Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Please see OP that nuances the scenario saying "if no hell was taught in the Bible"It would mean God is a liar.
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?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?
Very good pointIs 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.
I dont disagree, but what Evan says (see below) could apply and then we are still faced with the same issueSin 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.
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.
I met a guy who says there is no literal eternal hell...
I dont disagree, but what Evan says (see below) could apply and then we are still faced with the same issue
Hell would still be implied, if not explicitly taught.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
What exactly does he believe? That there is a temporary hell? That unbelievers are annihilated? That all men will enter heaven?
Jesus death meant that all would get saved then!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
I would argue that despite his shortcomings, for an annihilationist like John Stott the Gospel is still relevant.
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!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.
Both would be in error, but the Universalist would be into actual heresy then?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.
Wow. That is the best refutation Ive heard. ThanksIt 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.