Hi J,
Glad to hear from you.
You must be one of the very few people who bothered to
check out the links. To answer to your question, I've
included the Biblical Universalism link because it is
a topic that I find interesting and important, and
therefore am studying.
NO ENDORSMENT FROM CHURCH
Before I go on elaborating, lest any misunderstanding
arise, let me clarify from the onset that my home
church, New Creation Church, does not endorse nor
teach any form of universalism (Biblical or otherwise).
TOPIC IS OF PERSONAL INTEREST AND IMPORTANCE
As for me personally, I find that the teaching of
Biblical Universalism (universal salvation based on
teachings from the Bible) has it's merits, and is
therefore worth exploring.
Especially so since I am someone who has always been
disturbed by, and is disturbed enough to want to find
out more about what the Bible really teaches on the
widely accepted, traditional concept of everlasting
torment in Hell for unbelievers.
JUST AN EXPLORATION, NOT AN AFFIRMATION
I am still in the process of exploring, asking
questions and seeking answers.
I know I may never get all the answers I am seeking
for, in this lifetime. But one thing I am sure of:
God is good and He loves us.
May God be glorified and His people be edified.
A TERRIBLE DOCTINE
- Eternal torment in hell
This concept of "eternal hell" has troubled my heart
and mind for as long as I can remember.
To me, it is a "terrible doctrine". I think the great
theologian John Calvin also used a similar description
when he spoke on the same topic.
But since it is APPARENTLY clearly taught in the
Bible, I simply accepted it as a truth, inspite of my
many unresolved questions and feelings.
QUESTIONS THAT BOTHER MY HEART AND MIND
Some of the questions I asked myself are as follows:
How can a truly loving yet all-powerful Father allow
any of His creation to suffer forever and ever?
How can it be just and fair for any finite (limited)
man to be punished infinitely (limitlessly) for his
finite (limited) sins?
How can Jesus (the Ultimate Saviour) and His Work be
less than Adam (the original sinner) and his sin?
If we believe that the redemptive work of Jesus on the
Cross is perfect and complete, then why do we at the same
time believe that sin and death will not be perfectly and
completely destroyed?
Can everlasting light and life in heaven co-exist with an
untouched "corner" where there is everlasting darkness and
death?
Does not the Scritpures say that the purpose of Jesus
coming is to destroy the works of the devil?
Will death not be the last enemy that will be put under
the feet of Jesus?
Does not the Bible teach that Jesus is saviour of ALL,
and that ALL will be ultimately reconciled to God in Jesus,
so that God will be ALL in ALL?
To be sure, these questions are "non crucial" (to most
believers), in the sense that a believer's faith and daily
life will hardly be affected by the asking and resolution
of such questions.
Nevertheless, to some believers (people like myself),these
are important questions that beg for satisfying answers.
POSSIBLE KEYS FOR RESOLUTION
- back to the original Hebrew and Greek
My questions seem to have found reasonable and
satisfying answers when I chanced upon some Christian
Universalist websites several months ago, where I read
about the meaning of the original Hebrew and Greek
words that have been translated as "hell", "eternal",
"forever and ever" and "everlasting" in our English
and Chinese Bibles.
KEY WORD #1:
THE WORD TRANSLATED AS "HELL" IN OUR BIBLE
In fact, most modern Bible translations use the proper
term "Sheol" and do not have the word "hell" in the entire
Old Testament. You may check this with the Bible translation
you have, and compare with the (old) King James translation.
In the New Testament books (originally written in Greek),
there are three different words that are tranlated as "hell"
in our English Bibles. The three words are "hades",
"gehenna", and "tartarus".
It would be an interesting exercise to replace the word
"hell" with these proper names in your English Bible, to
find out the meanings of these words in the proper cultural
and religious context, and to assess the implication to the
concept of "eternal punishment".
KEY WORD #2:
THE WORD TRANSLATED AS "ETERNAL", "EVERLASTING",
"FOREVER AND EVER IN OUR BIBLE
In various places where we find the words "eternal",
"everlasting", "forever and ever", the original Hebrew
words are "olam" and it's derivatives; and the Greek
words "aions", "aionian" and other derivatives.
Some scholars argue that the original words may be more
appropriately translated as "ages" and "from ages to ages"
which covey very different meanings compared to words like
"eternity" and "forever and ever".
Things seem to make more sense to me, after I begin to look
into those Hebrew and Greek words, their alternative
translations, and consider the possible implications.
WORTH CONSIDERING EVEN IF CONTROVERSIAL?
- Considering the eternal destiny of millions of souls
I know to say that the fiery torment in "Gehenna"
(translated as "hell" in our King James Bible) for
unbelievers may NOT go on forever and ever, and that
ALL will eventually be reconciled to God may sound
controversial based on the widely held traditional
view about "hell".
But I believe we should not shun something worth
considering just because it's controversial.
For me, the eternal destiny of millions and
millions of souls of non-christians throughout human
history is definitely worth my time and effort to
explore this topic of Biblical Universalism inspite of
it's controverial nature.
NOT GOING BEYOND WHAT OUR LEADERS TEACH AND PREACH
Having said all the above, I understand that as
responsible Christians, we should respect the
prevailing teachings in our home churches and our
Christian community at large.
Therefore, as much as I would like to encourage honest
and open exploration and discussion on important and
controversial topics concerning our faith and beliefs,
I do not advocate preaching and teaching beyond what
our pastors/leaders are preaching and teaching.
Let us keep our focus on the key truths in God's Word
- the gospel of grace and peace, and the message of
righteousness, based on the perfect work of of our
Lord Jesus Christ.
As we do so, let us also be diligent in rightly
dividing the Word of truth, with a restful spirit.
Hope I have addressed your curiosity.
Do continue to keep in touch, and let's catch up
sometimes.
Blessings,
Lip Kee
(First published: 11 Oct 2005. Last edited: 17 Nov 2005.)
 | lipkee wrote on Oct 14, '05, edited on Nov 26, '05 I understand that not many of us are comfortable with questioning concepts that are widely accepted in the church circle.
I would just like to clarify that my objective is not to stir up controversy nor to cause any confusion.
The fact is, none of us, not even the best Bible scholars and teachers among us, have perfect knowledge, understanding and wisdom regarding theological issues.
Let us therefore remember not to be too hung up over discussion on such issues.
Instead, let us remember that what really matters is our relationship with our Lord Jesus Christ.
|
| lipkee wrote on Oct 22, '05, edited on Nov 26, '05 Hi W,
FELLOWSHIP OVER JESUS CHRIST INSTEAD OF DOCTRINES
Thanks for your feedback (about your concern that the faith of some "not-so-establised" believers may be stumbled by the "not-too-edifying" content of my posting).
It is not life-and-death issue whether a believer believes in pre-trib or post trib, or if he believes that tongues is still valid or has ceased, or if he believes that there is eternal torment in hell or not.
The Christian faith is all about the Perfect Person of Jesus Christ and His Redemptive Work.
NOT BEING DOGMATIC IN AREAS WHERE THE BIBLE IS NOT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR
When it comes to things that are not 100% clear in the Bible, I believe we should not be too dogmatic. Personally, I believe it is important for us to consider a particular doctrine based on whether it is Christ-focused, grace-based, and Biblical. I will not worry too much whether it is in line with tradition.
A LITTLE "CONFUSION" CAN BE GOOD
A case in point : the so-called "radical" grace teaching in our church. If Pastor Prince were overly concerned with sticking with the traditional "balanced" teaching, for fear of causing confusion among fellow christians, our church will not be where it is today.
Sometimes, a little "confusion" is a good thing - if it can cause Christians to think more about what they truly believe, and to study the Bible more deeply.
If not for the "confusion" I experienced after reading Pastor Lawrence Khong's book, I would not have opened up myself to charismatic teachings. If not for the "confusion" I experienced after hearing Pastor Prince preached, I would not have immersed myself in the grace and righteousness message.
POSSIBLE OUTCOMES OF EXPLORING THE ALTERNATIVE VIEWS ON THE CONCEPT OF "ETERNAL TORMENT"
Now, let's put things in perspective. Have you ever asked yourself these questions:
what is the worst/ best that can happen if you were to explore the traditional teaching on "eternal torment"?
What if you realise, after your personal study into the Hebrew and Greek, that there is a possibility that our God is too gracious and too wise to allow such a terrible thing to happen?
Would that kind of realisation cause you to be more awed by Him being the All-Emcompassing Love, or would it cause you to have more doubts about Him?
Would you be more inclined to love Him more or to love Him less?
NOT AFFIRMING BUT ONLY ACKNOWLEDGING THE EXISTENCE OF AN ALTERNATIVE
Again, I am not advocating Universalism. I am just saying to those believers who, like me, are bothered by the concept of "eternal torment", there are possible (biblical) ways to resolve this issue.
FACT: LACK OF OF INTEREST IN THEOLOGICAL DISCUSSIONS AMONG BELIEVERS
Anyway, my site is not widely read. So, the potential impact will not be as "dreadful" as you imagined. This particular posting is probably read by less than a dozen people.
Also, very few people I know of are bothered with theological and doctrinal discussion.
TRUTH: ABUNDANCE OF WISDOM BY THE HOLY SPIRIT IN BELIEVERS
Nevertheless, I acknowledge your concern. Let's trust the Holy Spirit of wisdom and revelation in our brothers and sisters to guide and lead them, shall we? :-)
|
| lipkee wrote on Oct 24, '05, edited on Oct 24, '05 Hi L,
Thanks for your feedback. I understand where you are
coming from. Appreciate your honest feedback. I know
you wrote in love.
AGREEMENT IN DOCTRINAL POSITIONS HELD BY CHURCH
First and foremost, let me assure you that I do not
hold seperate doctrinal positions from the church.
I affirm that Jesus Christ is the one and only saviour
for all mankind.
I believe that to enjoy abundant life, one has to believe
in his heart that Jesus is risen from the dead, and confess
with his mouth that Jesus is Lord.
I have absolutely no doubt that the teachings on grace and
righteousness are essential to one's spiritual growth and
well-being.
These are, to me, "non-debatable" truths.
OPEN FOR DISCUSSION IN NON-KEY AREAS
I consider doctrinal positions on
pre-trib/ post-trib, sprinkling/ immersion,
eternal/ temporal hell as secondary and "debatable".
When I find that a position or a concept is not 100%
clearly stated in the Bible, I will allow for the
posibility of alternative interpretations.
I acknowledge that I am not 100% sure. And I adopt a
let's-not-be-too-dogmatic and let's-be-honest-about-it
attitude.
OFFICIAL CHURCH POSITION ALWAYS PRESENTED
Nevertheless, when I share with my caregroup in the
capacity of a leader, I will always state clearly the
doctrinal position taken by the church.
Whether someone chooses to explore those "debatable"
issues like I do or chooses to accept the position of
the church (like the absolute majority of us do), I
trust the Spirit is always leading and guiding as He
deems fit.
CURIOSITY VERSUS SKEPTICISM
Being curious is not the same as being skeptical. I
love to explore "grey" and "controversial" theological
and doctrinal areas because I am genuinely interested
to find out how and why alternative interpretations
and views are asserted by other annointed and
respected men of God.
Personally, I don't see how asking honest questions
about aspects of our faith, and studying the Bible
prayerfully (i.e. focusing on Jesus and relying on the
Holy Spirit) to find out the relevant answers can be
detrimental to one's spiritual health and growth.
NO TEACHING ON NOR AFFIRMATION OF VIEWS,
ONLY PRESENTATION OF ALTERNATIVES AVAILABLE
Addressing an important point that you brought up:
Yes, I have spoken with Pastor Joshua, and I believe I
am not acting contrary to his advice.
I do not believe that I am teaching Univeralism in my
postings.
To clarify my position again:
I asked an honest question about the concept of
"eternal torment". I am personally bothered by it.
But not once did I conclude that the concept is erroneous.
On the other hand, I considered that a possible
resolution to my questions may be found in the Biblical
Universalist's preposition.
The preposition states that:
a. Though only believers will enjoy "enion" (translated
"eternal" in our King James Bible) life; and
b. many unbelievers will suffer torment in "gehenna"
(translated "hell" in our King James Bible),
c. ultimately, ALL will be reconciled to God.
But I never did affirm that position as the "correct"
one.
I merely presented the two approaches to the topic
without making any conclusive remarks on either.
GROWING STRONGER IN GRACE
By the grace of God, I believe that not a single
believer will have his faith impacted negatively by
reading what I have posted. A little puzzled
initially, perhaps. But stumbled, I don't think so.
:-)
With diligent study of the Word, and illumination by
the Spirit, I have faith that my readers will grow
stronger in grace, and become more established in
righteousness, even as he gets a greater revelation of
our Lord Jesus and His Work.
Blessings,
Lip Kee |
| lipkee wrote on Oct 24, '05, edited on Oct 24, '05 Just a few more thoughts...
INCONSISTENT MESSAGES?
YOU wrote:
We've been clearly instructed not to deviate in any
way from what Pastor is teaching I think there is
wisdom in this, because it is not logical for members
of the congregation to be given inconsistent messages.
THE CORE MESSAGES IN OUR CHURCH
I reply:
I agree totally with you. What do Pastor Prince teach
on? Broadly categorised, there are 3 main areas: who
we ARE in Christ, what we HAVE in Christ, and what we
can DO in Christ. If I could summarise, Pastor's
core messages are as follows:
a. Who is Jesus Christ (and who we are in Him)
b. Sonship of the believers
c. Grace and Imputed Righteousness;
d. The Finished Work on the Cross and the consequent
blessings
e. How believers can enjoy the free gifts of grace,
righteousness by seeing Jesus and His Work
f. How to renew one's mind and realign one's mouth
with God's Word (the importance of meditation,
confession, and praying in tongues)
g. How to exercise godly wisdom in the areas of
relationships, health, finances, career and ministry
NO EMPHASIS ON SECONDARY THEOLOGCICAL ISSUES
Areas which are more theological (i.e. considered by
most to not have much direct impact on our daily
lives) are never emphasised on, and seldom touched on
by Pastor.
I think is wise and good, because I reckon that 99 out
of 100 of us in church are not a least bit interested
in such things.
It is simply not important to most of us to know that
bible scholars and church leaders have long been
discussing and debating on millenialism vs
amillenialism; pre-tribulation vs mid-tribulation vs
post-tribulation; predestination vs foreknowledge;
oneness vs trinity, orthodox vs catholic vs
evangelical vs pentalcostal vs charismatic.
THEOLOGICAL ISSUES ONLY OF INTEREST TO THE (VERY) FEW
Honestly, how many of us know (or bother to ask) about
theological issues? In fact, I suspect not many of us
know (or bother to find out) that there are different
branches in the study of theology, namely:
Christology, Pneumatology, Angelology, Anthropology,
Soteriology, Ecclesiology and Eschatology.
By the way, the discussion on universalism falls under
Soteriology. The main stream soteriological postions
held by churches today are either Calvinism or
Armianism.
You may find it interesting to note that
the soteriological position held by our church cannot
be neatly classified under Calvinism or Arminianism.
Ours is part Calvinist and part Arminianist. I'll
leave it to you find out what that actually means. :-)
PREFERENCE FOR CERTAINTY OVER AMBIGUITY
My point is, to think and discuss about theological or
doctrinal issues is an endeavour that very few of us
care to undertake. Most of us prefer black and white
certainty. Our capacity for ambiguity is usually very
low.
But does that mean that such thinking and discussion
should be discouraged?
My personal view is: The majority of people will
wisely distance themselve from theological and
doctrinal contemplation and discussion because it is
simply not their cup of tea.
AN APPETITE FOR AMBIGUITY
As for the (very) few who has a penchant for
philosophical pursuits and an appropriate appetite for
ambiguity, as long as they can establish an
unshakeable common foundation, i.e. Jesus and His
Finished Work, let us not be afraid to allow for free
discussion and sharing among them.
For people like them (which includes myself), the
belief is that truth is clarified and promoted not by
avoiding controversies, but by facing them head on.
ACKNOWLEGEMENT NOT THE SAME AS AFFIRMATION
Once again, I want to clarify that I do not endorse
nor do I reject the universalist's position. All I am
saying is, for those (very few) who bother to explore
the concept of "eternal torment", besides the
tradiitonal one we have been exposed to, there exists
an alternative view.
Do we promote democracy by suppressing or refusing to
acknowlege the existence and merits of alternative
system such as communism/socialism?
Do we promote the christian faith by suppressing or
refusing to acknowledge the existence and merits of
alternative belief systems such as budhism, hinduism,
judaism, and islamic faith?
In the same way, how do we promote an accurate and
biblical understand of the concept of "eternal
torment"? By suppressing or refusing to acknowledge
the existence and merits of alternative views on the
subject?
There is a difference between:
(a) acknowleding the existence and merits of
alternatives and facing them boldy, and
(b) presenting them as truths to be accepted
without questions.
I would like to believe that my postings do not amount
to the latter.
FELLOWSHIP AND SHARING IN LOVE AND IN TRUTH
Nevertheless, I acknowlege that I have my intellectual
blind-spots and may have been mistaken in my belief.
Respectful fellowship with one another in the love of Christ,
and mutual encouragement and exhortation in the truth of
His Word are so important in our christian walk.
So please feel free to enlighten me if indeed I have hit my
intellectual blindspot and my belief is misplaced.
Hope this further clarifies my position.
Blessings,
Lip Kee |
| lipkee wrote on Oct 25, '05, edited on Nov 26, '05 Hi L,
YOU wrote:
You must have spent a long time to write this reply. Are you going to post this thread on your site too? ;-)
I reply:
Yes, I reckon since I've taken quite a bit of time replying to you on this matter, I might as well post my replies on my multiply site (to pre-empt/ address other readers who may raise similar concerns as you did).
READERS' INTERPRETATION VS. WRITER'S INTENTION
- THE NECESSITY OF HEALTHY DIALOGUE HIGLIGHTED
Thanks for your feedback. It caused me to deliberate more on the way I present my thoughts in a public domain.
I realised that although I have taken care to ensure that:
(a) I merely presented an alternative view on the subject of "eternal torment in hell" - the biblical universalist's view (information of which is publicly available in theological books and websites); and
(b) I did not affirm the biblical universalist's view (although I did say it has it's merits); and
(c) I did not set out to deny the traditional view (although I did say it bothers me);
a casual reader who takes a cursory browse through that posting may still form his own opinion regarding what I wrote, and may not immediately agree with my positions stated in (a) to (c) above.
I guess I have to improve my writing skills. :-)
DOGMATISM OR HUMILITY
- OPTIONS WHEN FACED WITH UNCERTAINTY
YOU wrote:
At the end of the day, there can be many theological arguments, but when it comes to areas that are more ambiguous in the scripture, who can say for sure?
I reply:
Yes. None of us can claim to have full and perfect knowledge of the Word. That's why it is so important for us to remain humble, and to be diligent in our own personal study of the Word (like the Bereans whom Paul commended in the Book of Acts).
Thank God He gives us good teachers and preachers. And thank God He has given us the Holy Spirit of wisdom and revelation to help us in our weaknesses.
That is also why I dare not (and did not) make any kind of conclusion on this particular topic of "eternal torment", because I know and acknowledge that I do not know for sure.
CLARIFICATION OF OFFICIAL CHURCH POSITION
YOU wrote:
Btw, why don't you directly clarify Pastor's postion? Especially since it is something that you have spent years thinking about.
My reply:
In fact, I have sort of done that already. I reproduce part of what I have written earlier below:
"...the discussion on universalism falls under Soteriology. The main stream soteriological postions held by churches today are either Calvinism or Armianism.
You may find it interesting to note that the soteriological position held by our church cannot be neatly classified under Calvinism or Arminianism. Ours is part Calvinist and part Arminianist. I'll leave it to you find out what that actually means. :-)"
To speak plainly, the official position of the church is that of mainstream christianity:
"eternal punishment in hell for those who reject Christ".
You can find this as part of the statement of faith of our church on the official church website:
http://www.newcreation.org.sg/abtstatement.htm
HEALTHY DIALOGUE BENEFICIAL TO ALL
YOU wrote:
However, I felt like sharing with you my perspectives.. now, I will leave it to your judgement on what to share and what not to share with your sheep. :-)
I reply:
Appreciate your valuable feedback. I believe the clarifications I was "forced" to make in reponse to your feedback has benefited me, and will benefit others who read my postings. Thanks!
Blessings,
Lip Kee |
| In my earlier reply to one of the readers of this blog, I wrote: "To speak plainly, the official position of the church is that of mainstream christianity: "eternal punishment in hell for those who reject Christ". You can find this as part of the statement of faith of our church on the official church website: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/abtstatement.htm"Interestingly, a recent visit to the church website revealed that one of the statements that touched on eternal punishment in hell has been removed. For the record, the statement was "We believe in the resurrection of the body; the eternal glorified state of believers in heaven, and the eternal punishment in hell of all who reject Christ". For a full list of the statement of faith of the Church, kindly visit the webpage here: http://www.newcreation.org.sg/aboutus/we_believe/webelieve.htmDoes that mean that our Church has changed it's position on "eternal punishment in hell". I do not think so. One thing I am sure of, Pastor's focus is never on sin and the consequent problems arising from sin (including the problem of hell). Pastor's heart is on teaching and preaching the good news of God's solution for sin and its problems - the perfect and complete solution offered by our Lord Jesus Christ on the Cross. So, to hell with hell. Let us just be Jesus-conscious and heavenly-minded. :-) |
 | I recently was won over to the belief in universal redemption. What really makes it hard for me to see any other way now is the fact of God's absolute Sovereignty. I could understand the necessity of an eternal "incinerator" for trouble-makers if we were dealing with a lesser "god" who didn't see the trouble coming, but God knew from ages before He created a person just where they would stand in relation to Him. This is such a cool topic!! :) |
| |
