Nice try, but it always fall apart for me when someone starts trying to explain that we really can't call anyone good, because it is all subjective and we have no idea what good is... blah, blah, blah. At that point, discussion of ethics and righteousness become meaningless and we end up negating most of the points Christians argue. It is the game of theological twister we must play if we want to keep Hell on the map.

Andrew, I'm confused. Your last sentence seems at odds with the rest of the paragraph.

As to Greg's comments. He doesn't really answer the girl's question. If you are 'born again' you will extract meaning from what he says about being in right relationship with God, but he never actually explains how to achieve that relationship - not that that was his purpose in the context of the event.

Melody - First, let me clarify that I like Greg (so this is not meant harshly), but he seems to do what I often see good-hearted Christians do; and that is: go into theological contortions to accommodate Hell. One of those contortions is to suddenly make goodness and righteousness into vague notions. It is the only time we Christians do this; any other time, we are loud and specific about goodness and righteousness.

Hell goes against everything we know about goodness, parenting, love, Jesus commands. It is the oxymoron of our faith. When I watch the video, I see a good man who is trying to make an evil notion fit into his worldview because he believes he has no other choice.

When I watch the video, I see a good man who is trying to make an evil notion fit into his worldview because he believes he has no other choice.

Actually, if you read Boyd's book Satan and the Problem of Evil, you'll see he actually leans pretty heavily towards annihilationism, although he does admit he has a few reservations about it. Basically, his view of hell isn't much different than C.S Lewis' view in The Great Divorce.

God sends people to hell for not excepting His Son, Jesus Christ ,as The only begotten Son of God. As the only sacrifice for mans sinful soul, to buy back that soul of man that had been altered. When Adam decided he wanted to do things his way and not God's way , he fell into a sinful nature.His D.N.A. was changed from innocence to that of a mortal.The clock started to tick at the point of his refusal to do things God's way.
It is very simple in it's design. Straight forward and unclutered.
He gave us the right to chose our destiny
Isaiah said His ways ARE NOT our ways, That means our thought prosesses are also contaminated from our fallen state.
He only required us to except His Son so our sins would be forgiven.
The Scriptures are the ones to adhere to and believe.

Linda

Linda,you will notice that the consequence of Adam's sin was death. Death entered the human family and the curse fell upon the earth because of his disobedience. It has carried terrible consequences, but Hell is not one of them.

For a correct understanding of hell, you might find this helpful: http://www.thepath.cc/2010/hell

Since you brought it up (with re to Adam) can you point to just a single instance in the Old Testament where the word "Hell" is used or a description of a burning pit of some sort?

It sounds like some people own a concordance and a Bible, and simply use the concordance to look up verses to back up a belief that they hold, rather than reading the Bible to see what the Bible teaches on a subject.

If you actually read the Bible, you will find that God reveals more and more of Himself as time goes on. It was written over a period of thousands of years. It was not a book written all at once by someone. So, if you read it more like a book, rather than just looking up verses, you will find that God reveals more and more of Himself and what He wants us to know about hell, about end times, and so on.

Barbara, "...what He [God] wants us to know about hell..." and what WE want to know about hell appear to be two entirely different things. Many folks in this conversation are trying desperately to avoid talking about hell, either by assuming a belief that the Bible seldom actually means what it says, or by assuming that God thinks, feels and defines terminology exactly as they do. In Paul C's case the conversation isn't about the places where hell IS mentioned in scripture but rather about the places where it is NOT mentioned.

"Linda,you will notice that the consequence of Adam's sin was death. Death entered the human family and the curse fell upon the earth because of his disobedience. It has carried terrible consequences, but Hell is not one of them."

Now that is an interesting point, Paulc.

What kind of death did Adam bring into the world, and why is the meaning of that type of death different than the "second death" of the NT?

Hi again Melody,

You said: "In Paul C's case the conversation isn't about the places where hell IS mentioned in scripture but rather about the places where it is NOT mentioned."

As I mentioned to you in a previous thread, you might want to take up your lament with ALL of the apostles... especially Paul, John and Peter, who neglected to even once mention Hell in a single interaction or epistle.

1000s of verses written, yet they neglect to mention - just once - one of the 2 final outcomes of ALL mankind? Interesting.

Or it could be that they understood what Jesus was actually taught.

Your belief of hell actually stems more from a medieval viewpoint than the Biblical account.

sheerahkahn,

You ask, "What kind of death did Adam bring into the world"

Quite simply, when Adam sinned, the word of God was fulfilled - the punishment for Adam's disobedience was death, which is cessation of life. He lived on for some time, but eventually fell victim.

Paul says, "For as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive."

We all suffer death, but for the believer, this is a temporary state (hence the numerous references, such as re Stephen, Psalm 49 or 1 Thess 4, about "sleep").

This brings us to your next question: "why is the meaning of that type of death different than the "second death" of the NT?"

Because, though all die (call it the first death), all are resurrected to stand before the Righteous Judge at the end of the age. The second death (lake of fire) is the permanent state of death, unrecoverable, for those who are deemed unworthy of eternal life in the physical Kingdom of God upon earth.

"the punishment for Adam's disobedience was death, which is cessation of life. He lived on for some time, but eventually fell victim..."

Interesting...okay, so to make sure I have this right, which means correct me if I'm wrong, you see Adam's curse, death, as a physical result, and not the traditional view which is a spiritual death?

btw, as a side note to Url...captcha phrase for this one is "spoke dumbness"
Personally, it did help focus my post...along with a chuckle.

I like listening to Greg Boyd, he provokes me to thought.

It is true that he did not completely answer the question. He did answer the second part first. Then he began to answer the second part but gave it a halfway thing. So, imho, he got to about 75%.

His idea about being so deep into a disease that you forget to notice the symptoms...tremendously important. I like that and will use it in the future. He does well to point out that we often don't understand our distance between us and God.

I do wonder though if he continued on after the clip expired. This whole conversation that has been going on around here seem predicted on short clips that have a tendency to be too narrow for the parameters need to sustain a great conversation.

btw: my captcha, "scariest director"...and now I'm off to a directors' meeting...;)

sheerahkahn,

You said: "you see Adam's curse, death, as a physical result, and not the traditional view which is a spiritual death?"

It was both. Adam would never have died had he not sinned right? And so, along with sin came death and the curse on creation. At the return of Christ, death dies (swallowed up of life) and the curse is lifted.

"The wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life." (Rom 6)

@PaulC

Okay, I see where you're coming from...I don't agree with some of your exegesis as my reading has led me to different conclusions, but at least I have a clearer understanding of your position.

Great post and conversations that follow. I appreciate all of thoughts you all have shared. I had to watch the video twice to see if Doug (wow, now we're on a first-name-basis already) actually answered the question. It seems to me that he referred to an earlier answer about those who "had no chance to hear/know the Gospel." So he takes on the part: "How can God send good people to hell?"

Like others have said, he answers that partially by saying we don't know how sick we are...especially the sickest of us (thank God for pain indicators). But I think there is a major part of the answer left out, and it's actually in the asking of the question itself.

The question (one I struggled with for some time before I understood God's sovereignty and justice...not that I fully do) presumes a position of judgment OVER God. "How could He?!?!!," we exclaim. This presumes that WE know goodness and justice, and God is not good or just IN OUR EYES. The bottom line is God is God and we are not. Only from this position do we stop asking God to meet our requirements for justice.

I guess Doug (what's up buddy?) did answer that in the "who's orbiting who" portion, it just wasn't so explicit.

Thank God we're not God. Great conversation Urlites!

(my captcha "creosote for" hehe...burning)

Paul C. said:

"As I mentioned to you in a previous thread, you might want to take up your lament with ALL of the apostles... especially Paul, John and Peter, who neglected to even once mention Hell in a single interaction or epistle.
1000s of verses written, yet they neglect to mention - just once - one of the 2 final outcomes of ALL mankind? Interesting."

Regarding the Apostles supposedly not preaching about gehenna: Were the epistles the heart of the Apostle's teaching, or were they rather letters written to specific congregations/individuals to answer and address specific problems and contexts? What is the origin of the four Gospels we have in our NT (all of which include Jesus' teaching about Gehenna and final judgment)? Is not their very inclusion in the NT precisely *because* they are of authentic *Apostolic* origin, and thus, do they not form the very HEART of the Apostles' teaching?! I submit to you that there is no specific mention of Gehenna or Hades in the epistles or in Acts because the teaching of the Gospels, which was pre-eminent and central to the teaching in the Apostolic Church, made it quite abundantly clear. Furthermore, as you yourself have admitted, in the culture that surrounded the early Church, whether pagan or Jewish, there was no need to convince anyone of the reality and fearfulness of death (Hades/Sheol), the persistence of the soul's existence after physical death (as Maccabees and Baruch in the Greek edition of the Jewish Scriptures that were in use by the time of Christ attest, by the first century the evidence is strong that a significant number, if not the majority, of Jews believed this as well), the reality of God's judgment for sin (for the Jews and God-fearing Gentiles at least), and of the real potential for terrible regret and anguish awaiting any soul entering the unveiled Presence of God unprepared for the experience. As I've said before, when it comes to understanding the Scriptures, context is everything (and the Scriptures do not fully provide their own historical and cultural context). I wouldn't disagree that much of what is taught about the nature of hell (meaning gehenna) today or the way it is preached is distorted because of many historical philosophical movements within the Christendom of the West (particularly Medieval Scholasticism and Renaissance Rationalism and Legalism), but I think your treatment of the Scriptures ignores some important aspects of their living historical context (which in the case of Jewish belief, developed significantly over time).

Hi Karen,

You said: "I submit to you that there is no specific mention of Gehenna or Hades in the epistles or in Acts because the teaching of the Gospels, which was pre-eminent and central to the teaching in the Apostolic Church, made it quite abundantly clear."

Don't forget the gospel of John as well. Plus the entire OT. But that aside, your reasoning is illogical.

Why? Because the epistles were not written until decades after the resurrection of Christ. The epistles were not central to the establishment of the early church. It was the ministry and doctrine of the apostles that carried the day.

BUT even if this were not the case, to simply assert that because the gospels covered hell, the apostles had no need to is just silly.

The word for Hell (Hades) in the NT is really just Sheol (abode of the dead, Hebrew) from the OT. We see this from Peter's quoting of Psalm 16 on the day of Pentecost (Sheol in Psalm 16, Hades in Acts 2). Very simple.

Had the apostles believed in Hell and not mentioned just a single time, perhaps just in passing, it would have been irresponsible. Remember, you are claiming it is one of the final 2 destinations of all mankind. Yet, not a single mention. Incredulous.

But instead what do they preach as the 2 ultimate ends of man? Life from the grave or eternal death.

Romans 6:23.

Paul, with all due respect, ISTM it is you who are being illogical. With what were the Apostles charged with preaching and teaching in the Churches they founded if not the teachings Christ entrusted to them and which were recorded in the Gospels? Why in the formal liturgies of the Church that developed from the beginning is there a reading from both an Epistle and a Gospel every Sunday service with the words of the Gospels held to be pre-eminent and more important to preach from (i.e., the Gospels providing the context for understanding the Epistles, not the other way around)?

This also doesn't explain to me why the Jews of Jesus' time prayed for the their dead (following the admonition in Maccabees) and why (according to a 135 AD catacombs Christian inscription) as well as the earliest Christian liturgies we have record of, early Christians prayed for their faithful dead and entreated their prayers in return? Bear in mind we have evidence of this in records as early as the time of the spiritual children and grandchildren of the Apostle John himself and no records of any opposition from within the Church to this practice (certainly no successful ones) until the Reformation in reaction to Roman Catholic abuses. Though there were innovations such as the non-Orthodox teaching about Purgatory in the Roman Catholic Church later in the Middle Ages, the evidence is strong that prayer for the dead was normal Christian practice (carried over like many other elements of Christian worship from Jewish worship) from the very beginning. If you have never had a chance to read it, I think you would find the first century Jewish Apocalyptic work known as 4 Esdras (in some versions as 2 Esdras) quite informative as a further indicator of Jewish and Christian beliefs on this subject within the lifetime of the Apostles and their immediate successors, which clearly these 1st century Jews would not have found incompatible with *their* understanding of the theological meaning/import of the rest of their OT Scriptures. The 1st century Jews possessed among their "Scriptures" those OT Apocryphal works contained in the Septuaguint (Greek version of the OT Scriptures extant at the time of Christ, and the only "Scriptures" in common use by all parts of the Church for its first two centuries). I'm not suggesting that 4/2 Esdras (or even the other OT Apocryphal works) bears the same quality of authority and inspiration borne by those Scriptures all Christians hold as inspired by God and authoritative, but it was quoted by the early Fathers of the Church and found its way into the Scriptural Canon of Ethiopian Christians early on and later into the Slavonic Bible of the Russian Orthodox Church (though not in the Greek). It was also included in the original edition of the King James Bible, and held even by the first Protestants to be useful for "edification" of the faithful. I did not discover it until after beginning this conversation, and I found it in the Apocrypha section of a relative's New English Bible Bible quite by chance.

It is interesting that Orthodox Jews to this day have a practice of praying for their faithful dead in much the same way that Orthodox Christians do. This is important to note because it suggests that though they may not include 4/2 Esdras as part of their official canon of Scripture (the Hebrew OT Canon was not officially declaired until about 300 A.D.), they accept its basic assumption of the soul's continuation after the death of the body (the transcendance of the life of the spirit over the physical state of the body) as valid.

All this historical context is why I and so many other Christians down through the centuries accept that Scriptures like Paul's assertion that to be "absent from the body" was to be "present with the Lord" means what it appears to mean in the immediate context and that his further elaborating about the bodily Resurrection later in the same passage constitutes a case of "both/and" with regard to his obvious (to me) expectation that the life of the spirit would continue "in Christ" beyond the death of his mortal body, with the bodily resurrection being the consummation of the Christian's "eternal life" which begins at the moment of spiritual rebirth through faith and is synonymous with "having the Son" according to the Apostle John in his 1st epistle.

I also can't understand why the fact that Gehenna was a garbage dump outside of Jerusalem in the time of Christ means that you think the spiritual reality of what Jesus was referring to in using this term begins and ends with only that material site! Do you also think that people were in the habit of going around in that dump "weeping and gnashing their teeth?" i doubt it. Clearly this place served for Jesus as a useful metaphor for a personal spiritual state/destination for the unrepentant that transcends that historical location, and it has always been understood this way in the Church.

Really?

Paul told the church at Ephesus they were going to heaven!

and raised us up with him and seated us with him in the heavenly places in Christ Jesus, 7 so that in the coming ages he might show the immeasurable riches of his grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus. 8 For by grace you have been saved through faith. And this is not your own doing; it is the gift of God, 9 not a result of works, so that no one may boast. Eph. 2:6-9

Trey,

that is a very poor rendering of that scripture. Not to mention in that very section of scripture, Paul speaks of the coming ages (ie: when Christ returns and the kingdom is physically established on earth).

In the end, there will be a renewed earth (see Rev 21). Of specific note:

"I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, COMING DOWN OUT OF heaven FROM God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, "NOW the dwelling of God is WITH MEN, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God."

The curse will be lifted and we will live eternally in the presence of God, not in heaven, but on a renewed, curse-free earth.

In that day:

They will neither harm nor destroy
on all my holy mountain,
for the earth will be full of the knowledge of the LORD
as the waters cover the sea.

Karen,

Your argument is fairly typical in that you are forced to appeal to elements beyond the scriptures.

Also, referring to apostate religion (which blossomed between the time of Malachi and the NT) doesn't do your cause much good, especially because of Hellenistic influence.

Consider: today, Hell is considered a staple doctrine of the church. If someone does not preach about hell (as one of 2 final destinations for all mankind) he is considered unfaithful to the gospel.

YET, in dozens of instances in Acts, when it would have been more than appropriate to mention Hell, it doesn't appear. But life and death do.

In ALL of the epistles, not a single mention. But life and death are ever present.

The promise of the gospel is the resurrection from the dead. Death is the absence of life. When we are resurrected, our souls are clothed with a new body that will never die.

When?

"But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; THEN, WHEN HE COMES, those who belong to him." - 1 Cor 15:23

And going on:

For the trumpet will sound, the dead will be RAISED imperishable, and we will be changed. - :51

Finally:

When the perishable has been clothed with the imperishable, and the mortal with immortality, THEN the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

It is a battle of life and death, NEVER heaven and hell.

I still disagree with how you are reading the bible, Paul.
I think you are too focus on the words, and not enough on the idea, the spirit that is being presented in the Gospels, and in Acts.

But I do see where you are coming from.

I totally agree with one of the commenters who said the entire premise of the question is wrong. "Why does God send good people to hell?" Things that seem to be contradictions to us are NOT contradictions to God! How can there be a sovereign God, and yet free will? How can God be good, and yet let bad things happen? And what about evil? Why allow it? There are many things that we cannot understand which is basically what God told Job. I'm God. You are not. Trust me. With my young children, I've experience this first hand. They will ask me questions that make no sense. It is not even possible to answer them because they come from such a place of lack of knowledge, maturity and logic, that there is no answer for their question. That is what God is telling us - he CANNOT explain everything. We totally wouldn't get it- we're just not capable. But we are to trust and believe him despite our own judgements that he is not being "fair". He will work everything out perfectly.

If there is no hell then how could death have any agony? The scriptures tell us that Christ was freed from the AGONY of death by the resurrection.

Leonard - what scripture are you referring to?

Read the sermons by Peter in the book of Acts.

Leonard, that's very vague (maybe intentionally so?)

Anyways, the only reference to "hell" in the entire book of Acts is in Chapter 2 (on the day of Pentecost).

And it is a direct quote from Psalm 16. And here's the kicker - the word used in Psalm 16 is "sheol" which Acts shows as "hell".

This proves the fact that any reference to hell in the NT is simply the grave (sheol), in the OT. It is the abode of the dead - where all, good and evil, rich and poor, go at death.

Furthermore, it mentions NOTHING of Jesus suffering agony in any place. Where are you getting this stuff.

I find it amazing that the doctrine of Hell has become a sort of idol in the sense that people will almost die defending a place of burning torment, as if without it, the gospel somehow loses its power.

NONE of the apostles ever ONCE preached hell. Not a single time. Instead they preached either life from the grave or eternal death.

So Acts 2:24 means what? "But God raised him from the dead, freeing him from the agony of death, because it was impossible for death to keep its hold on him." not a quote from Psalms but a statement from Peter.

When a person dies in Christ they have eternal life... when they die without Christ... what happens? Soul sleep? Oblivion forever? nothingess?

Leonard, since this was a discussion on Hell I assumed you were referencing the only place it shows up in Acts (which is really a direct quote from Psalm 16, where the word 'sheol' is used).

In regards to Acts 2:24, don't stop there. Read all the way down to :27: Christ was not "abandoned to the grave". Instead, as :24 tells us, he was raised.

But Christ NEVER suffered in a place called Hell.

As Isaiah 53 tells us, "he poured out his life unto death". That's what the resurrection means: bringing to LIFE that which was DEAD.

Rev 1:18: "I am the Living One; I was DEAD, and behold I am alive for ever and ever! And I hold the keys of death and Hades."

You ask:

"When a person dies in Christ they have eternal life... when they die without Christ... what happens? Soul sleep? Oblivion forever? nothingess?"

When a person dies in Christ, they AWAIT the resurrection which occurs at the time of Christ.

1 Cor 15:23:
"But each in his own turn: Christ, the firstfruits; THEN, when he comes, those who belong to him."

Or

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."

Until then, the grave is our house.

Job 14:
"But man dies and is laid low;
he breathes his last and is no more... so man lies down and does not rise;
till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep."

This is for both believers and unbelievers.

Then, at the return of Christ ALL men will stand before him. Those who have believed/lived according to His word receive eternal life.

Those who have rejected Him, eternal death.

Rom 6:23

you might not be intending to but you seem to be avoiding my question.

when a person dies without Christ and enter eternal death. Is their soul still living or did the soul die with the body?

Is physical death and spiritual death the same thing to you?

Is there any consciousness of the soul in eternal death?

Leonard, not avoiding the question at all.

Here's how I would explain it.

When a person dies - any person (Christian or non-Christian) - they go to the grave. This is where they are until the time of the resurrection. They are not conscious in this state.

They are not in a place called "hell" but neither are they in heaven:

"Brothers, I can tell you confidently that the patriarch David died and was buried, and his tomb is here to this day... For David did not ascend to heaven..." (Acts 2)

Or as Jesus said, "No man has ascended into heaven..." (John 3:13).

At the time of the resurrection ALL people - good and bad, Christian and non-Christian - will be resurrected and stand before the Lord.

They that have served the Lord are rewarded with eternal life.

They that have rejected Him are rewarded with the "Lake of Fire" which is the "second death" (ie: we all suffer the first death, but as believers it is only sleep since we awake "in the morning" to eternal life).

They will be destroyed - oblivion. Along with them, death also dies. There is no more death because it has been swallowed up of life.

Paul, no argument with me that the emphasis in the NT is on the promise of resurrection life through Christ. I have shown in other of my comments at other posts in this series that the meaning of "death" in the NT is not synonymous with cessation of existence nor spiritual consciousness, however.

Concerning the supposed "apostate religion (which blossomed between the time of Malachi and the NT)," there were indeed many aspects of the contemporary Jewish understandings and applications of their OT Scriptures that Jesus challenged, which are recorded for us in the Gospels (see for example, Matt. 15:1-20; Matt. 21:12-13, Matt. 22:23-23:36, Luke 13:1-5; Luke 14:1-6; John 5:39, John 9:1-3). What is your explanation for the fact that this supposedly "apostate" practice of prayer for the righteous dead (enjoined in 2 Maccabbees, and based on belief in the resurrection and in God's unique authority to forgive) was not one of them? Why, rather, did Jesus make statements and employ parables that assumed and even made use of the understanding of His 1st century Jewish contemporaries of the nature of life after death and final judgment (see Matt. 13:36-43; Luke 13:22-30, Luke 16:19-31; John 5:24-29 and John 11:25)?

I understand where you are coming from. I simply find your exegesis of Scripture lacking. ISTM, you treat the Hebrew and Christian Scriptures a little like a kind of Christian "Qu'ran" magically and extra-culturally presumably dictated directly from heaven, whereas it is rather the written record in many different literary genres and in different languages in the context of many different historical periods and human cultural contexts of the experiences and beliefs of faithful people as they encountered God in His progressive revelation of Himself to them and as they were led and inspired by His Holy Spirit. Understanding the human historical context and how the people who produced and possessed these Scriptures as their own understood them is vitally important for accurate interpretation. But most important of all is Jesus' own explanation of their meaning and proper application preserved for us and passed on to us by the Apostles in the Gospels and also throughout the NT.

Karen, I'm not for throwing out history or culture, but as Christians we must take the position put forward by Paul:

"We are built upon the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Jesus Christ the chief cornerstone."

Whatever conflicts with that (ie: offering prayers for the dead) is to be rejected. How anti-biblical to offer prayers for people who are dead. As Paul says, "It is appointed unto men once to die, and after this the judgment." There is no purgatory. They die, awaiting the final judgment which occurs at Christ's return.

Remember, Is 53 describes Jesus as a "root out of a dry ground". This was the religious climate of His day. From the eyes of man, religion was never stronger. But in the eyes of God, it was a parched desert.

"Water, water everywhere, but not a drop to drink."

Again (I've stated this a few times), your position FORCES you to leave the premise of scripture and hunt for evidence in Hellenistic-influenced writings.

You make your reference to a Christian Qu'ran... I simply see the Bible as the foundation. Paul warns to take heed how we build on the foundation. Nowhere is prayer for the dead enjoined in Scripture. That's because it is of pagan origin.

Your final sentence pays lip service to all that you said previously.

Paul, I thought you said Christ was the foundation (on that we certainly agree)? Tell me, what do the Scriptures tell you is the "pillar and ground of the truth?" The Scriptures, OT and NT, were born in a living community. It seems odd then that one would not take into account the way in which those living communities believed and lived in order to understand what they wrote and what it meant to THEM.

The Orthodox Church neither teaches nor believes the Roman Catholic doctrine of Purgatory. Obviously, I believe you would do well to re-examine your presuppositions about early Christian history (and Orthodox teachings) and stop viewing it all through the lens of Medieval Roman Catholic heresy and the Reformers' and Radical Reformers' quarrels with that heresy coupled with your 21st century philosophical lens that is arguably an amalgam of historical-critical, rationalistic, and nominalistic presuppositions about how to read Scripture.

Karen, You make some good points about scripture as does Paul. But your paragraph about "...viewing it all through the lens of Medieval Roman Catholic heresy and the Reformers' and Radical Reformers' quarrels with that heresy coupled with your 21st century philosophical lens that is arguably an amalgam of historical-critical, rationalistic, and nominalistic presuppositions about how to read Scripture." leaves me puzzled. The 'Radical Reformers' merely started reading the actual Bible instead of Catholic church dogma. They did not filter the words through any lens except their own eyes which were enlightened of the Holy Spirit. The problem with the Catholic Church has been that their own dogma has been held in equal, if not superior, authority with the Bible.

A good example of this was the founder of the Mennonites, Menno Simmnons. He was a Catholic priest who began reading the scripture for himself. He wrote, "I found out that they (the church) had been lying to me [about what was truth]." This changed his whole life because he became 'born-again' (a term used by Jesus, himself.) A similar thing happened to Martin Luther (those amazing Germans!) Of course, the Catholic Church tried to kill them both, but that's another story. The point of this being that the 21st century philsophical lens is no different than the lens in the 1st century, the 4th century or any other. Why? Because God's Word - The Bible - transcends time, place, culture and age. Those words are able to convict of sin and enlighten the heart today, just as they were when they were first spoken. If Jesus Christ is the same, yesterday, today and forever as he claimed, would not His word also be? Besides, what makes anyone today able to see through any lens other than their own? And if someone claims that they can accomplish such a feat, how do I know I can believe them? Did everyone in Jesus day view the world through the same lens? Obviously not or they would have all become believers, right?

Karen: "The Scriptures, OT and NT, were born in a living community."

Then you should be able to point to a single reference - just one - in which the doctrine of Hell makes entrance in Acts, or any of Paul's epistles, Peter's epistles, John's, James or Jude's. After all, that's when the foundation was being laid, no?

And even then, heresies were flooding into the church (see most of the epistles). How much more when the apostles passed of the scene?

Again, you keep trying to dodge the issue. It would be much better to simply acknowledge that the doctrine of Hell was never taught in the early church. Neither "was praying for the dead" - either in the OT or NT.

If you want to build your doctrines on the Talmud or apostate Christianity, it becomes dangerous.

What we do when our position is threatened is do all we can to defend it, even if it means abandoning the Bible. I simply and humbly recommend starting with the Bible (more trustworthy) and building outwards.

5Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord[c] delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe. 6And the angels who did not keep their positions of authority but abandoned their own home—these he has kept in darkness, bound with everlasting chains for judgment on the great Day. 7In a similar way, Sodom and Gomorrah and the surrounding towns gave themselves up to sexual immorality and perversion. They serve as an example of those who suffer the punishment of eternal fire. Jude 1:5-7

Paul C.

The things you say are very interesting. I want to ask you what you think about Philipians 1.20-25 "having a desire to depart and be with Christ, which is FAR BETTER" and 2 Corinthians 5.8 "We are confident, yes; WELL PLEASED rather to be absent from the body and to be present with the Lord" Can It be possible to be well pleased and far better in some kind of a sleepy unconsciousness? (Forgive my english, i'm writting from abroad)

Javi,

Very valid question. I would say that in the case of exploring the state of the dead, the full range of scripture (both OT and NT) should be taken into account.

For example, the same Paul who wrote these verses also speaks of the state of the dead elsewhere.

Starting with the 2 Cor 5 reference, you will notice that if you keep reading, Paul says in v 10:

"For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ..."

When does this happen? At the return of Christ.

In 1 Cor 15, in defending the resurrection of Christ, Paul writes: "Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost." That is, if there is no resurrection. He then continues:

"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."

This obviously speaks of a future event that occurs at Jesus' return. We are mortal beings now, subject to death (cessation of life), but "THEN the saying that is written will come true: "Death has been swallowed up in victory."

Until the return of Christ, Death has a sting. But the grave will be destroyed when He comes back (death actually dies eternally, along with all those who were not found worthy of life: this is the lake of fire/second death - an unrecoverable state).

In 1 Thessalonians Paul also writes:

"For the Lord himself will come down from heaven, with a loud command, with the voice of the archangel and with the trumpet call of God, and the dead in Christ will RISE first."

Where are they? In the grave. Just like David and all the Patriarchs of old.

As Job wrote:

"But man dies and is laid low; he breathes his last and is no more... so man lies down and does not rise; till the heavens are no more, men will not awake or be roused from their sleep."

In John 6, Jesus says "raise them up at the last day" FOUR times. (:39, 40, 44, 54).

This coincides with the belief obviously held at that time. When Lazarus died (John 11), Jesus asks his sister if she believes Jesus can bring him back to life again. Look what she says:

'Martha answered, "I know he will rise again in the resurrection at the last day."' (:24).

There are literally dozens of other references that speak of being united with the Lord at the time of the resurrection which occurs at His glorious return.

But until His return,

"They are now dead, they live no more;
those departed spirits do not rise...
But your dead will live;
their bodies will rise.
You who dwell in the dust,
wake up and shout for joy.
Your dew is like the dew of the morning; the earth will give birth to her dead." (Is 26:14, 19)

We are looking to the resurrection:

In his final epistle (2 Tim 4), Paul ends with:

"...I have kept the faith. 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."

Paul, I have already suggested some Scriptures that do not fall easily into your schema for interpretation on the nature of physical and spiritual death. You have not in my mind given any satisfactory replies. I could suggest some other passages, such as prophecies that picture the dead aware and responding in Sheol/Hades to future (or present/past/eschatalogical?) events, such as that regarding the demise of the King of Babylon/Lucifer and Rachel weeping for her children. I could mention the passages describing the prophet Samuel's post-mortem appearance to Saul, where although the Scripture makes it clear that Saul's use of the pagan medium was quite illicit, it at the same time never suggests that the appearance is anything other than Samuel (who from God's perspective at least is not dead, if we understand Jesus' words to the Saduccees that God is the God of the living, not the dead). What of the appearance of Moses (and Elijah) to Jesus on the Mount of Transfiguration witnessed by the disciples?

If the spirits of the dead have no awareness and have ceased to exist, why does the Scripture say that the day will come when the dead will "hear His voice, and rise," rather than that He will raise them and then they will hear His voice? Why does Jesus call out to Lazarus and Jairus' daughter (before raising their bodies) and they respond? Why does He deny the natural human perspective of the nature of death of the mourners at Jairus' house by insisting the little girl is only "asleep?" Why do Jesus and the first Christian martyr Stephen "commit their spirits into God's keeping" upon their deaths?

I had 45+ years as a conservative Bible-believing Protestant to "build my case from Scripture," and all the conflicting opinions within Protestantism I encountered--not only on peripheral and minor details of Scripture, but also on things as basic to our understanding of the nature of our salvation in Christ as the hows and whys of the nature of His atoning work on the Cross and how it works to bring us to salvation, the meaning of Baptism and the Lord's Supper, whether God is a Divine Totalitarian Arbitrary Dictator (extremes of Calvinism) or whether man's free will means his unaided good works can bring him into saving relationship with God (extremes of Arminianism)--created such conflicting and sometimes objectionable visions of God's nature (or man's nature as a creature uniquely in God's image), that ultimately I found it an obstacle to my ability to trust God that it could not bring me the intimacy with Christ I longed for. All I can say is thank God for the Orthodox Church, (despite it's flaws, which are many. At least they are not doctrinal, and that has made for me all the difference in the world!).

There is great irony in your having bought into the myth that "the Church" apostasized virtually from the very generation after the Apostles (remember this was the age of the martyrs!) in that the very Fathers you would insist were apostate were those who identified and preserved (and memorized huge portions of and lived out its commands at a cost and to an extent never realized in anything like the same way in those who claim their apostasy) the canon of Scripture, the nature of the Trinitarian God, His Son as fully God and fully Man, and the meaning of the Gospels. They are the ones through whom we know that the early heresies were heresies (whether Arian, Marcionite, Gnostic, Judaising, or whatever!). You err, Paul. It's an honest mistake that many who don't do their homework fully fall into and one I myself made for most of my life. May God reveal to you His truth in its fullness, which is life and peace. I wish you well.

Karen, I have already pointed out that you have erred in your defense on the doctrine of Hell. Yet you have refused to acknowledge this at all, proceeding to tell me that I have erred in the state of the dead.

One thing we know for sure is that the dead are not in heaven, united with God. Otherwise, Jesus would not have said:

"No man has ascended into heaven except He which came down from heaven" (John 3:13).

That statement, along with Hebrews 11 (confirming "these all died in faith, having received not the promise...") forces us to understand that the dead will not be united with Christ - the firstfruit - until he returns.

In your view, are the dead in heaven? If not, where are they, remembering that both good and evil go to the same place upon death?

Also, how would describe Paul's statement: "It is appointed to men once to die; after this the judgment"? We all would acknowledge the judgment occurs at the return of Christ.

Also, you didn't address the scriptures I outlined, such as Paul's epistles, John 6, Job 14 and others.

Also, notice Samuel's statement to Saul: "Why have you brought me UP?" Not down from heaven, but up from sheol/the grave. Simply, God allowed the witch of Endor to summon him from the dead to deliver a message to Saul.

Regarding the Transfiguration, just read the preceding verses (in Matthew 16). Jesus was basically telling his disciples that some would get a foretaste of what the kingdom will be like. 6 days later, they receive the experience. Remember, Jesus is the "I AM" with no respect to past, present or future. Again, I refer you to John 3:13. Or Acts 2, where it categorically said that David HAS NOT ascended into the heavens but is dead.

Lastly, regarding the apostasy, surely you don't think I was referring to the fact that the ENTIRE church was apostate? Men and women lived then, and continue to live now, whose shoes I am not even worthy to tie. Nevertheless, apostasy did creep into the church increasingly.

Paul, it is obvious to me we will continue talking past one another, since we take the Scriptures we use and place them in different contexts (even from within Scripture itself) to answer the same questions. I don't accept your schema of interpretation for the Scriptures you use and the way you put them together because it does violence to understanding other Scriptures at face value in their own contexts. I accept that you don't accept my interpretation, and hopefully, needless to say I wish you well regardless!

Hi Melody,

You asked very good questions, and I’m sorry that my long sentence you quoted would require a longer explanation than I could give in this forum to fully explain. I believe that any heart disposed to do God’s will (what His will is truly—not just what that person understands rationally to be His will, like the Pharisees did following the letter of the Law, but not the spirit of it) can be enlightened by the Holy Spirit to understand Scripture’s meaning (even without knowing any of the actual written Scriptures, since God’s law is written in Creation and in the human heart as well, as Scripture attests)—certainly enough of it to get them started along the road of repentance and change into Christ’s likeness. I have heard enough testimonies of this, have experienced it myself, and know better than to limit the power of the Holy Spirit to do what He wills which is to save everyone by bringing them to repentance and faith and into full communion with Christ in His Church, regardless of their disadvantages of background with regard to knowledge or ignorance of the Holy Scriptures.

The Orthodox believe that in many respects the Protestant Reformers were indeed led of the Holy Spirit to resist and overcome corrupt practices within the Roman Church. They also believe, however, that these Reformers and their successors threw much of the “baby” of a right understanding of the Scriptures’ meaning (true biblical Christian Tradition) out with the “bathwater” of Roman Catholic error in their efforts to get out from under the Roman Papal yoke. While Martin Luther and Menno Simmons certainly found help in the Scriptures to overcome ways in which official Roman Church practices and doctrinal formulations had distorted and corrupted the faith, their own interpretations were so divergent that Reformers of Luther’s generation persecuted, tortured, and killed those of what is known as the Radical Reformation (the Anabaptists) like Menno Simmons as “heretics.” And Luther so despised the Epistle of James with its insistance that our salvation required works and not "faith alone," he wanted to throw it out of the canon of the NT! I don’t think most modern evangelical Christians would have been very comfortable either in terms of beliefs or lifestyle as Lutherans of Luther’s generation. Nor is it likely that today’s Mennonites and Baptists would find it a good fit as participants in the very strict early Anabaptist communities that imported many of their practices from Christian monasticism (which required a degree of commitment and ordination on a par with Church leadership, though with a different calling and role) and not normative for Christian lay participation in the Church.

The Eastern Orthodox (as all Christians) hold to the primacy of the authority of Scripture in the Church for measuring and teaching doctrine. Here the reading and study of Scripture has never been withheld from the laity as in the Roman Catholic Church, and especially within its monastic tradition (still alive in its original forms today) any, pious observant Orthodox Christian is literally constantly immersed in the Scriptures through its spiritual disciplines and liturgical practices. Orthodoxy’s whole mindset about the nature of true Christian Holy Spirit-led (as opposed to human) Tradition (of which the Christian Scriptures are the pre-eminent written witness) is quite different than in any of the Western churches, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant. As the Scriptures below show, however, natural and unaided human reason (no matter how well intended) cannot unlock the full meaning of the Scriptures. As Jesus points out, our ability to understand the origin (and hence the full meaning) of His teaching is contingent upon the disposition of our heart and also requires information external to the Scriptures themselves. (I've put asterisks about certain parts I would have boldfaced if I could.)

John 5:39-40--"You search the Scriptures, for in them you think you have eternal life; and these are they which testify of Me. But you are not willing to come to Me that you may have life.”

John 7:16-17--Jesus answered them [the Pharisees] and said, "My doctrine is not Mine, but His who sent Me. *If anyone wants to do His will, he shall know* concerning the doctrine, whether it is from God or whether I speak on My own authority.”

1 Peter 3:15b-16--“. . . as also our beloved brother Paul, according to the wisdom given to him, has written to you, as also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things, *in which are some things hard to understand, which untaught and unstable people twist to their own destruction, as they do also the rest of the Scriptures.*”

Acts 8:30-31--So Philip ran to him, and heard him reading the prophet Isaiah, and said, "Do you understand what you are reading?" And he said, *"How can I, unless someone guides me?"*

1 Corinthians 2:1-16-- And I, brethren, when I came to you, did not come with excellence of speech or of wisdom declaring to you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you except Jesus Christ and Him crucified. I was with you in weakness, in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching were *not with persuasive words of human wisdom, but in demonstration of the Spirit and of power, that your faith should not be in the wisdom of men but in the power of God.*
However, we speak wisdom among those who are mature, yet not the wisdom of this age, nor of the rulers of this age, who are coming to nothing. But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, the hidden wisdom which God ordained before the ages for our glory, which none of the rulers of this age knew; for had they known, they would not have crucified the Lord of glory.
But as it is written: "Eye has not seen, nor ear heard, Nor have entered into the heart of man The things which God has prepared for those who love Him”
But God has revealed them to us through His Spirit. For the Spirit searches all things, yes, the deep things of God. For what man knows the things of a man except the spirit of the man which is in him? Even so no one knows the things of God except the Spirit of God. Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God. *These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual. But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned. But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one. For "who has known the mind of the LORD that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.*

There is a lot more that could be said, but I've already taken up more than my fair share of space in this blog having strayed so far off on a tangent. I thank the blog hosts for their tolerance and trust the discussion has been interesting and helpful to some. If you want to understand more, I recommend a book by Jordan Bajis, entitled Common Ground: An Introduction to Eastern Christianity for the American Christian, published by Light & Life Publishing Co. that I was able to borrow via inter-library loan and read on my journey to becoming an Eastern Orthodox Christian. It was very helpful in helping me understand what Eastern Orthodox Christianity is (and is not) as well as giving me a deeper understanding of the roots of my own Protestant Christian faith at the time. It would be valuable to any Christian, regardless of whether they would at the end of that process draw the same conclusions that I did.

Best regards.

Paul, one last thought . . . Perhaps it would be helpful to say that from our perspective, the dead are in the grave. From God's, Who is outside time, they are living. Orthodoxy has a mindset that sees the temporal everywhere and always penetrated by God's Presence (the Eternal) through Christ, where the Eternal is accessible through faith even to those within time, and prays and acts accordingly. This is a paradox. But when we pray, we are touching God and thus Eternity. (The Scripture says that in Him, we "live, and move and have our being.") The bonds of love (which the Scriptures teach is stronger than death) still knit us together in communion in Christ with those from our midst who have died (from God's perspective and theirs, they have passed into His Presence). Therefore, what is to prevent God from taking the prayers of the Church for the dead and applying them at the moment of Resurrection and Final Judgment? Will it not be a comfort to you at that moment, where you will never be more acutely aware of the nature of God's holy love and how your own sins and the unfinished business of your life have wounded HIm and fallen short of His glory, to know that the entire Body of Christ has always been praying for you, even asking all that you were unable to ask for yourself after the time of your death? I don't believe Judeo-Christian prayer for the dead in any way resembles pagan practices. Pagans also build shrines and places of worship, pray, fast, have Feasts and rituals, bow down before their god(s), give alms, do good works, believe in what they cannot see and may even give themselves in martyrdom for their own various faiths. The object and meaning of all of that activity is what is different for the Christian. Similarly, the meaning of Christian prayer for the dead is quite different from pagan prayer for the dead, and it cannot take place except for the life of the Church being "in Christ." Which reality is more significant for the Christian from the perspective of faith--the temporal or the eternal? Therefore, we pray in light of what is eternal and, by definition, outside of time and space.