Evidence for God from Science

Very good points IRQ Conflict!

Thank you for the welcome, BW.

God still destroyed the city. Why?

For the obvious reason....evil. He first separated the righteous from the wicked (Ezek 21:2-5), Lot & family from it. This is the structure of salvation, that a remnant is saved....a very common Biblical principle.

Can you explain how it violates the perfection of God's attributes mentioned above more clearly?

I thought I explained this clearly in my original quote, but will try again. It's really not a complicated concept.

God=Perfection. Thus, God's attrbutes, love, mercy, forgiveness, justice (to name a few) must therefore also be perfect.

Use a philosophic dualism of thing/attribute to consider man in his relationship to God. God designed the world in a way that theism has traditionally viewed as dualistic, and it's only natural for Him to operate within this system according to His design.

Viewing man in a thing/attribute configuration, it can be truthfully stated that every human being exists in some ratio of good/evil. We're a mixed bag, every one of us. Again, a very orthodox concept.

To say, then, that God consigns some particulars to eternal hell while allowing others--when all human beings are in possession of some ratio of BOTH good and evil--to escape this fate denies God's perfection because He condemns destroys the good along with the evil. My point is that in His conversation with Abram on the way to Sodom, it is God Himself who establishes that He will not violate this principle. Isaiah, by the Spirit, confirmed this when he prophecied of the coming Messiah, "A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice." (Isa 42:3)

God still destroyed the city because His love, mercy, justice and forgiveness are Perfect.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6)

"'For I am with you,' declares the LORD, 'to save you; For I will destroy completely all the nations where I have scattered you, Only I will not destroy you completely. But I will chasten you justly, And will by no means leave you unpunished.'" (Jer 30:11)

"Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.
A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.
For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord GOD of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land." (Isa 10:20-23)

I posted a number of verses in response to IRQ's multitiude of passages to show that what we present to one another is our interpretation of any given collection of passages. When one applies to the verses I quote above a thing/attribute dualism, it can be seen that they speak esoterically to every human being. The entire Bible is a book of correspondences.

In short, when God directs His wrath to the essential structure of every human being rather than to individuals, as tradition holds, a mystery is solved: His perfection is restored. Tradition hates this because it knocks down her "walls".

hello IRQ,

Do not confuse mans ability to give good things and do good things with being good. It is the indwelling of the Holy Spirit through us that is the light of the world. Nothing good can be done apart from Him.

Interestingly, you support my point in the statement above. Epistemological coherence demands that evil does not flow from good, nor vice versa. Jesus confirms this in Mat 7: "Even so, every good tree bears good fruit; but the bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit." (vv. 17-18)

Thus, indeed, I agree that nothing can be done apart from Him. If he illumines all (Jn 1:9), and we see at least some flicker of good in all, and He promises to not abandon the dimly burning wick (Isa 42:3), and if His perfection is denied in destorying the whole while destroying the constituent elements within each whole (individual) which are "bad" while preserving the whole restores this perfection.....well, do the math.

This is a blatant misrepresentation of scripture.

If so, then why does the view I present have fewer epistemological problems? How can sharpened coherence and congruity arise from a blatant mispresentation?

First, a city is not a man.

Do you deny the power of Scripture? Are there no underlying moral and spiritual principles represented by the historical accounts of the Bible? If you contend for this, you relegate the Bible to a mere history book, with no inherent meaning beyond descriptive facts. This is actually the structure of the materialistic atheist's argument. How do you escape this difficulty?

Second a man apart from God has this many redeemable attributes ->0.

Now I think you are judging falsely. The burden is now upon you to show how an evil man who shows mercy or compassion toward another in any regard does so from a wholly corrupt spirit/mind. Total evil can only and ever lead logically to total chaos and self-destruction, yet even evil people show evidnece of some good or another. Not only this, but the system you contend for assigns to eternal hell many more people than the dregs of society....as more and more good is found in those going to hell, God's perfection is further and further violated....but even one tiny violation of Perfection destroys perfection itself. Isn't this the very reason God came to earth in the form of a man to save us?

The rest of your post appears to be a deluge of proof texts which serve to obscure the debate. If possible, I'd like to keep on-topic here.

Bernie wrote:Thank you for the welcome, BW.

God still destroyed the city. Why?

For the obvious reason....evil. He first separated the righteous from the wicked (Ezek 21:2-5), Lot & family from it. This is the structure of salvation, that a remnant is saved....a very common Biblical principle.

Can you explain how it violates the perfection of God's attributes mentioned above more clearly?

I thought I explained this clearly in my original quote, but will try again. It's really not a complicated concept.

God=Perfection. Thus, God's attributes, love, mercy, forgiveness, justice (to name a few) must therefore also be perfect.

Use a philosophic dualism of thing/attribute to consider man in his relationship to God. God designed the world in a way that theism has traditionally viewed as dualistic, and it's only natural for Him to operate within this system according to His design.

Viewing man in a thing/attribute configuration, it can be truthfully stated that every human being exists in some ratio of good/evil. We're a mixed bag, every one of us. Again, a very orthodox concept.

To say, then, that God consigns some particulars to eternal hell while allowing others--when all human beings are in possession of some ratio of BOTH good and evil--to escape this fate denies God's perfection because He condemns destroys the good along with the evil. My point is that in His conversation with Abram on the way to Sodom, it is God Himself who establishes that He will not violate this principle. Isaiah, by the Spirit, confirmed this when he prophesied of the coming Messiah, "A bruised reed He will not break, And a dimly burning wick He will not extinguish; He will faithfully bring forth justice." (Isa 42:3)

God still destroyed the city because His love, mercy, justice and forgiveness are Perfect.

"My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge..." (Hosea 4:6)

"'For I am with you,' declares the LORD, 'to save you; For I will destroy completely all the nations where I have scattered you, Only I will not destroy you completely. But I will chasten you justly, And will by no means leave you unpunished.'" (Jer 30:11)

"Now it will come about in that day that the remnant of Israel, and those of the house of Jacob who have escaped, will never again rely on the one who struck them, but will truly rely on the LORD, the Holy One of Israel.
A remnant will return, the remnant of Jacob, to the mighty God.
For though your people, O Israel, may be like the sand of the sea, Only a remnant within them will return; A destruction is determined, overflowing with righteousness. For a complete destruction, one that is decreed, the Lord GOD of hosts will execute in the midst of the whole land." (Isa 10:20-23)

I posted a number of verses in response to IRQ's multitude of passages to show that what we present to one another is our interpretation of any given collection of passages. When one applies to the verses I quote above a thing/attribute dualism, it can be seen that they speak esoterically to every human being. The entire Bible is a book of correspondences.

In short, when God directs His wrath to the essential structure of every human being rather than to individuals, as tradition holds, a mystery is solved: His perfection is restored. Tradition hates this because it knocks down her "walls"..

Bernie - Welcome to the thread!

For everyone - FYI - This is an open thread for honest discussion on the topic - all ideas are welcome - the purpose of thread is to be like explorers exploring this topic in a open fashion - so anyone else like to join in -please do!

Bernie - You have interesting points so in essence - are you stating that God punishes collectively verses individually?

Next, does not a little leven leven the whole lump?

Yes, humans are able to good and evil and even the most evil can do some good things once in a while. Are you suggesting that God judgment is based on works and it is these works that save us? Do the most good - get to heaven? I do not think you are saying this or meaning this so can you clarify?

Locker wrote:Yes, humans are able to good and evil and even the most evil can do some good things once in a while.

Is the real question not in what light God views good things done by non-believers?

Hello locker,

For everyone - FYI - This is an open thread for honest discussion on the topic - all ideas are welcome - the purpose of thread is to be like explorers exploring this topic in a open fashion - so anyone else like to join in -please do!

Thanks for this gesture. Someone said honorable men may disagree honorably, and I agree with you that this parameter is essential to forward-moving discussion. We all tend to be zealous and passionate about our theology, don't we?

Bernie - You have interesting points so in essence - are you stating that God punishes collectively verses individually?

Punishment is a human perspective, of course, but if the removal of the essence of evil produces a good, it's done in mercy and lovingkindness. Spiritual meaning necessarily has a dualistic aspect...we call the extension of meaning "metaphor" as though a mundane principle of language, but I believe intellect to be a spiritual organ. When Jesus instructs us to gouge out our eyes or cut off our hands if they cause us to sin, He's essentially showing us the corresponding connection between literal signifiers (gouging cutting, eye, hand) and some corresponding spiritual truth. Virtually everyone would agree that the truth He's teaching is not literal but points to an internal prosecution.

The removal of evil or falsity (the privation or opposite of good, or truth) is a process accomplished by some procedure that's in some way analogous to "fire" and "hail" and "plague", etc. This technique to remove evil is beyond human ability, but Scripture tells us it's like fire (Mat 3:10-11, 7:19, Jn 15:6, etc.), and is attested to thoroughly in both Testaments.

Next, does not a little leven leven the whole lump?

Yes, but I'm not sure of the point you're making here.

Are you suggesting that God judgment is based on works and it is these works that save us?

To the contrary, Aquinas noted in the Summa along with many others, both Calvinist and Arminian, that faith necessitates a first movement in man by God. This principle holds true from start to finish, as I see it. Spiritual cleansing is death [of evil or falsity] and we don't want to die. It's thus impossible for a human being to even desire to be made alive spiritually, even if we were able to perform it.

Do the most good - get to heaven? I do not think you are saying this or meaning this so can you clarify?

I'm not sure I follow you here....are you asking if I believe that people who are "more good" than others get to heaven? Will clarify once I understand the question completely.

Hi August,

Is the real question not in what light God views good things done by non-believers?

First, I feel it prudent to make a distinction between real and false good. The former is something exhibited in act which necessarily has some real epistemic connection to an internal state. The latter is that dictated from some essence of falsity. The thinking here is that ultimately good and evil in act are directly reducible to existent properties in essence.

Thus, God, who is Truth, would find unity in the essence of truth in human spirit, and He would find contrariety with the property of falsity (unregenerate, evil, etc.). Since human behaviors arise from a vast pool of complex prescriptive proposiitons, God who knows the heart and spirit of man knows internally in every human 'whom' He hates and 'whom' He loves.

It's absurd to think that when the Lord declared that He loved Jacob but hated Esau (Mal 1:2, Rom 9:13) He was actually saying He hated two different human beings. He was obviously using literal representatations in history, in time and space, to illustrate a deeper, spiritual truth: God hates falsity (evil) and loves, or is in unity with (Jn 17:22), truth (good), in exactly the degree to which they exist in every human being.

Bernie, I will not engage in an argument comprised of false doctrine after already showing that God say's hell exists and those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation from that action.

Using words like "Epistemological coherence" that cannot be pronounced with a mouthful of cheerios without spitting all over your monitor will not convince those convinced that the Word of God and it's plain reading gives us that knowledge.

But I will add that your copy/paste effort with Hosea is abysmal, why not read the rest of it, it tells us why there was a lack of knowledge...

Hos 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge: because thou hast rejected knowledge, I will also reject thee, that thou shalt be no priest to me: seeing thou hast forgotten the law of thy God, I will also forget thy children.

Hello irq,

Bernie, I will not engage in an argument comprised of false doctrine after already showing that God say's hell exists and those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation from that action.

As you wish. I agree with you that you should try to avoid using false doctrine. God bless you in your walk all the same.

Using words like "Epistemological coherence" that cannot be pronounced with a mouthful of cheerios without spitting all over your monitor will not convince those convinced that the Word of God and it's plain reading gives us that knowledge.

Had to smile here. I have only a formal 9th grade education, but I know that epistemological coherence is a philosophical tool used to find warrant for belief systems, and I generally have little trouble finding others who, like me, if they don't understand a phrase or concept, use a dictionary. I find it to be a good thing to study to show oneself approved.

Those who demand a "plain reading" of Scripture are sometimes those who control Scripture to say what they wish rather than allow God to say in it what He wishes. Thus has it always been. Sadly, it's become far too common today on theology boards to prove someone wrong by heated accusations and condemnations if we aren't able to do it with carefully reasoned arguments.

PS.....some congenial advice......try eating your Cheerios at the breakfast table, you'll save yourself a lot of mess.

Bernie wrote:As you wish. I agree with you that you should try to avoid using false doctrine. God bless you in your walk all the same.

Don't just try to avoid it. Avoid it altogether.

2Jo 1:9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.
2Jo 1:10 If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him Godspeed:
2Jo 1:11 For he that biddeth him Godspeed is partaker of his evil deeds.

Rom 16:17 Now I beseech you, brethren, mark them which cause divisions and offenses contrary to the doctrine which ye have learned; and avoid them.

1Ti 4:16 Take heed unto thyself, and unto the doctrine; continue in them: for in doing this thou shalt both save thyself, and them that hear thee.

I have only a formal 9th grade education, but I know that epistemological coherence is a philosophical tool used to find warrant for belief systems,

What happened to the Word here? Does a child know or care what epistemological coherence is?

2Ti 3:15 And that from a child thou hast known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make thee wise unto salvation through faith which is in Christ Jesus.
2Ti 3:16 All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.

and I generally have little trouble finding others who, like me, if they don't understand a phrase or concept, use a dictionary.

I prefere google and wikipedia actually. Dictionaries are so last decade BTW where did I say I didn't understand the term?

I find it to be a good thing to study to show oneself approved.

I most wholeheartedly agree, it's the reference material I dissagree with you on.

2Ti 2:15 Study to show thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.

Those who demand a "plain reading" of Scripture are sometimes those who control Scripture to say what they wish rather than allow God to say in it what He wishes. Thus has it always been. Sadly, it's become far too common today on theology boards to prove someone wrong by heated accusations and condemnations if we aren't able to do it with carefully reasoned arguments.

Eph 5:11 And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather reprove them.

2Ti 4:2 Preach the word; be instant in season, out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine.

2Ti 3:7 Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.
2Ti 3:8 Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith.
2Ti 3:9 But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.
2Ti 3:10 But thou hast fully known my doctrine, manner of life, purpose, faith, longsuffering, charity, patience,
2Ti 3:11 Persecutions, afflictions, which came unto me at Antioch, at Iconium, at Lystra; what persecutions I endured: but out of them all the Lord delivered me.
2Ti 3:12 Yea, and all that will live godly in Christ Jesus shall suffer persecution.
2Ti 3:13 But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived.
2Ti 3:14 But continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them;

irq, I thought you said you were finished here. What spirit within you drives you to continue, despite the fact you said you were finished?

Back to my original post, I asked if anyone was able to falsify the logical proposition I presented, that the idea of an eternal hell can be shown to violate the perfection of God's attributes, and how the application of a simple thing/attribute dualism is able to restore that perfection.

You've shown you are unable to refute this argument. There's no crime in this, but your posts have become increasingly antagonistic toward me. Is this the Spirit of Christ within that drives you...or a spirit of a different sort?

BTW, this simple exercise in logic and reason has not been refuted on other boards, either. The deeper question here, of course, is: if the fidelity of a proposition stands, and this is generally accepted as a proper test of truth, what is it in the makeup of a human being which causes him/her to continue to deny the proposal? What caused the religious leaders of Jesus' day to stand angrily against Him? They hated His answer, and killed Him because its power drove them into a rage: "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word" (Jn 8:43), "...because I speak the truth, you do not believe Me" (v. 45).

The esoteric is not a property of truth as most believe, but a spiritual defect in cognition.

Esoteric=hidden. Apply a thing/attribute dualism to Scripture and the esoteric meaning arises naturally.

http://www.rationalesotericism.com/

Bernie wrote:irq, I thought you said you were finished here. What spirit within you drives you to continue, despite the fact you said you were finished?

Heh, someone needs to take your scissors and glue away.

Bernie, I will not engage in an argument comprised of false doctrine after already showing that God say's hell exists and those who reject Christ will suffer eternal damnation from that action.

I was talking about rebutting the nonsense you were spewing on hell. Not that I refused to talk to you on other matters.

I was talking about rebutting the nonsense you were spewing on hell.

Try rereading my posts. I've been "spewing" nothing about hell....my posts target a logical deficiency in the traditional thinking about salvation. It's funny how one's preconceptions often cause one to "hear" things that aren't there.

Do you make Jesus proud of you, barging in and slinging mud, making false accusations and embarrassing yourself? Again I ask, what spirit are ye of?

Hey Bernie,

It seems to me your ideas hinge on these comments:

Bernie wrote:The consignment to hell of individuals who consist of some ratio of both good and evil clearly violates the perfection of those God's attributes mentioned above. (I'm not saying hell doesn't exist, BTW, just responding to a point made early in this thread.)

With reference to this, I have a few things I'd like to point out:

Note the part I italicizes above. Where are you getting this from? Jesus declared that no one is good but God (Mark 10:18). Paul also said, "For I know that nothing good dwells in me, that is, in my flesh; for the willing is present in me, but the doing of the good is not" (Rom 7:18, NASB). It IS true that we at times do what is required by the law, even in our fallen states (Rom 2:14-15), but that certainly doesn't make us "good." Again, as Paul says, in the flesh, there is NO good.

Against this, we have John's clear statement that "[the man born of God] cannot sin, because he is born of God." (1 John 3:9, KJV). I certainly don't believe in perfectionism in this life, and neither did John (cf. 1 John 1:8, 10). The clear idea is that born-again believers, as I see things, have two natures. There is the flesh, in which nothing good dwells. And then there is the New Man, which is of the Spirit, and he has no desire to sin, because he is born of God.

If this paradigm is true, then your argument falls apart, because there is NO good in the unregenerate man (cf. Heb. 11:16). Those who are saved are those who have NO evil. How is it, though, that we, as believers, have no evil? The answer is that in the Resurrection, we will cast off this corruptible, immoral body and put on the incorruptible, moral body (1 Cor. 15:53-54). We will then have a body that matches our nature.

As an aside, in your view, how is anyone cast into Hell? All people, according to you, have some measure of good, so how does this work? Along with the verses that IRQ cited, we also have Rev. 20:15, which says, "If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire." Doesn't this refer to people being thrown into the Lake of Fire?

God bless

Bernie wrote:Do you make Jesus proud of you, barging in and slinging mud, making false accusations and embarrassing yourself? Again I ask, what spirit are ye of?

So, opening the Word of God, quoting Scripture is mud slinging and false eh? And your embarrassed of the Truth? And you ask me of what spirit I am?

2Ti 4:3 For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but after their own lusts shall they heap to themselves teachers, having itching ears;
2Ti 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
2Ti 4:5 But watch thou in all things, endure afflictions, do the work of an evangelist, make full proof of thy ministry.

I have a tendency to only perceive the heat and not much light when the lines start to be drawn and fusillades of page-fulls of Bible quotes start to fill my screen, I admit I'm not following some of the details so well anymore. But I do see a general split, one that echoes all the way back to the first posts of the thread, when BW started this and mentioned that "love" seems to be where people stumble over the concept of hell. I think he's right.

On one side seems to be a view that takes a strict stance toward words in the Bible about hell, and says that there is this place, and the other side takes an interpretive stance toward words in the Bible about hell, and says they don't see that it could be real. The first group sees and feels it is relevant. The second doesn't see its plausibility and feels no worse the wear for it -- doesn't think it's relevant.

My view is that each of us someday is going to kick the bucket, and then we will have our moment where we are in front of the Big Guy on the other side, and I see this as more of a one-on-one conversation. We'll have to answer for ourselves what we believe.

In the interest of reframing things here, I don't see that this thread here has to be argumentative. I think people have their ways of looking at things already. But if you think that your way of looking at the topic is the right one, it is a service to put in front of the other side what you think is truth, and not an argument to win. It is offering to the other person what you feel they need to know in order to stand before the Big Guy.

As I said in an earlier post, the idea of hell -- eternal punishment and torment -- is not a part of my beliefs. It is a fact for me that it was wholly unnecessary to have any concept of hell to come to faith in God and to believe in his Fatherly overcare of us. I didn't have that step. And since then, further experiences have clarified even more that it is an unnecessary belief. I have zero doubts about being secure in God's family -- "For I am convinced that neither death nor life, neither angels nor demons, neither the present nor the future, nor any powers, neither height nor depth, nor anything else in all creation, will be able to separate us from the love of God."

For people like me who have arrived at this place in their spiritual understanding, what can representatives of the pro-hell viewpoint offer as reasons to believe in hell in terms of how specifically it could lead to an improvement in spiritual life? To me, the concept of hell is only concerned with driving people by fear toward God. If they are already there, through the drawing power of Jesus' teachings of love rather than through fear or threats, what is left for the concept of hell to offer in spiritual growth?

From my side I should address the same question in reverse. To those who believe that hell exists, what does a removal of hell from perspective offer in spiritual growth? As BW and others have pointed out, "love" comes into the question. I have a number of things I could bring up, but will limit myself to a couple. The hell concept infects with a self-preservation and ego-centric motive in how God is approached rather than a whole-hearted choice to put trust and faith in God as our Father. By not believing in hell, you are able to sanctify your choices in daily life to constantly attempt to do his will because of pure acceptance that it is good and not to save your hide. The purpose become selfless and service to others becomes selfless. A second improvement in spiritual life, Jesus did not severely order people to do this or that in many cases, but one he did was in two monosyllables he boiled it down to be so clear: Judge not. Despite this, many fall into temptation to speculate and even presume to judge about other people's standing before God, and especially to say this or that person is going to hell. Well, you avoid this insidious temptation when you don't believe in hell to begin with.

Cook,

I believe in Hell--a place of actual fire will human beings will be tormented day and night forever and ever--and I have absolutely NO fear of going there. I believe in the doctrine of eternal security. Jesus said I'm saved because I believed in Him, and that's enough for me.

But, I would lose a lot if I rejected the concept. First, I'd have to reject my belief in the plain, normal interpretation of the inerrant, inspired word of God. Jesus said that people will be cast into Hell. John witnessed the hoards being cast into the Lake of Fire.

Secondly, I'd lose a lot it terms of my Satanology and Demonology. What is their final place? The book of Revelation tells us that the Lake of Fire was prepared for them. The fact that humans go there is a sad reality.

Third, I'd lose a lot in my concept of salvation. What are we being saved FROM? We are saved from nothing less than the fires of Hell to start with, and then other things, too. Now, fear may not sound like a good motivator when it comes to evangelism, but Jesus used it an awful lot. He talked more about Hell than any other biblical figure. That's not to say that I harp on the idea when telling someone about Christ, but it is certainly part of my gospel presentation. When someone says to me, "So let me get this straight. If you are right, and if I reject Christ, I go to Hell for all of eternity." I hand them a Bible and tell them to read Revelation 20:15 for themselves.

Forth, if I were to drop the idea of Hell, I would lose a lot in terms of my general understanding of God. He is absolutely Holy and absolutey Just. As I understand these attributes, such a place is absolutely necessary. Thus, to get rid of the idea would force me to change my ideas on these attributes, which I draw from Scripture. Again, that goes back to the idea of changing the way I read Scripture.

Fifth, if I dropped the concept of Hell, I'd lose a lot in terms of my understanding of the concept of Sowing and Reaping, as well as the doctrine of Rewards in the next life in general. The two go hand in hand, but you can't kill the low without cutting down the high, too.

Sixth, if I dropped the concept of Hell, I'd lose a lot in terms of my understanding of biblical anthropology. I believe that humans are everlasting creatures, made in the image of God. They will exist forever; thus, they will either exist with God or away from Him.

I suppose I could continue, but the above should give plenty of examples as to how drastically my theology would change without this important doctrine. I can tell you something else. Even though I am secure in my salvation, and that assurance drives me to serve God, I have loved ones that I see going to Hell. It drives me to pray for them, and witness to them, and serve them. Thousands of people die every day and go to Hell. That drives me to support missions and evangelism.

I'd lose a lot.