No hell... Gospel still relevent?

[Kona Kuyperian]

I met a guy who says there is no literal eternal hell...

For the sake of argument, if there was no hell (that is, if no hell was taught in the Bible), what are the implications?

The only one I can think of is:
1. God is not good as he wouldn't be just

 

[ZackF]

It would mean God is a liar.

 

[Kona Kuyperian]

It would mean God is a liar.

Please see OP that nuances the scenario saying "if no hell was taught in the Bible"

 

[ZackF]

Please see OP that nuances the scenario saying "if no hell was taught in the Bible"

I would then ask your friend what IS taught in the Bible? Jesus couldn't stop talking about it. Some philosophical answer or musing will not pull the scales from his eyes. If he cannot account for the biblical testimony for eternal punishment then what does he believe? What was the atonement for?

 

[Bill The Baptist]

It does beg the question what are we being saved from? Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15 that if in this life only we have hope in Christ, then we are of all men the most to be pitied.

 

[Kona Kuyperian]

I would then ask your friend what IS taught in the Bible? Jesus couldn't stop talking about it. Some philosophical answer or musing will not pull the scales from his eyes. If he cannot account for the biblical testimony for eternal punishment then what does he believe? What was the atonement for?

Again, we are assuming there is no metion of hell... But then you did bring up a good question:

"What was the atonement for?"

 

[Justified]

It doesn't seem impossible that God could decide to save every human according to his absolute power. You could say that hell is the natural end of our disobedience from which Christ saves all of humanity-- even if no one indeed suffers there eternally.

Is it an affront to God's justice? Well, that depends on your account of justice. Was God unjust in saving you? Don't think so.

Some of these a priori arguments against universalism usually seem to me specious. Best to just stick to the biblical data and go from there.

 

[MW]

Sin against an infinite God incurs infinite guilt. Divine justice demands infinite punishment. Christ died to satisfy justice. He was able to suffer infinite punishment and satisfy divine justice because of the dignity of His person. He perfectly delivers the sinner from the infinite guilt of sin and His righteousness gives eternal life. If one removes the element of eternal punishment he must consider that Jesus has done something other than satisfy divine justice in order to save the sinner. He could not proclaim that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. This would be another gospel, which is no gospel.

 

[Kona Kuyperian]

Is it an affront to God's justice? Well, that depends on your account of justice. Was God unjust in saving you? Don't think so.

Very good point

 

[Kona Kuyperian]

Sin against an infinite God incurs infinite guilt. Divine justice demands infinite punishment. Christ died to satisfy justice. He was able to suffer infinite punishment and satisfy divine justice because of the dignity of His person. He perfectly delivers the sinner from the infinite guilt of sin and His righteousness gives eternal life. If one removes the element of eternal punishment he must consider that Jesus has done something other than satisfy divine justice in order to save the sinner. He could not proclaim that whosoever believes on Him shall not perish but have everlasting life. This would be another gospel, which is no gospel.

I dont disagree, but what Evan says (see below) could apply and then we are still faced with the same issue

It doesn't seem impossible that God could decide to save every human according to his absolute power. You could say that hell is the natural end of our disobedience from which Christ saves all of humanity-- even if no one indeed suffers there eternally.

 

[Deleted member 6112]

I met a guy who says there is no literal eternal hell...

What exactly does he believe? That there is a temporary hell? That unbelievers are annihilated? That all men will enter heaven?

 

[MW]

I dont disagree, but what Evan says (see below) could apply and then we are still faced with the same issue

An hypothetical does not pose a real issue. God has not in fact chosen to save all men. That is a fact of biblical revelation. He has chosen to manifest His justice in the eternal damnation of human vessels. Even if the counter-factual idea of universal salvation were to be granted it would still be the case that hell is prepared for the devil and his angels as a manifestation of the justice of God, and it would only be by virtue of Christ's saving work that all men were delivered from such a place. But it is better to avoid these counter-factuals and deal with biblical revelation as it has been given to us, and the Bible reveals that all men will not be saved.

 

[Warren]

I met a guy who says there is no literal eternal hell...

For the sake of argument, if there was no hell (that is, if no hell was taught in the Bible), what are the implications?

The only one I can think of is:
1. God is not good as he wouldn't be just

Hell would still be implied, if not explicitly taught.

MW made a solid case, but to go even further, trailing the premise "what if" down the rabbit hole is a loser's game. Its Russian roulette with all six cylinders loaded, you'll never win. Its a lie wrapped in phony truth seeking, no different from Satan's.

 

[Jake]

What exactly does he believe? That there is a temporary hell? That unbelievers are annihilated? That all men will enter heaven?

I agree that the OP is too vague. I would argue that despite his shortcomings, for an annihilationist like John Stott the Gospel is still relevant. If he means that there is no hell whatsoever, I think that even "evangelical" universalists would disagree, as they have a temporal hell in their model (such as purgatorial universalists). Only the very most progressive will bother calling themselves Christians while not believing in any hell at all.

There is a big difference between John Stott and a Unitarian Univeralist, but both sort of meet your vague first sentence.

 

[Dachaser]

I met a guy who says there is no literal eternal hell...

For the sake of argument, if there was no hell (that is, if no hell was taught in the Bible), what are the implications?

The only one I can think of is:
1. God is not good as he wouldn't be just

Jesus death meant that all would get saved then!
And that there is really no judgment regarding degrees of sinning, so a Hitler and a person who was a "small sinner" would get treated exactly same!

 

[Ken_lamb]

No hell, no fall, no death, everything is perfect....only it's not.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MW]

I would argue that despite his shortcomings, for an annihilationist like John Stott the Gospel is still relevant.

It is clear from his book on the Cross of Christ that this is the case. It upholds penal substitution in the classical sense. Our Lord, however, was not annihilated. If annihilation is the penalty due for sin, and sinners are saved from annihilation, then something other than the cross of Christ must have procured it; something other than satisfaction to divine justice has saved elect sinners. While Stott himself finds relevance for the cross of Christ in penal substitution, the particular idea of annihilation renders the cross of Christ of none effect.

 

[Dachaser]

It is clear from his book on the Cross of Christ that this is the case. It upholds penal substitution in the classical sense. Our Lord, however, was not annihilated. If annihilation is the penalty due for sin, and sinners are saved from annihilation, then something other than the cross of Christ must have procured it; something other than satisfaction to divine justice has saved elect sinners. While Stott himself finds relevance for the cross of Christ in penal substitution, the particular idea of annihilation renders the cross of Christ of none effect.

It would mean that there was no real judgment for degrees of sinful behavior then by God, as Hitler and someone who was not involved in sin to that degree were equally judged and there would be bo real reason to not live as th Devil so to speak for the unsaved!

 

[Dachaser]

I agree that the OP is too vague. I would argue that despite his shortcomings, for an annihilationist like John Stott the Gospel is still relevant. If he means that there is no hell whatsoever, I think that even "evangelical" universalists would disagree, as they have a temporal hell in their model (such as purgatorial universalists). Only the very most progressive will bother calling themselves Christians while not believing in any hell at all.

There is a big difference between John Stott and a Unitarian Univeralist, but both sort of meet your vague first sentence.

Both would be in error, but the Universalist would be into actual heresy then?

 

[Kona Kuyperian]

It is clear from his book on the Cross of Christ that this is the case. It upholds penal substitution in the classical sense. Our Lord, however, was not annihilated. If annihilation is the penalty due for sin, and sinners are saved from annihilation, then something other than the cross of Christ must have procured it; something other than satisfaction to divine justice has saved elect sinners. While Stott himself finds relevance for the cross of Christ in penal substitution, the particular idea of annihilation renders the cross of Christ of none effect.

Wow. That is the best refutation Ive heard. Thanks

 

[Silas22]

Was reading the Institutes today and was reminded of this thread.

What true godliness entails (pg. 9, 1541 ed.)

"...it is not mere fear of his vengeance which holds the heart back from sinning. It is because it loves and reveres him as its Father and fears him as its Lord; even if he'll did not exist it would dread to offend him."