Hell -- Does the Adventist Church Get it Right?

[CGMedley]

Does the Adventist Church hold a biblically accurate interpretation of Hellfire and brimstone. Read this week’s issue of the Adventist Review to find out.

http://www.adventistreview.org/issue.php?issue=2008-1515&page=14

[Gerr]

My wife and I were invited by our landlord's son to a Baptist revival meeting several weeks back. His first subject was the rich man and Lazarus in Lk 16. He was very graphic indeed in portraying the people in hell screaming for a drop of water! He screamed into the microphone as loud as he could. It was enough to wake up the dead! Or scare people into repentance! It upset my wife so much that we did not attend the rest of the meetings.

I have not had a chance yet to speak to the son, but I have spoken to his mother. Just suppose, I told her, that a member or more of your family are lost in hell, how happy would you be in heaven if they are screaming at you along with billions of the lost for just a merciful drop of water?

I don't think too many of these people ever consider the implications of such a theology of hellfire.

Gerry

[Dr. Shane]

The doctrine of hell as taught by the Adventist church is consistent with a God of love. There are a number of odd doctrines taught by mainline churches that make atheism look attractive and the teaching of eternal torment in hell is one of them.

[aldona]

Our fellow Christians do not like the idea of hell any more than we do, but they are teaching it because they believe that is what the Bible teaches.

We need to be able to mount a stronger Biblical and theological defence of our position than just saying "that's not what a God of love would do."

That includes not being so quick to dismiss the description of hell in Jesus' parable of the rich man and Lazarus as "just a story" or "symbolic", or the usual things Adventists say when a Bible verse says something different to our doctrines. We should be extremely careful when applying this approach to words that come from the mouth of Our Lord Himself.

Why would Christ knowingly teach something that is doctrinally incorrect and has the potential to confuse and mislead so many?

Of course He would not - which means the fault must be with the way our limited human minds understand the doctrine - and that we need to be open to re-thinking and re-studying the Word until we gain a more complete understanding.

aldona

[LifeHiscost]

Of course He would not - which means the fault must be with the way our limited human minds understand the doctrine - and that we need to be open to re-thinking and re-studying the Word until we gain a more complete understanding.

aldona

It would appear to me that the Words of God to Adam and Eve as the progenitors of the human race, and the culpable pair who chose to disbelieve God while accepting the words of the serpent, are strong enough arguement for being lifeless when you die and not maintaining eternal life in a fiery furnace throughout eternity, which eternal life was only promised by Jesus to the believers, not to the whole human race.

"But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die." Genesis 2:17 KJV

"And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die... " Gen 3:4 KJV

"For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." John 3:16 KJV

And far from having eternal life to suffer in anguish for eternity, the wicked are punished with death, which death is for eternity.

"For whoever is joined with all the living, there is hope; surely a live dog is better than a dead lion.

For the living know they will die; but the dead do not know anything, nor have they any longer a reward, for their memory is forgotten.

Indeed their love, their hate and their zeal have already perished, and they will no longer have a share in all that is done under the sun." Ecclesiastes 9:4-6 NASB

When Scripture is understood properly it is always consistent with itself. That is why I make effort to leave room for further understanding of Scripture which appears to be inconsistent with the Word I believe to be already fully understood.

Even this moment, that has proven to be true for me as Lonnie Melashenko gave evidence of understanding the word trinity, which word is not found in the Scripture. However that will take another thread to give it the space for understanding it needs.

Regards!

[Amelia]

*tacking on*

Quote:

Malachi 4:1-3

"Count on it: The day is coming, raging like a forest fire. All the arrogant people who do evil things will be burned up like stove wood, burned to a crisp, nothing left but scorched earth and ash - a black day. 2 But for you, sunrise! The sun of righteousness will dawn on those who honor my name, healing radiating from its wings. You will be bursting with energy, like colts frisky and frolicking. 3 And you'll tromp on the wicked. They'll be nothing but ashes under your feet on that Day." God-of-the-Angel-Armies says so.

THE MESSAGE

[John317]

I'd like to suggest that someone who wants to see what the Bible teaches about death and hell, etc., should carefully read the entire Bible in a literal translation, and mark every verse or word he comes across that deals with the subject.

The verses dealing with the nature of man in death typically fall into one of three main categories: 1) Those that clearly teach that man does not have an immortal spirit or soul and that death is an unconscious sleep in the grave until the resurrection; 2) Those that are neutral, or do not necessarily shed light on the subject one way or another; and 3) Those that appear to teach that man survives the death of the body and goes to heaven or is judged immediately after dying.

The question we have to ask and answer is whether the Bible contains contradictory doctrines concerning the nature of man and of death. If it does, then there is no way of resolving the issue by relying on the Bible; and therefore, if that is the case, the Bible would appear to be an unreliable way of deciding truth as far as death is concerned.

I believe that it is much simpler and makes better sense Biblically and logically to understand that they all teach unconsciousness in death than that they teach humans are fully conscious immediately after the death of the body. If we say that man survives death and that he goes immediately to heaven upon death, there are many Bible verses that are simply false. On the other hand, if the Bible teaches that a human soul is mortal and sleeps unconsciously in the grave, every verse can be easily harmonized.

For example, consider the following, which is almost always at the top of anyone's list of verses that are believed by many to teach the survival of the individual's consciousness beyond death.

Regarding Luke 16: 19-31, it is important, first, to point out that it is indeed a parable, just exactly as you've mentioned.

A basic rule of interpretation is that one should not take all of the details in a parable in a literal way and use them to teach doctrine.

So let's see how this applies in the case of its teaching on hell if we accept it quite literally:

1) The beggar dies.

2) The angels carry the beggar. (Notice it says they carried him, which can only mean physically and bodily. It does not say that the angels took his spirit, or some other portion of him, but rather that "the [whole] begger was carried.")

3) The angels carry the dead beggar "into Abraham's bosom." Thus, if we take the verse literally, when they die people are carried bodily to the bosom, or breast, of Abraham.

4) The rich man died. This man was buried.

5) Yet the next moment, despite the fact that his body is in the grave, the rich man is found to be suffering in hell, fully conscious, and with a pair of eyes he's perfectly able to see into Abraham's breast. (This is despite the fact that verse 26 says there is a great gulf fixed between hell and Abraham's breast.)

6) Next the man who is buried is able to communicate quite well with far off Abraham.

7) The rich man begs that water might be given him in order to cool his tongue.

In view of the above facts, who believes that this parable is to be understood literally?

[phkrause]

I never thought that this parable or story was nothing other than a lesson that Christ was trying to teach the people of his time, of where you go after you die.

pkrause

[John317]

The whole teaching purpose of Jesus' using this parable seems to me to be summed up at the end, in verses 29-31:

Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

If that's the case, then Jesus isn't intending to teach that everyone who dies goes immediately either to hell or to Abraham's bosom, but rather Jesus is saying, among other things, that we should take advantage of our time, and not waste our opportunities, BEFORE death; because no probation will be granted us AFTER death. By this parable also, Jesus teaches that no man is valued by God because of his material possessions. (See Christ's Object Lessons, pp. 260-271.)

If we take this parable to teach what happens when a person dies, do you see any contradiction between it and Jesus' teaching in Luke 11, concerning the death of His friend Lazarus? Or Paul's teaching in 1 Thess. 4: 13-18?

[phkrause]

I think John317 that the way I said what I said came out wrong. Sorry about that.

The Jews had this belief that if you where rich you went to heaven and if you where poor you went to hell. I think that was one of the things that Jesus was trying to convey to them that that wasn't the case.

pkrause

[John317]

No problem at all. Glad to see your comment. I think you're exactly right about Jesus' intention here. I'm glad getting to heaven has nothing to do with whether a person is rich or poor. As you say, the people of Jesus' time had the mistaken concept-- sort of like Job's friends'-- that being rich was a sign of God's blessing, and that if you were poor or sick, it was because God was punishing you for some sin. It seems like we still hear that idea preached today at times.

[Planey]

Quote:

"Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them. And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent. And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

Perhaps Jesus was also looking forward to the coming resurrection of Lazarus?

Graeme

[Norman Byers, N.D.]

Quote:

Why would Christ knowingly teach something that is doctrinally incorrect and has the potential to confuse and mislead so many?

Here's one that might confuse a lot of people, but no one does this.

Mar 9:47 And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Why would anyone teach the doctrine of eternal burning hell if no one has immortality except God and those who have the Son?

1Tim 6:16 Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honor and power everlasting. Amen. 1John 5:12 He that hath the Son hath life: and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

This teaching about eternal burning hell originated with Satan. He has one purpose in his life and that is to make God look like he truly is and to make himself look like God truly is. Jesus has serverely ruined his plan and exposed him for who he and and reveal who God really is. Truth is like a vine and so is error they both have their seedling characteristics and their full fruit expression. Both have a distinct smell, both have a distinct look, feel, effect and purpose.

How do we know what truth is? It's in the word and we know it by the Spirit. In other words, just as a new born calf knows it's mother, so God's children know their Father. There's no need to teach a calf who it's mother is. And Heb 8:10 For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of Israel after those days, saith the Lord; I will put my laws into their mind, and write them in their hearts: and I will be to them a God, and they shall be to me a people: 11 And they shall not teach every man his neighbor, and every man his brother, saying, Know the Lord: for all shall know me, from the least to the greatest.

Just as Jesus knows, we know and are inwardly convinced, convicted and assured.

Norman

[olger]

Good points Norman.

1) Evil had a beginning. It was not always in our universe. Therefore it must have a full and complete end.

2) It was God who established an eye for an eye, in order that punishment would not exceed the crime. The notion that God will torture the lost for ever & not let them die, for a few years of sin is contrary to the principles of punishment that He established.

oG

[fccool]

There are actually split camps on hell among evangelicals too. There are many that believe in anihilationism, some believe the hell fire to be symbolic... and hell meaning separation from God for eternity, but the majority does believe in literal hell. To kind of clarify their beliefs... from what I understand them to be

1) Soul is not just a ball of energy. It is a spiritual replica of the corporal being... just like angels are spirit beings - yet they are described to have eyes and body parts. It's kind of a Greek/New Age theology in a way, saying that body is just a vehicle for the soul in this world.

2) Many denomination base their view of "afterlife" on Parable in Luke... i.e. After death, the body is separated from the soul and is taken in the temporary place of Hades, or Paradise (Abraham's bosom) and is awaiting judgment there. Some believe that after the death souls go to Hades, and await judgment there no matter of their position in eternity. I know it sounds odd, but many of the Christian church members today do not even touch this "process", although this is what they officially believe. Don't believe me... check it out... this is the official beliefs on this subject:

Disciples of Christ view - http://www.kencollins.com/question-45.htm

Baptists - http://bellviewmissionarybaptistchurch.com/hell.htm

3) They support it by the following passages where "grave" is misinterpreted as "hell" -

Acts 2:30 Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne;

31 He seeing this before spake of the resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell, neither his flesh did see corruption.

32 This Jesus hath God raised up, whereof we all are witnesses.

Matthew 12:40 For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the whale's belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth

And of course

1 Peter 3:18-20

18 For Christ also died for sins once for all, {the} just for {the} unjust,

in order that He might bring us to God, having been put to death in the flesh,

but made alive in the spirit;

19 in which also He went and made proclamation to the spirits {now} in prison,

20 who once were disobedient, when the patience of God kept waiting in the days of Noah, during the construction of the ark, in which a few, that is, eight persons, were brought safely through {the} water.

Basically, the prevalent interpretation is that Jesus after his death went and preached to the pre-flood people who were trapped in a Limbo type of environment awaiting Jesus' death. I know it sounds ridiculous, but you can check it out... that's what many denominations believe.

An interesting study all by itself is how much time did Jesus spent in the grave (tomb). It really took me off guard that I really knew nothing about this. There are some awesome parallels. After creating God (Elohim) was finished and rested for a day on the seventh day. Jesus proclaimed that it was finished, and rested in the grave for one day... on the seventh day.

Many evangelicals would be surprised by what their churches position on the issue as most of them don't even question their pastors on this subject. They misconception is that their belief is that soul goes directly to hell, or to heaven. Most don't believe that, but it's a popular misconception that they do. Their pastors avoid the subject at any cost. In fact, this is very unpopular topic right now in the Emergent "Feel good" Churches, as it "scares away" the audience.

As Adventists, I think it's important to first know what we are arguing against. Above described is the position that is taught in most major Christian (non-catholic) theological seminaries. It is not discussed very often by the members of the congregations. This view is easy to discredit based on the Biblical view of death as it is presented in the thread.

[John317]

There are actually split camps on hell among evangelicals too. There are many that believe in anihilationism, some believe the hell fire to be symbolic... and hell meaning separation from God for eternity, but the majority does believe in literal hell...

There is even some controversy and different beliefs about this among Mormons. For instance, their false "prophet," Brigham Young, did not believe that man has a conscious, self-existing identity separate from his spirit. He predicted that devils and sons of perdition will eventually cease to exist as conscious entities.

Young wrote, "If you do not obey [the Lord's] voice, it will prove that you are not worthy of intelligence, any more than the clay upon the potter's wheel: consequently, the intelligence that you are endowed with will be taken from you, and you will have to go into the mill and be ground over again." He said that a person who returns to this state will cease to exist. However, because of Young's understanding of the nature of matter, he did not believe that this ceasing to exist was the same as complete annihilation.

See Essays on Mormon Doctrine, Line Upon Line, ed. Gary James Bergera, Signature Books, Salt Lake City, pp. 175, 176.

[John317]

There are actually split camps on hell among evangelicals too. There are many that believe in anihilationism, some believe the hell fire to be symbolic... and hell meaning separation from God for eternity, but the majority does believe in literal hell.

There's a very good book entitled, Four Views On Hell, published by Zondervan, 1996. Clark H. Pinnock wrote the essay supporting the conditional view. He's among those evangelicals who've converted from the traditional view to a belief in the non-immorality of the wicked. Today it's common to find this view represented by theology professors on university campuses, but it has yet to work its way much into the pulpits or pews of the mainline churches.

[fccool]

I actually had to do a report on the book in college. When I voiced my opinion that some scripture does support annihilation of the wicked my paper was marked with F for heresy . I wish I'd keep it. I was given an opportunity to rewrite it.

The view that was pushed was the one I described above... the reasoning was that an rejecting eternal God leads to eternal consequences. A couple profs did not hold to the exact view, they simply substituted the fires of hell as complete darkness and confinement in solitude forever - separation from God. Anotherwords... the mind is awake but there is nothing else to do or to see but to go through the memories of the past and "gnash your teeth" thinking what you have rejected.

[ChildofChrist]

I actually had to do a report on the book in college. When I voiced my opinion that some scripture does support annihilation of the wicked my paper was marked with F for heresy .

I was shocked to read that but I know from past reviews of some of church fathers that they too had been dismissed as heretics. Jesus was too.

When I first attended public school in the 7th grade, it was a shock for me to hear some of the theories that are out there in the science realm. Church school never prepared me for it. I found myself parrotting back the gruel that they fed.

In studying the science of education, one of the practices that I can appreciate is when a teacher respects your opinion, be it right or wrong when it is seen that thought has been put into it. Often it is the process that is important. Once your opinions are on the table; then, debate can begin.

Who was right about which was heavier, the pound of feathers or the pound of rocks?

[melvin mccarty]

Long ago when I was a young teenager there were several youngsters in my age group and the bretheren brought in a preacher to "reap the harvest". This was all in an SDA church.

Well that preacher shouted and described in lurid detail about how some would burn for a short time and some for many days if they were "wicked". (Is this still the official version of hellfire in the Adventist church?). Well it worked! There was a baptism but I refused. I was angry at that preacher and at God. Had no use for a God who would treat anybody that way. In my books it was bad enough to "resurrect" people just to kill them again let alone torture them.

It was several years before I heard a love message that touched me. So we should I think also reject the view of a mini-hellfire as proposed by EGW. What do you think?

mel

[Gerr]

It doesn't matter what I think. The Bible says that sin and sinners will be consumed in hellfire. Why do you think it is unjust for the Idi Amins and the Stalins and Hitlers to be resurrected to reap the consequences of their actions that they did not reap while still living?

Gerry

[fccool]

Hitlers are not the ones I feel bad for. I know many great people who did not make decision for Christ, and in a way they are exemplify charity and compassion, yet have no relationship with Christ. Why resurrect those only to make them suffer? I've had the same question before. I don't have an answer for it, honestly. One day we will know the reason.

[John317]

I know many great people who did not make decision for Christ, and in a way they are exemplify charity and compassion, yet have no relationship with Christ. Why resurrect those only to make them suffer? I've had the same question before. I don't have an answer for it, honestly. One day we will know the reason.

Take a look at: http://adventistforum.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/topics/176671/The_End_of_Sin_and_Sinners#Post176671

After posting this, I noticed that you read the above link and commented on it.

What is the most important thing to God? It is that sin and death not arise again in the universe. That is really the purpose of the whole plan of redemption-- to demonstrate how terrible sin is and show that His way is the way of Life.

What we have to grasp is that God did not have to save anyone at all. He did not do it because of being obligated to any one or to anything. He sent Jesus strictly because of His grace and love for the lost. But He would have been completely right and just to allow this world to go out in total darkness and oblivion.

A major reason for resurrecting those who are lost is to show that they have not changed and that they would continue their rebellion in heaven. They side with Satan when he tries to attack and destroy the city of God. That means, of course, that they would destroy God if they could. So it answers the question of what they would do if they were given a second chance. The answer: they would not submit to God's will and law but would continue to rebel. They demonstrate their unworthiness of the gift of immorality.

[melvin mccarty]

Again millions of people have never rebelled at all but never accepted either. They simply never became involved for one reason or another. I believe that God does have a responsibility to people who have been placed here with no choice in the matter at all and subjected to "temptation" by a guy named satan. Does the Adventist church get it right? Seems the record is not all that great. mel

[Woody]

You make some good points Mel.