Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Bad Analogies

Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Bad Analogies

“If my two-year-old son runs out into the street, is it unloving to warn him of the destruction coming in the form of a Chevy 4×4?”

This is the first of several questions that Chan asks in chapter four of his book, Erasing Hell, to demonstrate that warning people about hell is a loving thing to do.  The problem I have with Chan’s analogies is that if we were to apply them to the doctrine of eternal torment, then we would end up with God as a very villainous, untrustworthy character.

If eternal torment could be compared to a Chevy 4×4, then God is a hit-and-run serial killer.  After all, in the eternal torment theology, God doesn’t “accidentally” assign people to hell.  In the eternal torment theology, God writes the names of people who trust Him in a book, and when the person dies and their name isn’t in the book, they are thrown into the Lake of Fire.*  Furthermore, someone who is killed in a hit-and-run isn’t continually killed for eternity, they are killed once and then lights out.  We have to use our imaginations to accommodate the “eternal” portion of the doctrine.  So we’ll say that the hit-and-run driver has the supernatural ability to restore life, and he uses this ability to continually drive his Chevy 4×4 over Chan’s two-year-old son, bring him back to life, run him over again, ad infinitum, ad nauseam.

Now, as if this were not bad enough, we still haven’t covered the most flawed aspect of this analogy.  Chan wants people to trust the driver – the one bringing the destruction.  Chan asks in the final pages of the book, “Do you know Him?  Are you secure in Him?  In love with Him?” and “Turn to God.  Embrace Him.  Trust Him.  Put your faith in Him.”

I ask Chan, if it is true that God is worth knowing, if it is true that He is a source of security and love, if it is true that God is One who is worthy of trust and doesn’t disappoint faith, then won’t this always be true of God, even if a person dies without believing it to be true?  I expect that Chan and others who defend the doctrine of eternal torment would answer this with an emphatic NO.  Chan says we “choose or reject God.”

There is much more to be said about that, but for today, how does choosing or rejecting God fit the analogy?  If you choose the driver, he won’t run you over.  If you reject the driver, he will run you over.  Does that make sense? I hope not.  This is a twisted version of the Good News that does not honor God.

Chan writes, “Do you know Him?  Are you secure in Him?  In love with Him?” and “Turn to God.  Embrace Him.  Trust Him.  Put your faith in Him.”  A different perspective from scripture sheds new light on what seems to be (the way Chan words it) salvation that depends on us:

“…this is the life [aionios], that they may KNOW Thee, the only true God, and [the Son] whom [the Father] didst send – Jesus Christ…”

(SECURE) – “He is able also to save [panteles – “all complete, entire”] those who draw near to God through Him, He [pantote – “at all times”] lives to make intercession for them.”

“God is LOVE.”  “LOVE never fails.”

We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to his own way; and the LORD has laid on [Jesus] the [avon – “punishment for iniquity”] of us all.”  “The goodness of God leads you to [metanoia – “change of mind” or TURN].”

(EMBRACE)  “…and [the prodigal son] being yet far distant, his father saw him, and was moved with compassion, and having ran he fell upon his neck and kissed him…”

(TRUST)  “What if some were unfaithful? Does their faithlessness nullify the faithfulness of God? By no means!”

“Because we know that a man is not justified by works of The Written Law, but by the FAITH of Yeshua The Messiah, we also believe in Yeshua The Messiah, that we should be made right by the FAITH of The Messiah, and not by the works of The Written Law, because no one is made right by the works of The Written Law.”

* Regarding the Lake of Fire – Many Christians believe hell = Lake of Fire, even though in Revelation, death and hell (Hades) are thrown into the lake of fire, and this entire process (that is, death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire) is called the second death.

Next blog in this series: Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: A Good Dose of Interpretive Humility

Comments
  • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2012 at 1:19 pm

    Alice, you wrongfully make in the analogy God the driver. The analogy is only about the loving nature of the warning and nothing more. There you go off the deep end again in your efforts. If anybody is the driver it is Satan, the destroyer, and the 4×4 can be any false concept of God, even yours, that people ignorantly trust.

    You falsely end up with God as a very villainous, untrustworthy character, which has always been your imaginative objection to eternal torment. The fact is God is always trustworthy to avenge His saints upon the heads of the wicked after extending them long mercy for the duration of their wicked earthly existence. That mercy will take away their objection that God was not fair or just to them, which, BTW is your objection in a nutshell just on a broader scope. You’re no different from them.

    To reject eternal torment is to reject God Himself. Since God Himself is salvation, rejecting Him is rejecting salvation. Many people talk about God while still not believing Him, but they will not hear it said that they are unbelievers in the final analysis.

    • Stephen Helbig July 30, 2012 at 6:30 pm

      Lanny’s quote above ~ “To reject eternal torment is to reject God Himself. Since God Himself is salvation, rejecting Him is rejecting salvation.”
      Question ~ Lanny is God eternal torment or salvation?

      Lannys quote above ~ “Alice, you wrongfully make in the analogy God the driver.” but yet you also say ~ to reject eternal torment is to reject God.
      Question ~ How can these statements coincide?
      Question ~ In your view is Satan more powerful than God?

      • admin July 31, 2012 at 4:36 pm

        “Question ~ Lanny is God eternal torment or salvation?” – great question, Stephen. I am sometimes almost convinced that the doctrine of eternal torment is an idol, but only God knows for sure whether this is the case, from one individual to the next.

        • Stephen Helbig August 1, 2012 at 4:58 am

          Well Alice, I would have to say and regrettable so that a large number in religious circles today seem to worship “eternal torment’ as the IMAGE and OBJECT representing “deity”. Also this worship of placing most of humanity there, (in Eternal Torment), is man-made, and is done in BLIND DEVOTION, . ~ So is it an Idol ? ~ I’d have to say yes, just by pure definition, and the fact that it is totally FALSE. The Good News is ~ The restitution of all things is coming. ~ MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGEMENT.

          • Michelle August 7, 2012 at 4:11 am

            “Well Alice, I would have to say and regrettable so that a large number in religious circles today seem to worship “eternal torment’ as the IMAGE and OBJECT representing “deity”. Also this worship of placing most of humanity there, (in Eternal Torment), is man-made, and is done in BLIND DEVOTION, . ~ So is it an Idol ? ~ I’d have to say yes, just by pure definition, and the fact that it is totally FALSE. The Good News is ~ The restitution of all things is coming. ~ MERCY TRIUMPHS OVER JUDGEMENT.”

            It cannot be an idol for those who believe it in ignorance for lack of spiritual lights and informations, which was my case for 28 years. Thousands of people were indoctrinated and brainwashed to believe in it from age two or three. Of course a few people know the truth and continue to preach that hideous false doctrine. In most cases, it is not an idol because they lack both the revelation and informations that what they have been indoctrinated and brainwashed to believe from age two or three is false and most of them haven’t heard the true Gospel yet. They’ve had that false doctrine rammed down their throats and these horrible images implanted in their minds from early childhood, they were terrorized into it by relatives, pastors and sunday school teachers. This is child religious abuse and spiritual abuse. As Alice put it, only God knows for sure whether this is the case from one individual to the next, so you and others might want to refrain from calling it idolatry and call it error instead. Humans are not all-knowing and they never will be. This side of the grave, we will always be more or less in error. Errors stem from ignorance and spiritual revelation alone can remedy to ignorance.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2012 at 6:07 pm

        Stephen, when you reject God’s words you reject His person.

        for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name. {Psalm 138: 2}

        Biblically the name comprehends all that a person is. God’s word, Scripture, is higher than His person by His deliberate design. To degrade the literal perfect Holy Bible is to degrade the Person of God Himself.

        Why are some persons so intensely consumed with clearing their name from the crimes they’ve been falsely accused? Reputation comprehends all that a person is.

        Eternal Torment is Jesus’ words, so when you reject ET you reject Him.

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2012 at 1:37 pm

    Alice, just like Stephen, you have no way to get justifying teaching to those in the Lake of Fire, because hades has an impassible great gulf fixed to make it impossible for the two worlds to intermingle.

    And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence. {Luke 16: 26}

    Just because hades is cast into the Lake of Fire doesn’t change the fact of the great gulf fixed between it and the New Heaven and the New Earth. Now Jesus said it, so why will you not believe it? Even a child can believe something as simple as that, dear Alice.

    Daniel 2: 3 only works the way I said in verses 1 & 2. That fixed great gulf prevents you idea from being a workable idea.

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2012 at 2:11 pm

    Everything and everybody that is thrown into the Lake of Fire is described as in the state of Second Death, dear Alice. The Second Death is not just “the process” of getting Death and Hades “into” the Lake of Fire. The Second Death is the experiential state of the souls thrown in there. Otherwise the Revelation 2: 11 and 20: 6 would be meaningless if your mere impersonal process was all there is to the Second Death. You err again if that be your meaning. Is it hard for thee to kick against the pricks? {Acts 9: 5}

    • admin July 30, 2012 at 4:15 pm

      LOL Do you know what you are saying (the archaic language). Oh that is so funny. You didn’t mean it that way, I know, but it’s really funny 🙂 tee hee

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2012 at 7:47 pm

        Your disrespect for God’s Bible translations is evident, Alice. {Matthew 12: 36} But I say unto you, That every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give account thereof in the day of judgment.

      • Lanny A. Eichert July 30, 2012 at 7:53 pm

        Alice, what I said is your take on the Revelation 2: 11 and 20: 6 destroys your process theory. I don’t in the slightest agree with your Revelation 2: 11 and 20: 6 thing and you know it, but you just shot yourself in the foot.

        • admin July 31, 2012 at 4:28 pm

          Lanny, every debate we have ends the same – you picking apart solid ideas because they don’t fit chronology, or as you say, me ignoring chronology that doesn’t fit my ideas. I hope that you remember that we serve a God Who exists apart from time and is in no way limited in accomplishing His purpose of the ages by the ages themselves.

          “times of a restitution of all things, of which God spake through the mouth of all His holy prophets”

          • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2012 at 5:47 pm

            You forget, Alice, we are creatures of time and your proposals are therefore unworkable because they violate necessary chronology to the creature, us. Besides God is orderly, meaning He does all thins in order. Just read creation’s story. Do you want to change it order of its days? If not, then why the consummation of the ages? You’re being irrational, which isn’t a trait of God.

  • Stephen Helbig July 30, 2012 at 5:26 pm

    But for today, how does choosing or rejecting God fit the analogy?

    In a brief answer, I bring you a quote bought to my attention by a precious sister in the Lord: ~

    “Can Jesus Christ be the Savior of any more than He actually saves? Can Jesus be “the Savior of the world,” (1 John 4:14), if the world is not saved by him? Is Christ, in any sense, the Savior of unbelievers? If Christ be in no sense the Savior of unbelievers, why are unbelievers called upon to believe in Christ as their Savior? If unbelievers are not called upon to believe in Christ as their Savior, what are they to believe? Must not the thing to be believed, be true before it is believed? Must not the thing to be believed continue to be true, whether it be believed or disbelieved? What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith, [or faithfulness] of God of none effect? (Rom. 3:3) Is it true that God hath concluded all in unbelief that he might have mercy on all? (Rom 11:32)” – E. H. Lake, 1855

    Today these terrible and BAD analogies brought forth in your blog, which in essence exist in so called “Mainstream Christianity”, are basically the yuck behind carnal man and are indeed a “SICK” twisted version of the Good News that does not honor God, who is ~ The TRUE LIVING GOD, ~ THE GOD OF THE LIVING AND NOT THE DEAD, ~ THE “I AM LIFE” GOD, ~ THE ALMIGHTY GOD.

    These teachings that exist in many churches across the lands are based upon unspiritual and carnal thinking minds, and are the doctrines and traditions of the fallen man. These doctrines exist because mankind would rather truckle along with the mob and rely on what others have to say about God, instead of going to the mountain of the Lord themselves, ~ where God will teach us HIS WAYS, and we will walk in HIS PATHS ~ of LOVE.

    GOD IS LOVE. ~ He that loveth not, knoweth not GOD, for God is LOVE.

    • admin July 31, 2012 at 4:39 pm

      Stephen, I’m not sure why, but your blog posts keep showing double. So I approve one and trash the other, since they are identical.

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2012 at 6:46 pm

      “Mainstream Christianity”, Stephen, by enlarge means liberal christianity which can have all the analogies it wants like Alice’s interpretation of the rich man and Lazarus, and yet it misses true conversion, meaning being born again, so that should tell you something: they don’t know the truth.

      Your “precious sister” quotes 1855 Calvinistic theological difficulties that are easily overcome by realizing Redemption not received is never experienced. {John 1: 12 & 13} But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

      Redemption not received spells Eternal Torment. Simple, isn’t it?

      Amazing Hope defeated again by the simple words of the literal perfect Holy Bible.

      Don’t forget {John 3: 36} he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. {abideth is Present Active Indicative meaning continuously remaining wrath during this life and the after-life for as long as his existence.}

      Even the simple words of John 3: 36 proves ET and defeats AH.

      Redemption is a Person {1 Corinthians 1: 30} But of him are ye in Christ Jesus, who of God is made unto us wisdom, and righteousness, and sanctification, and redemption

      Righteousness is also a Person, so when you say “oh, my Goodness” you are taking God’s name in vain and vain means in an empty manner, so you are careless about God’s name. That’s sin and even sinful.

      • Stephen Helbig August 1, 2012 at 3:16 am

        Lanny states,~ Don’t forget {John 3: 36} he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. {abideth is Present Active Indicative meaning continuously remaining wrath during this life and the after-life for as long as his existence.}

        Stephen states ~ Lanny, your statement is INCORRECT, Tense is present (e.g.~ I am running) ~ and remains present tense ONLY for duration of said action. (e.g. ~ Lanny believes not.) ~ (e.g. ~ Lanny now believes)

        Present Active Indicative

        Tense: that quality of verbs which has to do with two facets of action:
        (a) TIME of action
        1 past (e.g.~ I ran)
        2 present (e.g.~ I am running)
        3 future (e.g.~ I shall run)
        (b) KIND of action (i.e., aspect)
        1 imperfective aspect focuses on the process or duration of the action (e.g.~ I am running).
        2 perfective aspect focuses on the state or condition resulting from a completed action (e.g.~ I have run).
        3 aoristic aspect presents the action as a whole, without highlighting its precise nature (e.g.~ I ran).

        Voice: that quality of verbs which describes the relationship of the subject to the action:
        (a) ACTIVE: the subject is doing the action (e.g.~ The Lord glorifies his name).
        (b) PASSIVE: the subject is receiving the action or is being acted upon (e.g.~ The Lord is being glorified).
        (c) MIDDLE: the subject is pictured as acting in his or her own interest (e.g.~ I am washing myself).

        Mood: that quality of verbs which describes the relation of the action to reality from the vantage point of the narrator or speaker:
        (a) INDICATIVE: action viewed as real from the perspective of the speaker (e.g.~ The Lord is risen).
        (b) IMPERATIVE: action viewed as potential, and is contingent upon the subject’s response to a command (e.g.~ “Take up your bed and walk”).
        (c) SUBJUNCTIVE: the action is viewed as probable or contingent, often present in a conditional statement (e.g.~ “If you abide in me…”).
        (d) OPTATIVE: action viewed as possible, perhaps unlikely. Usually it is found within a wishful statement or prayer (e.g.~ “Oh, that man might seek my face and live”).

        So we have:
        PRESENT: (e.g.~ I am running)
        ACTIVE: the subject is doing the action
        INDICATIVE: action viewed as real from the perspective of the speaker

        p.s. ~ Lanny we’ve already discussed the word “eternal” and is of very varying import, both in the Scriptures and out of them. and clearly means ~ “age abiding life”
        .
        In the Old Testament, the Hebrew word “olam” is used, and In the New Testament the Greek aion and aionios are used. Both Hebrew olam and Greek aion and aionios are discussed in an extensive work “Life, Time, Entirety”; and this particular book can be found on the internet, “FREE”, @

        http://books.google.com/books?id=l-SmshbeyUsC&printsec=frontcover&dq=Life%2C+Time%2C+Entirety&source=bl&ots=5r9GB22-W1&sig=GQ_IpHGkEelx3wXGm0H0Iu2Bws8&hl=en&ei=BUDrTLiYDcj8ngfiv-XUAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CBwQ6AEwAA#v=onepage&q&f=false

        p.s.s Lanny, if you wish to discuss further this topic with me, and in an attitude of ~ “If these things be so “, I suggest reading this work above on olam an aion, and then compare your Augustine thinking of, ~ “How can you be eternally saved if you can’t be eternally damned?”, with the above mentioned work.

        • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2012 at 12:48 pm

          To Stephen, as long as they remain in unbelief God’s wrath is always remaining on them. They are incapable of ever believing after they physically die. Look, even in this life repentance is impossible: see Hebrews 6: 4 – 6 and you dare to think it possible after death?

          For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

          Besides they are isolated from any Gospel message in Hades, the Lake of Fire, and the Second Death but it doesn’t matter because they are incensed against God and everything about Him. {Isaiah 45: 24} all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In rebellion incensed and ashamed and not wanting anything to do with His Gospel.

          Even Hebrews 6: 4 – 6 proves your Amazing Hope false along with John 3: 36. The unbeliever is without hope eternally.

          {August 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm posted in wrong place, so I reposted it hopefully here is correct.}

    • Michelle August 8, 2012 at 6:41 am

      “Can Jesus Christ be the Savior of any more than He actually saves? Can Jesus be “the Savior of the world,” (1 John 4:14), if the world is not saved by him? Is Christ, in any sense, the Savior of unbelievers? If Christ be in no sense the Savior of unbelievers, why are unbelievers called upon to believe in Christ as their Savior? If unbelievers are not called upon to believe in Christ as their Savior, what are they to believe? Must not the thing to be believed, be true before it is believed? Must not the thing to be believed continue to be true, whether it be believed or disbelieved? What if some did not believe? Shall their unbelief make the faith, [or faithfulness] of God of none effect?”

      *Sarcastic* That’s what I pointed out too, but of course, Lanny is not listening to a single word of what I say. Not even when I point out the obvious and show him how much insanity, infanticide and suicide his wicked, false doctrine cause…

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2012 at 1:04 am

        How can I listen to what you say when you say much too much. Do you really expect me to respond to your excessive over reactions? I will simply disappoint you mostly with silence.

        I repeat:
        Redemption not received spells Eternal Torment. Simple, isn’t it?

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2012 at 7:43 pm

        Michelle, How can I listen to what you say when you say much too much. Do you really expect me to respond to your excessive over reactions? I will simply disappoint you mostly with silence.

        I repeat:
        Redemption not received spells Eternal Torment. Simple, isn’t it?

        Somehow this posted below at 1:04 am instead of connected here.

        The insanity, infanticide, and suicide derives from the persons involved who are themselves responsible for their own reactions as well as their own deeds. The doctrine of eternal torment cannot be blamed. They are responsible to properly handle whatever information they possess. The Sharon Tate murder and Charles Manson proves that legally. You are responsible to reject the wrong and do the right. You are responsible to reject Universalism and believe Eternal Torment and do your deeds accordingly. God requires that of everybody.

        He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. {John 3: 36}

        • Lanny A. Eichert August 9, 2012 at 7:54 pm

          Alice, I’ve tried to connect to {Michelle says: August 8, 2012 at 6:41 am} twice now, my 1:04 am and my 7:43 pm, but they posted at the end causing a disconnect as Stephen at least once experienced. I see also that you haven’t gotten auto moderate to accept previously approved commenters yet, but I know nothing of those things. If you can move both posts under {Michelle says: August 8, 2012 at 6:41 am} that’ll be good.

          • admin August 9, 2012 at 8:04 pm

            Sorry, Lanny, but I don’t know how to do it.

  • Mary Vanderplas July 30, 2012 at 7:51 pm

    I agree that the analogy leaves much to be desired. You make a good point that, in the case of the child, the danger to his life is not something the father is able to control, let alone has planned or wills, while, in the case of (rejected) sinners, the danger is, according to the doctrine of eternal torment, entirely within the control of, and even willed by, the Father. For the analogy to fit, the father would have to arrange for the vehicle to strike the running-out-into-the-street child, which, of course, would hardly be an indication that the father loves the child. You make a good point, too, that, for the analogy to fit, the consequence of not heeding the warning would have to last forever – which, as you point out, is clearly not the case in this analogy.

    I like what you say about God being able to be trusted to accomplish his saving purpose for humankind – as opposed to God being unable, in the face of human unbelief and resistance, to do what he wills (and as opposed to God willing and effecting the eternal damnation of some). In terms of Chan’s analogy, I would be inclined to see the child’s being saved from fatal injury as depending on his choosing to heed the father’s warning not to run into the street, not on his “choosing the driver” and in doing so averting the driver’s wrath. I see your point, though, that if God is the one who imposes the consequences as well as issues the warning, then God would be the driver as well as the father in the analogy. In any event, I think you’re right about God being powerful to accomplish his purposes for humankind apart from human action, even though I don’t think the human response to God’s gracious gift should be discounted.

    While I agree with what you say about the analogy as Chan frames it, I think it’s legitimate to make a connection between a parent’s warning a wayward child about the self-destructive consequences of his/her choices and God’s action of warning sinners against persisting in rebellion against him. I would say, too, that it’s legitimate to argue that the ultimate consequence of persisting in rebellion against God may be (self-chosen) alienation from him and others. Again, though, your point about God being able to overcome our sinful resistance so that in the end his saving purpose for all is accomplished is important and compelling – moving me to embrace at least a hopeful universalism.

  • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2012 at 3:37 am

    Alice, Death and Hades are cast into the Lake of Fire BEFORE the souls not found written in the Book of Life, so in your terminology the death of death occurs before any human souls are thrown into the Lake. Verse 14 is written before verse 15 signifying chronological order.

    And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. {Revelation 20: 14}
    And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire. {Revelation 20: 15}

    In addition 21: 8 the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death. So the Second Death is NOT this entire process (that is, death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire). Death and Hades being thrown into the lake of fire happens immediately upon the Final Judgment. Then the souls thrown in there rejoin their association with both Death and Hades because neither cease to exist but continue for all eternity. The great impassible fixed gulf remains a reality for all eternity. They never have contact with anyone on “the other side” nor do they have Bibles to read nor recorded sermons to hear. They have absolutely NOTHING but torments, including their poor memory.

    I thought I had previously brought this to your attention months ago. Why don’t you pay attention to the order given in the literal perfect Holy Bible? {Because you know chronology proves you false.}

    “This entire process” of yours is only smoke and mirrors without any reality. You cloud over reality with your smoking arguments to try to disprove eternal torment, which you are not successful doing nor ever will be. I also think I remember you saying somewhere in the ages of the ages Death is destroyed making another smokey and cloudy picture denying that Death thrown into the Lake is realy not the death of death, but that its actual death comes later so you can get souls removed from the Lake and get the Lake dissolved. You have to build falsehood upon falsehood to cover your errors, Alice. That’s just your imagination, because Scripture doesn’t support your details.

    Your Amazing Hope is proven false again by God’s order of things; and He is not a god of confusion.

    For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints. Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church. {1 Corinthians 14: 33 – 35} I quoted more than just the first clause with a purpose for you to know why you were forbidden in the church and lost your job. “Because the Bible tells me so.”

    • admin July 31, 2012 at 1:05 pm

      We live in a society that has made great strides toward equality in race, sex, and other areas. You should take into consideration the time period in which this was written, Lanny. If I have any influence in this world, it isn’t because I have the approval of churchianity or because I’m a woman, it is because the Spirit of God has made it so. If that bothers you, you can take it up with God.

      • Michelle August 7, 2012 at 4:54 am

        “We live in a society that has made great strides toward equality in race, sex, and other areas. You should take into consideration the time period in which this was written, Lanny. If I have any influence in this world, it isn’t because I have the approval of churchianity or because I’m a woman, it is because the Spirit of God has made it so. If that bothers you, you can take it up with God.”

        Well said… 🙂 🙂 🙂

    • Lanny A. Eichert July 31, 2012 at 2:53 pm

      Nevertheless, your views are proven false because God’s order and God’s choice of words makes them impossible as I have shown you.

    • Michelle August 7, 2012 at 5:00 am

      “I quoted more than just the first clause with a purpose for you to know why you were forbidden in the church and lost your job. “Because the Bible tells me so.”

      Say the male-domination-mysogynistic-male-supremacist Fundamentalist christians. But we live in a society that has made great strides toward racial and gender equality, unlike the bronze-age, oppressive, Fundamentalist bigot…

  • Lanny A. Eichert August 1, 2012 at 12:45 pm

    Stephen, as long as they remain in unbelief God’s wrath is always remaining on them. They are incapable of ever believing after they physically die. Look, even in this life repentance is impossible: see Hebrews 6: 4 – 6 and you dare to think it possible after death?

    For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost, And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come, If they shall fall away, to renew them again unto repentance; seeing they crucify to themselves the Son of God afresh, and put him to an open shame.

    Besides they are isolated from any Gospel message in Hades, the Lake of Fire, and the Second Death but it doesn’t matter because they are incensed against God and everything about Him. {Isaiah 45: 24} all that are incensed against him shall be ashamed. In rebellion incensed and ashamed and not wanting anything to do with His Gospel.

    Even Hebrews 6: 4 – 6 proves your Amazing Hope false along with John 3: 36. The unbeliever is without hope eternally.

    • Michelle August 7, 2012 at 5:14 am

      Lanny: “The unbeliever is without hope eternally.”

      “I will allow a young maiden from the 17th century answer your question. This was how another Calvinist bit the dust and became a great universalist preacher who spread Paul’s gospel of no hell all over the colonies.:

      John Murray who was taught by George Whitfield and John Wesley:

      “But as I said, before all this would transpire in my life, the Lord first had to greatly humble me in England. My trust in religious systems had to be broken down and destroyed. The Lord chose to use the mouth of a babe to begin the process. Below is a recount of a conversation I had with a young lady I hoped I would set straight in her doctrines. She had accepted from a Mr. Relly, a preacher who was making quite a stir in London, the pernicious doctrine of Universalism. Prior to this conversation, I had never met the man, yet I despised him for the influence he was having among the citizens. I thought it would be quite a simple matter to set this young deceived babe straight. Little did I know that I was the one who needed straightening out. Once my pride was reduced a little further, I would eventually attend Mr. Relly’s meetings personally and find there, (and not at Mr. Wesley’s and Mr. Whitefield’s meetings) the True Gospel delivered once for all mankind. Below is the conversation I had with the young damsel I thought was in distress and whom I hoped I would deliver from the clutches of Mr. Relly.
      I went to visit her and after the first ceremonies, we sat for some time silent; at length I drew up a heavy sigh, and uttered a pathetic sentiment, relative to the deplorable condition of those who live and die in unbelief; and I concluded a violent declaration, by pronouncing with great earnestness, He that believeth not shall be damned.

      “And pray, sir,” said the young lady, with great sweetness, “Pray, sir, what is the unbeliever damned for not believing?”

      Why, he is damned for not believing.

      “But, my dear sir,” she asked, “what was that, which he did not believe, for which he was damned?”

      Why, for not believing in Jesus Christ, to be sure.

      “Do you mean to say that unbelievers are damned for not believing there was such a person as Jesus Christ.”

      No, I do not; a man may believe there was such a person, and yet be damned.

      “What then, sir, must he believe, in order to avoid damnation?”

      Why, he must believe that Jesus Christ is a complete Saviour.

      “Well, suppose he were to believe, that Jesus Christ was the complete Saviour of others, would this belief save him?”

      No, he must believe that Jesus Christ is his complete Saviour; every individual must believe for himself that Jesus Christ is his complete Saviour.

      “Why, sir, is Jesus Christ the Saviour of any unbelievers?”

      No, madam.

      “Why, then, should any unbeliever believe, that Jesus Christ is his Saviour, if he is not his Saviour?”

      I say he is not the Saviour of any one, until he believes.

      “Then, if Jesus be not the Saviour of the unbeliever, until he believes, the unbeliever is called upon to believe a lie. It appears to me, sir, that Jesus is the complete Saviour of unbelievers; and that unbelievers are called upon to believe the truth; and that, by believing they are saved in their own apprehension, saved from all those dreadful fears which are consequent upon a state of conscious condemnation.”

      No, madam; you are dreadfully, I trust not fatally, misled. Jesus never was, never will be, the Saviour of any unbeliever.

      “Do you think Jesus is your Saviour, sir?”
      I hope he is.

      “Were you always a believer sir?”

      No, madam.

      “Then you were once an unbeliever; that is, you once believed that Jesus Christ was not your Saviour. Now, as you say, he never was, nor ever will be, the Saviour of any unbeliever; as you were once an unbeliever, he never can be your Saviour.”

      He never was my Saviour till I believed.

      “Did he never die for you, till you believed, sir?”

      Here I was extremely embarrassed, and most devoutly wished myself out of her habitation; I sighed bitterly, expressed deep commiseration for those souls who had nothing but head-knowledge; drew out my watch, discovered it was late; and, recollecting an engagement, observed it was time to take leave. (end quote)

      No-Heller: “Every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord to the glory of God the Father.” And “No one can say ‘Jesus is Lord except by the Holy Spirit.” Everyone, sir, will be saved BECAUSE OF THE CROSS, NOT despite it.

      “And I, if I am lifted up from the earth, will draw (drag in the Greek) all mankind (there goes that all again, oh, and in context with mankind :-)) unto Myself. This He said signifying what manner of death He should die.” You see, John, it is those who say Jesus will NOT save all mankind who diminish Jesus’ work on the cross. Each soul you take away from His work on the cross brings shame to it. Each soul YOU put in hell makes Adam’s transgression greater than Jesus’ finished work on the cross. (Rom 5:17,18)

      Well, it’s late, I’m tired, forgive the typos, and Lord, open his eyes. In Jesus mighty Name, I pray, Gary, No-Heller. Amen.”

      • admin August 7, 2012 at 8:37 am

        Gary?

        • Michelle August 8, 2012 at 6:11 am

          “Gary?”

          I guess it comes from the Tentmaker website. I saw it there, but also on a few other sites. That dear lady was used by God to wake up John Murray to the truth, he later became a great Universalist teacher. But of course, *** ET false doctrine *** to terrorize and control people to comform them to his liking… to accept the truth and reality in that dear lady’s words. Which is that if Jesus is not the Savior of unbelievers, then unbelievers are called to believe a lie, that a potential Savior saves no one and that if Jesus takes full responsibility for everyone’s unbelief (trust has to be earned and built and that’s HIS work, faith (trust) is a gift and it is up to HIM to increase that faith, no one can do it by themselves).

          This is one of the best video I’ve ever watched. It exposes the lie and hypocrisy of the institutional church in that regard:

          “Faith in Christ vs faith in faith”, Martin Zender:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1zXb8XNsLw

          And there’s this one too…

          “God does not hold anyone’s unbelief against them”, gracerules2008:

          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLsSEZR6pJI

      • Lanny A. Eichert August 7, 2012 at 12:17 pm

        Michelle errs because all three “Every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord” passages mean only saints. Check them out in context in Isaiah, Romans, & Philippians.

        Your Universalism is proven false by three contexts.

        • Michelle August 8, 2012 at 6:24 am

          “Michelle errs because all three “Every tongue shall confess Jesus as Lord” passages mean only saints. Check them out in context in Isaiah, Romans, & Philippians.

          Your Universalism is proven false by three contexts.”

          “As in Adam all die, in Christ, all shall be made alive”. All mankind die in Adam, without exception, all mankind will be made alive in Christ without exception. The same all. All mankind was born into a sinful condition. Being born into a sinful condition never was a choice and never had anything to do with “free will”. Salvation is not a choice either and has nothing to do with “free will” either. You can’t “choose” salvation anymore than you “choose” to be born into a sinful condition. Jesus Himself made it very clear that HE does the choosing (“You have not chosen me but I have chosen you”, “no man can come to me unless the Father draws him”, “No man comes to the Father but by me”.) Salvation is a gift from God and it is the work of Christ accomplished 2000 years ago and “it is finished”. Just as we weren’t given a choice as to be being born in a sinful condition, we were not given a choice as to salvation. No one “chose” to be born a sinner and no one “chooses” to become a new creature in Christ. Christ did it all on the cross and “it is finished”.

          Don’t bother throwing verses at me that you twist and spin your own way to comform them to your false doctrine of eternal damnation.

          Your eternal damnation is proven false by dozens of verses and the original languages themselves…

  • Hell in Revelation « www.whatgoddoes.com February 20, 2013 at 11:30 pm

    […] Can’t Erase Hell: Jesus Didn’t Get the Memo, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Screwed Up Math, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: Bad Analogies, Why Chan Can’t Erase Hell: A Good Dose of Interpretive […]

  • Post a comment

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.