life after hell...
The following is a discussion that I had with some friends concerning hell and the possibility of redemption in the afterlife... i have included my friends' comments...
From My Friend Ryan
Janie recently mentioned that she was having a discussion about whether or not someone who had never heard the gospel of Jesus would have any chance at all of becoming saved. (I’m paraphrasing) Suffice it to say that the discussion, in a broad sense, dealt with the "exclusivity" of Christianity. This reminded me of a scene in ‘The Last Battle’ by C. S. Lewis (who else?) where Aslan basically tells a soldier of the enemy that when he served the enemy (Tash) he was actually serving Aslan…. Well it’s actually not put so bluntly and there’s more explanation to it than that, but alas, I am not C.S.Lewis and Dear Janie still has my book, so I can’t give the quote. (Janie - only a jest – keep it as long as you like) I thought that this might help their discussion and perhaps offer an idea that both parties could accept. However - this has been sort of … well, burdening me ever since that day – First of all – I gave the book to Janie without even asking which side of the argument she supported. Maybe that’s a good thing. Second – I began to question if I really supported the solution given by Lewis. Or how it measured up to scripture…. If someone had asked me if Jesus was the only way to Heaven, of course my reply would be something like "Well the Bible says…. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. OR… John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. On the other hand… Lewis wrote these books (Chronicles of Narnia) for children. So I’m sure this is to be taken as a ‘childs version’ of how Lewis would really answer the question. This question also came up briefly in our Small Groups discussion (or something very close to it) and Tonya suggested that since God created Time, He exists outside of Time and is not bound by it. Therefore, He may have a solution for all people of all times that gives them a ‘second chance’ so to speak. She went on to say that the Apostles’ Creed states that Jesus "Descended into hell" or "Descended to the dead". Since God is ‘outside of time’ he could have set the captives of Hell (from all time- past, present, future) free – or at least made himself known to them, hence the ‘second chance’. Well – I did a (very brief) investigation of the ‘descended into hell’ thing and could only come up with a mention in Ephesians, chapter 4 where Paul quotes Psalm 68--- 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) So, is this a valid line of thinking? It would be kinda cool. I’m not very versed on the ‘Council of Nicaea’ and what they actually meant by ‘descended into hell’… Perhaps our Learned student of Theology (Tommy) could provide some help. (if he has time to read this) Any way, my response at the Small Group discussion was something like this: - These issues are not for me to decide. I am not the judge and (thankfully) have no authority in such matters. All authority has been given to Christ Jesus – He sits on the Judgement Seat. My "opinion" has no effect on the "Truth". The Truth is simply true and I would do well to align my "opinion" with it.
The following is a response and further question from another friend Frank;
i've always wondered about that too. and although i agree with you that it's not my position to make a ruling on it... i still like questioning it. along the same lines as what you put... what about those outside the christianity... "click"? (ouch, gonna get flamed for that one.) take some one that is born... say... a buddist say like 100 years ago. (that's before internet by the way). he's born a buddist, he's taught that being a buddist is "right "and "true" all his life. maybe he's a farmer. all his life he prays and believes that budda is the "way" the "truth" and the "life" and the only way to get to fat naked guy heaven is through him, he farms, he stays in his little farming buddist town, then he dies. what happens to this guy?
Here is my response:
Yes.. i love these kind of questions.. this is the kind of stuff i really get excited about... i have some definite opinions, and i will attempt to share them, though i fear missinterpretation.. i will try to talk about ryan's comments first. then i will go to frank's...
1. first of all, i feel fairly confident that "descended into hell" is meant as simply that by the council of nicea, that between jesus' death and ressurection, he went to hell. Calvin in his "Institutes of Religion" believes that that is what they meant.
2. of course, i think here it is important to revisit our interpretation of hell. the older i get, and the more i look at the scriptures and try to study the context, the more convinced i am that the popular understanding of hell today, is more the product of Dante, and less of scripture.
the term used in scripture, as i am sure many of you have heard before, refers to not one but a couple different places. unfortunately, that distinction is lost in the translation. the three most common words translated as hell are, hades sheoul and gehenna. hades is of course the greek understanding of the netherworld where all the dead go,(from what i have read, there is no distinction between good or bad people who go there) the sheoul, very similar to hades, refers to a place, not of torment, but of limbo, or waiting, where the souls of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous exist after they have left their earthly bodies. in luke 16, both lazarus and the rich man go to hades (sheoul), though they are separated there, but nevertheless are still both in hades (the sheoul). the psalms and many other books in the bible also make reference to this.
gehenna, mentioned in mark 9, refers to a place outside of jerusalem where garbage was thrown, and constant fires burned, and flies were in abundance laying larvae. This is an obvious reference to some form of torment for the dead, although, it is a metaphor!! and it would be irresponsible to take it as a literal description. for that reason, i think it is important for us to rethink our traditional understandings of hell. I am not convinced that it is a fiery place with little demons running around with pitchforks and cowprods.
that being said, torment, is a very real state. for any sould to exist in the sheoul, stripped of all flesh distractions, and unable to fulfill its original purpose,(communion with its creator) is torment unlike anything we can imagine.
3. now on to the question of Christ going to the sheoul. Professor William Barklay, believes that the ephesians scripture term, "The lower parts of the earth" is another term for sheoul. in addition to that there are other scripture passages that speak of souls in the sheoul giving praise, and acknowledging jesus as christ. PHilipians 2:9-11 (notice the term, and under the earth, ) REv. 5"13
two very revealing scriptures on this subject are found in 1 peter.
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago . . (1 Pet 3:18 - 20)
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (1 Pet 4: 6)
Maybe i am way off, but it appears that not only did christ visit the sheoul, but he also went there to reveal himself to those who had previously died.
4. It is very difficult to deal with issues such as this. Because when you do you run the risk of being labled a heretic.(something, i admit, i have been accused of before, hehe) On the other hand, i believe that one verges on heresey, when when one claims certain things, as gospel truth that the scripture does not support.
One thing i find in the scripture, is that there is no support for a "dante-esque" understanding of hell. To claim with authority that we "know" all about hell, is to claim falsely. but at the risk of sounding certain,(something of which i am not) i believe that the scripture suggests that in the past, those who have died, have had the chance, after death, to hear about christ. if this is true, then i believe it would not be too bold an assumption to say that, it is possible for those who have passed on to have a second chance. It is possible because Christ did it. If he did it, back then, then there is no reason to believe that he cannot do it now. If truly god does not change, and if god is timeless and all powerful, then we run the risk of limiting god, if we say, that it is impossible.
5. of course just because there is a possibility of a second chance, it does not mean that people's descisions will be different the second time around. If a person has truly met christ on earth, then it seems to me, unlikely that they will change their opinion of him in the sheoul. (if the sheoul were fire and brimstone, they might think differently.)
6. This leads me to think about Frank's question. In short, to answer your question about a buddhist child in china, who has never heard of the name jesus christ. I do not believe God holds us accountable for things which we have no knowlege of, in the same way he would hold us accountable for things we understand.
Luke 12
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
this scripture alone, gives us a hint that those who have not met christ are at least not as responsible as those who have met him. but there is more.
romans says.
romans 1
9since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
what it is saying here, is that through creation, we are able to know that there is a god. that is not to say that a person living on a deserted island can know that god became flesh and died for our sins, but at least we can get an understanding that there is a creator, by looking at the creation.
furthermore, in John 1 it says, that in the begining was the "logos" (word) and the logos was with god and the logos was god. and through him all things were made.
what john was saying is that through jesus christ, the world was created,
if the world was created through jesus christ, and as paul says we are able to understand(allbeit only in part) the creator by looking at the creation, then we can gain some knowlege of jesus christ, by the world around us. Of course, this does not mean that a person living on a deserted island will suddenly look at a coconut and proclaim, "jesus of nazareth died for my sins". it does however mean that this person can understand that all things, from coconuts to his pinky finger, have design. and that design, must have an author. it follows that if there is a designer, then there must be a plan or reason for the design.
i believe if a person is honestly seeking out that plan or reason, then when they finally meet jesus christ, whether it is here on earth or in the sheoul, then they will say, "ah.. this is what i have been searching for"
So what if a person is a bhuddist>?? does that instantly disqualify them from heaven. that is a trickier question. if you believe that all other religions are created by satan to fool humanity, (which i dont) then basically it means they are all doomed. however, if you see other religions, as attempts to understand the divine, allbeit, feeble attempts, then there is a ray of hope.
the test is, once a person of another religion truly meets christ, do they embrace salvation, saying "this is what i have been looking for" or do they reject it and say, "this is not what i want."
Of course, i think it is real important to note, that many people hear about jesus, but have not really met him. I think about those people in the middle east who suffered at the hands of the medieval crusaders, who claimed to wage war in the name of god. Certainly those arabs had heard the name of jesus, but one could hardly blame them for rejecting a name that was synonymous with the murder of their peoples.
that brings us back to the sheoul. I believe that no one is saved, but through jesus christ. i also believe that god is just and merciful. for that reason, if a person has not had an honest chance to meet jesus christ while living a mortal life, i think it is a possibility that they will have a chance to meet him after death.
wow.. i have written too much..
PLEASE NOTE!! I do not presume to know the mind of God. I could very well get to heaven, and be told that all of my postulations are terribly wrong. if that happens, then i will thank god for being so patient with my feeble understanding of him
From My Friend Ryan
Janie recently mentioned that she was having a discussion about whether or not someone who had never heard the gospel of Jesus would have any chance at all of becoming saved. (I’m paraphrasing) Suffice it to say that the discussion, in a broad sense, dealt with the "exclusivity" of Christianity. This reminded me of a scene in ‘The Last Battle’ by C. S. Lewis (who else?) where Aslan basically tells a soldier of the enemy that when he served the enemy (Tash) he was actually serving Aslan…. Well it’s actually not put so bluntly and there’s more explanation to it than that, but alas, I am not C.S.Lewis and Dear Janie still has my book, so I can’t give the quote. (Janie - only a jest – keep it as long as you like) I thought that this might help their discussion and perhaps offer an idea that both parties could accept. However - this has been sort of … well, burdening me ever since that day – First of all – I gave the book to Janie without even asking which side of the argument she supported. Maybe that’s a good thing. Second – I began to question if I really supported the solution given by Lewis. Or how it measured up to scripture…. If someone had asked me if Jesus was the only way to Heaven, of course my reply would be something like "Well the Bible says…. Acts 4:12 Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. OR… John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me. On the other hand… Lewis wrote these books (Chronicles of Narnia) for children. So I’m sure this is to be taken as a ‘childs version’ of how Lewis would really answer the question. This question also came up briefly in our Small Groups discussion (or something very close to it) and Tonya suggested that since God created Time, He exists outside of Time and is not bound by it. Therefore, He may have a solution for all people of all times that gives them a ‘second chance’ so to speak. She went on to say that the Apostles’ Creed states that Jesus "Descended into hell" or "Descended to the dead". Since God is ‘outside of time’ he could have set the captives of Hell (from all time- past, present, future) free – or at least made himself known to them, hence the ‘second chance’. Well – I did a (very brief) investigation of the ‘descended into hell’ thing and could only come up with a mention in Ephesians, chapter 4 where Paul quotes Psalm 68--- 7 But unto every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ. 8 Wherefore he saith, When he ascended up on high, he led captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men. 9 (Now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth? 10 He that descended is the same also that ascended up far above all heavens, that he might fill all things.) So, is this a valid line of thinking? It would be kinda cool. I’m not very versed on the ‘Council of Nicaea’ and what they actually meant by ‘descended into hell’… Perhaps our Learned student of Theology (Tommy) could provide some help. (if he has time to read this) Any way, my response at the Small Group discussion was something like this: - These issues are not for me to decide. I am not the judge and (thankfully) have no authority in such matters. All authority has been given to Christ Jesus – He sits on the Judgement Seat. My "opinion" has no effect on the "Truth". The Truth is simply true and I would do well to align my "opinion" with it.
The following is a response and further question from another friend Frank;
i've always wondered about that too. and although i agree with you that it's not my position to make a ruling on it... i still like questioning it. along the same lines as what you put... what about those outside the christianity... "click"? (ouch, gonna get flamed for that one.) take some one that is born... say... a buddist say like 100 years ago. (that's before internet by the way). he's born a buddist, he's taught that being a buddist is "right "and "true" all his life. maybe he's a farmer. all his life he prays and believes that budda is the "way" the "truth" and the "life" and the only way to get to fat naked guy heaven is through him, he farms, he stays in his little farming buddist town, then he dies. what happens to this guy?
Here is my response:
Yes.. i love these kind of questions.. this is the kind of stuff i really get excited about... i have some definite opinions, and i will attempt to share them, though i fear missinterpretation.. i will try to talk about ryan's comments first. then i will go to frank's...
1. first of all, i feel fairly confident that "descended into hell" is meant as simply that by the council of nicea, that between jesus' death and ressurection, he went to hell. Calvin in his "Institutes of Religion" believes that that is what they meant.
2. of course, i think here it is important to revisit our interpretation of hell. the older i get, and the more i look at the scriptures and try to study the context, the more convinced i am that the popular understanding of hell today, is more the product of Dante, and less of scripture.
the term used in scripture, as i am sure many of you have heard before, refers to not one but a couple different places. unfortunately, that distinction is lost in the translation. the three most common words translated as hell are, hades sheoul and gehenna. hades is of course the greek understanding of the netherworld where all the dead go,(from what i have read, there is no distinction between good or bad people who go there) the sheoul, very similar to hades, refers to a place, not of torment, but of limbo, or waiting, where the souls of the dead, both righteous and unrighteous exist after they have left their earthly bodies. in luke 16, both lazarus and the rich man go to hades (sheoul), though they are separated there, but nevertheless are still both in hades (the sheoul). the psalms and many other books in the bible also make reference to this.
gehenna, mentioned in mark 9, refers to a place outside of jerusalem where garbage was thrown, and constant fires burned, and flies were in abundance laying larvae. This is an obvious reference to some form of torment for the dead, although, it is a metaphor!! and it would be irresponsible to take it as a literal description. for that reason, i think it is important for us to rethink our traditional understandings of hell. I am not convinced that it is a fiery place with little demons running around with pitchforks and cowprods.
that being said, torment, is a very real state. for any sould to exist in the sheoul, stripped of all flesh distractions, and unable to fulfill its original purpose,(communion with its creator) is torment unlike anything we can imagine.
3. now on to the question of Christ going to the sheoul. Professor William Barklay, believes that the ephesians scripture term, "The lower parts of the earth" is another term for sheoul. in addition to that there are other scripture passages that speak of souls in the sheoul giving praise, and acknowledging jesus as christ. PHilipians 2:9-11 (notice the term, and under the earth, ) REv. 5"13
two very revealing scriptures on this subject are found in 1 peter.
For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God. He was put to death in the body but made alive by the Spirit, through whom also he went and preached to the spirits in prison who disobeyed long ago . . (1 Pet 3:18 - 20)
For this is the reason the gospel was preached even to those who are now dead, so that they might be judged according to men in regard to the body, but live according to God in regard to the spirit. (1 Pet 4: 6)
Maybe i am way off, but it appears that not only did christ visit the sheoul, but he also went there to reveal himself to those who had previously died.
4. It is very difficult to deal with issues such as this. Because when you do you run the risk of being labled a heretic.(something, i admit, i have been accused of before, hehe) On the other hand, i believe that one verges on heresey, when when one claims certain things, as gospel truth that the scripture does not support.
One thing i find in the scripture, is that there is no support for a "dante-esque" understanding of hell. To claim with authority that we "know" all about hell, is to claim falsely. but at the risk of sounding certain,(something of which i am not) i believe that the scripture suggests that in the past, those who have died, have had the chance, after death, to hear about christ. if this is true, then i believe it would not be too bold an assumption to say that, it is possible for those who have passed on to have a second chance. It is possible because Christ did it. If he did it, back then, then there is no reason to believe that he cannot do it now. If truly god does not change, and if god is timeless and all powerful, then we run the risk of limiting god, if we say, that it is impossible.
5. of course just because there is a possibility of a second chance, it does not mean that people's descisions will be different the second time around. If a person has truly met christ on earth, then it seems to me, unlikely that they will change their opinion of him in the sheoul. (if the sheoul were fire and brimstone, they might think differently.)
6. This leads me to think about Frank's question. In short, to answer your question about a buddhist child in china, who has never heard of the name jesus christ. I do not believe God holds us accountable for things which we have no knowlege of, in the same way he would hold us accountable for things we understand.
Luke 12
47"That servant who knows his master's will and does not get ready or does not do what his master wants will be beaten with many blows. 48But the one things deserving punishment will be beaten with few blows. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked.
this scripture alone, gives us a hint that those who have not met christ are at least not as responsible as those who have met him. but there is more.
romans says.
romans 1
9since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. 20For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities--his eternal power and divine nature--have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse.
what it is saying here, is that through creation, we are able to know that there is a god. that is not to say that a person living on a deserted island can know that god became flesh and died for our sins, but at least we can get an understanding that there is a creator, by looking at the creation.
furthermore, in John 1 it says, that in the begining was the "logos" (word) and the logos was with god and the logos was god. and through him all things were made.
what john was saying is that through jesus christ, the world was created,
if the world was created through jesus christ, and as paul says we are able to understand(allbeit only in part) the creator by looking at the creation, then we can gain some knowlege of jesus christ, by the world around us. Of course, this does not mean that a person living on a deserted island will suddenly look at a coconut and proclaim, "jesus of nazareth died for my sins". it does however mean that this person can understand that all things, from coconuts to his pinky finger, have design. and that design, must have an author. it follows that if there is a designer, then there must be a plan or reason for the design.
i believe if a person is honestly seeking out that plan or reason, then when they finally meet jesus christ, whether it is here on earth or in the sheoul, then they will say, "ah.. this is what i have been searching for"
So what if a person is a bhuddist>?? does that instantly disqualify them from heaven. that is a trickier question. if you believe that all other religions are created by satan to fool humanity, (which i dont) then basically it means they are all doomed. however, if you see other religions, as attempts to understand the divine, allbeit, feeble attempts, then there is a ray of hope.
the test is, once a person of another religion truly meets christ, do they embrace salvation, saying "this is what i have been looking for" or do they reject it and say, "this is not what i want."
Of course, i think it is real important to note, that many people hear about jesus, but have not really met him. I think about those people in the middle east who suffered at the hands of the medieval crusaders, who claimed to wage war in the name of god. Certainly those arabs had heard the name of jesus, but one could hardly blame them for rejecting a name that was synonymous with the murder of their peoples.
that brings us back to the sheoul. I believe that no one is saved, but through jesus christ. i also believe that god is just and merciful. for that reason, if a person has not had an honest chance to meet jesus christ while living a mortal life, i think it is a possibility that they will have a chance to meet him after death.
wow.. i have written too much..
PLEASE NOTE!! I do not presume to know the mind of God. I could very well get to heaven, and be told that all of my postulations are terribly wrong. if that happens, then i will thank god for being so patient with my feeble understanding of him
posted by tommy at 1:32 AM
2 comments
