If it’s ok with everyone (hope so, cause I didn’t ask), I want to jump on the bandwagon of talking about Hell. Now I know Rob Bell ruined it for us, but I want to take a different spin if I could. You see, aside from theology, I have some things in common with Rob. We are both from the same generation, we are both Gen Xers, he is slightly older than I am. We both ask many questions, and we both question the established system. That is where we depart, I headed more towards Driscoll, he went towards McLaren.
That being said, I see the meta-narrative approach, and I understand where Bell misses it. You see, the scripture can’t be cut and parcelled into chunks, so the question comes up, how can a loving and merciful God send people to hell? Bell says He doesn’t. I say, there is mercy with Hell. Are you scratching your head a little? Think maybe I am as crazy as Rob Bell? Let me unpack it just a bit.
If you remember Isaiah chapter 6, the prophet is suddenly in the presence of God, and his reaction was overwhelming guilt and shame. He exclaimed “woe is me”. It was then when an angel came with a coal and cleansed his lips and only then was Isaiah able to hear the words of the Lord.
Once judgement comes to pass, there is no more cleansing of sin. It was done once and for all through the blood of Christ. Jesus made the atonement and we are saved through that power. Those who are not covered in the blood of Christ still carry their own sin. There is no atonement, there is no cleansing power.
I submit to you, for your discussion and input that the only thing worse that being separated from God for eternity in hell would be eternity before God bearing the weight of your sin with no hope of forgiveness. The reality of hell is knowing you are being punished and eternally atoning for your sin. Heaven with sin would be guilt and shame heaped upon remorse and unworthiness for all of eternity. Being in the presence of the Glory of God, but never able to look upon it. To look upon the face of God with sin is to bring death, so in a sense, it would be eternal death worse than the eternal punishment in hell.
If this is true, then casting the sinner into the flames of hell where they face punishment is loving and merciful, and having them suffer the crushing weight of sin for eternity in God’s presence would show no mercy. This is where I believe Rob Bell missed it, Universalism for the unsaved would be worse than hell. What do you think?
Trying to think of hell as a mercy makes my brain hurt, Dan.
But it is an interesting argument.
I was totally looking for the “our God is a consuming fire” reference. Seems like I must have seen it in the comments recently around here or something in a similar context perhaps. One of the underlying themes in Hebrews is that Jesus’ work has made it possible for us to draw near to God in the heavenly places in the same way that sacrifices on earth allowed the worshiper to draw near and enter in the Temple here. Trying to draw near in our own way simply will not work (and results in death). We can only draw near… Read more »
Just a thought:
we have this hymn in my Church that has a line that goes:
“You shall see the Face of God and live”
The hymn is ‘Be Not Afraid’
” . . our God is a consuming fire.”
is from Hebrews 12:29
Thanks Christiane, but I think you misunderstood what I meant by that statement. I know where the verse is in Hebrews, which is why the rest of my comment is based on ideas from the book as well.
I meant that I expected him to quote that verse in the post.
I love that song by John Michael Talbot (although I’m not sure many Baptists are familiar with it given Talbot’s mix of Jesus Movement monastic Roman Catholicism). It is intended as an encouragement for the faithful, however, not the unfaithful.
Yes, that is what I am saying.
The problem with viewing hell as a “mercy” is that I don’t see any warrant for it in the Bible. If you could offer up some Scriptural references to go with your logic, maybe I could consider it better.
This is my opinion as well. Scripture does not indicate anything merciful about Hell, or that Hell is not “eternity before God bearing the weight of your sin with no hope of forgiveness.” We are tormented before God, and the weight of our sins is God’s wrath. Consider Rev. 14:9-11: “And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, the same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into… Read more »
In my second sentence, “we” is a bad choice of words. It should be substituted by “the reprobate.”
Third sentence, I mean. I can’t seem to free myself from typos today.
Chase, for some reason people like to throw water on Revelation’s references to hell as being all smoke and mirrors.
from Hosea, chapter 6:
““Come, let us return to the LORD,
it is He who has rent, but He will heal us;
He has struck us, but He will bind our wounds.
He will revive us after two days;
on the third day He will raise us up,
to live in His Presence.”
Boy, when you say Rob Bell “missed it” that is probably the understatement of the century. His gospel is so far removed from the gospel Jesus and the apostles preached that for anyone to mistake one for the other they would have to be either blind or just plain ig-nurnt. However, I am glad that he has published his little attack on the true gospel, Love Wins. People who would never have admitted to believing the things that he believes have come out in support of him and his book. In contrast, all Christians recognize that Bell is a false… Read more »
‘Mercy’ is the theme of one of the great prayers of the earliest Christians, the ‘Kyrie Eleison’. It is a plea on behalf of the whole Church for God to have mercy on us (together). The theme of God’s Mercy, and of our need for it, was also interwoven into the recognition of the Holiness of God in one of the earliest of Christian hymns: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHi-1taeqeo&feature=related “Holy God Holy and Mighty, Holy Immortal, Have mercy on us.” I do understand what Dan is speaking about. I wouldn’t have chosen quite the same way to express it, but I do understand.… Read more »
And that choice is whether or not to trust Christ as Savior and repent of our sins. Anyone who trusts Christ cnsciously and repents will be saved. People from other faiths who honestly follow their religion faithfully but do not trust Christ will burn in hell eternally for their sins and won’t receive even one moment of relief or compassion.
But that is not why people should accept Christ as their Savior. It should never be to escape hell. It’s more than that. It shows our need of a Savior. It also is because we realize we are enemies of God without Christ. It should never be to escape tribulation on earth or hell. The reason to accept Christ as Savior is to see our sin for what it is, and to see Christ for who He is. Escapism leads to false conversions. The fact is none of us knows what hell is like any more than we know what… Read more »
The Gospel is that God loved us enough to send an escape from hell, Jesus Christ. He loved us that much. That is incomprehensible love.
So you believe there is a wrong reason to get saved. That’s an interesting concept.
Hell is major part of the gospel message it seems to me not just an interesting sidenote. I think it will always lead to error to emphasize one aspect of Gods character such as love and downplay another such as wrath.
This always seems to eventually ending in universalism.
I never said that is WHY they should get saved. I was provoking L’s because she believes that people of other faiths will get to heaven through Christ without ever knowing Christ. Reading is still fundamental.
Now, go back and cry into your pillow.
The way I interpret Scripture on this is that the presence of God is everywhere (even in hell) but His presence is manifested differently at different times and places. I’ve thought hell to be God actively pouring out His wrath on unbelievers and not so much them being separated from God. I mean isn’t separation from God in a sense the condition of unbelievers now? And isn’t separation from God what a rebellious heart desires?
That’s just my take…but I could be wrong.
Interesting thoughts though.
Also, I should add that I do believe there is a sense in which hell is a separation from God…but that it is a separation from the “good” presence of God but a full exposure to His wrath.
I agree with Mike as well. God is in hell or He is not omnipresent. He however withholds His mercy from hell. Hell is the same thing that Jesus experienced on the cross as He was forsaken by His Father. God withheld His mercy from Christ, His common grace at that moment, and poured out His “hell,” His 100% wrath on Christ for your sins and mine. Thus, hell is the absense of the mercy of God. He is there, only in wrath toward sin. His justice is clearly present there as a result, since sinners deserve what they receive… Read more »
Hi JARED, ‘to look upon the Face of God and live’ is from a song often sung at funerals, and likely is related to the book of Job, chapter 19, from which our Anglican brothers also take their funeral rite. I think this is one of the most triumphant passages in all of Sacred Scripture: “I know that my Redeemer liveth, and that He shall stand at the latter day upon the earth. And though after my skin worms destroy this body, yet in my flesh shall I see God: whom I shall see for myself, and mine eyes shall… Read more »
Jared, I always think there is mercy in justice. I think that there is righteous judgement, my overarching point is that God’s mercy is displayed in His justice.
Dan, how is God’s mercy displayed in His justice toward the one receiving the torment? I agree that God is merciful to us by judging the wicked; however, how can you argue that the one receiving God’s wrath is also receiving His mercy? Also, would you say this about Satan as well?
It doesn’t apply to Satan because Satan doesn’t torment people in hell, Satan is being tormented. My point is that for the unregenerate, getting what they deserve and living in the eternal state of being punished justly is the best option. It’s not saying hell is nice and pleasant, but the alternative, for a sinner to be in Heaven with all the guilt, shame and stain of sin would be much worse than experiencing justice. He is tormented justly, he is getting what he deserves and understands that.
Dan, if the sinner was in heaven, he would be receiving grace by simply being there; even though his deeds would be exposed. These sins however exist in hell as well. Those burning in hell know they are wicked, and are receiving what they deserve; but, if they were in heaven, they would know they were not getting what they deserved. My point is that an unrepentant sinner, whether in heaven (hypothetically) or hell has “all the guilt, shame, and stain of sin.” The difference is that the people in hell are experiencing conscience torment forever; while those in heaven… Read more »
Something to think about:
for all who think that God will be in Hell, please go back and read the Words of Our Lord in sacred Scripture St. Matthew 25:
“”Then He will say to those on His left,
‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels.”
I would think this:
that IF the end for which we were created was to be with God for all eternity:
THEN, the greatest torment a person could have, would be to be deprived of God’s Presence for all eternity.
Christiane,
You are a creating a contradiction, as Rev. 14:10 states that those in Hell will be tormented in the presence of Christ. You should reconsider what Christ means by “depart from me.”
Christiane,
You can be separated from the Presence of the Lord and God still be there. If God is omnipresent then there is no place that He is not, as the Psalmist proclaimed. But there is another sense in which being cast away from the Lord’s presence means that you are departing from the realm of His mercy.
In other words I don’t really deny anything you said, I simply believe there is another aspect to it.
Perhaps in God’s omnipresence, He can choose to not be somewhere, just like He told the Israelites he wouldn’t go with them, and Moses pleads for His presence. Because He can be everywhere doesn’t mean He is required to be.
Dan, God is necessarily everywhere by His very nature. You are speaking of an essential attribute of God: Omnipresence. I think you’re in danger of making God less than God by arguing that He has the ability to choose not be everywhere. God however can clearly withhold His non-essential attributes (the attributes He would possess in every possible world; or the attributes He possessed while in His Trinitarian relationship prior to the creation of matter); such as mercy, wrath, justice, grace, etc. God is God without mercy, wrath, or grace for He was God before these attributes flowed from His… Read more »
Well if I am limited God by denying his omnipresence, aren’t you limiting God by saying Hell doesn’t demonstrate love and mercy, since God is infinite loving and infinitely merciful? Reconcile how I am limiting God and you are not.
Dan, simply put, God doesn’t have to love sinners to still be God. He does not have to show mercy to them. He however has to be omnipresent in order to be God. It’s His nature.
Do you believe that God must show love to sinners?
I like Dan’s article, although I too would agree more with Mike and Jared. Hell is not the absence of God’s full presence, it is the full presence of his glory and wrath. What make hell hell is not just the darkness and flames but the utter terror of the full brunt of the holy wrath of God in the fulness of his presence, including seeing him so beautiful and realizing forever and ever what (or “Who”) the person rejected.
My entire point of this article is that Hell doesn’t contradict God’s character of love and mercy, it supports it. I would reject the view that God delights in the torture of sin. I do believe God pours out wrath, but the righteous punishment of sin is also merciful. I think we rejoice in the suffering of the wicked, and that disturbs me a great deal. God sends the sinner to eternal punishment because He loves them, and that is the best outcome for them. I think that is a concept we need to wrap our minds around, God is… Read more »
Dan, I think you misunderstand God. God does not love humans more than He loves Himself. He is about primarily His own glory. You seem to be emphasizing a man-centered understanding of God. You said, “…God is eternally merciful and loving in all of His nature. If that is the case, hell has aspects of mercy and love. Anything else would be a contradiction of God’s stated nature.” I have so many problems with this statement. First, in order to argue this, you either have to deny that God is exhaustive in His attributes or that He is more merciful… Read more »
Hi Jared, I think I would be a bit more cautious about a couple of statements you made, or at least clarify them some. The first is this: “God does not love humans more than He loves Himself.” While this may be true, I don’t think God loves us any less than he loves himself. The whole foundation of the gospel is that God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten. I would think that alone shows that God loves the world enough to die for it. Jesus’ own words say that there is no greater love… Read more »
Jim, you wrongly assume that that when I say “God is primarily concerned with His own glory” that I’m referring to God the Father. We worship One God who exists in three persons. When One Trinitarian person is glorified, the other two are as well, since they are One Essence. Also, I believe you are teetering close to blasphemy when you speak of God loving humanity as much as Himself. If God loves anyone or anything as much as Himself, He ceases to be God. You are erasing the “otherness” of God. He still transcends humanity. Concerning God primarily being… Read more »
Hi Jared, I never assumed you meant only God the Father. I believe you to be as trinitarian as I. :0) I appreciate your concern about me coming close to blasphemy, but I don’t think I am. Why would God cease to be God if he loved someone as much as himself? I don’t see that anywhere in Scripture. All I am saying is that Jesus loved others as he loved himself. He had to do so in order to fully keep the law. Jesus IS GOD. He loved us AS GOD (and as man, for he is both) as… Read more »
Jim, I’m speaking of the new physical body that Christ has post-resurrection; the body He has today. God must necessarily love Himself more than others, or He will seek their best interest above His own. If God loves everyone as much as Himself, He wouldn’t send anyone to hell. Jesus even speaks of a special love that God has for His church that is greater than His love for the lost. There are clear degrees of God’s love in Scripture, even within humanity. Also, the fact that the greatest commandment is to love God should prove that God is ultimate,… Read more »
Hi Jared, Okay, I agree with the post-resurrected glorified body. We will have one like it when he returns, but not yet. I think God does seek the best interests of others. Why else would he (God the Son) become one of us, suffer with us, die for us, and remain one of us into eternity future? He certainly did a LOT of stooping down at his own inconvenience to save us and love us the way he did. Even if we restrict his greatest love to the church, he loves us on a level that his commensurate with his… Read more »
Jarod, You are being so one dimensional in your statement, I don’t even know where to begin. There is judgement in Heaven, otherwise Satan wouldn’t have been kicked out of Heaven. The miscommunication is you don’t understand my point at all. I didn’t say there is mercy in hell, I said God sending the unregenerate to hell is merciful, much like punishing a child you love is mercy that the child doesn’t understand (and it seems neither to you). I am not sure how to make you understand, I think you are in error.
Dan, you cannot compare us punishing children temporarily to God sending sinners to hell. We do it because we want their correction.
God however is not seeking to correct sinners in hell unless you believe hell is similar to purgatory. Hell is God’s wrath, period. They are not being corrected in hell. They are being judged and tormented to reveal God’s holiness. He is serious about His own holiness.
I think we rejoice in the suffering of the wicked, and that disturbs me a great deal. God sends the sinner to eternal punishment because He loves them, and that is the best outcome for them. Rejoicing in the suffering of the wicked and lamenting over them, biblically, is a both/and not an either/or. On the one hand I must say one of the most disturbing sermons I’ve witnessed was in preaching class where one dude spoke about the glory of God in the damnation of sinners and smiled the whole time doing it. The prof even told him, “I… Read more »
If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.
Careful how you use (or abuse) scripture. You may say more than you mean too.
If you look OT and New, God’s love is inexplicably tied to his covenants. Those he “hates” are those that he separates himself from (though not in the spatial sense, as we know, but relationally) and rejects. His love is towards the ones he joins himself to and receives. The main thrust in thought behind your quote from Luke 14 is no different than the end of Luke 9 where Jesus tells one dude that instead of going back to his father’s funeral he should let the dead bury the dead, and to the other guy who asks to go… Read more »
Dan, Actually, when we are with the Lord, we will certainly will rejoice at the destruction and punishment of the wicked. They are enemies of the Great King, they refused his matchless mercy of His Only Begotten Son who came and died and rose again. I forget who said it, but on that Day there will be mothers in heaven who rejoice to see their own children thrown into hell as just punishment for their rejection of the Sovereign Lord. However, the rejoicing is absolutely inappropriate and shameful now, in this age. We must reach the lost with the Gospel… Read more »
Just for everyone’s FYI, I found the quote I was thinking of. It was Spurgeon, in a sermon titled, “Heaven and Hell”. Here it s: “There was a dreadful dream which a Christian mother once had, and she told it to her children. She dreamed the judgment day had come. The great books were opened. The people all stood before God. And Jesus Christ said, “Separate the chaff from the wheat; put the goats on the left hand, and the sheep on the right.” The mother dreamed that she and her children were standing right in the middle of the… Read more »
Dan,
I have to stand by my earlier comment: “The problem with viewing hell as a ‘mercy’ is that I don’t see any warrant for it in the Bible. If you could offer up some Scriptural references to go with your logic, maybe I could consider it better.”
The problem is that I don’t see anywhere that hell is described as an act of love or mercy. Is it possible your are trying to take passages of God’s love for the elect and transribing them to the reprobate?
Also, what are your thoughts on Revelation 6:10-11?
Hi ANDREW WENCI, just a little history: prior to the time that we know St. John wrote Revelation on Patmos, the early Christians had already begun burying their dead, instead of cremating them in the pagan fashion of that time. For martyrs, we know that the Romans did permit family members to collect their remains, and these remains were kept in the places where the early Christians gathered for worship. Today, bones of martyrs are kept ‘under the main altar’ of many Churches. So the 9th verse of Rev. 6 which has the martyrs calling out from ‘under the altars’… Read more »
In the end, we can trust God to ‘sort out’ the sheep from the goats with more justice, and mercy, than even the best of us humans could ever muster.
The funny thing is, that in St. Matthew, a lot of goats don’t realize that they ARE goats. The Day of the Lord will bring surprises, according to St. Matthew’s Gospel.
Actually in Matthew’s gospel, Jesus said “You shall know them by their fruits”. Therefore, discerning Christians can recognize false teachers if they are careful to pay attention to what they teach. For instance, a false teacher like Rob Bell demonstrates by his false gospel, that he is not of the sheep but rather is of the goats–a true apostate if their ever was one.
Just as a clarification the “sheep and the goats” is not in the same place as judging a tree by its fruits (Matthew 25 and Matthew 7 respectively). And if you take the passage literally (either one actually), the judgment is made more by what they do than by what they say. Fruits are about results of action not about doctrine. Someone teaching good doctrine with bad fruit is certainly possible (Matthew 23).
Jeff, ‘Fruits’ clearly refers to what we say (and by extension, our doctrine) in Matthew 12. Consider verses 33-37: ‘Either make the tree good, and his fruit good; or else make the tree corrupt, and his fruit corrupt: for the tree is known by his fruit. O generation of vipers, how can ye, being evil, speak good things? for out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaketh. A good man out of the good treasure of the heart bringeth forth good things: and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things. But I say… Read more »
Chase, Please don’t try and make me say more than I said. I cited a very specific example in Matthew 23. Are you familiar with the passage? Jesus admonishes the Pharisees for teaching correctly and living wrongly. That is all I was talking about with that statement. Also, the idea that Matthew 7 does not refer to doctrine is absurd. Christ’s statement about fruits is a test for false prophets. If he referred only to works, then we should be recognising the prophecies of anyone with good behaviour, even enemies of Christ such as Mormons and Papists. Fruits is about… Read more »
Jeff, Jeff, Please don’t try and make me say more than I said. I did no such thing. I cited a very specific example in Matthew 23. You also mentioned Matthew 7, with which I dealt. Are you familiar with the passage? Jesus admonishes the Pharisees for teaching correctly and living wrongly. That is all I was talking about with that statement. You also stated that ‘fruits’ refers to works, not doctrine. I corrected your error from Scripture. Fruits is about the results of a way of living (this is a Hebrew idiom and a common one, go look it… Read more »
Chase, Let me try this one more time. I was citing a specific example(of fruits are a result of actions and indicated this by citing the instance I had in mind in Matthew 23) and not making a broad generalization. I further clarified my position by saying it is both/and when I am speaking beyond that one instance. And to reiterate, Matthew 7 is about both. Trying to make it just about speech is doing injustice to the text. I don’t disagree with anything you have said, other than your complete twist of something I didn’t say to try and… Read more »
Jeff, I did not mean to imply that you are ‘arguing that those who do good things should be listened to,’ but rather that this is a consequence of the comment you made about fruits: And if you take the passage [Mt. 7, 23] literally (either one actually), the judgment is made more by what they do than by what they say. Fruits are about results of action not about doctrine. The consequence remains whether or not you argue for it. You clearly stated that Mt. 7 does not refer to doctrine. Hopefully you can understand my response, even if… Read more »
Chase, My apology because in my haste to type the first comment I left out a word that would have helped the whole thing. I was responding to Joe and was trying to correct his one-sided assertion. If I were to run that statement back through my, “what I was trying to say” filter it should probably read: Fruits are about results of actions and not just about doctrine. Or something like that anyway. This is what happens when you are typing, talking and watching TV all at the same time. I am not a good multitasker. Even with my… Read more »
Jeff,
If X prophesies and has good works, then X is a true prophet.
X prophesies and has good works.
Therefore X is a true prophet.
Valid per modus ponens.
Valid, just not true.
Frank,
Of course it isn’t true. The argument should be noted in the context of my discussion with Jeff.
My bad, Chase. I read it differently the second time. I actually read your exchange but obviously didn’t read it carefully enough. Please accept my apology.
It’s not a problem, Frank.
Perhaps one should be thinking also about the ‘fruits of the Spirit’ in any context of the Holy Gospels.
I really think most of you have focused on the idea of those receiving mercy in hell. That is not the point. The point is, hell is the best for the unregenerate. I think some would argue that forgiveness would be the most merciful, but that would be forced love and devotion. I have seen many of you agree that. Universalism isn’t merciful, because a sinner can’t stand in God’s presence, and it would be disastrous. I can’t hold to annihilationism, because the soul is eternal. Of all the things that could happen to the lost soul, I believe that… Read more »
Dan, if universalism is true, the person in heaven is cleansed, and thus is sinless. So, they can stand in the presence of God. I also don’t think it’s arrogant to say that God has to do something, if He has said it Himself. For example, God “HAS” to tell the truth. I’m just not convinced that “there is mercy in love and justice.” I don’t understand why you’re arguing for this? What scriptural reason do you have? To say that “hell is better than the alternatives,” is to assume that you know there are worse alternatives. The Bible however… Read more »
A 10 year old doesn’t have the ability for abstract thought. Really, the whole thing isn’t that important, it’s a contrast to Bell’s theology. The discussion has been on the merit of the argument itself, and everyone got hung up on mercy and hell being in the same sentence. My point is that God sending people to hell does not contradict His character of love and mercy. Love is love, and hell does not contradict His nature of love, this is in contrast to Bell’s statement that a loving God would not send people to hell. I would argue a… Read more »
So, you do concede that the Mercy of God extends beyond the grave?
In my faith, in our Scriptures, we have reference to that, too.
We can’t mitigate hell, whether by calling it “separation from God,” non-eternal, figurative, left alone with our sin, mercy-containing or salvation-possible. Hath God said?
Is it more powerful if God Hath said it and it’s in 19th Century English? Just wondering.
Could there be a GREATER punishment than to be separated from God, Our Creator, for all eternity?
Not in my religion.
While we’re on the subject of hell, is anybody familiar with a clear argument from the Bible that clearly shows that the reprobate will consciously experience hell? Luke 16 (rich man-Lazarus) jumps to mind, but I have a hard time accepting that Luke 16 describes the actual heaven/hell setup. I’m not saying that it doesn’t necessarily, but it’s pretty allegorical. I don’t think it could be categorized in the clear proof column. A friend of mine pointed to Revelation 14:9-10, but that is specific to people who take the mark of the beast. I don’t think that could apply to… Read more »
Concering Rob Bell’s book:
http://sacredsandwich.com/archives/8343
I can see the intellectual fun in a clever argument like a merciful hell. I just think there are too many hurdles in logic and Scripture to make it a fruitful intellectual pursuit. Any mercy associated with hell is on this side of the grave. Hell is the opposite of mercy, and a merciful God has provided a way to escape what is the pure, unmitigated eternal experience of wrath. I know this is not as “fun” as a clever discussion of a unique argument, but I don’t think pursuing cleverness for cleverness’s sake is something we should be doing… Read more »
I think it’s important to cover these topics in response to theologies like Rob Bell. People will come in our churches and ask us “how can God claim He loves the world, but then sends some to hell”. Can a loving God do something that is motivated by anything but love? Does a merciless hell mean that God has an area where He lacks mercy? Can we say, “God has mercy on everyone unless they don’t get saved, and then His mercy gives way to wrath”. Does God love the world, saved and unsaved, or just the saved? Does God… Read more »
Dan, Can a loving God do something that is motivated by anything but love? Ps. 5:5; 11:5-6; 73:17-19; Pr. 3:33; 16:4; Ro. 9:22-23 Does a merciless hell mean that God has an area where He lacks mercy? I see no reason to believe that God must be merciful towards everyone at all times. “All things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose” (Ro. 8:28), but the reprobate are set in slippery places, to be cast into destruction (73:18). Can we say, “God has mercy on everyone unless they… Read more »
I see a bulk of your doctrine comes from the books of poetry (Psalms). Interesting.
It is no less Scripture than any book of the Bible. Either the psalmists’ statements are true, or they are lies. Perhaps the clearest instance of God’s specific hatred of the reprobate comes from Ro. 9, though: (For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth;) It was said unto her, The elder shall serve the younger. As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated. Of course this is a reference to… Read more »
I agree Chase, yet scripture requires exegetical study. A psalm is a psalm, not a promise, the same can be said of a proverb. History, poetry, prophecy, allegory, they are all different structures and must be viewed in their structure.
Yes, scripture requires exegetical study, but we are currently dealing with rather simple propositions. “God hates the unrighteous.” True of false? “God hates Esau.” True or false? These aren’t particularly difficult verses. Of course some would argue about the nature of the “hate” mentioned here, but I have never seen a compelling case that “hate” means anything other than “hate.”
“If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” Luke 14:26
Exegete that for me please.
I referred to the use of “hate” in the context of the verses I referenced, as I called it “the nature of the ‘hate’ mentioned here”; but perhaps I was unclear. Luke 14:26, though, by necessity cannot be a literal command to hate, as John Gill notes: and hate not his father and mother, and wife and children, and brethren and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple: not that proper hatred of any, or all of these, is enjoined by Christ; for this would be contrary to the laws of God, to the first… Read more »
Dan, I don’t think Chase is understanding the point of your questions.
I did make a mistake in my earlier argument, which you might have caught. I will go ahead and remedy it, though. The statement that “God hates the unrighteous” must be qualified as “God hates the reprobate,” because while God’s elect are unrighteous prior the imputation of Christ’s righteousness to them, God did not hate us; he loved us with an everlasting love, through Christ’s covenant agreement to engage as a surety on our behalf, which was a situation antecedent to sin. As God had a guarantee of our eventual justification, he was able to work all things towards our… Read more »
Perhaps you can enlighten me, Christiane?
If Psalm 136 is true (KJV) and the Lord’s mercies are mentioned over a dozen times to “endure forever”, then a hell sentence cannot outlive God’s enduring mercy… could it?
“Mercies endureth forever” mentioned over and over. This is so emphatic that I don’t think it can be overlooked.
But….there’s Matthew 5:7. It’s the merciful that will be shown mercy. I believe that’s when Matthew 25:33-46 comes in.
Be merciful and be shown mercy.