Christ the Conqueror of Hell

[Obsidian]

It only mentions the lower part where the fire is.

So you think there's a nice tropical area down there, too, like in Journey to the Center of the Earth?

Deuteronomy 32:22
For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell, and shall consume the earth with her increase, and set on fire the foundations of the mountains.

Actually, it seems to be talking about volcanoes -- which clearly do not just exist within the "lower part." The fire increases.

[One Bad Pig]

Not merely. There are only two places in the Bible where a fire is referenced in the lower part of Sheol/Hades.

What is the other one, and why should it impact the context of how it is interpreted in Deut. 32:22?

Yes, saying it means something other than what it says. Yes, saying the story is a parable when it is not supported.

No one is saying that Deut. 32:22 is a parable.

No reference is provided to support Abraham's argument. To warn of the place of torment.

You're assuming there is one.

What text exegetically shows the house was Lazarus' house? That would be an important point.

What does that matter? In Jn. 11:19, the scripture relates that many of "the Jews" came to comfort Mary and Martha after Lazarus died. In John's gospel, "the Jews" consistently refers to the Jewish authorities. In other words, Jesus' friend Lazarus was a man of some importance. The Jewish authorities would never have done that for a poor man.

[Adrift]

So, just so I'm on track with the OP, Bishop Alfeyev is making the argument that both the East and the West believe that Jesus went down into hell (Sheol), and taught to/brought out captives, correct? But what Bishop Alfeyev is attempting to point out is that, while modern Christians (both Eastern and Western) believe that those captives included the righteous souls in Sheol, earlier Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that Jesus also accepted the non-righteous souls who were repentant after his teaching...correct?

If that's the gist, then I can imagine a number of sticky doctrinal issues concerning God's divine justice. I imagine that these issues are not insurmountable to the one who accepts the notion of purgatory though.

On the side argument about the Lazarus parable, it seems to me that it is a fictional story, but that it refers to real spiritual states/places. I can't really recall anything quite like the specific division in Sheol that Jesus alludes to in other writings. We get a bit of it in the Old Testament, but not side by side, I don't think. It'd be interesting to see intertestamental writings on the subject. I read 1st Enoch years ago, but can't remember if it mentions the same sort of divide that Jesus does.

Totally off topic, but every time I see this thread in the New section, Jerry Only's (of the punk band Misfits) short-lived Christian Metal band "Kryst the Conqueror" comes to mind.

[Spartacus]

So, just so I'm on track with the OP, Bishop Alfeyev is making the argument that both the East and the West believe that Jesus went down into hell (Sheol), and taught to/brought out captives, correct? But what Bishop Alfeyev is attempting to point out is that, while modern Christians (both Eastern and Western) believe that those captives included the righteous souls in Sheol, earlier Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that Jesus also accepted the non-righteous souls who were repentant after his teaching...correct?

If that's the gist, then I can imagine a number of sticky doctrinal issues concerning God's divine justice. I imagine that these issues are not insurmountable to the one who accepts the notion of purgatory though.

How would their situation be different from someone who repents on their deathbed?

[Cerebrum123]

How would their situation be different from someone who repents on their deathbed?

Hebrews 9:26-28New International Version (NIV)

26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

To me, your question is like asking how their situation would be different for those who try to repent at the Great White Throne Judgment. It makes the intense focus on evangelism during life rather pointless IMO. After all, they would have even more evidence after death than before* it.

*What's available now is more than sufficient so that they are "without excuse". How much more so after they are in Sheol? It just doesn't make sense.

[Adrift]

How would their situation be different from someone who repents on their deathbed?

Hmm, well the obvious difference that occurs to me is that before death individuals are whole, in that, they are both body and spirit beings (or body, soul, and spirit beings depending on where you stand on that subject). Death is an unnatural state because we lose the body. That's one of the reasons (perhaps the primary reason) why the general resurrection is so important, it unites the spirit back with the body. If death is a result of sin, then it seems significant somehow to make repentance for that sin/make Jesus lord/be born-again, before the individual is no longer whole. Also, I wonder if a post-death repentance would not be a bit coercive. Mostly, though, I just don't see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe that post-death repentance for the forgiveness of sins is possible, quite the contrary in fact.

[One Bad Pig]

So, just so I'm on track with the OP, Bishop Alfeyev is making the argument that both the East and the West believe that Jesus went down into hell (Sheol), and taught to/brought out captives, correct? But what Bishop Alfeyev is attempting to point out is that, while modern Christians (both Eastern and Western) believe that those captives included the righteous souls in Sheol, earlier Eastern Orthodox Christians believed that Jesus also accepted the non-righteous souls who were repentant after his teaching...correct?

Sort of. In the East, views range from essentially the same as the West (which is due to Western influence and incompatible with other eastern views) to everyone has a chance to repent after death whether they lived righteous lives or not.

If that's the gist, then I can imagine a number of sticky doctrinal issues concerning God's divine justice. I imagine that these issues are not insurmountable to the one who accepts the notion of purgatory though.

Purgatory is not an Eastern concept.

On the side argument about the Lazarus parable, it seems to me that it is a fictional story, but that it refers to real spiritual states/places. I can't really recall anything quite like the specific division in Sheol that Jesus alludes to in other writings. We get a bit of it in the Old Testament, but not side by side, I don't think. It'd be interesting to see intertestamental writings on the subject. I read 1st Enoch years ago, but can't remember if it mentions the same sort of divide that Jesus does.

Totally off topic, but every time I see this thread in the New section, Jerry Only's (of the punk band Misfits) short-lived Christian Metal band "Kryst the Conqueror" comes to mind.

I'll have to check that out sometime.

[One Bad Pig]

Hebrews 9:26-28New International Version (NIV)

26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

As far as I can tell, this passage has nothing whatsoever to say about whether or not a person must repent before death. In fact, it's not even making the argument that one must repent before facing judgment (though that is abundantly established elsewhere). The thrust of the argument is that we only have one life to live; in other words, the idea of reincarnation is false.

To me, your question is like asking how their situation would be different for those who try to repent at the Great White Throne Judgment. It makes the intense focus on evangelism during life rather pointless IMO. After all, they would have even more evidence after death than before* it.

It seems evident from e.g. Matthew 25, Rev. 20 that there is no opportunity at (or after) the Great White Throne Judgment. There is no comparable material AFAICR regarding the possibility or lack thereof of repentance after death but before then. What people would miss out on if they repented after death would be any rewards for deeds done during life. They would be saved, but (as it were) "through fire."

*What's available now is more than sufficient so that they are "without excuse". How much more so after they are in Sheol?

Certainly.

[Adrift]

Sort of. In the East, views range from essentially the same as the West (which is due to Western influence and incompatible with other eastern views) to everyone has a chance to repent after death whether they lived righteous lives or not.

I see. So what do you believe?

Purgatory is not an Eastern concept.

I know that. I'm just saying that if one held a view on Purgatory (say...a Roman Catholic), I could see them being much more okay with the concept of post-death repentance as espoused by some past Eastern thinkers.

I'll have to check that out sometime.

It's...different.

[Spartacus]

Hmm, well the obvious difference that occurs to me is that before death individuals are whole, in that, they are both body and spirit beings (or body, soul, and spirit beings depending on where you stand on that subject). Death is an unnatural state because we lose the body. That's one of the reasons (perhaps the primary reason) why the general resurrection is so important, it unites the spirit back with the body. If death is a result of sin, then it seems significant somehow to make repentance for that sin/make Jesus lord/be born-again, before the individual is no longer whole. Also, I wonder if a post-death repentance would not be a bit coercive. Mostly, though, I just don't see anything in scripture that would lead me to believe that post-death repentance for the forgiveness of sins is possible, quite the contrary in fact.

But what has any of this to do with divine justice, which is what you said produces a number of "sticky doctrinal issues" with respect to this proposition?

[Spartacus]

Hebrews 9:26-28New International Version (NIV)

26 Otherwise Christ would have had to suffer many times since the creation of the world. But he has appeared once for all at the culmination of the ages to do away with sin by the sacrifice of himself. 27 Just as people are destined to die once, and after that to face judgment, 28 so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him.

To me, your question is like asking how their situation would be different for those who try to repent at the Great White Throne Judgment. It makes the intense focus on evangelism during life rather pointless IMO. After all, they would have even more evidence after death than before* it.

*What's available now is more than sufficient so that they are "without excuse". How much more so after they are in Sheol? It just doesn't make sense.

The point of contention here is people from before the time of Christ who did not live virtuous lives being allowed to listen to and embrace the Gospel. I'm not sure how that can diminish our focus on evangelization in the present age

[Adrift]

But what has any of this to do with divine justice, which is what you said produces a number of "sticky doctrinal issues" with respect to this proposition?

It makes the righteousness of, say, the heroes of faith in Hebrew 11 null and void. As Cerebrum pointed out, it makes having been faithful ultimately unnecessary. Sanctification after death strikes of Universalism in my opinion.

[Spartacus]

It makes the righteousness of, say, the heroes of faith in Hebrew 11 null and void. As Cerebrum pointed out, it makes having been faithful ultimately unnecessary. Sanctification after death strikes of Universalism in my opinion.

Could you try an angle here that doesn't fall afoul of either the parable of the vineyard workers or the elder son in the parable of the prodigal son?

The OP doesn't suggest that all are saved, but only that all have the chance to be saved. That's not universalism.

[Adrift]

Could you try an angle here that doesn't fall afoul of either the parable of the vineyard workers or the elder son in the parable of the prodigal son?

I'm not following.

The OP doesn't suggest that all are saved, but only that all have the chance to be saved. That's not universalism.

Eh, it borders it in my opinion. Given enough time in the afterlife, everyone can come to a saving faith.

[Spartacus]

I'm not following.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...thew+20%3A1-16https://www.biblegateway.com/passage...uke+15%3A11-32

Eh, it borders it in my opinion. Given enough time, everyone can come to a saving faith in the afterlife.

Apparently, Christ gave them 3 days.

There's also the bit that I seem to remember from the Great Divorce about it being Hell if you stay, but Purgatory if you only end up passing through it.