A Christian Objection to “Does God Predestine People To Hell”: A Response to Alex, Part VIII
Okay, Okay, Hang ON, We Have to Discuss Death
Before we launch into discussion about the “unseen,” let’s
talk about death.
“Now, you quote a lot of verses that demonstrate that death is what we
all understand it as. I don’t think it should surprise you that I agree that
death is a return to the ground. As such, I find all this section as fluff.”
First: Alex does not seem
to agree that death is a return, for, if he did, he would not be making
the erroneous claim that one goes to “heaven” or “hell” when they die (for,
life after death negates the very point of death, which is to
limit life.)
Second: just because one already
agrees with a point does not inherently make that point “fluff.” The
article is written to Gavin, and covers John Piper’s beliefs,
both of whom do not accept the plainly written statements that death is
a return.
“You are not adding anything of substance to your rebuttal by
elaborating on this, because probably every Christian on the planet believes
in this definition of death. What is more surprising is that every Christian on
the planet (even those who disagree with you on this topic) would use those
verses to prove or talk about death.”
Assumption, with no
proof. Moreover, if a Christian believes that one goes to “hell” when they die,
and then share these verses to prove that death is a return, then they are
revealing cognitive dissonance within their view, and thus revealing a
questionable source of their proclamation of “faith.”
“What your argument lacks is proof that the ‘second death’ is not
some place of torment.”
Yes, that’s later in the
argument (part 3 of my original series of articles.) I didn’t mention the
‘second death’ yet, so I don’t know why Alex brings it up early.
“To be quite honest, the question of whether ‘hell’ and the ‘second
death’ are the same or different is irrelevant to me.”
Then why did you mention
it?
“It is clear that there is a second death. The question we
should be concerned with answering is, ‘what is the second death?’”
Okay, then, by proxy, the
question of whether ‘hell’ and the ‘second death’ are one in the same or not does
concern you, making this fluff (Rom. 2:1-2.)
Alex replied to my
previous sentence by saying,
“Maybe because two different things can both be places of torment
while being independent from each other? Maybe the second death has to deal
with the death of a person’s soul/spirit? Who knows Stephen, the possibilities
are endless.”
The possibilities are
most certainly not endless; God would be very silly to write a
giant book explaining everything and then forget or refuse to
give man the ability to comprehend basic sentences. “Death” is a return – Ecc.
12:7. Those who have died are brought back from death to be judged on
Judgment Day, and those who are judged negatively will be condemned to a second
“death.” Unless God says, “Hey, this is a spiritual death,” we have no
reason to assume that it is a “spiritual death.” As the only passage
that references the second death is not said to be “spiritual” in any
way, we have no reason to make this assumption.
Moreover, the “second
death” is not a super-secret metaphor for eternal torment, for God declares
that Christ gives up the kingdom of the heavens to His God and Father
after every enemy is abolished (1 Cor. 25:24-25,) and that the last
enemy to be abolished will be death (1 Cor. 15:26.) If death is abolished,
then all are made alive in Christ (which is what Paul was proving
in the passage I’m citing – 1 Cor. 15:22.) Thus the second death is an impermanent
state, and not the final outcome for those subjected to it.
We will move on to “unseen”
toward the end of the article, but first, there’s one more detail for us to deal
with…
Interlude - Hang On, My Opponent Finally Established His View, 3/4 Through His Refutation
“Allow me to briefly explain what I believe hell to
be.”
Yes, I guess it would be about that time.
“I believe hell is like a room which is separated
into two sides. The separation is a great chasm which nobody can cross. On one
side is Abraham’s Bosom, where people are not tormented, but comforted, and on
the other side is what ‘proponents of eternal conscious torment’ believe in. That
side is what you may call the ‘eternal torment.’ Now, that beautifully clears
up all the confusion!”
This so beautifully does not clear up the
confusion that I think I’ll need to pause, and take a shot of whiskey.
*please stand by*
Okay. Thank you. So I have a few questions –
nothing major, just… a few.
1)
Where do we read that hell is like a room? Is it like a
really large room? Like an expansive room? Verse citation?
2)
If so, where is this room? Is it beneath the earth? Above the
earth? Another dimension? Verse citation?
3)
How does this “room” handle the exponentially-increasing
number of people joining its masses? Is this room an ever-expanding room, where
God continually hires demons to add new parts of the room? Verse citation?
4)
Why did God put a great chasm in the middle of hell that no
one can cross? What is the purpose of this chasm? Does it increase in size as
well? Verse citation?
5)
Is there anything in this chasm? Anything at the
bottom, there? Why or why not? Verse citation?
6)
What is Abraham’s bosom? Surely, you cannot be referring to
the Luke 16 parable, for, in the parable, Jesus spoke of Abraham and his
bosom, which, if you’re taking literally, leads to a whole host
of new questions, such as – how does Abraham fit an ever-expanding
number of people inside of his bosom? Verse citation?
7)
What is Abraham doing in hell? I thought he was reclining in the
millennial kingdom with his buddies? But you say he’s got to monitor the
‘purgatory’ side of hell for eternity? How do you reconcile this with the
proper translation of Matt. 8:11? Verse citation?
8)
What is the difference between “comfort” hell and “torment”
hell? How do you enter one and not the other? What if someone didn’t take to
your version of Jesus’ message, and decided with their free will that they
wanted to go to ‘comfort’ hell instead? Would they not have the free will to
decide which hell they should go to, or does their ‘free will’ end at
that moment? If so, why would God give free will in the first place? If
it’s such a “valuable gift,” that gets taken away, then it isn’t really a gift,
is it? On Judgment Day, can’t I decide where I want to go with my free
will? Moreover, do you have a verse citation for “comfort” hell and “torment”
hell?
9)
What does the other side of hell, the ‘eternal
conscious torment’ side, look like? Where does Jesus describe this
place, and why? Verse citation?
10)
Verse citation? Why haven’t we been reading about this
version of hell in the text? With all this detail you gave that ‘beautifully’
clears up all the confusion, surely you have more than 3 or 4 alleged
‘synonyms,’ but actual doctrinal explanations rooted in descriptions in
the text?
This is the problem with the idea of ‘eternal
torment.’ Instead of one unanimous doctrine, as Alex thinks he’s portraying,
the truth is that his assessment of ‘hell’ doesn’t line up with John
Piper’s assessment at all. Neither do their assessments align with
Gavin’s, or Joel Osteen’s, and more. The Catholics keep the ‘purgatory’ place
separate, while others do not.
Now, I originally put these questions here rhetorically,
to highlight the poor argument of my opponent, but he actually replied to
each one of these questions! So, let’s have some more fun and consider their
answers.
Answer key:
1) First of all, being that
you asked about Hell an not the Unseen, go to the verses of Lazarus and the
Rich Man. We see that they are both in this sort of area with a great chasm
between them and one is burning while the other is not. I think you don’t need
a verse citation for that, do you? I gave you enough context clues as to where
to look.
We do indeed need a verse citation, as Luke
16 is a parable, not true as to fact. That Alex took this parable as fact
is rather disheartening, considering how much evidence there is which speaks to
the contrary. I guess he would tell me that the parable of the shepherd and the
lost sheep is a historical event, as well as the lady losing the drachma, and
the prodigal son, and the rich man and his administrator. All of these
parables? They’re just fact! Who cares? Why not! Three-hour lunch?
2) Well, I was making it
analogous to a room. So you could understand the imagery. With that said, I
believe it may be under our feet. Towards the center of the earth. Ephesians
4:9-10 – I wonder what is there? Matthew 12:40. And Jonah 2:2.
Ephesians 4:9-10 and Matt. 12:40 certainly refer
to Jesus’ descent into the “lower part” of the earth, but by no means do
we need to infer that there is an ever-expanding, eternal room in the
depths of the earth where our Lord was tortured (for, if there were, then Jesus
did not really die, but simply changed His state of being.) And Jonah
2:2 is in the midst of Jonah’s outcry from the belly of the great fish which
swallowed him, where he cried, “out of the belly of the unseen I implore
you.” There is no reason we cannot take this literally, for, indeed, no one had
seen Jonah from within the belly of the fish. His soul, to those
on the surface, had become unseen.
3) It seems that it is to
keep the separation between the good and bad as per the verses on Lazarus and
the rich man.
Lazarus and the rich man, as we have already
studied, gives no indication that “good” and “bad” are in view. Moreover, this
doesn’t consider the eternal, “ever-expanding” nature of the “depth” of the
earth that Alex’s interpretation demands an answer for.
4) Not sure. It may be
bottomless. But that is hardly relevant to whether or not it is a place of
eternal torment. But as you can see, it is a bit more nuanced than you thought.
Thank you! A clear, true answer: I’m not sure. This
is the first rational thing I’ve heard from Alex.
Since he’s “not sure,” I wouldn’t quite call his
view “nuanced” so much as I would call it “fantastical.” This most certainly is
relevent, considering it’s necessary in Alex’s description which
“beautifully clears up” the confusion as to what hell is. What if one wants to
bridge the gap with his fellow “hell” inmates? What if a billion “rich mans” linked
their arms together and stretched out across the chasm? What if they just hop
on into the chasm? What’s to stop them from doing it? An invisible wall?
Is it “out of bounds?” Is God going to look on in astonishment, having not seen
this coming? Is there a worse punishment than this “hell” that they
would get if any attempted this? If so, what is it? If Alex can’t
explain these, uh, “nuances,” being the basic purpose for these
items inside of “hell,” and cite the view in scripture alone,
then again, there’s no real reason to believe in his theory, as the burden of
proof is too heavy for Alex to carry.
5) Refer to number 4.
Which still doesn’t answer to the objection; see,
when God points out that something so vital exists, He doesn’t just list it by
name and move on. He describes it, and gives its function. This
can be seen in such examples as the Mosaic law, the Jewish temples, and
even Gehenna. What He doesn’t do is leave it up to man to infer things
that aren’t there (which is how we get the false doctrines based on human
reasoning.) If there’s “nuance,” it means there’s more than four or five
jumbled, mistranslated clauses that need to be labeled “synonymous” in order to
force a new view out of it.
6) It is a location of
peace. Where people just wait until they’re lifted up to heaven. Surely, I am
referring to that. You may call it paradise as well. I am not taking it
literally. However, if I recall, you take that whole section as figuratively,
so it should not be a problem for you, right?
Ah! Thank you for this, Alex! Yet as you have not shown
why some parts of your interpretation of the Luke 16 parable must be
figurative, and other parts may be literal, it becomes apparent that you
are the one arbitrarily deciding when something is figurative or literal, as
opposed to the Greek scholars, who can note the context of the verse, being
a “parable” representing the hypocrisy of the Pharisees (Luke 15:1-3.)
You must explain why this place of peace is right next to this place of
eternal damnation, and why God chooses to make some people wait, while others
get an instant pass. Does God have loading screens for heaven? Are His angels
merely completing the necessary paperwork before some can enter? And, again: verse
citation? Where does God elaborate on any of this?
7) Again, what did I say
hell was? Imagine a single room. On the right is paradise (Abraham’s bosom) on
the left is the eternal tormenting part. It seems, that according to your
theology, the millennial kingdom has not come yet. Therefore, it makes perfect sense
for Abraham not to be reclining yet (in your eyes). I never called it
purgatory. Again, you are a liar. Do not make what I say into something it is
not. Now, some point in the future, God will have to take out Abraham, Isaac
and Jacob from where they are for that to occur. In either case, you’d have a
similar explanation, right?
And yet the description Alex provided for us, in
his previous answer, is that it is a place where people “wait until they go to
heaven,” which itself is a form of purgatory. In “my theology,” death actually
means death, and not a state change that doesn’t really mean anything. As
such, Abraham is dead, not in some mystical land where he holds an
eternal number of people in his bosom. Moreover, this would have to mean
that hell is not an eternal idea, but a temporary one, as Abraham’s
role would end, and he would recline in the millennial kingdom. This
inconsistency throws Alex’s “eternal torment” theory into disarray, not to
mention this stringy theory as to what hell is.
8) You just said the
difference between the two with your caricature. I’ve explained elsewhere on
this document that salvation is a lot more nuanced than what you want to make
us believe it is. It is a false dichotomy and a non-sequitur to think
that in my position, one has the ability to go to the ‘comfort’ side if they
decided to reject the gospel in this current dispensation. You made the
decision throughout your life. God puts you where you decided during life. It
is not that free will ends. Rather, it is akin to an individual murdering
another here on earth. The consequence for such a crime has already been
described in our laws. Can you just not face the consequence after committing
the crime? No. Whereas eternal consequences may change, the temporal ones will
not. The eternal consequence may only change while you are still alive on
earth. The temporal ones will never change. But who said free will is taken
away in the afterlife? You’re the one saying that. Not me. What I am saying is
that one must choose good while they still can. Isaiah 55:6. It truly is
a valuable gift. But actions have consequences, Stephen. Come on. Even you
would agree that the punishment for sin is death? A punishment is a punishment.
One cannot do something about the consequences of one’s chosen actions.
However, if you repent and seek God, by all means the eternal consequences may
be forgiven because as you have demonstrated, God is love and He is not willing
that any should perish but all come to the repentance and knowledge of Him.
Simple as that. Furthermore, I think you can see it from Lazarus and the Rich man
where there is a clear difference between comfort hell and torment hell.
Boy, was that a paragraph of all time. Where on earth
do I begin?
First: I believe I have cited various
verses, now, which indicate the nuanced process of salvation (and cited
George Rogers, who cited even more verses, and proved his stance
in his study of Romans, which is the ultimate letter explaining what
“salvation” is in this current administration – Rom. 1:1-17.) Nowhere in
any of these verses has a “comfort hell” been referenced, and this inference
has not crossed our doorstep, even by religion’s standards. It’s so “out
there,” in fact, that I’m sure many Christians who disagree with my position
without the evidence will assuredly not look at Alex’s view with much more
favor.
Second: “free” will, by definition, is the ability
to make choices for yourself, apart from external influence. Alex’s position
may not account for this, but the fact still remains that if one is presented
with a choice by another, then they are not free to do what
they please, but limited to these few choices. If one is restricted (especially
by the all-knowing God,) then one’s will is not, by definition, free.
If God punishes for a “murder,” per Alex’s example above, by placing
them into this life and stacking the odds that they will ever hear the gospel against
them, and then place them, against their will, somewhere they don’t
want to go, then He is breaking the very premise that “free will” is
founded on (that God is a divine Gentleman Who will respect your decisions.)
Third: we now have a difference between “eternal”
consequences and “temporal” ones, and I don’t even know where to begin
with this curveball Alex throws. Again, he hasn’t mentioned any of this
until now, so… what to do with… well, whatever this is? See, if Alex
were citing any of this in the text (instead of just saying ‘Oh well
you’re not looking hard enough! Dippy doo!) then I would at least have
something to work with, here. But he doesn’t cite anything, here, so
once again, I’m left to believe that this is conjecture, and as such, I am
allowed to dismiss it.
Alex then says that free will is not taken
away in an “afterlife” (which quite literally means that someone can and
should be able to choose, on Judgment Day, or at their moment of death,
or whenever this experience of heaven or hell ambiguously commences, where they
spend eternity, and are able to disagree with God’s assessment as to His own
authority.) Alex then contradicts himself not one sentence later
by saying that they must choose “good while they still can.” This would
mean that good would be taken off the table at a later point, which
means that someone would not have the free will to choose “good” at a later
point, in this theoretical “afterlife.” So one has free will now,
but not later, because God’s authority only extends in regard
to punishment. This then means that free will is not some
permanent gift, because we aren’t able to choose whatever we want (which
is what Alex has been heralding this entire time,) which raises some pretty
hairy questions about the arbitrary extent of God’s authority, as well
as his declarations concerning Satan’s “free will” decision. If God can remove
this free will at any time to conduct a punishment, why wouldn’t he just remove
Satan’s free will the moment he rebelled, as God will allegedly do
with us at the great white throne? Would this not be a much greater
warning to other rebellious messengers? Just put Satan in hell,
and then none of this rigamarole with giving His own Son and watching Him die
on the cross wouldn’t be necessary!
Alex cites Isaiah 55:6 as an example of “choosing
good while you still can.”
Seek after Yahweh while He is to be found; call Him
while He comes to be near.
Which is a beautiful verse, but it is directed at Israel
and their holy calling to be the chosen people for the millennial kingdom ruled
by Yahweh (Is. 55:1-5.) It is a relative request in the moment, not
an absolute blanket statement that exemplifies free will. This request separated
those who remained faithful toward Yahweh, and those who did not. This did not
change the fact that the kingdom promised to Abraham will be
unveiled in the future (future even from today’s point of view.) I wonder what
Alex would think is supposed to happen if none of Israel listened to these
words. Would God give up? Crumple up the universe into a paper ball and start
over?
Nevertheless, this is not an entreaty for today’s
administration. Per Isaiah’s own prophecy which had not yet come to pass,
the blessings that are imparted to true believers today through Christ’s death,
entombment, and resurrection had not even been unveiled, but foretold. The
very fact that this book references future events that came to pass should
indicate to any rational person that the all-knowing God knows where He’s
going, what He’s doing, and how He’s doing it. He plans things beforehand,
and then brings them to fruition. It’s truly this simple. This verse
would not even be written if God had no plans for the future!
While I do indeed agree that sin’s ration is death,
I do not agree that death is a placer word for “eternal torment.” Death is
sickening enough. I also do not agree that this death is somehow the final outcome
for those who do “bad” things (for “no one is just” – Rom. 3:10, meaning we all
deserve death.) The loving God reprimands, and then sets
right. He punishes with intent to rectify, not with intent to dismiss
or forget about. God is not a man. Men dismiss those who
wrong them. We are the culprits of such an attitude. If Alex had
continued reading in Isaiah 55, He would have received another gem from Yahweh
toward Israel:
“For My designs are not your designs, and your ways
are not My ways,” averring is Yahweh. “For as the heavens are loftier than
the earth, so are My ways loftier than your ways, and My designs
than your designs.”
This God does not operate the way men do.
He does not blindly punish with no future plan (just this eternal torture,
folks!) He punishes with intent to teach. He is a proper Parent,
not a childish one.
On to Alex’s answer to question 9:
9) Basically, all the
verses you used for Gehenna are the ones I’d use to describe what it looks
like. Remember, we are talking about Hell and no longer Gehenna.
Yet the verses that describe Gehenna only describe
Gehenna, not some secret eternal torture chamber that a select few know
about. Please do not take verses out of their context, or you reveal that you are
disposed above what is written, and your reasonings vain (1 Cor. 3:20, 4:6.)
10)
It has been there.
Okay, so… answer, then. If it’s “been there,” cite
the verses. This doesn’t answer the question in the slightest.
"Now, I want to make one thing clear. This is hell as I understand it. Other people may defend their understanding of hell. And yes, it clears up all the confusion. At least I believe it does."
It is this “interpretation over fact” dogma that
I’ve been hounding this entire time. People: let go of your
understanding of a man-made idea. Most have this idea of eternal torment in the
back of their heads to justify the evil things they look at. They think of the worst
possible place for their enemies, and imagine them there, and feel all
better. To them, this is the only way they can follow Jesus’ entreaty to “turn
the other cheek.” In the moment, they may turn the other cheek,
but in truth, they rest in the belief that their Lord will attack these
people with karma when they
“die-but-don’t-really-die-they-just-go-somewhere-else.”
This is called a “coping mechanism.” It is rooted
in emotion, and not spirit, which is why it’s so hard for many to let go
of. Emotion drives the reasoning behind this “hell,” which is why there
are so many different theories (not “understandings,”) about hell. The
fact that Alex relies on this statement to justify his own highlights the
fallibility of the doctrine. There are so many discordant theories apart
from facts concerning this ‘hell’ that it is impractical to cover every
individual’s ideas about it. If I can psycho-analyze for a moment, the
reason Alex is coming into so much conflict with my original study is not
because it ‘makes no sense.’ He’s established himself as an intelligent
human being, so I firmly believe that he is grasping what I’m saying. He’s
frustrated because a concrete, evidential answer from the text would detract
from his theory, removing his coping mechanism, and taking him off his
pedestal. He would be forced, logically, to come to grips with the fact that everyone
in his church group are talking in theory and supposition, and aren’t as
viable of a source of spiritual information as he believes they are. Since this
would shake his world to his core, he is not yet ready to align his beliefs
with God’s word, in favor of his social stature and comfort-food beliefs.
And again – this is not Alex’s fault. The social pull
of church and its fearful intoxication into the subconscious is purposefully
and intentionally designed by God to be the most powerful
spiritual deception on the planet today. It is no marvel that those that believe
in “church” instead of Christ would be so unwilling to accept the facts
that stare them down.
In the meantime, those of us who believe in the
word of God will, indeed, study the word of God, and its grammar, and
its context, and will found a factual assertion of three separate
words, being “Gehenna,” “Tartarus,” and “unseen” – and not a
hypothetical one.
Alex would later say,
“I have yet to prove that [hell] is an eternal place of torment. I
have alluded in places that it is or I have tried to prove it briefly. I will
prove it at the end of all my rebuttals. In a so-called Part 6. For now,
however, take my rebuttals as part in disproving your argument.”
I do not believe that
establishing your stance at the end of a series of pre-planned articles
to be a genuine (or easy-to-follow) piece of work; honestly, I’ve been very
confused as to the stance Alex is taking, as he has thrown these
curveballs left and right, randomly adding or recontextualizing his stance.
I’ve have had to work with John Piper’s faulty idea of ‘eternal torment’
wherever Alex hasn’t asserted his view (which is pretty much everywhere,
aside from the ‘Abraham’s bosom’ theory.)
Moreover, Alex does not have a ‘Part 6’ to
his original refutation, leaving me to realize during my initial draft that
this is all a giant rabbit hole. There was no proof awaiting me
at the end of this rebuttal. Alex has, like I said, added a 200 page rebuttal,
and does indeed have a 10 page epilogue concerning what “hell” is. As such, we
will consider any (new) points he brings up at the end.
The
First Use of ‘Unseen’
Okay, now we can
get into ‘unseen.’ And hey! Look at that! Alex finally brings something
to the table! Here’s the first use of “unseen” in the New Testament, Matt.
11:23–
And you, Capernaum! Not to heaven shall you be
exalted! To the unseen shall you subside, for, if the powerful deeds which are
occurring in you had occurred in Sodom, it might remain unto today.
On the shoddy KJV
translation, I wrote, “Hmm.
Capernaum, a city, is a location in hell, now?? That simply doesn’t sound
right. It would do well for a student of Scripture to stop accepting this
crap and study from a text that will more accurately reflect God’s
thoughts.” Alex replies,
“So many issues with this argument. Let’s see…
another argument by derision, and more pre-supposition. What is this ‘unseen?’
You are not distinguishing it from ‘hell’ whatsoever.”
Which, I did distinguish, with the Psalm
9:17 verse, but we’ll all but pretend I didn’t. As for this particular verse in
question, I did say more concerning it upon revealing the CLV’s
translation, saying,
“The city of Capernaum, the city in bulk, as the
context provides (Matt. 11:20,) is no longer seen. Not “in hell,” either
Gehenna or Tartarus, but no longer visualized. It should be translated
this way because it is used in contrast with heaven, which is very much
a place that is seen.”
So, first, that means that this is not an argument of derision,
for there was more to the argument. For those who don’t know (Alex may
or may not be included in this group,) an argument by derision occurs
when, instead of arguing a point with well-founded reasoning or evidence,
your opponent simply mocks and insults. For as much as this would fit Alex’s
view of me, the truth is that the point made is not an argument by
derision unless it were the only thing I said on the verse. This is a criticism,
not a blind insult. I am allowed to make them, and whether Alex takes offense
or not does not change this fact.
With that said, there is (a very loose, and not very founded)
merit to his claim that this is a pre-supposition, so I will expand on the
verse here. We must consider, logically, where the very real city of
Capernaum is right now. If it is in “hell,” then we must bend over
backwards to assert that there is an entire city that God removed from the
earth and placed into “eternal torment hell,” wherever that is. If it is simply
unseen, however, we would have yet another practical assertion that
the place that we, today, cannot see, is, by definition, unseen.
* * *
Side note: Alex, at this point in his reply, tells me to consider hell
as a “spiritual location” on the grounds that this “spiritual location,”
irrespective of “eternal torment,” could be where “Capernaum” is now. I don’t
know what a “spiritual location” is, or, at the very least, what Alex means by
his employment of the term, so I’m not going to comment on it – save for one
little thing: the burden of proof remains on Alex’s end to prove that
“hell” is this “spiritual location.”
* * *
Of course, Alex (through no fault of his own) cannot appreciate or
value the simple use of “unseen,” here (it must be a “spiritual
location”) and so we must dig deeper. The city of Capernaum is being compared
to Sodom, from the days of Genesis. One physical location on earth is
being compared and contrasted by Jesus with another. When Sodom was
destroyed, it became unseen. The city was effectively blasted off the
map by the fiery discharge from the heavens. This already gives us a clear
indication that Capernaum is not some fictional hell place, but is being
compared with another city. Since we have this solid connection, Alex,
it would be far more of a pre-supposition to assume that Capernaum is not
another city like Sodom, but some part of ‘hell.’
Alex replied to the above by citing Jude 1:7 and then saying,
“I understand the day of judging may be in the
future, but they are currently experiencing the justice of fire eonian.”
This is a statement of all time, and an unproven one, at that. We have
no reason to presume that Jude 1:7 refers to Capernaum, nor do we have reason
to assert that the “fire eonian” in the verse in question has anything to do
with an eternal torment. If we cannot establish a location or doctrinal
position from the scriptures which indicate this eternal torment chamber,
then we have no reason to assert that an eternal torment remains in view. Alex
yet again mistakes a passage concerning three separate judgments and
their effects (Jude 1:5-7) with some “eternal torment,” and plants a
suppositional argument here that has nothing to do with the verse at hand.
Anyway, let’s not skip around to a hundred different verses and
stick to the one in Matthew. We may also ask, what on earth did Jesus
mean by claiming that Capernaum was not to be exalted to heaven? Of course,
this is not literal, in relation to height, but in relation to the blessings
and prosperity that Capernaum saw (Alex argues that I’m “cherry
picking” what is literal and what is not, and I reply that I continually stick
to the simple grammatical rule, “Literal when possible.”) Per our Lord’s
admission, there were “powerful deeds which were occurring” in Capernaum. Its
very name, Capernaum, carries the elements “PLEASANT-SHELTER.” (Alex also seems to dislike this, but I
will remind him that I answer to my Lord, Who explicitly says that “powerful
deeds” occurred in Capernaum. I don’t know what he’s arguing with the Lord
about.)
The powerful deeds that Capernaum saw have been removed,
per our Lord’s charge. Capernaum shall subside to the unseen, and,
to this day, any theory as to where Capernaum is is conjecture, not
provable fact.
Nonetheless, we cannot safely assert that we’ve found “hell,”
with its eternal torment ideology, both in conjunction with the information
above, and every other use of this term, as we’ve considered in
the original series of articles. What we can safely assert is that
Capernaum is now unseen.
Alex, instead of providing evidence as to why we should accept a
translation of “hell,” states,
“It’s like when you spoke of messengers and angels.
Both words are synonymous. What makes this ‘unseen’ distinct from hell?
That it is a different word? Well, that is no use because synonyms exist.”
I will remind my readers, again, that crying
“synonym” with no grammatical evidence and all the confirmation bias is not a
true academic study, and should be shunned in every way.
“Now, it seems like you are implying that Capernaum,
being a city, cannot be in hell, or in the unseen? The way you write this makes
it all unclear, man. I honestly don’t know if you’re trying to say that it is
impossible for a physical city to be in hell.”
I do find it difficult for a physical location
that has been on the map until around 2,000 years ago to be seen in the
“unseen,” yes. Alex also takes “unseen” to mean another physical
location, which, again, highlights his own assumption. We are not speaking
under a figure in the above verse, so we have no reason to presume that
“unseen” is a representation for anything. It is to “not” be “seen.” The
destruction of the temples in the ex-city are proof of this, which can be seen
in the modern-day equivalent to the city of Capernaum referenced here.
“To which I would reply that Jesus is speaking
rhetorically about the people of said city, and not the buildings themselves
(i.e. not the city itself).”
I await the proof for this claim with baited
breath.
Alex’s hurt feelings seem to have infected his
reply. He says,
“You tell me to stop accepting this crap. Brother, I
have to say the same thing about the Concordant. Stop reading from that dung
and get yourself an actual Bible like the KJV you hate so much. You hate
it, because it speaks the truth. The irony, however, is that even your
Concordant disagrees with you, and it is a piece of intellectually
dishonest garbage that has no business being called a ‘bible.’ The KJV had an entire
committee of educated, scholarly men behind it. It has the majority
texts supporting it. It has the Early Church Father writings supporting it as
well.”
Since Alex does not know anything about the
concordant method of translation, nor does he seem to care for the textual
criticism laid out in the concordant group’s exegesis (and as such does
not know the position of the opponent he is replying to,) I find this
statement to be conjecture, nothing more. Whereas I have provided multiple pieces
of evidence to highlight the fallibility of the KJV (and as such, have provided
a reason to call the KJV ‘crap,’) Alex has brought up “synonyms.” This
is the difference between an honest academic study and a bitter refutation
lacking a tangible reply (even in his reply, Alex couldn’t even pretend
to take the time to study the Concordant before responding to this, and
instead gets mad that I pointed out the fallibility of the KJV, here! Good
riddance. Proving my point, much?)
“Now, you said earlier that the soul is removed from
our visual, into the unseen. The spirit returns to God and the body to the
soil. Yet you have no verse stating that the soul goes to the unseen.”
That I do. Observe Psalm 16:10–
For You shall not forsake my soul in the unseen;
You shall not allow Your benign one to see corruption.
“My soul goes to the unseen, where You
will not forsake me!” said King David. And, yes, in case
you’re wondering, the King James actually translates it as “hell,” here.
Need another? Psalm 30:3–
O Yahweh, You have brought my soul up from the
unseen; You have preserved me alive from descending to the crypt.
We also have Psalm 49:15–
Yea Elohim, He shall ransom my soul from the
hand of the unseen, for He shall take hold of me.
As well as Ps. 86:13–
For Your benignity over me is great, And You have
rescued my soul from the unseen beneath.
You get the gist. I may not have cited verses there,
Alex, but I am not pulling my doctrine from anywhere other than the oldest Hebrew
and Greek texts.
Sectarian Views
So I moved on to Matt. 16:18–
Now I, also, am saying to you that you are Peter, and
on this rock will I be building My ecclesia, and the gates of the unseen shall
not be prevailing against it.
When I cited the false KJV translation, I said, “Boy,
is this verse a powerhouse for Christian media! How many times
have you heard that phrase, the ‘gates of hell?’ I’m not even Christian, and I
must have heard it a million times over! Obviously, you, being the intelligent
human being that you are, should know by now that the word ‘unseen’ should take
the place of ‘hell’ here.”
To which Alex replied,
“Side question, what are you if you are not Christian? I mean, I could
tell because you do not hold to any Christian doctrine but rather heresies, and
a mix of Calvinism and Jehovah Witness doctrine here. I do not consider Jehovah
Witnesses ‘Christian’ but heretics.”
I would be happy to
answer this! I am a believer in Paul’s evangel. I am in the body
of Christ. I do not subscribe to “Calvinist” teaching, or “Jehovah’s
Witnesses.” Do my teachings line up with any of their doctrines? I don’t care. I
literally, fundamentally, do not give a shit what the ‘Calvinist’ view
is, or the ‘Pentecostal view,’ or the ‘Baptist’ view, or any other theology
established post-Paul. The only reason to explore any of
these theories is the fact that they are good foils that highlight the true doctrine
in the original languages that scripture is written in. I desire no label above
“believer of Christ’s faith,” for once he labels me, there is a 100% chance
that he will blindly attach all of the other nonsense that comes with the
‘Calvinists’ or the ‘Jehovah’s Witnesses.’
Alex argues that anyone proclaiming
these doctrines are Christian, and are thus of Christ’s faith. I reply
that the opposite is true, and that these are sects that divide
and disguise the truths in scripture, portraying them as something they
aren’t. Paul speaks many times against sectarian viewpoints (1 Cor.
1:10-13, 11:19, Gal. 5:20, 2 Pet. 2:1, Tit. 3:10-11.) Any doctrine that conflicts
with the evangel of God, presented by Paul (Rom. 1:1-3, 1 Cor. 15:3-4,) is a
sectarian one by nature. We know that hell is not true, for it denies
the source of God’s righteousness, which is in Christ’s death into
salvation, not into punishment (Rom. 3:21-23, 5:18-19.) We know that free
will is not true, for it redirects salvific properties to the sinner’s
choice, and not Christ’s accomplishment at the cross (“one is not
saved unless they accept, whereas God says that one is not saved
unless He accepts – Rom. 1:16, 9:11, Eph. 1:4-6.) We know that the
trinity is not true, for it proclaims that either God died (when He is
not a man, and does not die – Num. 23:19,) or that Christ did not
really die, because of the ‘triune’ nature of God (which is blasphemy, plain
and simple – Rom. 5:8.)
We know that these
sectarian folk are not believers, as their doctrine directly opposes their
claimed beliefs. It is the highest form of cognitive dissonance – spiritually
ignorant, by nature. This is by God’s design, but does not change
the fact that they, by definition, are not believing the plain text.
They will have to be judged first, so that they can be saved later.
I suggest any and all to dismiss these theological points as nothing
more than traditions of men (which is, literally, what they are,) and
seek instead to apprehend to evangel of God, as laid out in Romans.
Alex later replied,
“You are but a man with little to no training in Greek (by your
own admission) and you are trying to advocate for some beliefs. Beliefs which
are unorthodox, proposed by yet another man A.E. Knoch, and beliefs which
cannot withstand the most basic scrutiny. You speak of traditions of man. In
other words, the teachings of man. Are you not a man and are you not trying to
teach what you think is right? Again. My side can be defended from the Greek.
It can be defended by using much more than the Greek. Your side can be defended
by only using the Greek and nothing else as you abhor outside sources. Maybe it
is because outside sources do not agree with you.”
I reply that I am a
man, but I don’t know where Alex believes I claim that I have little to no
training in Greek. Those closest to me know I scrutinize the Greek text in as much
of my spare time as possible. I said I do not typically speak Greek
– not that I cannot write it, or that I am not fluent to some extent in Greek.
I am aware of the language and its laws, and have read from more than one
source on the subject. Alex does not know this about me, though it is
understandable that he would seek to discredit me to the best of his ability,
so as to make his theory pop a bit more.
Moreover, I actually disagree
with Knoch on a fair number of issues, which are pertinent, but aside from
the topic at hand. Knoch, for example, believes that few, if any, have names
written in the scroll of life, which would mean that most may not spend
the eon on the new earth. I wholeheartedly disagree, and believe that many will
spend an eon on the new earth. Knoch also believes that most Christians
are believers, albeit completely unaware of the oldest Greek evidences
today and their true definitions, having been subject to the interpretations of
other men throughout their lives. Again, I wholeheartedly disagree, and believe
that most Christians are not believers, as their views are not verified
by the sacred text.
Nonetheless, my
disagreements with Knoch rarely extend to the evangel itself, unlike
the sectarian folk in the previous paragraphs. Knoch and I are indeed in
agreement on the matter of justification through Christ’s faith alone, on
God’s terms, and not ours, with the eventual reality of all being
saved remaining front and center. These beliefs are not limited to me
and Knoch, but extend to everyone in the body of Christ, who do keep
a pattern of sound words (2 Tim. 1:13,) and have for generations. We are hidden
(Col. 3:1-3,) and are often reproached (or, “rebuke,” or
“reprimand”) for recognizing that God is the Savior of all mankind (1
Tim. 4:10.) This view is not sourced in Knoch, but in the direct
words of Paul, the apostle to the uncircumcision.
Finally, I still require any
shred of evidence from Alex concerning his view that is somehow “so clearly
taught” in Greek. Every time I’ve asked, he’s said, “Oh, it’s there, alright.
It’s so obvious that it’s there, and you’re just mean for arguing so
harshly.” Yet not once has he said, “This is where hell is: this verse,
this verse, this verse.” I reckon this is because the verses that I have
already directly brought up, which, when translated properly, with their
elements kept in view, and their contextual use, do not prove some
eternal torment chamber, and Alex knows that if he were to use these
verses to try and prove “hell,” he would have to dig into the Greek as well,
and write it out piece by piece, here. So, instead, we have “old church
fathers” talking about it, and conjecture from a few biased Greek scholars
(that is, solely rooting his position in other men and what they said
concerning the word of God, instead of honestly considering the evidence for
himself.)
Concerning Matt. 16:18 (Second Use of "Unseen")
Here’s Matt. 16:18 again–
Now I, also, am saying to you that you are Peter, and
on this rock will I be building My ecclesia, and the gates of the unseen shall
not be prevailing against it.
“You provide no evidence for why “unseen” should be used. How can an
unseen place which is not a location as you’ve stated, have gates? Gates are
for places. This makes no sense whatsoever.”
This is either a
misapprehension of what I said, or an intentional twisting of my position. The
word hades, in Greek, is split into two elements: ha-des. “Ha”
represents “UN,” and “des” represents “SEEN.” This, indeed, is common
knowledge among Greek scholars, and many have retracted their belief
concerning “hell” because of this simple grammar. There is, simply, no reason
to proclaim that this word magically means “eternal torment” chamber. I
expressed that ‘unseen’ is the Greek word. Of course, the use of the
word can vary, just as it could in English (“The dog is unseen,” and “The wind
is unseen” denote two different meanings, for one will never see the wind,
while the dog could become seen again.) The word “unseen” can be used
figuratively or literally, but this only depends on the context, not the
word itself. “Unseen,” means, simply, “something you cannot see.” I’m
saying the definition of this word does not magically change because Tweedle-Dee
and Tweedle-Dum felt like it just ‘had’ to be different.
That said; gates are for
places. I agree, both here, and in my original series of articles where I
directly stated that the gates are, literally, unseen. The powers of the
Adversary do indeed fight believers from an unseen place to fight against
the evangel of the kingdom. It is a complete assumption, however, to
assume that this ‘unseen’ place is somehow a location of eternal torment. No
one said this (certainly not Jesus in this verse,) and there are billions
of unseen places in the universe that we simply cannot comprehend that
the Adversary could be fighting from. What we do know, however, is that
the Greek elements of the word hades is “UN-SEEN,” which denotes a place
unseen by humans. If there were somehow a magical life that manifests in
our death, where we experience ‘heaven’ or ‘hell,’ we would be seeing
hell. Even if we assumed that these words were all ‘synonyms,’ this use
of the word would be completely improper for the point Jesus was trying to
make!
So what should we do?
Believe that Jesus is juuuuust not as perfect as we thought, or realize that
Jesus knows better, has a different thought in mind, and specifically
used the word with the elements “UN-SEEN” to convey it? The simple truth is
that we do not, in Scripture, solely see the Adversary fighting from
some “evil hell place.” (Would Satan speak with Abraham down there? Does he
know about the people hiding in Abraham’s bosom?) This is an inference stemming
from a false translation, and pre-supposed theology. This is most easily proven,
to me, in Job 1, where we see Satan go before Yahweh and have a
conversation. As I understand it, however, the Baptist folk seem to think that
Satan just took a brief trip up to the throne room, and then went back down to
hell (which is more inference, but whatever.)
The best piece of
evidence is found in Revelation 12:7-9, where the “great dragon,” being Satan
(Rev. 20:2,) launches into a great battle with Michael and his messengers, and
ends up being cast out of heaven. Please observe verse 8, where Satan
loses:
And [the dragon and its messengers] are not strong enough for
[Michael,] neither was their place still found in heaven.
The Adversary’s place
of attack that we cannot see, then, is found somewhere in heaven.
This ties directly back to my original articles, where I made
the connection that the “gates of the unseen” represented the spiritual forces
of wickedness among the celestials that Paul warns us about (Eph.
6:12.) Most Christians have the sense to make this same connection, but they wrongly
infer that ‘hell’ is an ‘eternal torment room.’
Could I have elaborated
on this a little more? Yes. Will Alex provide any verse here that will correct
my claim? I’ve got no idea! Check it out:
“You stated, on Matt. 16:18, “If there were ever a verse that
highlighted the difference between Peter’s evangel and Paul’s evangel (aside
from Gal. 2:7-8, that is,) it’s here. Peter was used by Christ to build His
ecclesia during the Pentecostal administration, broken down in the first half
of Acts (I go into more detail on this in my study of the word “eon.”) The body
of Christ, however, is a separate administration, delineated
and led by the ascended Christ (Acts 9:1-5,) manned by Paul
(Gal. 1:1-12, 2:7-8.) The kingdom evangel is separate from Paul’s evangel
(Matt. 4:23, Rom. 1:1.) The differences are so great that some theologians have
extricated Paul from Scripture, as he seems so discordant with the rest of the
Bible (a good example is his breakdown of faith apart from works in Rom. 4,
contrasted with James’ decree that faith apart from works is dead in Jam.
2:10-17.) This, of course, is yet another logical error, because Peter himself
vouches for Paul, while highlighting that his message is difficult for most to
understand (2 Pet. 3:15-16.)”
All of this is fluff. It is not pertinent to our discussion.”
Because of course
context is fluff! Maybe I shouldn’t have mentioned this, so that he
could blame me for not mentioning the context.
I understand that Alex’s
method of consideration here was to go through my study, paragraph by
paragraph, and reply accordingly. I think this is a very smart way to refute an
article, so that no major point is lost or dismissed. However, there is one exception
to this method, and it’s that, once you read all the way to the conclusion
of the study, you should go back through your refutation and amend
statements like these – for, if Alex had read the end of my original series of
articles, where I wrap everything up with details about the distinction between
Paul’s evangel to us today and Jesus/Peter’s evangel to Israel at a separate
time, he would not be calling this fluff.
Moreover, Alex, please
keep in mind that it is my humble job to be sharing the evangel, which
is “justification through Christ’s faith in grace,” and I will always jump
at the opportunity to highlight that it is the center of all my
theology, being rooted in the oldest Greek manuscripts, whether it were “fluff”
or not (which, in this case, it isn’t, but I digress.)
“However, I
disagree that Peter was the rock. That is quite blasphemous indeed being that
the rock is God and Jesus is the rock.”
Surely, Alex does not
believe that I am arguing that Peter is the source of the kingdom
evangel – for I did not say this, nor did I imply it. Please observe Matt.
16:18 one more time–
Now I, also, am saying to you that you are Peter, and on this
rock will I be building My ecclesia…
The name “Peter,” in
Greek, means “rock.” By calling Peter the “rock,” Jesus is not saying that
Peter is the source, but the one that will be shaping the foundation for
the ecclesia of Israel. This very concept plays out in full force in the first
half of Acts, where we read of Peter during the Pentecostal administration, heralding
the evangel of the kingdom to many nations.
Do you know what this
verse does not say?
That “Jesus is the rock,”
or that “God is the rock.” The verse must be kept in its context, and
when we do this, we see that Jesus is appointing Peter the apostle that is
given the keys to the kingdom of the heavens. He is given an authority
from Jesus by which He can build the kingdom. In fact, the word “God” isn’t
mentioned at all, here, so we need not consider anything pertaining to His
character, here.
“Now, I know you do not believe that Jesus is God given that I was
told that by our mutual friends. Of course, there is a lot of evidence within
scripture going against you. Furthermore, there is evidence of the early church
fathers disagreeing with you.”
Objection, Your Honor. Irrelevant,
and unproven. This is a dissection of eternal torment, not the Trinity.
The Trinity deserves its own series of articles, of which I would be
more than happy to oblige others with at a later date.
“You stated, ‘With all of that considered, let’s
discuss the gates of the unseen (doesn’t quite have the same ring to it as
“gates of hell,” but it’s accurate and that’s what matters.)
This shows us that the unseen, while something we cannot see, is very
much a powerful force which will be coming against the ecclesias discussed
here. This phrase represents the powers and principalities by which we, in the
body of Christ, are fully guarded against (Eph. 6:12.) The lies of a
bastardized Bible cannot blind our apprehension that God is indeed righteous,
and His penalty, death, is the righteous penalty He inflicts,
as opposed to any idea man conjures concerning how to deal with disobedience.’
Again, begging the question. And the irony is that God is indeed
righteous, and that’s why an eternally perfect God must punish sin with
hell. He gives the means by which to escape the punishment by accepting Christ
as Lord and Savior.”
I did not say, “Hades means
‘unseen’ in this verse because the verse says ‘unseen.’” That would be
‘begging the question.’ This paragraph was not designed to ‘prove’ that unseen was
the term here, but to break down the verse while considering it as
“unseen.” Alex seems to believe that, because I added a parenthetical at the
beginning about the accuracy of the translation (which, of course I
would, being the one defending this position,) that I somehow did not give
the paragraph afterward which expounded upon it.
Also: to any pissed off
Christian reading this: the word “bastard” means a “child born out of wedlock.”
I chose the word “bastardized” specifically while proving the
fallibility of the KJV, because I wanted to highlight its diluted,
lack-of-a-father nature. It was a logical conclusion, not a blind,
misdirected comment.
Alex’s assertion that
“God is righteous and that is why He sends most people to hell” is not a proper
reply to my paragraph, either, for I already pointed out that the righteous
penalty that God is inflicting is death. If he wanted to properly reply,
he would do well to explain why ‘God’s righteousness means sending most
people to hell.’
As it stands, I am left
to either accept Alex’s empty regurgitation of his pastor’s words, or Yahweh’s
words. God does not say that His ‘righteous penalty’ is ‘eternal
torment’ at all. God states His penalties as:
1.
Death (Ex. 21:12-17)
2.
Maybe helping someone heal, but otherwise
death (Ex. 21:18-19)
3.
Being cut off from others (Lev. 20:6, 27)
4.
Death (Lev. 20:10-13)
5.
Also Death (Deut. 21:18-21)
6.
Fees (Deut. 22:13-21)
7.
Flogging (Deut. 25:1-3)
8.
Death (Num. 15:32-36)
To name a few. The words
“eternal torment” do not appear at all in relation to penalties. In fact,
the words ‘geena’ or ‘Vale of Hinnom,’ ‘tartaroo,’ and
‘hades’ or ‘sheoul’ do not appear one single time in the
Mosaic law – which is the very place where such a penalty should be
unveiled. As such, there is, again, 0 reason to assert that this must
be the case (beyond your social stature at a church.)
Alex argues that
“Revelation teaches the torment of some in the lake of fire for ever and ever,”
which is not at all written in relation to man (and I wait with baited
breath for anyone to present me some re-written verse where God says “men who
get cast into the lake of fire are tormented for ever and ever.) I have, of
course, already covered the argument against the “lake of fire” somehow
meaning “eternal torment,” in my original series of articles, and we will see
if Alex replies to them at all.
This also stems
from a mistranslation of the phrase aionos ton aionon, which is
“eons of the eons.” This is the equivalent to phrases “Lord of lords,” or “king
of kings.” It is a hierarchal superlative expression, common in the New
Testament text. To change “eons of the eons” to “for ever and ever” is the
equivalent to changing “Lord of lords” to “Person of persons.” The entire force
of the expression is lost, because someone didn’t know why John would put
transcribe the word “lord” twice in a row.
Moreover, this argument
that, somehow, the righteous penalty of the law is superannuated by a later
book would argue that the text itself is discordant; the righteous penalty is
righteous in one place, and every other place (Rom. 6:23 agrees that the
righteous ration for sin is death, not “eternal torment,”) but because
of one mistranslation in Revelation, the righteous penalty is suddenly not
enough, and must be superimposed by an even stronger punishment.
This sounds like the argument an atheist would be making against the
unity of the scriptures – not an argument that a believer makes to rest
in the truth.
God never states
that we learn of His righteousness through His penalty, but through His salvation
of the nations. This can be seen in Rom. 1:16-17–
For not ashamed am I of the evangel… for in it, God’s righteousness is
being revealed.
Comments
Post a Comment