguments about when we are present with God and what Jesus meant when He told the the thief about being in paradise "today" are based on our understanding of time. Yet Jesus said that before Abraham was He IS. That's why the Jewish leaders wanted to kill him. For Jesus all time is now, today. For us there are yesterdays and tomorrows, but for God there is only now, an eternal now and thus any argument we base on our understanding of time and living is flawed and flawed further by our own sinful nature. Describe hell how you will: fire, absence of God and knowing it, eternal shame, whatever. Just don't say it is not so or you are bending God to your will instead of bending your will to His.

Christianity would be so much purer without the concepts of heaven and hell.

Here in the Bible belt, avoiding hell is one of the main reasons to be a Christian. It has nothing to do with Jesus. If worshiping an oak tree would keep you from eternal fire, furniture would be expensive. If hell were removed from the Bible, church attendance would go to hell.

I train my dogs with rewards and punishment, what we might call the "preacher" model. Hopefully my human daughter learns to do right for the sake of doing right, not because she thinks I'm watching.

"I'm unclear as to what makes your proposal divine."

Dear Melody,

Before you read what will follow, please take a deep breath...hold it...let go...and let God.

Now...begin drawing the child's breaths within you...by giving play to your imagination...that you are entering a time machine. Take a journey back to the olden times...in the twinkling of an eye...you rub your eyes...as you command a rare grand view - the Greek cultural ascent at its zenith amid the brilliance of the Classical Era and the emergence of the Roman Empire.

Just then...you catch a glimpse of a passing strange ancient duo...and strike you with wonder - for both are crossing verbal swords with each other - over an identical "battle royal" that Paul C and you are verbally grappling with each other! Breathless, you return to your time machine...then take a journey of over 20 centuries of ancient history...back to the present.

Still lost in amazement, you say to yourself, "That's the faraway distance of ancient times that the transmission of "battle royal" had threaded its way through up to the modern times and ultimately pitched its tent in the consciousness of Paul C and mine."

Wonder of wonders!

The phenomenon of "battle royal" transmission reminds me of sunlight in a different realm. Sunlight escapes from the nuclear-fusion-reaction brilliance of the 5500-degree C burning sun...travels the infinite span of space as heat and light at a blinding speed of 186,000 miles per second...and whizzes the 93,000,000 miles of space...and after 8 minutes...ultimately touches on the Earth's surface...at a cooled down temperature.

There are two sides of the proverbial coin.

On one side, the cooled down temperature is miraculously perfect. In a kitchen complexes housed in plant leaves, sunlight cooks the stew of water sipped from the soil and carbondioxide sniffed from the air to produce oxygen that sustains life in our planet. It is a boon. A manna from Heaven. A blessing.

On the other side, the cooled down temperature is malevolently toxic. It pierces a hole in the ozone layer so direly that it stirs man to be at loggerheads as to who is to blame: Man or Nature. It is a bane. A worm-bred manna. A burden.

Melody, both Paul C and you are privileged to have the "battle royal" pitched its tent in both your consciousness. Will it be a blessing or a burden? It's up to each of you.

Let me conjure up a vision. Remember the story of the Rich Man and Lazarus? It's a warning. By not heeding it, the consequence will be infernal. By heeding it, the aftermath will make a difference in our planet.

The nut to crack: The poor need the rich to live in this Life. The rich need the poor to live in the Afterlife. The master key is in the latter. And the master key combination is the motivating power of Reward or Punishment.

Some rays of hope gleam through the silver lining of the cloud of unknowing hovering over the horizon: Bill Gates pouring out $10 Billion dollars of his own money that will benefit the world's poorest countries. A host of Bill Gates of tomorrow will make our world a better place than what we have today.

Interesting dialogue... I think this discussion would have been better served by asking a few simple questions rather than posting this sermon. Is hell real? What is hell? Who goes there? Why do we need a Savior? What does Jesus save us from? These might bring a little more clarity to the discussion.

We might also do well to ignore what Acts doesn't say, what Piper is trying to say, or what Edwards said. Jesus made quite a few clear statements himself.

Matthew 10:28 - Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.

Luke 12:5 - But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after the killing of the body, has power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him.

Luke 12:4 - In hell, where he was in torment...

Matthew 23:33 - You snakes! You brood of vipers! How will you escape being condemned to hell?

Matthew 8:12 - But the subjects of the kingdom will be thrown outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.

Mark 9:47-49 - And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where 'their worm does not die,and the fire is not quenched.'

The essential problem is that people, not just Paul, have a problem reading the bible.
They are looking for up-front, in your face, this is how it is answers. Ala, Direct answers to direct questions.
It is quite American, and unfortunately, quite alien to the culture who produced the writers that wrote the the bible.
Believe me, I would love to have just straight up, quantitative answers to my questions...it sucks wind to have to sit there and research both the biblical texts and the historical texts just to find out why the Hebrews were forbidden to eat certain foods.
Criminy sakes, can't a beleiver get a straight answer!
Nooo, no, I have to go digging through a bunch of papers to find that one!
And so goes with the rest of the bible, and the mryiad of questions it gives birth, too.

The book(s) was/is written for specific purpose, and it is up to us to figure what exactly was the purpose of that particular book(s).
However, once again, our American mindset kicks in and we reduce the our thinking, and by association any answer to "absence of evidence is evidence of absence!" which intuitively we know is a crock, but hey, we reach for it a lot. And I do it too, so I'm just as guilty.

Yes, there are translational issues about hell, but we all have to come to grips with the fact that emotive and poetic license is being used in the text.
We also have to remember that G-d has set the verbage of the bible to do one of two things...entice people to read, discover, and have a dialogue with G-d; or, to frustrate to no end the casual observer whose only interest is to dig an interesting quote out to support a bias that has long been nurtured by a sinful nature.
And the thing is that we all do this to one extent or another...all that really matters is if we, believers, are open to correction.

I have clearly shown in the text that separation from G-d is eternal, and there is no "You are so annihilated!"
Sorry, quaint, I'm sure, and nice a thought for those who would prefer a merciful coup de grace for unbeleivers, but alas, there is no scriptual support for that.
We as a race are destined to be resurrected...some to eternal glory, and for those others...eternal shame.
There will be those who can enter into the new Jerusalem, and those who will be forbidden to enter.
There will be those who are excited about seeing G-d, and those who, like the rich man, only want the suffering to stop.
Heaven is eternal, and hell is eternal...no matter what your definition of heaven is...it is good, wonderful, and eternal; and no matter what your definition of hell is...it is bad. Very, very bad. And worse still, oh so very eternal.

Whoa, Dude...that be "still" and do time travel response is downright scary (although a humanistic masterpiece)! Reminds me of old Abe Lincoln's response to a powerfully articulate critic who used befuddling, though intellectual lingo, to attempt to make the President look foolish in front of his cabinet. Lincoln looked off into a field and asked his critic how many legs that cow in the field had. The man said incredulously, "Four." "What if we called the tail a leg," asked Abe? "Well then, I expect the answer would be five, Mr. President." To which the president responded, "No matter what you call it, or how intellectual the argument for five legs might sound, truth is still truth! There are still only four legs on that cow." Me thinks there might be some five or six legged cows muckying up this discussion. Intriguing and revealing discussion, though!

mmcia and prospecter, I really like your points and believe them to be quite pertinent to the debate between Paul C and Melody. They also resonate with insights from my Orthodox Christian faith. As an Orthodox, I have found it much more fruitful for my own walk with God to let the consensus of those recognized by the believers (and even non-believers) in their own eras as the most mature and holy members of the Church down through the ages be my guide to understanding the meaning and import of the Scriptures. I find I am no longer easily sidetracked down rabbit trails of proof texts and by uncertainty about what is most important to understand from the Scriptures. This is presented to me over and over again quite eloquently in the Liturgy of the Church (its doctrinal and Scriptural prayers and hymns). I have more than a lifetime's work before me, as it is, in struggling to obey what is clear from Scripture according to the teaching of the Church. It is abundantly clear that I am to seek God's grace to love Him with all my heart, soul, mind and strength and my neighbor as myself--that I may come to love even my enemies as Christ has loved me--and that it is only in so doing that I will be able to experience the fullness of Christ indwelling me and have communion with Him either here in this life or beyond the grave. I also add the caveat that from an Orthodox perspective regarding the matter of the soul's transition after the death of our mortal bodies and before the resurrection of the body, there is a mystery here into which we can see only very dimly and about which we can express even less--and so, istm, it behooves us to discuss with some humility. (I think mmcia's post points to one important aspect of that mystery.) I find great comfort, though, in the practice of the Orthodox Church (which discourages this sort of theoretical speculation, and rather focuses on what we here and now ought to be doing to be in communion with God). The Orthodox practice is to continue to remember in prayer at regular intervals loved ones who have passed from this life, and to expect that the faithful departed are also continuing to pray for us. This is also the practice of Orthodox Jews dating back to a time before Christ. How interesting then, that we have no record of Christ condemning this practice among His people or teaching His disciples to do otherwise.

Whoa, thank you for your "humanistic masterpiece" good words. The whole essence of the "Divine Proposal" I shared with Melody adds up to either one of the following words: serendipity or epiphany or grace.

I feel I need a picture to paint the word.