Comments on: Hell or just not so nice? http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138 ThoughtPaths with Ken Wilson et al Sat, 22 Nov 2008 04:05:12 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.7 by: cnaphan http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-73 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:25:47 +0000 http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-73 They may not deny its existence outright, but its existence is qualified in some way that alters its meaning. I think Hell is often equated with being denied God, or being cut off from God. Hell certainly is at least that, but it's more than that. We're cut off from God on Earth, after all. That's what the Fall did. You hear a similar thing with the devil, that he does exist, but he's just the evil side of us or something like that. Not 100% wrong, but certainly not correct. Metaphors and analogies have their uses but they should be subservient to the plain words of the Bible. They may not deny its existence outright, but its existence is qualified in some way that alters its meaning. I think Hell is often equated with being denied God, or being cut off from God. Hell certainly is at least that, but it’s more than that. We’re cut off from God on Earth, after all. That’s what the Fall did.

You hear a similar thing with the devil, that he does exist, but he’s just the evil side of us or something like that. Not 100% wrong, but certainly not correct. Metaphors and analogies have their uses but they should be subservient to the plain words of the Bible.

]]> by: kwilson http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-72 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 21:06:31 +0000 http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-72 As opposed to denying that it exists and such, which I don't see except in the very liberal denominations, I just see it being ignored. As such it drops from sight and becomes something of a non-issue. Since it is most certainly not a non-issue, it should have a place in what is communicated. I agree that any mention of unpleasantness is politically incorrect and strongly frowned upon today. More significantly, it is often looked upon as endangering the ability to attract folks to the church and Gospel message. This, of course, is ridiculous. It is the other side of counting the cost of salvation. This approach diminishes both the reality and the message. Now, not to scare people by fire and brimstone (though they certainly should have some trepedation about it), but to at least present that side of the equation. [quote post="138"]Perhaps our pastors today do not personally believe that they would immediately fall to Hell, if the grace of God were withdrawn from them for a single moment? If they went to the pulpit with that in mind, they’d speak the simple truth, which would suffice.[/quote] They may believe it, but by and large it is not obvious. I would venture that the average congregant does not comprehend either that nor the reality awaiting those who are not saved. As opposed to denying that it exists and such, which I don’t see except in the very liberal denominations, I just see it being ignored. As such it drops from sight and becomes something of a non-issue. Since it is most certainly not a non-issue, it should have a place in what is communicated.

I agree that any mention of unpleasantness is politically incorrect and strongly frowned upon today. More significantly, it is often looked upon as endangering the ability to attract folks to the church and Gospel message. This, of course, is ridiculous. It is the other side of counting the cost of salvation. This approach diminishes both the reality and the message.

Now, not to scare people by fire and brimstone (though they certainly should have some trepedation about it), but to at least present that side of the equation.

Perhaps our pastors today do not personally believe that they would immediately fall to Hell, if the grace of God were withdrawn from them for a single moment? If they went to the pulpit with that in mind, they’d speak the simple truth, which would suffice.

They may believe it, but by and large it is not obvious. I would venture that the average congregant does not comprehend either that nor the reality awaiting those who are not saved.

]]> by: cnaphan http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-71 Mon, 12 Mar 2007 20:43:39 +0000 http://thoughtpaths.com/archives/138#comment-71 In an age where even parents spanking their children is frowned upon, it might be very difficult to preach on Hell, while maintaining that God is loving. Also, "fear as motivation" was considered as perfectly valid until the last few decades, but people are very suspicious of it nowadays. I don't really agree with either of those suppositions, but I think they are prevalent. Dwelling too much on Hell can really become a perverse, twisted and un-Christian thing. I'm thinking of some medieval writers and certain passages from the Malleum malifacarum, which speak extensively of the horrors that await people in Hell. I would say that if your fear of Hell exceeds your love of God, your spirituality will become perverse. This is so because the primary torture of Hell is being denied communion with God, and this denial can only be feared, in a healthy way, in proportion to one's love of God. However, I think you're speaking mainly of preachers denying that Hell exists or that it is bad, as opposed to neutral. Or that many go to Heaven, not few. Or that Hell is reserved for those who commit great evil acts, like Hitler, etc... Against those things, I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir, that they are vile heresies that strike at the root of the Gospel, and contradict the plain words of our Lord. Perhaps our pastors today do not personally believe that they would immediately fall to Hell, if the grace of God were withdrawn from them for a single moment? If they went to the pulpit with that in mind, they'd speak the simple truth, which would suffice. In an age where even parents spanking their children is frowned upon, it might be very difficult to preach on Hell, while maintaining that God is loving. Also, “fear as motivation” was considered as perfectly valid until the last few decades, but people are very suspicious of it nowadays. I don’t really agree with either of those suppositions, but I think they are prevalent.

Dwelling too much on Hell can really become a perverse, twisted and un-Christian thing. I’m thinking of some medieval writers and certain passages from the Malleum malifacarum, which speak extensively of the horrors that await people in Hell. I would say that if your fear of Hell exceeds your love of God, your spirituality will become perverse. This is so because the primary torture of Hell is being denied communion with God, and this denial can only be feared, in a healthy way, in proportion to one’s love of God.

However, I think you’re speaking mainly of preachers denying that Hell exists or that it is bad, as opposed to neutral. Or that many go to Heaven, not few. Or that Hell is reserved for those who commit great evil acts, like Hitler, etc… Against those things, I wholeheartedly agree with you, sir, that they are vile heresies that strike at the root of the Gospel, and contradict the plain words of our Lord.

Perhaps our pastors today do not personally believe that they would immediately fall to Hell, if the grace of God were withdrawn from them for a single moment? If they went to the pulpit with that in mind, they’d speak the simple truth, which would suffice.

]]>