I haven’t had a chance to read it all yet, but it looks interesting. Here’s the headings and conclusion. Note: I don’t deny the existence of Hell, just the existence of ECT.
Gehenna fire: what, when & where ?
Should not our understanding of Jesus’ use of “GEHENNA”, emphasise the future, OT prophecies about the 7 months of disposing* of bodies there (Ezekiel 39:12-15), after Jesus returns, as Messiah, at his Second Coming (to defeat the Beast’s armies, as they converge on Jerusalem). * perhaps some of the corpses will have to be cremated, as Zechariah 14:12-15 appears to say that many will die from plague i.e. disease of some sort !!
The majority of books & commentators (to this day) continue to say that, when Jesus mentioned “Gehenna fire”, he was primarily referring to the burning of rubbish etc. in the valley of Hinnom, existing in his day i.e. 1st century AD … to typify the unseen “location” where the immortal souls of the wicked are presumed to go, after death !!! But, read the following 3 web sources for what appears to be a more accurate “future/prophetic view”:-
bbhchurchconnection.wordpress.co … rbage-dump ;
blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/myt … henna.html ;
blog.bibleplaces.com/2011/04/fir … olars.html
The prophets (Joel 3:2ff; Zech 14:2ff) clearly describe all the armies, from round about Israel, assembling in the large Jezreel valley (near Megiddo, Rev 16:13-16); then marching towards Jerusalem, from 3 different directions (n; s.w. & s.e. i.e. from Edom). Then, Messiah Jesus, having returned from heaven, kills the Beast’s armies, Rev 19:21; 20:5 (with the help of a massive earthquake, seismos … megas**, Rev 16:18: much larger than the 4.2-Richter quake of Nov 20, 2007, whose epi-center was in the northern part of the Dead Sea, close to the ancient cities of Sodom & Gomorrah, see Jude 7 !!) … resulting in ~175 miles (Rev 14:20) of corpses littering the Jordan rift valley (Jehoshaphat), down through Edom & beyond, see Joel 3:19 c.f. Is 34:6,10; Rev 14:11.
** c.f. the other NT reference to the Jordan Valley (north of the Dead Sea), referred to in Luke 16: 26 as “chasma mega”, where John the Baptiser performed his symbolic “repentance baptisms”, by leading repentant Jews from Jerusalem & Judea, through/across the River Jordan (from east to west), symbolising the leaving behind sin (Egypt’s “outer darkness”) & entering the Promised Land (c.f. the future Kingdom of God). Read Fuller Seminary’s Colin Brown’s exposition of this, at:- biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/baptist_brown.pdf
The combination of the massive earthquake & Messiah Jesus’ intervention (plague etc.), will result in so many corpses, that it will take 7 months to bury them all, we are told. Also, it will take 7 years to burn (as fuel) all the instruments of war abandoned down the length of the Jordan rift valley (see Ez 39:9,10).
Tophet:- “… already in Old Testament times, the Valley of Hinnom was associated with the (millennial) destiny of the wicked. That the valley was just outside the city of Jerusalem made it an appropriate symbol for those excluded from divine blessing”. See Jer 7:31,32; Is 30:33; 66:24 [perhaps the tradition of burying righteous (?) Jews in the eastern Kidron valley & on the slopes of the Mount of Olives, goes way, way back to Jesus’ day & even BC (favoured because Messiah was predicted to come from the east, through the city’s east gate, Ezekiel 44:1), & perhaps Gentiles & unrighteous Jews were, therefore, buried in the southern Hinnom valley, Gehenna, instead … even in Jesus’ day, Mat 5:22; even if historical proof of this is missing ???].
What is certain, however, is that:- "behold, the days are coming, declares the Lord, when it will no more be called Topheth, or the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, but the Valley of Slaughter; for they will bury in Topheth, until no room is left [7 months of burying the dead, to cleanse the holy land, see Jer 7:32; Ez 39:12-15]. IOW, apart from the Beast & the False prophet (Rev 19:20), the rest, hoi loipoi, of the Beast’s armies/followers are slain by Messiah Jesus (down the Jordan rift valley), & Rev 20:5 tells us that these, hoi loipoi, will miss out on the Millennial Judgment i.e. they will sleep the sleep of death, until the Last Judgment: 1,000 years later [no room, here, to mention the NT’s connection of Hinnom to the Abyss, Luke 8:31 (via Wady en-Nar to Beth Chaduda), where Satan & his angels will be imprisonned for 1,000 years, & then on down to the fiery Lake (Dead Sea)]. Temple Farrar
Jesus talked about Gehenna and Hades, not Hell. I don’t necessarily deny the existence of a state that we call hell, but I do deny that it has much if anything to do with the afterlife, and certainly not as typically presented in mainstream churchianity. The church has completely mischaracterized hades. Gehenna should have been left untranslated, as should Tartarus. Hades is merely the state of being dead.
The wages of sin is DEATH, not eternal conscious torment.
The importance of “hell” is that it is a condition that will be defeated and eliminated permanently.
The only reason Jesus seemed to talk about hell more than anyone else is because translators decided that he needed to. Just as the King James translators decided to translate Sheol as hell, only because they wanted to make hell more prominent in Scripture. I can argue that no one spoke about Hades and Gehenna more than Jesus because it was never the message of the ‘Good News’! Why the hell(pun intended) would any of the disciples NOT talk about hell more than Jesus? Were they really that bad of disciples?
The way our modern day preachers make it sound, hell is on every page of the bible, and the gospel is just one big tract on hell. Let me ask people(haha I realized that UR people are the only ones here) something, since when did justice, mercy, and love take a back seat to hell?! Jesus spoke more about the kingdom of Heaven and God then he ever did about Gehenna and Hades combined!
In Matthew he spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven 31 times. He spoke of Gehenna and Hades only 7 times (the most he ever did) in that gospel. In all four Gospels he spoke of the kingdom of God 53 times. Out of all 4 gospels Jesus spoke of Gehenna and Hades 11 times. So lets see the score,
Heaven/God 84
Hades/Gehenna 11
If Jesus came to give us this brand new revelation (one that could not be found on a page of the Old Testament) if the gospel was really about eternal punishment; then why didn’t he clearly and vocally warn people about it? The reason there are people who only preach about hell is because if hell exists then it is that IMPORTANT to talk about. If Hell truly is the truth then it should consume the believers every waking moment, to warn people about it and tell people to trust in Jesus to save them. Here’s the truth though, Christians talk about hell more than Jesus did.
Which makes Tim Keller’s words ironic,
Here is what we really say to Jesus, “I am more loving than you Jesus, because I actually warn people constantly and without ceasing about hell. I don’t just mention it 11 times in my whole ministry I repeat it again and again and again. I’m less barbaric than you, because I don’t hide the truth of hell in metaphorical stories. I don’t only speak to my friends privately about hell, I shout it from the streets! Unlike your stupid disciples, I speak about it in every sermon I give. I tell people about God’s wrath and his hatred against them, even though you, Jesus Christ my Lord, never once spoke of God’s wrath! I’m more compassionate than you, because I actually warn people about you secret will to damn most of them forever. Yes I show them more love.”
Answering the rest of Keller’s points,
-
No he didn’t, because no biblical author spoke of hell.
-
We are dependent on God for everything anyway! Life, breath, love, peace, joy etc. do we really need hell to make us more dependent on him?
-
The danger of living life for yourself is that you will destroy yourself. The payment of sin is death, you feed sin the end result is death.
-
Yeah Jesus did so much for us according to evangelicals: God(Jesus) creates hell and sends people there forever, just because they are born sinful and unable to live good lives, Jesus comes down and dies so that people don’t have to go to the hell he created…doesn’t make sense does it? Here let me paint a different picture: God creates all things and pronounces them very good, Adam and Eve sin and this creates a curse that eventually leads to death. Death reigns for the time of Adam to the time of Jesus, there is no hope except for this hinted at future Resurrection. Jesus comes and says “I am the Resurrection and the Life”. So our Lord destroys sin by his death and abolished death by resurrection. This is the love of God.
- That is a very misleading statement. Jesus spoke on Gehenna, and the debtor’s jail. There are more difficult passages, but never did He describe this state of judgement as “eternal” or “final”. we’ve read that in. even if we were more sure of translation, there’s enough here to establish reasonable doubt. Also, Jesus did not go against the rest of Scripture, which talks of God’s wrath not lasting forever, though His judgement can be swift and brutal. If Jesus could rise again from the end result of sin through God’s power, so will we. basic Pauline doctrine, that.
in short, no: Jesus did NOT teach about what we’ve established as ECT hell doctrine
- Universalism asserts that we are utterly dependant on God, because it is through His grace He will make us all clean and holy. not by our effort!
- The wages of sin are death…this is the end result of living for yourself. and this is something to which we all are subject, being selfish creatures.
- if Jesus loves the world so much, that He came to save the world, then how much does it contradict that fact that He’d be willing to slow roast most of His children for all eternity? how is love shown by the existence of hell? even Arminian free will theology stretches this to the limit: “i love you SOOOO much i’ll give you so much freedom you can go play with Daddy’s guns and run in the street!”
hmmm neglect charges, maybe?
Conclusion: hell is not important at all!!! contrariwise, it is counterintuitive and contradicts the meta-narrative of the Bible, as well as specific, impossible to mistranslate passages! it’s madness to take passages with ambiguous wording as ultimate truth at the cost of Scriptures which are black and white.
While I think this is a bit misleading, it does interest me that Arminians (like myself) insist that God says: “I love you so much, and I want you to love me in a meaningful sense, with your heart – not with your lips, and so I eternally offer you the liberty to accept (or reject) my love”; despite having scripture explicitly state that every tongue will confess Christ’s Lordship. If Arminianism is true, why would God insist on such lip-service (as traditionally understood)? I suppose this is where I’m compelled to introduce Annihilationism…
i can see what you mean, but, personally i think it’s another perspective of the same doctrine, if that doctrine includes ECT.
but you’re right, annihilationism is the only way to maintain that view without the unBiblical doctrine of ECT.
still, it requires God to fail in His objective, and also means some will be destroyed rather than confess, and that’s a problem as that contradicts the verse you quoted.
and also, you are right to say that He does not want lip service, slaves, robots, or people with broken will. that would be an empty victory.
i believe that God will one day achieve His objective, that we’ll freely choose Him, though one could argue that certain people like Paul were compelled, and evidently the literal translation of “draw” in “if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all men unto me” is actually “DRAG” lol…might be some Taming of the Shrew style love going on here 
but yes, the intact will must CHOOSE to present itself to God freely, or the victory is not complete.
the reason why God chooses to allow us to live in this sin-riddled world, with death our only certainty, becomes clearer as we realise that we must go through this journey that leads, for everyone, to the free choice of life eternal with God. it’s a balancing act of Divine proportions, and only He could pull it off! how to save everyone without creating robots and without losing a single one? yet that’s what Scripture indicates to me to be His plan.
It’s very sad that Tim is so misinformed. As others have noted, Jesus never did, not once, warn of “Hell”. Matthew actually quotes Jesus warning the Jews of Hinnom Valley (Gehenna) more than any other author of scripture. Mark and Luke only quote Jesus once each warning of Hinnom Valley. Jesus warned of judgment to come and punishment of sin in this life and potentially in the life/age to come; but not once does He threaten people with ECT/Hell. Sadly, Tim’s whole article is based on this misinformation, and thus propogates a myth. Sad, very sad.
Hello all,
I was pleased to see there being dialogue specifically regarding Tim Keller. He is someone I have respected for years. He is a dear friend of some friends of ours and we know first hand that he is a man of great integrity and surprising humility for all his success. His wife Kathy also is notable for her grace and humility.
Our small group of Evangelical Universalists just launched a website containing an Open Letter to Tim Keller since it was his teaching that, as we say,“brought us to the very brink of EU”. This was on account of his sweeping sermons and quotes on the restoration of all creation and also his introduction of Lesslie Newbigin’s missional ideas (that our election is an election *for *the world). Ironically Newbigin was a universalist.
We open the **About Us **page with actual quotes by Keller, the Gospel Coalition, Cornelius Plantinga and Michael Williams whom we contend say things they are not supposed to mean but describe the position of the Evangelical Universalists perfectly. Scot McKnight is another we mention on the blog. There are so many now that are resonating with and delivering this message of mission and restoration recently that we can’t even keep up!
They are so close without even realizing it!
Would love to have feedback on the letter. Please offer any suggestions for further clarification or points we failed to cover.
“Phillip”
**godslovewins.com
**
Excellent, Phillip. I understand perfectly what you mean. So many come so close to preaching universalism without realizing it, mainly because they either can’t see or refuse to see the implications of what they say!
Freedom is a funny thing. If I have a glass of lemonade and a glass of iced tea, I can freely choose between them because both drinks appeal to my nature as a human being. If I have a glass of lemonade and a glass of raw sewage, I can still choose between them, but the choice is strongly biased by my nature, and therefore less free. If I have a glass of lemonade and a glass of some liquid I find utterly repulsive, I am no longer free to choose. I am bound by my nature to drink the lemonade. Would I feel angry that my liberty had been somehow compromised? Not at all. I’d enjoy the lemonade and I’d enjoy flushing the other stuff down the drain.
Were I perfectly good by nature, I would find sin utterly repulsive. I would no more reach out my hand to take it than flap my arms and fly. I would have no “liberty” to choose evil, nor would I desire such liberty.
Just as there was a serpent in Eden, there was a serpent in Adam. Adam was very good, not absolutely good. Were he absolutely good, he would not have eaten the apple. By nature, he would have found the very suggestion utterly nauseating. Adam was very good, but perfection would only come through suffering. He had to experience the bitterness of sin existentially, not abstractly. Therefore, God let the snake into Paradise. In mercy, God bound Adam into disobedience. God hanged a stinking mass of sin round his neck like an albatross. God clothed Adam in the bloodied skin of a dead thing.
Some say the serpent in eden WAS the serpent in Adam…
The thing is … EU does not deny necessarily deny or diminish any of the 4 points listed. It merely asserts that the deliverance via the cross Keller believes was provided for some was actually provided for all … even if some must spend a finite amount of time in hell in order to be delivered via the cross.
To put it more bluntly: EU can still have the doctrine of everlasting conscious torment for those who do not embrace the cross, just like Keller, and still be bona-fide EU.
I would assert that what separates EU from traditionalism is not the doctrine of “everlasting conscious torment for those who do not embrace the cross”, but it is the doctrines of
a.) how long people will have the opportunity to embrace the cross and
b.) how many will eventually do so.
So preach it Keller!
I think I am tracking with you and I think that is what I had onlyhoped was true before I became an EU. I remember reading somewhere that CS Lewis said (it could have been someone else so don’t quote me) that yes, he certainly believed in (eternal) hell but he also did not believe anyone would be there. That stuck in my mind and gave me a “notion” to hang on to until God in His time would finally reveal to me full UR. (The reason I think it was Lewis is because I remember thinking that his other writings don’t agree with that and yet at the same time many of his fantasies take huge liberties with the traditional view of eschatology implying he believed in a much bigger picture than he let on. My personal experience with Lewis is that he was all over the map and very hard to pin down on this issue.)
Anyway, I digress! So are you saying that we could believe there IS an eternal hell but that the cross was simply effectual enough to ensure that no one end up there which would satisfy the traditionalists assertion that we are saved from the eternal wrath of God?
I have thought that that would be a way for the traditionalists to embrace UR and not compromise some of their doctrines.
And that is how I have often listened to Keller simply filtering it through the UR view which is in my opinion pretty easy to do since he never qualifies his sweeping statements of restoration. He did a sermon on Ez 16/Isa 19 that actually confused some people into thinking he actually WAS teaching UR!
But in the final analysis I would personally have to disagree on account of the fact that the Bible seems to teach that it is death that is the wages of sin and not ECT. Also it still leaves in tact a god who “needs” to use a retributive punishment (even hypothetically) in order to be just. But I think it could be a good starting point for some individuals as they are weaning off of the traditional view. I don’t think we need to force people to see everything at once.
Phillip
godslovewins.com
That sounds like a strangely illogical thing for Lewis to say. My question to him would be, what is the purpose of an ‘eternal’ hell if no one is in it?
I looked at your website and really liked it btw. I really loved the open letter to Tim Keller there! I think it’s funny how many good bible teachers actually do unwittingly teach aspects of UR without realizing it.
I like that firedup! I wouldn’t have much problem with hell, as long as there is hope at the end, mabye “hell” is kind of like the pigpen for the prodigal son? just a bad place to hang out til people come to their senses, and will find the Father out waiting for them? 
Yes it was very illogical but at the time when I read it I was grabbing at straws if you know what I mean. It made a bit of sense because the Bible did seem to teach EH but I did note the verses that seemed to contradict that God was going to lose anyone to hell. I guess the person who said it (Lewis? It was probably caught in a letter to someone that got published, you know things you believe but don’t let on publicly) was thinking that the purpose of EH was to say: look what I saved you from, here’s what My wrath entails and what the cross saved you from…? (…yeah, doesn’t really work).
I added an addendum to that last post btw.
Thanks for the encouraging words regarding the site!
Phillip
godslovewins.com
No problem; My wife isn’t a very theological person, but I had her read the letter, and she really liked it. I also agree with your addendum, that we should not (nor can we!) force anyone to see it all at once…My experience is that seeing any of it at all is only by the grace of God, like everything else!
I think that is exactly what it is and I use that “analogy” (God-inpired at that) on our website to help people see that as there is a temporal “free-will” where we do chose which way we will go, God has His means to bring us to our senses and in alignment with His heart. And I don’t think the prodigal looked back at his time in the pigpen and ever said, “gee, that was totally worth the trip”. No one will say that the refining fire was worth the season of sin, no one. But the gospel is that the Father is waiting for each one of us to come home from either a life of overt sin (the younger) or covert sin (the older). And as always the sooner the better, for two reasons: to avoid the pain of chastisement and also to receive the unspeakable blessings and experiences we would miss out on if we were in a “far country”!
Phillip
phillip macdonald wrote:
Yeah, I think that’s what I’m saying. Certainly it is true that if someone does not repent they will be in a place of conscious torment, however you wish to define “conscious torment” and wherever you wish to place it. If theoretically they never repent, then they will be in an everlasting place of “conscious torment”. So at least in theory, ECT is true. EU would teach that there is always a chance for repentance and that eventually all will. But EU never denies that “conscious torment” exists for the unrepentant.
So after everyone eventually repents, will God still keep the place of torment around … as a reminder of what we have been redeemed from? Maybe. To me it does not matter. The point is that to embrace EU you do not have to discard the idea that “conscious torment” exists for the unrepentant for as long as they continue to in their unrepentance, which *theoretically *could be forever.
I think many traditionalist are worried that EU necessarily diminishes our conception of the how bad sin is and how much we deserve a forever hell. Individual EU people may do this in their theology just like individual Calvinists may do this in their theology. But it is not inherent (or necessary ) to the EU approach. Under EU, hell can be whatever hell is for a Calvinist or an Arminian. It can be as bad and deserved as you want to consider it to be. We can all debate how bad and deserved it is, but in my mind it is not at the heart of EU (as I expressed in my earlier post.)
In the back of my mind many of my comments on this site have to with focusing on the main differences between EU and traditionalism, as I am engaged in communication with many traditionalists quite routinely. I want people to see how compelling the logical arguments for EU are. With this in mind I don’t want to get sidetracked by nonessentials, such as how bad hell is or how much we deserve an everlasting hell. With a guy like Keller I want to say: "Lets just all agree to consider hell to be the worst it can be and lets just consider an everlasting hell to be what we all deserve. (At least for the sake of argument.) And yes, the doctrine of hell, as you have described it, is important. Now … let’s talk about what really divides us … "
What is so attractive about about EU is not that it limits the severity, deservedness, or theoretical duration of hell, but that it redefines the intent of hell, from one of RETRIBUTION to one of REDEMPTION.