The Campaign to Eliminate Hell.

[Just Dave]

This is what happens when the church "softens" the gospel.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/05/160513-theology-hell-history-christianity/

[Not a Cook]

The National Geographic article doesn't fairly characterize what is taking place correctly. But I have to ask: is it in any way surprising that National Geo wouldn't totally understand things that pertain to Christian doctrine?

Yes... many folks who identify as Christians are rejecting the reality of hell entirely because they don't think God would ever create such a place (or at least not send anyone there if He did create such a place). This is typically an issue wherein folks focus almost entirely on God's attributes of mercy and lovingkindess while mostly (or totally) ignoring His holiness and righteousness. They have trouble squaring their own personal ideas/understandings about God with what the Scriptures actually teach. People "make god in their own image", and so reject what God actually reveals about Himself though the Scriptures. It's a perfect example of what is discussed in Romans chapter 1.

The poll results which show that Americans' belief in hell has greatly declined should not be surprising since Americans are more-and-more rejecting most (if not all) of the basic teachings of the Scriptures.

However, the article also mentions (though doesn't accurately describe) two other trends that are taking place. The first of these is the teaching of a doctrine known as "annhilationism", and the second is the teaching of a different doctrine commonly known as "conditional immortality". These two share some obvious similarities but are not identical by any means as they usually have very different theological underpinnings. Folks often mistake them for one another because most folks are not really familiar with one (or both) of them. Unsurprisingly, the National Geographic article incorrectly conflates the two.

"Conditionalists" (a category into which I may be categorized) do not reject the doctrine of hell at all, nor do we reject the doctrine of eternal punishment in any way. Although the article is inaccurate in multiple points as regards conditional immortality, it does at least note that there is great evidence that the early church (including folks such as Irenaeus - who was taught by Polycarp who was taught by the apostle John) held to what is now being called "the doctrine of conditional immortality".

Articles such as this one from National Geographic that seemingly suggest that adherents to the doctrine of conditional immortality in any way reject the reality of hell are simply incorrect. To be clear: I believe in conditional immortality AND hell because I believe both are clearly taught in the Scriptures. I believe in the literal lake of fire and brimstone which awaits all those who are not in Christ and expect it to be truly horrible beyond what I can imagine (but which the book of Revelation does describe). However, I also believe that eternal life only belongs to those who are in Christ, and that those who reject Christ will not continue to exist forever.

That said, I could expand much more on what the doctrine of conditional immortality entails, but I will forgo doing so unless someone actually asks or discusses the issue further. Most folks who haven't carefully studied it aren't aware of what it actually teaches. I greatly misunderstood the doctrine of conditional immortality myself and more than once attempted to refute it - let's just say I learned to eat crow.

[Just Dave]

I think the article touched on the point that people in the church are no longer believing but I think this is because the doctrine of hell isn't being taught.
There is no more fiery expectations for those who reject Christ coming from pulpits across America.
Churches these days give a warm fuzzy message on how much Jesus loves you but it isn't love that saves us it's His grace.
Only once have I heard a person exclaim at a funeral that the deceased had X amount of years to get his heart right with the Lord. Most of the time it's "he/she is with Jesus now" despite the fact that the person died in their sin.

As far as non-existence goes the lake of fire is forever and people will end up there forever.
In God's economy those people are stricken from the book of life so as far as He's concerned they no longer exist even though they're still a conscience being and are still being eternally punished for their sins.

I have to admit I haven't study to much on your theory only because the Scripture makes eternal suffering in hell abundantly clear and really non-debatable.
Jesus Christ went out of the way to describe hell, He gives more vivid description of hell than He does heaven.
Outer darkness
Wailing
Gnashing of teeth
Everlasting torment
Flames
Weeping
Everlasting punishment
Separation from God

Hell is the final eternal state of being for the lost. A lot of churches don't teach this anymore

[Not a Cook]

I think the article touched on the point that people in the church are no longer believing but I think this is because the doctrine of hell isn't being taught.
There is no more fiery expectations for those who reject Christ coming from pulpits across America.
Churches these days give a warm fuzzy message on how much Jesus loves you but it isn't love that saves us it's His grace.
Only once have I heard a person exclaim at a funeral that the deceased had X amount of years to get his heart right with the Lord. Most of the time it's "he/she is with Jesus now" despite the fact that the person died in their sin.

Sadly, that's probably a pretty fair evaluation of popular "churchianity" today. It has become fairly commonplace for so-called "preachers" and "churches" to not only avoid the doctrine of hell, but also to avoid preaching/teaching about sin, God's holy wrath, repentance, etc. 1 Timothy 4:3-4 (NKJV) comes to mind,

For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables.

As far as non-existence goes the lake of fire is forever and people will end up there forever.
In God's economy those people are stricken from the book of life so as far as He's concerned they no longer exist even though they're still a conscience being and are still being eternally punished for their sins.

I have to admit I haven't study to much on your theory only because the Scripture makes eternal suffering in hell abundantly clear and really non-debatable.
Jesus Christ went out of the way to describe hell, He gives more vivid description of hell than He does heaven.
Outer darkness
Wailing
Gnashing of teeth
Everlasting torment
Flames
Weeping
Everlasting punishment
Separation from God

Hell is the final eternal state of being for the lost. A lot of churches don't teach this anymore

If you're interested in learning more about the doctrine of conditional immortality, let me know. It's not a topic I often teach on, but have preached on it from time to time. It's not something I'd ever divide fellowship over because it obviously isn't the heart of the gospel. However, it is an interesting (and to many, a very beneficial) study that impacts basically all other extensions of a person's understanding of matters pertaining to eschatology.

To be clear, the doctrine of "conditional immortality" isn't "my theory", but is a historical teaching that existed in the earliest years of the church (and in ancient, historical Judaism before Pentecost). When I was first introduced to this doctrine, I wholeheartedly refuted it. After I devoted much time to searching the Scriptures on this topic in particular (in attempt to refute this doctrine more fully), the Lord humbled me by convincing me that the Scriptures actually do teach "conditional immortality". Let's just say I ate a fair amount of crow with some folks I had previously attempted to refute.

As a sidenote, you may be interested to learn that what is today called "conditional immortality" appears to have historically been the "common understanding" of much of the early church UNTIL Augustine. I know I may catch flack for this, but some of the folks we highly revere from the "early church" committed a significant amount of eisogesis (as opposed to exegesis) of the Scriptures (as a sidenote, some of the so-called "early church fathers" were even outright heretics who were literally excommunicated for their perversions of Christianity). I do not in any way suggest that Augustine was nearly so far off, but he did commit a fair amount of eisogesis. He had a background in Greek philosophy, and one of the tenets of Greek philosophy that he brought into his theological studies was that the soul is (according to the Greek philosophies in which he was trained) eternal and indestructible. However, that simply doesn't square with a lot of the Scriptures - including verses like Matthew 10:28 (NKJV),

And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.

God can (and will) destroy both body and soul in hell. The lake of fire and brimstone is truly frightening.

Basically, the question comes down to this: do the Scriptures teach that the human soul is immortal; does EVERYONE have eternal life (regardless of whether they're in Christ)? Or do the Scriptures teach that only those in Christ will be granted eternal life? After much study I have become convinced that the Scriptures teach that ONLY those in Christ will be granted eternal life.

Those who are apart from Christ WILL undoubtedly suffer unimaginable pain, anger, separation from God, etc., as they are being destroyed. I don't know how long it will last (nor am I convinced that it will last the same amount of time for everyone), but I don't believe the destroying of the wicked will last forever. Yes - their destruction will last forever, but not their destroying. However, there are a few characters mentioned in Revelation (including Satan, of course, for whom the lake of fire and brimstone was created) who will suffer eternally in that horrible place.

Anyway my brother, I don't want to belabor the point or cause any offense. If you want to know more, feel free to post questions here or PM me. This is one of those areas that I do teach on from time-to-time (it has many implications in other eschatological matters), but I don't divide with folks over. For example, out of the elders in my home congregation, I'm the only one who holds to the teaching. Interestingly enough, though, some years back our senior-most elder thought it should be refuted... but after some discussions with me and teaching, he no longer refutes "conditional immortality" but has become "very open" (his words) to the possibility that the Scriptures may (again, his words) actually teach the doctrine of "conditional immortality". However - given all the other matters to discuss and act upon, neither of us have made a further examination/discussion of the Scriptures regarding this particular topic a priority. There's WAY more important kingdom business to be about and into which to invest our time.

[Volksgrenadier]

Hel is the name of Loki's daughter, half beautiful woman, half decaying corpse. She presides over Her realm in Niflheim, there in the roots of the World Tree.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Haven't heard of any of those so called "theologians" named in the Nat Geo article.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Churches these days give a warm fuzzy message on how much Jesus loves you but it isn't love that saves us it's His grace.

Isn't grace rooted in love? That is, no love, no grace.

[Sunday]

Most churches I have been to seem like Lucifer's playground.

[Just Dave]

Isn't grace rooted in love? That is, no love, no grace.

Yes you could argue that but when a church over emphasizes one attribute of God they seem to neglect the others.
So many people know how much God loves them which would stand to reason that if God loves me so much why would He send me to hell?
I've also noticed that a lot of people will do wicked things while claiming God's grace completely ignoring Hebrews 10:26-31
Without the proper teaching of Scripture people can easily fall under the impression that they are right with God when they are not.

Most churches I have been to seem like Lucifer's playground.

You can always tell those by their congregants who don't carry Bibles.

[Wordupmybrotha]

Yes you could argue that but when a church over emphasizes one attribute of God they seem to neglect the others.
So many people know how much God loves them which would stand to reason that if God loves me so much why would He send me to hell?

You can always tell those by their congregants who don't carry Bibles.

Stems from not understanding his other attributes of justice and holiness. Because he is holy, he won't tolerate sin. Because he is just, sin must be punished. God's love for us caused Jesus to take the punishment on our behalf, which satisfied justice. Accepting Jesus by faith allows our sins to be placed on Jesus. This substitution is not by works, but by grace - a free gift from God. It's not God's lack of love that cause people to go to hell, it's their rejection of God's grace which was born from love.

I have to disagree that carrying a Bible reflects on the person's heart. It could just be a whitewashed tombstone.

[Just Dave]

Stems from not understanding his other attributes of justice and holiness. Because he is holy, he won't tolerate sin. Because he is just, sin must be punished. God's love for us caused Jesus to take the punishment on our behalf, which satisfied justice. Accepting Jesus by faith allows our sins to be placed on Jesus. This substitution is not by works, but by grace - a free gift from God. It's not God's lack of love that cause people to go to hell, it's their rejection of God's grace which was born from love.

I have to disagree that carrying a Bible reflects on the person's heart. It could just be a whitewashed tombstone.

The lack of Bibles reflects on that church. If the word of God isn't being taught it's not being learned.

[mif_slim]

The doctrine of hell is being pushed back in the burner. haha. But seriously, many many many and I emphasize on MANY Christians I know these days dont want to hear anything negative. When you preach about something negative, they say youre an extremist. They would only stay in church if they hear good things about themselves.

I had to preach a sermon a while ago and I didn't sugar coat heaven or hell. Boy was some mad. But hey, I didnt choose to write about hell in the Bible, He did. I either preach every aspect of the Bible or none at all. I dont like to choose only what I like and preach on it.

[Wordupmybrotha]

The lack of Bibles reflects on that church. If the word of God isn't being taught it's not being learned.

People can still study the Bible at home and not carry it to church on Sunday. I don't know about your church, but our church projects the sermon scripture on a projector. And the word of God is definitely taught there. And some people look up scripture on their phones or tablets.

[Not a Cook]

People can still study the Bible at home and not carry it to church on Sunday. I don't know about your church, but our church projects the sermon scripture on a projector. And the word of God is definitely taught there. And some people look up scripture on their phones or tablets.

If I'm not the one preaching, when I sit under preaching I don't just follow along in the passage at-hand but I also constantly go back and forth cross-checking various other passages to make sure that EVERYTHING that is being taught from the pulpit (whether it be an allusion to another passage or principal found elsewhere) is what the whole counsel of God actually teaches. Folks who only "follow along" on a projector screen can't do likewise (unless they have the Scriptures memorized) to verify that what is being preached is true (although those using electronic devices with the Scriptures thankfully can do so still).

I did an interesting experiment/lesson once during a sermon to test the congregation by reading a "passage" from Hezekiah . I told folks not to bother turning to the passage themselves (these folks had their Bibles with them); they could just follow along as I read. I then TESTED the congregation by using a totally made-up (though it SOUNDED/LOOKED very real) "passage". Let's just say most folks badly flunked that test. I did then declare what I had done and basically rebuked many of those present for allowing such garbage to be "preached" from the pulpit without speaking up. A lot of folks were shocked! (They apparently THOUGHT what I had preached really was true!!!) EACH ONE OF US should be like the Bereans who Paul commended in Acts 17:11 (NKJV),

These were more fair-minded than those in Thessalonica, in that they received the word with all readiness, and searched the Scriptures daily to find out whether these things were so.

The Bereans wouldn't even take the apostle Paul's words at face value without checking the Scriptures to make sure what he was preaching was true. How much more ought ALL of us to do likewise when we hear preaching today!

As an aside, I have often heard various preachers at some during their sermons say something like, "you don't need to turn to this next passage; keep your Bibles open in the passage we're in because we'll be coming back to it. Just follow along as I read (or we project on a screen) this next passage". Needless to say, I turn to each passage. I hope that all Christians who have the opportunity and ability to do so will do likewise.

[sonofeugene]

Hell and heaven are concepts created by man as attempts to explain what is unexplainable. The same goes for god, angels, demons, satan and all religions in general. There is no proof that any of it exists outside man's say so. Thus, as with most other things, the degree to which "man" will believe or not believe something is always changing. No news here really.