Board index ‹ Heaven and Hell

[Holly and Ivy]

"The Bible says that people who have the nature of sin go to hell, and those who have the nature of Jesus go to heaven."
Citation please.

[jimwalton]

The Bible says sin is more than just the things we do—our actions. It's also our nature. Just as a dog is a dog not just because he barks and fetches, but because he's a dog by nature. That's mostly a "well, duh" kind of statement, but that's the idea. We are sin by nature (2 Cor. 5.21 talks about Jesus "becoming" sin, not "committing" it; also look at Rom. 7.5). That means we are separated from the life of God, naturally oriented to self, without natural inclinations to seek God or obey Him, and that it's perfectly natural for us to screw things up. Francis Spufford says, "Sin refers to our human propensity to f*** things up. It’s not just our tendency to lurch and stumble and screw up by accident, our passive role as agents of entropy. It’s our active inclination to break stuff—moods, promises, relationship we care about, and our own well-being and other people’s, as well as material objects whose high gloss positively seems to invite a big fat scratch." Romans 3.10-18 says it fairly well, you want to look into that. Romans 7.18-23 is another place to read about it.

But when someone comes to Jesus, what happens is that Jesus does a miracle inside of them and changes their nature from that of sin to that of Jesus. It's a complete change, sort of like changing something from a cat to a dog: a change of nature. Not something any creature can do for itself. 2 Cor. 5.17 puts it, "If anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation." Jesus talks about it in terms of being born all over again (Jn. 3.3). "In Christ" is a phrase that appears about 90 times in the New Testament. Instead of having a sin nature, that person now has the nature of Jesus. We now have fellowship with God rather than being separated (1 Jn. 1.3). Our slavery to sin has been broken, and we actually have a nature that is righteousness (Rom. 3.22; 6.13). Righteousness is given to us, like a heart transplant or something. Our whole nature is changed. Romans 6 is a good chapter to read that explains it.

Once we have the nature of Jesus, we are no longer slaves to sin. There used to be no choice other than to follow the paths of sin (our own ways), but now we are free to follow a completely different path. With the new nature, we can actually love God and obey him and slowly be made into his complete image (Rom. 8.29). It's a radical change (miraculous, actually). We don't have the power in ourselves to effect the change (like a cat can't turn himself into a dog). God has to do that for us. It's a gift (grace). We can't earn it, or do anything to deserve it. We just have to respond to the offer of the gift by accepting it, turning away from our sins, and committing ourselves to love God (much like a wedding, y'know): In sickness and health, for better or worse, 'Til death do us part. It's a commitment of choice and of love, responding to an offer of a free gift with the pledge to honor and love with our whole lives.

I hope that helps, but if not, just ask again, or ask more. Glad to talk.

[Wonky]

"God created us to have a love relationship with him"

And yet many of us are incapable of recognizing his existence... that doesn't speak very highly of him creating us to have a relationship with him.

[jimwalton]

It's not a reflection on him, but on you. The Bible says we've all be lied to, and we fell for it, by choice, to the point where we've blinded ourselves to the truth so that we can't see it any more because we don't *want* to see it any more.

Let me make up an analogy, even though all analogies fall short. Bill and Amy used to be married, but they had a falling out and got divorced. Bill was so angry that he worked himself into a frenzy of hatred and bitterness. Amy wanted the marriage, but it just wasn't working out, so she let Bill divorce her. The son went to live with Bill, and the daughter went to live with Amy. As the following months went by, every reminder of Amy made Bill hate her more. He would rant to his son about how awful she was, and what a jerk. Amy was missing Bill (though didn't miss the fighting), and often told her daughter what a good guy Bill was, but that it just didn't work out, and she wished they were back together. She especially missed her son. She would write him cards, but whenever Bill saw them, he expressed his hatred and anger, and he and the son burned them. Amy tried to call, but the son refused to answer. She would send him gifts, but the son would throw them out.

By your statement above, since the son now seems incapable of recognizing his mother, it doesn't speak very highly of her. Hm. I don't get that.

Let me try another story. Suppose you are the treasured pet in a home where the owner loves you more than anything else, and takes care of you with every resource he has. But you choose to run away, because you think life might be more exciting "out there," and you run so far you get lost and don't know where you are. Your owner looks for you every day, but you are too far away from him because you keep running. Let's say, for the sake of the story, you were pregnant and had baby-whatevers. Those babies are born "lost" also, never knowing the owner who loved them. Time passes. In the story, then, the owner sends his son to find any descendants of his pet, and when he finds them, he invites them back to the house. But the "lost ones" don't know the owner, don't understand, are afraid, and don't come. Generations of "pets" die "in the woods" by their own choice and fear, apart from the owner's love and care. But any that will come with the son back to the owner's home are rescued from their lostness and from the death they would have experienced. They can choose to stay separated from the owner, or choose to return with the son to the home of love and care.

Does this, by your accusation, not speak very highly of the owner?

[Jar Jar]

Very interesting, I'll admit I had a flutter of pride when you said I had asked a question from Socrates.

That being said I am confused by your reply. If God does something I perceive as wrong or evil, for example Noah's flood, does that make my perspective of the act incorrect? His commands come from his perfect being and therefore are perfect themselves, unless I am mistaken.

Your second point begs the question of why a person can't let go of sin after death and then enter the kingdom of heaven. What prevents this?

Your third point is interesting. It's hard to believe a person who spoke to God or what have you would actively turn away. Beyond that though, see above. After a few millennia of suffering after death, I can't imagine anyone choosing to stay there when the alternative is a comparatively short negative for eternity in heaven.

[jimwalton]

I'm enjoying the conversation. Thanks for it.

> If God does something I perceive as wrong or evil, for example Noahs flood, does that make my perspective of the act incorrect?

Yes it does. For instance, in Noah's flood, there are some answers we would need to have in order to assess the situation (and God's actions) properly. Without this information, it's hard to place ourselves in a position of authority to judge God.

1. What were the people (the victims of the flood) truly like? The Bible tells us they were corrupt and completely depraved. What information (evidence) do you have to the contrary that would attest to God's unfairness?

2. Is it possible that the flood wasn't global? I personally don't believe in a global flood.

3. What was the population of the continent/world was at the time so we know the qualitative definition of the event? Are we talking thousands, ten-thousands, hundred-thousands, or millions?

4. Was any completely innocent person killed? Can you substantiate that?

5. On what objective basis of morality are you basing your assessment of the "crime"?

6. How are you defining justice, and can you assure me that God did something evil in this action?

> Your second point begs the question of why a person can't let go of sin after death and then enter the kingdom of heaven. What prevents this?

There are legitimate theories of hell and the afterlife that allow for this. They have names like "reconciliationism", "semi-restorationism", and "modified eternalism". While you'd have to want to be a theologian to tackle these things, suffice it to say that Christians and theologians wrestle with these issues all the time: justice, God's character, and eternal fates. I've settled on this: "The Bible says that those who turn away from God will be separated from the life of God. Though we can't be sure about the form or duration of that separation, this we can be sure of: it will be a horrible experience, and God will be fair about the form and duration of it. If you reject God, you take your chances." It's a statement I wrote that I feel pretty good about.

[Wonky]

> The Bible says we've all be lied to, and we fell for it, by choice

Then it's using a different definition of the word lie or choice than we use normally. Because that statement is completely and totally false by any normal usage of those words.

> By your statement above, since the son now seems incapable of recognizing his mother, it doesn't speak very highly of her. Hm. I don't get that.

That may not be the son's fault. If he was young enough that he really accepted what his dad said as true... and the other calls came before he was old enough to build his own take on things, then I don't blame him in the least. The failing is the father's.

> Suppose you are the treasured pet in a home where the owner loves you more than anything else, and takes care of you with every resource he has

Am I actually aware of the existence of this owner? If so, then your story has absolutely nothing to do with my original statement.

> Does this, by your accusation, not speak very highly of the owner?

If the owner set the environment up in such a way that I was incapable of even knowing that he existed, and he's upset that I don't recognize him? Then yes, I fully blame the owner.

[jimwalton]

> Then it's using a different definition of the word lie or choice than we use normally

Not at all.
- Gn. 3.1-7, the serpent clearly lied to Eve, which she acknowledges in v. 13.
- Satan is identified as the "father of lies" in Jn. 8.44.
- Even sin itself is deceitful (Heb. 3.13; Jer. 17.9)

> That may not be the son's fault

As I said, every analogy breaks down somewhere. The point was that he had been lied to and fell for it. If I fall for an Internet scam, yeah, it was the liar's fault, but I'm have some culpability too. I made the decision and I went for the deal. I share at least some of the blame, because I didn't have to choose that.

> Am I actually aware of the existence of this owner?

Yeah you are. The analogy is one of God and humans. You're aware of the person of God, so yeah. You may not believe it, and that's your choice, but you're aware of the owner.

> If the owner set the environment up in such a way that I was incapable of even knowing that he existed

But he hasn't. There are many evidences of his existence, even in the environment.

[Angel]

Well, I'm sure you can understand that the Bible is an incredibly convoluted book that can be hard to get a good understanding of. Personally, a lot of problems with the Bible, an inability to believe and a lot of logical problems led me to ditch my belief in Christianity even though I was incredibly sincere in my belief.

I'm not saying "not interested". I'm very interested in a God that wants a relationship with me and that loves me, but I don't think that it is possible and as much as I have asked, I have seen no indication that He is real. I'm not walking away from Him and saying "no thanks", I'm walking away from an idea that is filled with problems.

And as I noted in my first post, the people who are raised in different cultures being raised to believe different gods generally do not convert to Christianity, and I find this to be a major problem because whether or not you find the "ultimate truth" is often determined by where you were born. I can assume that God will be fair to those people, but the Bible states that those who don't believe will go to Hell. It's hard to justify that.

Anyway, I do not find the concept of Hell fair because while you might have found that you can accept the Bible and the doctrine of Christianity as truth, you must understand that it is not that way for many people—not because they want to be in Hell, and not because they don't wanna experience love, but because they can't make themselves believe.

[jimwalton]

I understand exactly what you're saying. Thanks for talking to me. You're right that the Bible can be an incredibly difficult book. After all, it was written over a period of roughly 1500 years by over 40 different authors, in three different languages from three separate continents. And now we're about 2000 years removed from the last autograph and in a completely different cultural environment and language. Those are huge obstacles. Sorry to hear about your problems with the text. I know that some people have that, but I also find that there's a monstrous amount of misinformation flying around about the Bible. Ridiculous stuff, but people are falling for it. I find, personally, that the deeper I study the Bible the more convinced I become of its truth. The more I dig into the logic of theism vs. the logic of atheism, the more theism makes so much more sense. I find that the "problems" of the Bible are often merely a matter of knowing more about it, that the "logical problems" are minor compared to ditching it and trying to make sense out of a world without God, and that the deeper I go, the more sense it makes. I'm well aware that not everyone has that experience, but that's mine.

> I'm very interested in a God that wants a relationship with me and that loves me

Having been incredibly sincere in your belief in the past, you indubitably recognize that what you desire is the core of what God offers in the Bible. You now wonder if God is real, but I wonder what has led you to that doubt. Is it something we can talk about, because as I said the more seek the more indications I've seen that he *is* real.

> the people who are raised in different cultures being raised to believe different Gods generally do not convert to Christianity

Actually the opposite is what seems to be true. "Christians" in Europe in a previous generation turned away from God by the hundreds of thousands, and Europe is now largely a secular continent. The same thing seems to be happening in America. But there is a HUGE community of believers growing in Muslim countries, China, and Africa, where they were raised to believe in different gods.

> I do not find the concept of Hell fair

We all struggle with the theology of hell, but to me it's not the make-it-or-break-it point. Regardless of what form or duration it is, the Bible is insistent that God will be fair. That's where I hang my hat. If when I die I find that there is no such thing as hell, great. And if there is, I can be confident that God's going to handle things fairly, whatever that may mean. There are many legitimate theories of hell and the afterlife that allow for less than eternal punishment. They have names like "reconciliationism", "semi-restorationism", and "modified eternalism". While you'd have to want to be a theologian to tackle these things, suffice it to say that Christians and theologians wrestle with these issues all the time: justice, God's character, and eternal fates. So don't let that rock your world. Here's what we know:

1. There is an afterlife.
2. God will be fair about it.

And we move on. The crux of the matter is the existence of God and the deity of Jesus, his death and resurrection to save us from sin. Those are the important pieces.