Tekton Apologetics

This question is oddly misplaced. Numerous English words come from "pagan sources" (having their roots in pagan languages); the question is apparently meant to prove somehow that because the word "hell" came out of a pagan root, so likewise did the concept. In and of itself, this is a fallacious argument.

Nevertheless, we are more concerned about concepts than words; and here, our concept of "hell" (we will use the word for the purpose of clarity) is rooted in the honor and shame background of the New Testament era, as understood widely by Jews in particular, but also pagans to some extent. If Hell as a place of everlasting tortures was the real fate of all mankind unless they did something here on earth to prevent it, why didn't God make that warning plain right at the beginning of the Bible? God said the penalty for eating of the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil was DEATH. He did NOT define death as eternal life being forever tortured in burning fire and brimstone.

Since we don't hold the "tortures" view the question for us is moot. That said, if honor/shame was a paradigm of the earliest persons (as the cultural data indicates), then a "warning" would likewise be moot. Men would already know that shame in proportion to their deeds was the result. Indeed, the Adam and Eve account shows that the couple were shamed because of what they did.

We skip therefore a question that asks why Moses never mentioned hell (the same answer applies) and go to:

Of course, since David himself would be regarded as "saved" the question is moot in terms of non-believers. But beyond this, "separation" in an honor-shame system means the person is shunned and not communicated with; it is less about location than it is about relation. God could be present in Sheol -- and that doesn't mean He communicates or has any dealings with the unsaved there.

No, but per Johnston's word Shades of Sheol, a detailed study on the subject, Sheol is primarily a destination for the ungodly. The righteous only envisage Sheol as their destiny at times when they are afflicted or in great danger, or face an unhappy or untimely death. However, mention of Sheol is conspicuously absent from accounts of those who die at the end of a full and happy life. [81-2] The location, abilities, and destiny of such persons after death is not specified; so it is wrong to say that even good people go to Sheol in the OT.

This is rather a vague question, given no support as needed (that Jews say there is no hell in the OT; and then, what of the authority of NT era Jews who came to believe in it? -- and I find that this is not what is said by modern Jewish commentators: here a rabbi, though leaving most people out of it, says, "A handful of people are too evil for Gehenom, and they are punished eternally. Pharaoh is one example.")

The next question assumes that hell is not in the OT; so we skip it. The question after asks about translation of the word "hell" and assumes torture, so is misplaced/moot for our position. Several questions then ask about positions of patristic writers. This is outside our scope and we will skip them. The next applicable question:

This position is not taught in the Bible anywhere, in fact (the texts are not saying any such thing -- see here), so the question is misplaced.

Reference here is given to the work of a Universalist named Hanson, but with no page number; so we must guess what the writer has in mind from Hanson. It seems to be a section that says: Perpetua begged for the help of her brother, child of a Pagan father, who had died unbaptized. In Tertullian the widow prays for the soul of her departed husband. Repentance by the dead is conceded by Clement, and the prayers of the good on earth help them. No cites are offered for any of these, but I did find some interesting points that show that Hanson was not fully honest with the data. Perpetua's brother who died a pagan was merely seven years old when he died (see here) and so his case is not useful for universalism concerning unsaved adults accountable for their actions.

For Tertullian, I can only find that in his work On Monogamyhe said that a good widow prays for her husband's soul; the passage (see here) is not clearly about a widow whose husband was not a Christian; but even if it were, would only just as well say that Tertullian wrongly taught universalism. Indeed that wayward persons like Tertullian, Clement, and Origen are used to represent "the early Christians" as a whole, bespeaks the nature of this commentary.

Many questions following are essentially arguments from silence: "If hell is real, why didn't X or Y say so, or say this or that about it?" Since many of these 1) are patristic issues, beyond our scope; 2) give only as reference a full book title (!) with no page number to check, we will bypass them as unprofessional references not warranting investigation as they stand. We would only comment that such claims as, "[t]hose who advocated Hell got it from the Latin, NOT from the original Greek and Hebrew" would be irrelevant to our own views, since honor and shame was a concept shared by speakers of all three of these languages.

Several questions also ask why universalism was not declared a heresy. The question is not as powerful as one may think. Certain teachings widely regarded as false today (such as open theism) are not called "heresy" and the mere fact that the word was not ascribed to universalism does not mean it was not regarded as wrong; at best it is as well to say that it means only that it was not regarded as widespread, serious, or threatening enough to thus be labelled.

The reference given is to whole books (!) with no page numbers, but is moot for us anyway, since we reject the "everlasting burnings" for "everlasting shame". We will skip all further questions that assume the "burnings" understanding.

This doesn't directly touch on our points, but deserves comment. It posits the unreasonable idea that the results of justification are brought even on those who reject God's offer of grace.

The missing key here is the background concept of patronage. A patron (God, here) offering X benefit to a group of potential clients does not give the benefit to all, even those who reject his gracious offer.

It may be added that nowhere does it say that "eternal life" is "reckoned" to anyone. Grace nevertheless is an offer than "can be refused." Thus the next question:

...is also misplaced. This means no more than that the offer of salvation is open to all men, not that it is given to all without consideration. The contractual/patronage elements cannot simply be ignored.

If hell is not anger expressed, but rather the experience of shame and from God, indifference, as in our view, it would make no difference.

At best this may set out some guilt for lack of evangelism, and show that we don't act consistently; but it isn't an actual argument against hell itself.

Since we don't adhere to the "merciless" and "torture" parts, the question is not for us; but otherwise one may as well check this item. The question is the same as the child asking why the cookie jar was not put out of reach so he would not steal from it.

We skip a translational question that is essentially the first above reworded; we will also skip other such "translation" questions as diversions from conceptual issues which are far more important. We move to:

Why should he have done so? Paul wrote to Christians whose salvation was already assured; the place to check is preaching to unbelievers, as in Acts, and there, it is clear that warnings of punishment (Acts 2:40) could be part of the package. However, once again, the universal presuppositions of honor and shame meant that there was no need to be any more explicit. The concepts of honor, shame, and limited good meant that no one needed to be told that shame would be the result of their sin.

They do? May we have some statistics backing up this point? Unfortunately, personal anecdotes like these are statistically without use.

This is illogical. Number of times a word is used means absolutely nothing. "Justification" appears only 3 times in the NRSV; so does that mean justification is less real than Hell?

So a fish in a bucket of water that is picked up and poured into another bucket, is able to escape from the bucket? This must be some use of the word "escape" with which we were previously unfamiliar.

What of that David knows he will see his infant son again? And since this writer likes the patristics, what about Perpetua's seven year old brother? But even so, under our view, babies and children have nothing to be "ashamed" of; for shame comes of what others think of what you do. No one thinks badly (in terms of moral wrongdoing) of an aborted baby, infant or young child who errs.

Indeed, the agonistic paradigm only makes it more apparent that some sort of idea of personal accountability (not by numerical age, but by personal maturity) must be part of the equation.

In light of this as well, the question we next consider is of some effect:

Actually, even under the standard view, the rate of infant and child mortality over history and even today in most nations means that the vast majority of mankind has NOT gone to hell, and will not; the opposite is true. But viewing the rest through the shame paradigm, not torture: The feeling would be the same as one would have for any shamed relative or friend -- it is regrettable, but it is their choice; practically, why should this take us away from our heavenly responsiblities and obligations? (This also has a misguided view implied of heaven as a grand "party all the time" place...but that's another issue.)

And where do we get the idea that this phrase means, "and all will be in heaven"? It doesn't; the section is about God's imperial rule and overcoming of rebellion. At best it means all will be as it should be, and has nothing for or against hell particularly.

On that matter we repeat what we have said elsewhere. The Bible makes two assertions which may be paired here for an application:

1. The evidence for God is clear, so that men are without excuse (Ps. 19, Rom. 1-2). The heavens aleady declare God's existence and majesty. Broken Vector of course would disagree with this, but within the context of the present discussion this is not relevant.

2. He who seeks, finds (Matt. 7:7//Luke 11:9).

My own answer to the question, "What about those who never hear the Gospel?" is, "Those who want to know it, will be given the knowledge needed for salvation. Those who seek God will have God sufficiently revealed to them." There is also anecdotal evidence from the missionary field that may support this point; but such is currently beyond our discussion. Nevertheless, it is not lack of hearing the Gospel that causes condemnation; it is sin that causes condemnation, and it is not hard to arrive at a deduction that sin is offensive to whatever powers one may suppose to be at hand (indeed, the religious history of sacrifice and penance suggests a broad awareness of this) and that there needs to be some connection or bridge in order to achieve a reconciliation.

Not under our paradigm, certainly; as we said, the issue turns now from one of quantity (amount of pain) to one of quality (honor versus shame). Jesus' divine identity made him a personal being due the highest honor by nature (what Malina and Rohrbaugh call "ascribed" honor, such as that one has by being born into a noble family) -- not infinite of necessity, but the highest.

The reversal of this value upon Jesus, and the experience of status degradation -- his public humiliation in the eyes of others, and thereby loss of ALL honor status -- undermines and makes irrelevant the question, "Could he have suffered enough for all sins?"

If this is more than an anecdotal argument we'd like statistics to back it up -- even if it were not fallacious at its core.

Viewing these metaphors in terms of honor and shame means that the question is misplaced. The equation now is that the Lake of Fire mean final exclusion or shunning in a judgemental sense.

And "destroy" means "annihilate"? It does not. The word used in John has meanings ranging from "undo" to "subvert" to "dissolve into parts"' it is used by Jesus to refer to those who "break" commandments, and is used to refer to the colt being untied so he can ride it.

If the greatest part of mankind don't go there, as noted above, then the question is moot (and we will skip further questions that assume this). But as we note in another context, a patron is not considered a "failure" when ungrateful potential clients refuse his grace; in such cases, the mere offer of grace brings honor to the patron, and he is a success.

If hell is more of a state than a place, then there is nothing to mention; the state existed since honor and shame existed.

And this means that every member of every nation must be blessed? So does this mean if I stub my toe, God hasn't kept His promises, because I wasn't blessed when that happened? The question is misguided and assumes that blessing must be universal and individual for all nations (corporately) to be blessed.

We highlight this one, though what we have already contains answers, simply to note that under our view, because it is a matter of quality and not quantity, and is an "either-or" rather than a mathematical-value proposition, it is no longer necessary to argue that a sin is an "infinite offense" or to even deal in terms of quantity.

Unfortunately Romans ends at Ch. 16. I don't know where Romans 36:11 is.

Under this paradigm, there is no torture; but someone with greater sins has more to "be ashamed of" than someone with lesser sins, so their punishment is equitable to their deeds. Thus as well:

No, because sins are against persons and against God. Jail time pays for the sins against persons. It does not pay for sins against God. To say otherwise means to deny not only a doctrine of hell, but also the doctrine of atonement.

The error is the same one atheists make, to which we reply here.

The question assumes the value-proposition that "greatness" lies in the particular proposition of "all being saved" as opposed to "performing the act which made salvation available to all." In purely agonistic terms, Jesus' honorable act is indeed far greater than Adam's shameful act of transgression.

No comment is needed -- it is misguided as it is to use poetry in such a literalistic sense. We will skip other questions which abuse Psalms in the same way.

See here.

This is one of several questions that misuses the phrase "all things" in a way that atheists do as well. Atheists would also ask such questions as, "Does this mean that when I go to the bathroom, Jesus fills the toilet?" We must not define "things" in terms of overliteralistic particulars, as opposed to broad categories.

This is like asking if God is "powerful" enough to make 2 + 2 = 5. This is not a "power" issue, but a logical one: A God who grants freedom cannot withdraw that grant and coerce those who refuse His truth. We skip other questions that confuse "power" with logic this way.

Presumably the questioner finds no distinction of position between God and man. We'd also punish a person who sentenced another to death...if they were not a judge with the credentials and authority to do so. We skip further questions that fail to recognize this dichotomy.

Since this (and questions that follow, which we will skip) begs the question of hell as "evil" it is circular; but it would be interesting to know if these would regard a hell of shame as "evil".

Love and shame are not mutually exclusive expressions, especially when "love" is understood in terms of the greater good for the whole (not individuals).

Only if the punishment did not fit the crime, which is the very matter at issue. The question once more begs the question.

For this we would like to add (besides what is already noted about the nature of punishment) that "mercy" is also erroneously defined -- it means obligation fulfilled within a relationship of personal obligation; not just letting any person at all out of warranted punishment or penalty. Thus also we skip questions that misdefine "mercy" in this fashion.

The use of a proverb is no more valid than the use of a poem in this context. As for 1 Tim. 2:3-4, it is just as well to say that God also desires us to be perfect (as we are sure would be agreed), yet we are not.

In this agonistic paradigm, God inficts nothing whatsoever; but even so, why any of this needs to "benefit" anyone is a begged question in context. A question after this is directed to Calvinists, which we are not; so, we go to the last question that is unique or not based on prior errors:

Jesus is the one who will judge all men; we may judge angels, but angels are not men. Of course even if we did, does this mean a judge can't sentence a relative to a just sentence, practically speaking?

So ends our response.

-JPH