Points of agreement on Hell

Edinburgh, 1995: Colourized (More like it actually was)

Points of agreement on Hell 

Points of agreement on Hell (a)

I admit that I am not in the spiritual and academic position to verify any person's Heaven or Hell account for absolute truthfulness. As it is not a canonized story from the New Testament, reasoned to be the inspired, inherent, word of God, an account could be non-fiction reality, fiction or a dream. An account can be a very tricky proposition. I therefore, do not endorse this video or the ministry. I do not know this man and I have only listened to two presentations. I do not have an exhaustive knowledge of the theology of his ministry.

Heaven and Hell stories often contradict the New Testament and biblical theology and would have me doubt them as authentic. However, this presentation, whether non-fiction reality, fiction or dream, based on bible and theology has some significant concepts in common with my own 'Hell theory' and Hell theology. To be clear, I do reason a person with significant theological knowledge could arrive with reasonably biblical conclusions without a 'Hell' visit.

As stated, I viewed two presentations from this speaker:

Points of agreement on Hell (b)

The Trinity

The Biblical God is demonstrated as triune. The Trinity. 

Matthew 28-19-20, a classic key, New Testament of the triune God.

English Standard Version (ESV)

19 Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you. And behold, I am with you always, to the end of the age.” 

Millard Erickson in 'Christian Theology' expresses a Biblical, orthodox (not meaning Orthodox Church here) position on the Trinity via the Council of Constantinople (381). Erickson (1994: 335). A formula ὑποστάσεις was expressed, which expressed three separate persons that exist simultaneously in three modes of being or hypostases. Erickson (1994: 335). The idea being the Godhead is undivided in essential nature, in divided persons. Erickson (1994: 335).

Greek scholar Walter Bauer defines 'Hupostasis' the original word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡit from the Greek as substantial nature, essence, actual being, reality. In the context of Hebrews 1: 3 the Son of God is the exact representation of God’s real being. (847).

God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit, as three distinctions within the Godhead, with one essential nature, are in sovereign control of Hades. According to the New Testament, the atoning and resurrection work of Jesus Christ, applied to those in Jesus Christ, is the only means of human salvation. Notably, John 1, and John 14, as key examples.

Degrees of literalness

The Scripture and the book of Revelation, describes Hades and Hell with degrees of literalness, that could often be described as figurative literal language. Mounce notes is his Revelation commentary that the eschatological presentation in the Revelation, text, offers degrees of literalness. Mounce reasons that most scholars allow for varying levels of literal interpretation in regard to the new creation. (369). Mounce further demonstrates the rather figurative literal (not mythological, non-fictional, my add) nature of this eschatological language in Revelation. The reference to 'no longer any sea' (New American Standard Bible, my add) is likely a reference to a dread of the sea by many ancient cultures. The sea was viewed as an evil. To state that through the metaphorical use of 'sea' that evil will no longer exist in the new order, seems far more intellectually palatable than attempting to explain the lack of major water bodies in a new creation within an everlastingly liveable (livable) universe for human beings. 

Sinful human nature

The sinful human nature (via the fall) is abundantly exposed. (Romans, Revelation, as examples).

People in Hades might become progressively more evil, being further past the time of common grace when he/she was alive on earth and experienced much of God's goodness. I opine, not dogmatically, that all citizens in hell may become increasingly more insane. Hades seems to be about continually experiencing one's own embraced sinful nature and sinful thoughts, acts and actions. This serves as punishment. (The Gospels, Luke 16, Revelation as examples).

There is an aspect of these citizens of earth knowing there is a God (Romans 1), without embracing knowledge of God by grace through personal, trusting faith; instead embracing a rejection of God. There is a rejection of the triune God. There is a rejection of Jesus Christ and the gospel. As one of my previous pastors stated: There is a God, and it is not you. God in a sense, is demonstrating love to humanity that rejects him, by allowing citizens of Hades to live forever opposed to him.

The problem of the physical, post-mortem

However, the speaker (in the two long videos I viewed) does not deal with the issue of how physicality is granted to disembodied spirits. I have speculated that perhaps both Hades and Paradise have a simulated physicality, from a human perspective, for a sense of continuity with this present realm and the future permanent realms where humanity exists.

Those in Hades (Hell1) ultimately are resurrected  according to many scholars, and placed into the lake of fire (Hell2) (Revelation 20). Those in Jesus Christ (Revelation 20-22), are physically resurrected (1 Corinthians 15, 1-2 Thessalonians) and move from Paradise (Heaven1) to residing in the culminated Kingdom of God (Heaven2). If a person is alive at resurrection, the believer in Christ becomes resurrected.

Prior to the resurrection of human beings, the very significant problem of supposed physicality for disembodied spirits, exists. This should be dealt with philosophically and theologically by those that claim they have been to Heaven or Hell. If not, the issue remains intellectually problematic...

For more on Near Death Experiences see

Gary Habermas.com

BAUER, WALTER. (1979) A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament, Translated by Eric H. Wahlstrom, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

BRUCE, F.F. (1987) Romans, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

CRANFIELD, C.E.B. (1992) Romans: A Shorter Commentary, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

DUNNETT, WALTER M. (2001) Exploring The New Testament, Wheaton, Crossway Books.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic. 

ERICKSON, MILLARD J. (1996) ‘Second Coming of Christ’, in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books.

ERICKSON, MILLARD (1994) Christian Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Book House.

FEE, GORDON D. (1987) The First Epistle To The Corinthians, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

FINKBEINER, DOUGLASE (2004) Interpreting Luke 16: Abraham, Lazarus, and the Rich Man-Parable or History?, Lansdale, PA , Calvary Baptist Theological Seminary.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HUGHES, PHILIP, EDGCUMBE (1990) A Commentary On The Epistle To The Hebrews, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MARSH, PAUL, W. (1986) ‘1 Corinthians’, in F.F. Bruce, (ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/Zondervan

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1990) The Book of Revelation, Grand Rapids, William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company.

MOUNCE, ROBERT H. (1995) The New American Commentary: Romans, Nashville, Broadman & Holman Publishers.

PORTER, LAURENCE.E. (1986) ‘Luke’, in F.F. Bruce (gen.ed.), The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Marshall Pickering/ Zondervan.

STRONG, J. (1890)(1986) Strong’s Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible, Pickering, Ontario, Welch Publishing Company. 

The Orthodox Study Bible, New Testament and Psalms, (1993) Saint Athanasius Orthodox Academy,Thomas Nelson Publishers, Nashville, Tennessee. 

  

Such Trivial Objections

York scan, 1997

Such Trivial Objections

August 16, 2017 review of this fallacy in the Pirie text, edited on August 27, 2022.

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

Trivial Objections

Trivial objections leave a central thesis largely unchallenged. (199).

In other words, the major premise (s) of an argument is not reasonably, intellectually countered, but instead trivial points in objection are made. (Based on 199).

Example, (via 199):

I am opposed to the new highway system going through our beautiful town.

It will make our maps out of date.

(Maps can be changed, online and offline.)

Pirie explains this fallacy is similar to the straw man (see recent entry in archives), in that it does not counter the main premise (s) of an argument, but deals with the trivial. (199). Some trivial objections may be true, but regardless the approach is fallacious and does not deal with the core argument. (199).

Example:

I am unconvinced by the biblical story.

The Bible does not deal with modern scientific objections.

(The Bible is presenting compiled, well-supported by manuscripts, texts of religious history from the Hebrew Bible and New Testament. It is not a science text, nor is it dealing with scientific objections of the modern or any era. A reasonable critique of the Bible must be made in the context the texts presented.)

According to Pirie, the trivial objections are designed to destroy the argument of the opposition, but they are not up to the task. It does not make the objections 'erroneous', but they are not adequate. (199).

The biblical critic reasonably should deal with the biblical story via worldview, theology and philosophy of religion considerations and not demand scientific explanations, as the bible texts are not science texts. But scientific critiques of biblical texts may or may not be sound, based on Pirie's idea that trivial objections are not necessarily erroneous.

Pirie explains that trivial objections can provide hypothetical situations in an attempt to debunk an argument. (200).

Example:

I would love to accept your invitation to discuss the importance of church membership.

But the stress might cause me to have a heart attack.

(This person does not want to be a church member)

Citing 

Neil Godrey from Vridar 

'The problem with trivial objections is that they leave the central thesis largely untouched. It is fallacious to oppose a contention on the basis of minor and incidental aspects, rather than giving an answer to the main claim which it makes. . . .The fallacy is akin to that of the straw man. Instead of facing the main opponent, in this case it is only a few aspects of it which are confronted. The trivial objections are possibly valid, the point is that they are also trivial, and not adequate to the work of demolishing the case which is presented. The fallacy is committed because they are not up to the task to which they are assigned, not because they are erroneous. . . . .' (End citation)

Key propositions and/or premises and conclusion, need to be properly and reasonably dealt with, as opposed to focusing on side issues.

Key issue: The person broke the law and slandered someone in public.

Side issue: The person has bad breath and should use mouthwash.

BLACKBURN, SIMON (1996) Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy, Oxford, Oxford University Press. 

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Oxford Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

CONWAY DAVID A. AND RONALD MUNSON (1997) The Elements of Reasoning, Wadsworth Publishing Company, New York. 

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

GODFREY, NEIL (2016) 'Trivial Fallacies of a Hostile Anti-Mythicist' Vridar. https://vridar.org/2016/04/04/trivial-fallacies-of-a-hostile-anti-mythicist/

LANDER.EDU (1997-2020) Licensed under GFDL https://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/authority.html 

LANGER, SUSANNE K (1953)(1967) An Introduction to Symbolic Logic, Dover Publications, New York. (Philosophy). 

MCDONALD, H.D. (1996) ‘Bible, Authority of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books. 

MCRAY, J.R. (1996) ‘Bible, Canon of', in Walter A. Elwell (ed.), Evangelical Dictionary of Theology, Grand Rapids, Baker Books

PIRIE, MADSEN (2006)(2015) How To Win Every Argument, Bloomsbury, London.

SAMPLES, KENNETH (2014) How to Evaluate an Abductive Argument, Reasons to Believe, Covina, California.

The Book of Philippians: Theme

Sunday

The Book of Philippians: Theme

Hewlett explains that the Apostle Paul is thankful for the Christian fellowship with the church at Philippi, even as he is imprisoned. Hewlett (1440).

The Apostle Paul has been encouraged by the arrival of Epaphroditus from that church (Philippians 2). Hewlett (1440). The Apostle 'pays warm tribute to the repeated generosity of the church'. Martin (42).

But, the Apostle, is troubled by the lack of harmony in the church. Hewlett (1440). This church is to be 'marked by the mind of Christ' according to the Apostle. Hewlett (1440). Chapter 2, verses 1-2, explains from Paul that via the Holy Spirit, joy should be made complete by maintaining the same love, united in spirit and intent on one purpose. In context, the gospel purpose.

There is a call for 'unity and concord' from the Apostle. Martin (43). There is a call for a Christian standard of behaviour toward others in the Church. Martin (43).

The Apostle writes against Judaizers on one hand, and 'libertines' (1440), on the other hand. Hewlett (1440). These are enemies of the cross of Christ. Hewlett (1448). See Philippians, Chapter 3.

The Judaizers are those who rely on law over grace and the gospel, atonement of resurrection of Christ (Ephesians 1-2). The 'libertines' are those who deny the atonement and resurrection in a spiritual liberty leading to death and destruction. Martin mentions that there may have been a 'perfectionist' wing in the church at Philippi. Martin (43-44). Is there overlap with this possible group and Judaizers?

The Elwell text opines that within the Book of Philippians, there are those that advocate for a combination of the atonement and resurrection of Christ and also the continuation of Mosaic law, and rituals, such as circumcision. Elwell (297). This is the Judaizers. The Apostle Paul responds by stating that the heirs to the law are those in the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Elwell (297). The Judaizers opposed the cross of Christ by requiring the works of the law. Gundry (302).

Even as scholarship was not crystal clear in parsing these groups, in my opinion, Philippians does not exhaustively explain the nature of these groups. The Apostle Paul's theology is clear:

A gospel that does not embrace that the atonement and resurrection of Jesus Christ saves believers alone, is not the true, New Testament gospel. Those that promote a false gospel are enemies of the cross of Christ (3:18). Leland Ryken correctly reasons that the Apostle Paul embraced Jesus Christ's teaching that false teacher's exist and that Paul's example was to be followed. Ryken (458).

Hewlett writes that the church should not consist of those with 'selfish individualism'. Hewlett (1448). Paul expressed the need for Christian unity in love. Hewlett (1448).

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

ELWELL, WALTER AND YARBROUGH, ROBERT W., Third Edition (2013) Encountering The New Testament, Grand Rapids, Baker Academic.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

RYKEN, LELAND (2015) Literary Introduction to the Books of the Bible, Crossway, Wheaton, Illinois.

The Book of Philippians: Date

Sunday

The Book of Philippians: Date

Ralph P. Martin documents the establishment of the church in Phillippi as the entrance of the gospel of Jesus Christ onto the continent of Europe. Martin (17). Martin bases this on the description from Acts 16: 12-40. Martin (17). Phillippi was located in Macedonia, which is now in modern Greece.

The traditional dating of this Philippians epistle is associated with the Apostle Paul's time in prison in Rome. Martin (17). Therefore, it is considered one of the prison epistles. Robert Gundry dates the text at 62-63 A.D. Gundry (364).

Martin describes two theories, where Paul could have written the text:

One is the proposed captivity of Paul, near Ephesus, in 54-55. There is another Roman captivity from Acts 28: 30 which dates from 61-63 A.D. Martin (37), which is the classic view.

Hewlett states that the Acts 28: 30 theory of the later date is the historically held view. Hewlett (1440). However, the earlier view based on Paul's time in Ephesus has gained some support in more modern times. Hewlett (1440). Hewlett writes that there is no scriptural, documented imprisonment of Paul in Ephesus, although this might have taken place in 2 Corinthians 11: 23. Hewlett (1440). He reasons the evidence for the traditional Roman captivity view, later on chronologically, is the stronger view based on evidence. Hewlett (1440). Oxford's Browning opines that there is no clear evidence for the imprisonment of Paul at Ephesus. Brown (294). Therefore, an earlier dating for the text seems academically questionable.

BROWNING, W.R.F. (1997) Dictionary of the Bible, Oxford, Oxford University Press.

GUNDRY, ROBERT (1981) A Survey of the New Testament, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

HEWLETT, H.C. (1986) 'Philippians' in The International Bible Commentary, Grand Rapids, Zondervan.

MARTIN, RALPH P. (1987) Philippians, Grand Rapids, IVP.

***A note for those that may be excessively challenged with geography: The book of Philippians was not written in the Philippines and it is not specifically written to people in or from the Philippines.

Although I can admit that it would be handy if it was, so these both could have the same English spelling.