There are Protestants who believe in purgatory, for example, philosopher Jerry Walls. (He also has a book about hell.)
2 Likes
Yes, but the degree of divergence suggests to me that either (i) there is little firm Biblical basis and/or (ii) that they have wandered far from that basis.
This leads me, as a non-believer, to be highly skeptical about any Christian claims about Hell.
(And, where I see similar apparently-untethered claims, skeptical about Christian theology in general.)
Hmm, that’s sort of odd. Wikipedia lists 19 different interpretations of quantum mechanics, that doesn’t mean there is no basis for these interpretations or that we should be highly skeptical about them. It just means it’s a very complex and difficult subject. It seems reasonable, if a spiritual world or afterlife exists, that it would be very hard to explain using everyday language and so imprecise wording that leaves room for multiple interpretations is not exactly unexpected.
4 Likes
I don’t see anybody staking their life (or their Hereafter) on a particular interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. Also given that (last I heard) Quantum Mechanics conflicts with Relativity, I think a good deal of skepticism as to the correctness of any particular current interpretation of the former is merited, at least until those conflicts have been sorted out.
Further, “19 different interpretations” does not necessarily mean that those different interpretations differ to a significant degree (I would expect any, particularly gross, divergences in interpretation to be experimentally testable). Therefore it is less than clear that the situation is analogous.
2 Likes
Is hell a place on Earth or does it exist only in mind’s of believers? I am sure that I can find places on Earth that are hellish place.
1 Like
No, although I think some are staking their careers on it. I also don’t think anyone should be “staking their life” on a particular conception of hell. Despite the crazed, tract-wielding street preacher stereotypes, I don’t think most Christians (and certainly not the Christian theologians and thinkers I’ve read) actually think the primary purpose of Christianity is to avoid hell. It’s actually more the opposite, that Jesus is calling people to a new and better life. Jesus certainly does talk about judgement at times, but if people think his message is primarily about “how do I avoid hell” then they have missed the message. Growing up the phrase we had for that kind of thinking was “fire insurance salvation”, and it was not seen as true orthodox Christianity. Bottom line, it seems to me, is that regardless of your view on hell or even its existence, the Gospel – the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ, and his call to follow him, still stand and that is the core of Christianity. That’s not to say that we can’t debate the subject (it’s certainly complex) or that it is insignificant or inconsequential, I just want to be clear that I don’t see it as either a roadblock to moving towards faith nor a reason to give up the faith.
I think that’s probably pretty analogous to the “hell” situation. Skepticism about the correctness of any one interpretation is probably advisable, but just like Quantum Mechanics, that shouldn’t mean we toss the whole thing out or not use it in our understanding of the world. Skepticism just means we need to hold things loosely and be open to possibilities as the data changes. It doesn’t mean we reject the whole thing entirely.
The number of them doesn’t, no, but if you read up on those interpretations you will see that they are quite different. The traditional Copenhagen interpretation is probabilistic and shatters the view of hundreds of years of physics that the laws of mechanics are deterministic. But several of the other interpretations of quantum mechanics are deterministic, which is actually shocking for a lot of people who are studying quantum mechanics. In the physics world this is a pretty big deal. Physicists have tried to make experiments to differentiate but because of the nature of the phenomenon, it’s just really hard to do and even harder to interpret the results.
3 Likes
This seems to be taking things further and further ‘into the weeds’ (away from the original point of discussion), and also does little to make me re-evaluate my skepticism over the widely diverging interpretations of Hell.
This is particularly true given that nobody has actually provided what the Biblical basis is for any of these interpretations.
A physicist should be able to point to how their interpretation of Quantum Mechanics match the empirical observations.
Likewise a theologian should be able to point to how their interpretation of Hell matches what the Bible says on the subject.
Either, lacking this basis, is untethered speculation.
1 Like
Fair enough, but neither @Michelle nor myself are theologians and C.S. Lewis (writer, Literature prof) and Tim Keller (pastor) would not be considered true academic theologians. I gave you a reference to a book on 4 different Christian views on hell from actual theologians, that could be a good starting point. I wish you well on your quest.
3 Likes
A more relevant PS discussion on hell would be "is it legal, moral, and ethical to expose young children to the Biblical or Theological Concept of hell? " For example, can I sue my grandchild’s Sunday school teacher for psychological child abuse for exposing my child or grandchild to the Biblical/Theological concept of hell? Should there be a minimum age requirement like there is on cigarettes and alcohol on exposing children to the eternal damnation of hell for sins that aren’t sins, like having gay parents?
2 Likes
Yes you did. But tracking that book down would seem a long way to go to answer what was a simple passing question. And I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any of those four views come particularly close to Michelle’s view, whose Biblical basis was my original question.
Given that Mark 9:43 states “It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out”, I find it surprising that anybody would see ambiguity.
Likewise Matt 10:28 “Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.”
Can anybody provide a direct Biblical reference to “Hell” that is more warm and fuzzy? (I.e. that is consistent with "God allows people who prefer doing their will instead of God’s will can to continue to do so” or with “Ultimate Reconciliation”.)
It isn’t about finding different verses, it’s about different ways to interpret the same verses. As with other conversations on PS of late, you can’t always just read the English translation and see all the nuance, especially when it comes to ideas that have moved into a cultural understanding (the devil is red with horns and a pitchfork, hell is caves with fire). It’s also not about finding “warm and fuzzy”. In all interpretations hell is not a good place.
There is absolutely ambiguity when you consider that the word “hell” here is Gehenna in greek, which is an actual valley in Israel. Add on that “the fire never goes out” could mean either that the person experiences the fire forever or that it’s effect is forever or something else (maybe “it can’t be outrun”?). The point being, it seems quite open to interpretation. To get more directly to the universalist/purgatory side perhaps the fire is a “refining fire” that removes all that prevents a person from going to heaven. For the “Hell is locked from the inside” view perhaps the eternal fire is the self-chosen dehumanizing of people (think how the ring turns Sméagol into Gollum in LoTR).
A couple google searches and I found plausible interpretations of even Universalist (ultimate reconciliation) views of this verse. For instance, can here doesn’t necessarily mean does so this verse is just pointing out God’s ultimate authority. So this verse would be paraphrased in this view maybe as “God has the power and authority to extinguish your existence, be more concerned with you relationship with him than people who have less power over your existence.” My point is, I think it’s a bit premature to say that there must be only one interpretation consistent with the biblical text.
1 Like
I somewhat agree. I’ll explain where I differ:
I think “fire” has to be in some sense metaphorical.
I think Revelation 20 is important to look at.
The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Hades delivered up the dead who were in them. And they were judged, each one according to his works. 14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second [d]death. 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
And Luke 16 - this refers to Hades and not to the lake of fire, but still to a place of fire.
The rich man also died and was buried. 23 And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
24 “Then he cried and said, ‘Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.’ 25 But Abraham said, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things; but now he is comforted and you are tormented. 26 And besides all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed, so that those who want to pass from here to you cannot, nor can those from there pass to us.’
What I think is interesting in the parable is that part of the torture seems to be knowing what you are missing out on. Also there is no mention of God in the parable. It seems the rich man cannot talk to God.
Because a “lake of fire” is mentioned in Revelation and water is a symbol for chaos, I think hell must be a place outside of God’s order and presence. Because His presence is so obvious here on earth (even though we don’t always acknowledge it) I think being without it would feel like “fire” or torment so I don’t think fire has to be literal.
The Tim Keller sermon I linked to on post #5 was on the parable of Lazarus and the rich man. It was an intriguing exegesis of the passage
2 Likes
It doesn’t matter if it’s fire or not; the relevant point is that it’s torment. Eternal torment, at that, with no possibility of change once your life is over.
Some believe Christ still preaches to those in Hades - a passage from Peter or Jude? Honestly I feel like my tradition did not address these nuances in the text well at all. Something I do want to study more. I’m not 100% convinced Protestantism has this correct because from my perspective it’s rarely addressed so I’ll have to see what Keller and others say.
But in the parable, yes it seems there is no possibility of change - and the change the rich man wanted was relief. He didn’t show repentance or interest in God, which is what the bliss of heaven is about - enjoying God’s presence without sin.
Tim Keller’s sermon points out that in the Bible, the naming of a person is symbolic of their identity. In most of Jesus’ parables the people are not named. However, in this parable, Lazarus, the former servant of the rich man, is named. So it is a stark contrast that the rich man in hell is not named, which then makes the symbolic point that the rich man is still putting his identity in his wealth and status (rather than in Christ), which are the rich man’s idols that take the place of God in the rich man’s life. Also, the rich man has not learned from his failings, as illustrated by the fact that he is still treating Lazarus like a servant and requesting, “send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue.”
The conclusion of that parable in Luke 16 is the prophetic truth that Jesus teaches about himself:
But he said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be persuaded even if someone rises from the dead.’”
1 Like
Given that the two verses I quoted gave prima facie support for “Eternal Conscious Torment” and “Annihilationism” respectively, it did not seem an unreasonable question. I did not want to make the assumption that these two verses (which seem more conducive to the less warm & fuzzy interpretations) were the only ones applicable.
I would agree, but I would expect to see such alternate interpretations substantiated by details of the Biblical wording’s cultural context (which still first requires that the Biblical wording be given). “Fire” has a destructive connotation that stretches back into Ancient times (e.g. Rome burning in Nero’s time). In fact I alluded to this general issue back in this post.
The ambiguity I was talking about was Joshua’s questioning whether Matt 25:41 was referring to Hell. I would suggest that Mark 9:43 puts that ambiguity to rest.
Given that the comment was not part of a travelogue on ‘Former Places of Child Sacrifice in Israel’, I think it reasonable to assume he was using (the name of) that valley as a metaphor for Hell. That is certainly how everybody seems to have taken it since. This usage in the Bible appears in fact to be how “Gehenna” entered the English language, as a word for Hell.
Burns heal (assuming of course that you don’t die from them), and people run away from house-fires all the time. I’m not saying that either interpretation is impossible, but I’m saying that, lacking corroborating evidence (like a scholarly article on ‘Use of Fire as a Metaphor in Ancient Cultures’), I’m less than convinced by it.
But lacking a clear and present danger of that outcome, the warning lacks any real urgency. Also if simply going to Hell isn’t the determining causitive factor in whether both body and soul are destroyed, it would make far more sense for the passage to mention what is that factor, instead of Hell.
And my point is that some interpretations are more strained than others.
Yes, a headmaster could mean an ‘Eternal Caning’ to mean five quick whacks of the cane and then having to remember the experience for the rest of their school career – but the description would likely result in some very very confused pupils (and that’s quite apart from the fact that God’s use of the word “eternal”, unlike the headmaster’s, isn’t automatically hyperbole).
1 Like
I might if I saw someone being raised from the dead by Jesus. But unequivocal miracles have become very scarce these days with the proliferation of smart phones.
2 Likes
What’s your point, if any?