Doctrine of Hell: 17 Views
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 พ.ค. 2021
- www.patreon.com/user?u=40252988
The doctrine of hell is a hot debate in theology right now. In this video I summarize current thought in the field. I survey the theology of joseph ratzinger, karl barth, david bentley hart, c s lewis, n t wright, greg boyd, and many more. Hope you find this helpful!
I just finished reading "That All Shall Be Saved" by David Bentley Hart, and I was looking to see more about these different positions on Salvation.
The way you have put through has made my day!
Thank you.
I love your summaries of big topics and how you are able to parse them down into matrixes; it’s always helpful.
The challenge with a topic like hell and salvation like this, and you probably know this, is that it does separate this topic from each theologians or perspectives meta-narrative. As you have pointed out before, NT Wright argues for telling the right story first before you try and make sense of each theological category.
So, one challenge I would offer to the way you did this particular topic is that you seem to assume one version of the biblical story - the protestant evangelical version - and then proceed to evaluate each position from that perspective.
There are sometimes subtle, sometimes quite large differences in the various ways one might tell the story itself, but it is in those differences that those 11 different perspectives exist in the first place. In that regard, if your listener assumes the story you are assuming, that story is incompatible with any of the inclusivist views; however, if you start with a different way of telling the biblical story, the orthodox way of telling the story, for example, you would have a hard time concluding anything different than the conclusions about hell and salvation they draw.
What I’m trying to say is that it is the overarching paradigm or way of telling the story that matters to each position, which I realize if you tried to tell each version of the story as well as their view on this topic and how they fit together, would be one long and massive video.
Anyway, not sure if that even makes sense, but do appreciate what you have done here and your heart for doing it.
How does the orthodox way of telling the overarching story differ? Thank you
Good stuff. Especially considering your position. Helpful stuff, bro.
Interesting that you titled this "doctrine of hell" as I usually associate that with the debates over torment vs annihilation vs purgatory vs etc.
Great summary! 👍
Killer video as usual - rooting for the video on arguments for and against universalism
May look into George W Sarris for his views and there's a debate on YT.
@@sonnymustarseed7034George Sarris has a good book on this too
A couple of issues with the framework. We don’t all define salvation the same. Nor do we all agree that heaven and hell are actual “places” one can go to “when we die.”
A more mystical view, for instance, sees the kingdom of heaven within. And salvation can be understood as spiritual transformation, as one becomes a partaker of the Divine Nature. Kenosis leading to theosis.
Recently I read Fr Richard Rohr’s book called “The Universal Christ”. Here the Franciscan view not only refutes Original Sin and violent atonement theologies, but also sees the incarnation as beginning with creation itself. And thus all of creation is included in what God is up to. This is a universalist view, but is not really about everyone “going to heaven.”
Likewise, the Eternal Christ is expressed as a concept much bigger than Jesus of Nazareth, who obviously had a point of origin. And in this view, they are not to be confused or conflated with one another.
So too, when it comes to the question of religious pluralism, the presumption of certain atonement theologies can make Jesus more necessary. Whereas coming to a recognition of the Indwelling Christ (by whatever name) is a rather different understanding than certain transactional theories of justification.
Meanwhile your introduction of the subjective v objective nature of salvation, I found fascinating. Though of course it still assumes a salvific role to the cross that a more Girardian understanding would obviously undermine.
The cross can also be understood as symbolic, and thus it is our death that leads to our resurrection as we in a way exchange our life for the life of the Divine. This seems to be what Paul suggests in Colossians 3 and Galatians 2…
“For I have been crucified with Christ, and it is no longer I who live, but Christ lives in me.” (Gal 2:20)
This was clear, thank you for this!
This is such a good video!
great as always! i am with “the popes”. looking forward to all the other videos in the channel!
actually, i am not sure if this is the spot for a request, bur here it goes: could you do something on jean-luc marion? i just found out about his work, and it seems super dense. i am sure you would make it more ... presentable
Hey, I'm looking forward for the 5 views of exclusivism. Also, what about the views of Karl Barth and N. T. Wright mentioned in the description?
Besides, great summary of the differences between the inclusivists, and the editing with all these charts and all really improves the comprehension.
May the Lord keep blessing your work!
Oh no this is embarrassing, I recorded the video a few weeks ago and forgot which theologians I actually mentioned by name so when I wrote the description I just listed some from the top of my head haha. I'll change the description so I'm not guilty of promoting fake news
@@CalebSmith3 Now it makes sense haha.
Actually I think that C. S. Lewis articulated the "anonymous Christian" idea well before Rahner.
As Pope Francis presumably holds the doctrine of purgatory, doesn't he also believe in salvation after death?
Interesting video. A little clarification. The papacy doesn't have an individual theology. The man on the seat does. The papacy has a public theology available in doctrine. Where do you say Bishop Barron falls? Hotel
Hopeful universalism.
Can you review some of Rob Bells stuff sometime? Maybe go through the evolution of his views? I grew up on his content in the Velvet Elvis days and don't know how he ended up where he is.
I've actually had the same idea for a video myself!
'Love Wins' didn't fully get me to change my mind but did loosen the scales on my eyes about the doctrine if ECT aka infernalism. It did open the door to farther investigation to the good news of The Victorious Gospel aka the Blessed Hope aka Historic Christian Universalism. ;)
The Bible is my foundation for truth. Because of this, I don't like Rob Bell's message. He has said Himself that the Bible has errors and man's opinion. So, his source for truth is himself.
What is the difference between Pinnock's inclusivism and universalism? What is the significance of 1 on the subjective-objective question? If it means thst we are all objectively saved whether we know it or not, then he is a universalist; if it means that not all people are saved then I didn't understand the view marked by the objective-subjective box on the chart.
Universal Salvation is the way.
Christ died for all so that all will be saved -> anything less cannot be called good news.
Did you make another video? What about conditional immortality?
It seems this had more to do with salvation than hell. I think he should retitle it. I hold to Conditional Immortality myself.
If the theology scares you, then it is not true. God is unconditional love. Enlightenment is light. Be as a little child. Little children love to laugh and play. Laugh and play and you will be on the right track.
This was helpful for me to realize I would be near the top of this list. Curious as to (good) reasons as to why you wouldn’t consider yourself on the inclusive spectrum at all 🥺
this nigga reformed bro
George costanza got me to click
This video wasn't about hell. It was about salvation. Should be retitled. The bible is my foundation for truth. I will say this. I believe that someone can get saved that never heard the gospel. Here is how I see it. I heard a story about an African tribe. An elder in the tribe had a conviction that what they were doing was wrong. The idols they were worshiping were not gods. He brought the people together and said that we should all pray that the true God reveals Himself to us. Soon after that, Mormon missionaries showed up. But they rejected their message and didn't believe it was truth. Later, evangelical Christians showed up and they believed. Here is what I think happened here. Hebrews 11:6 says that God is a rewarder of those who diligently seek Him. I believe the Holy Spirit revealed the truth to that tribe before they heard the Gospel. They may not have known with their mind, but they knew the truth in their hearts. They knew that their pagan idiolatry was wrong. They knew Mormonism was wrong. They were seeking the true God and He showed Himself to them. What of those who never hear the gospel in their life time? It's very simple. They seek after the true God and believe. This is the work by the Holy Spirit, who I believes works in all people. But many reject him. I am not inclusive. Salvation is still through Christ alone. But if they believe the true creator God, then they are believing in Jesus. They will know in their hearts that the false religions are not worshiping the true God.
The wisest course of thinking about this subject. If the worst possible explanation cannot be absolutely disproved then I would not seek to present the salvation that Jesus Christ purchased for those that believe as any less a rescue operation that failed to address it, even if all the other less horrible scenarios had some semblance of credulity. Likewise I reason that if God sent Jesus Christ to rescue those that believe from the absolute worst scenerio of Hell then is it not reasonable that God gets the greatest possible glory. AS for me I wish to present to all out there an eternal Hell that has elements of both worst possible scenarios. What if both of these are true. (1) That a finite sin against an infinite God demands infinite punishment. (2) Lost men delivered to Hell continue to sin in Hell and therefore as time progresses their sins still increase along with the level of punishment each sin demands. There is of course also the problem of original sin and sin as a nature. though sin is in one sense what we do it is far worse if it also is what we are. I must believe Jesus took care of all aspects of sin. The 901 categories of what we do and the original sin of Adam and Eve we inherited as well as the worse aspect of sin ie what we are when we were born. I remember Malcolm Smith teaching on this horror story. Malcolm claimed that if we could see those among the damned say a million years from today that we would be totally horrified what monsters we would see. He also claimed that those in heaven become more righteous holy loving and will resemble God more and more as time goes on. So much so that we would fall down and worship ourselves. Dr John Vernon McGee used to tell us that Revelation 22:11 was the viewpoint of the lost from eternity future. 'Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be holy still. McGee said that this verse did not imply that a steady state had been reached for those that delved into the Greek tenses moods cases etc further it was better translated with this sense . Revelation 22:11 He that is unjust, let him be made more unjust still: and he which is filthy, let him be made more filthy still: and he that is righteous, let him be made more righteous still: and he that is holy, let him be made more holy still. This was the most terrifying view of the lost in eternity that was imaginable. I could think of nothing worse than this. That is why I avoid like the plague any view of Hell that tries to claim either that there is a moment of non existence or a universal salvation of some kind.
Can you do a video on Calvinism? I’m struggling with it. Edit: not understanding it but why God would choose some and send the others to hell.
The Calvinist position is that God wants to show both his wrath in sending people to hell and his mercy in salvation.
Calvinism is a morally incoherent type of Chistianity. Luther went off in the wrong direction and Calvin followed him. I hope you've found a better type by now. How's that going?
@@js1817 Better. Thanks.
See Robert M Price on hell,Bart Ehrman Heaven ang Hell
Dear friend, you do great work, but it is far from being full version of how people build the paradigm of their metastory!!! Somebody wrote on that already here somewhere. It is pointless to assess this topic without presenting a big picture (for example of the orthodox church or like Nicolas Berdyaev presented it!!!) Please, take the note of this point..., it is crucial in explaining than, why do they see this particular topic that way!!! Nicolas Berdyaev is brilliant anyway on many similar issues:) 😉
You’re lucky you weren’t born on an island then, Caleb
.OCD much?
Jesus doesn't save. He was just the messenger. Love saves which he taught. Believe in love. Do his two commandments which are all about love. "All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” There is no punishment. For 99.99999% of our world history, Jesus was not physical or known. We've been on earth for thousands and thousands of years all over the world far away from the Middle East.
Hell is a state of being. It is not a place that God created. If you have a "can't do" attitude, then you are in hell. If you are a negative person and therefore experiencing fear and anger, then you are in hell. If you are a drug addict or alcholic, you are in hell. The Prodigal Son was in hell. It is rock bottom. From there you can find heaven by changing.
So many viewpoints, and there is no rational reason to believe in any of them
Terrible to talk of God in this manner.
It's what I cannot stomach about religion, especially church, and evangelical even more so.
I’m not sure why I am wasting my time watching this. That whole “Jesus died for our sins” thing is ridiculous. Why did god have to do that-it’s a crazy plan. God could have just pardoned everyone. And Jesus came back to life three days later, so how much of a sacrifice was that? If I could suffer for two days and then had to be dead for three days and then I got to come back to life to solve some world problem I’d be signing up for that once a month. Honestly, I as eleven years old when I figured out that Christianity didn’t make much sense. Listening to this was like listening to a Quanon believer. How did the algorithm put this in my cue? And since when as CS Lewis the Protestant pope?
The CS Lewis Protestant pope thing was my attempt at humor. The algorithm does work in mysterious ways.
If you don't like this view of the atonement of Jesus, know that they are more views than this.
"God cannot forgive you unless He punishes someone else" is not how all christians understood the work of Christ on the cross.