What stands out is picked out. Some people see my posts or videos and are confronted for the first time with the idea that hell, for example, is not taught in the Bible. This can be unsettling if you were previously firmly convinced that hell is a “biblical concept”. But does that make it my doctrine? Not at all. None of what I write or say is new. Everything has existed before. It is just as historically rooted as some other ideas. A differentiation.
None of what I write or mention in videos is new. I have mentioned this time and again and you can also read about it on the “About this site” page.
My teaching = My understanding
I have no doctrine, but I do have an understanding. I see the difference as follows: Doctrine would try to set something in stone, but my understanding can adapt. If you follow certain doctrines and then learn new things, perhaps you experience something that happens to crustaceans: When they grow, they have to shed the old shell before a new and larger shell can grow and harden. The shell which keeps them complete is on the outside. But what if you have an inner support, how can trust in God give you support and confidence? Then you can continue to grow without having to shed old armor. God himself and not the doctrine is the decisive support.
Of course, I only tell you what I have thought about myself. That is my choice. It is therefore correct that this website tells you what I think today. However, it is not only a reflection of what I am thinking today, but also a reflection of topics that I have been dealing with intensively for decades.
Thus, my teaching is just my understanding. This is neither perfect nor complete and certainly not an absolute truth. Conversely, some people conclude from this that I am not sure what I represent. Of course, that’s not true either. I have chosen my viewpoints carefully and, as far as possible, examined alternatives or opposing viewpoints. I just don’t ascribe any divine authority to it and don’t want to get tangled up in a wrong/right scheme anymore. Trench warfare is not desirable for me.
Focus of this website
When I talk about hell today, it’s not because I still have a lot of questions about it. I no longer have them. I have not only researched all questions about hell in detail, but have also clarified them satisfactorily in both text and context. It is as clear as day to me that hell is a fabrication of tradition and not a teaching of the Bible.
The only reason I still deal with it today is because I meet people who struggle with it. I am moved by the experiences of people coming out of rigid belief systems. Anyone who wants to rethink their assumptions should be celebrated as a hero. This is precisely what does not happen in many communities that believe that only synchronization with doctrines of hell produces orthodoxy. When I talk about hell, about universal reconciliation and the like today, it is because it is necessary in order to release others into the freedom of Christ. The struggle for answers is often real. This should be rewarded.
Those who want to examine a threatening message such as the doctrine of hell are often put under massive pressure by their community to ignore the topic. Because you are often the only one in the community asking critical questions, you are probably alone with your questions. That is not easy to deal with. Then you have to set out on your own path, swim against the ideological tide with your own openness to biblical questions, and often fight for intellectual freedom. This is not only exhausting, but also requires great perseverance.
Because you often don’t know where you are heading or what your future faith might look like, you need a lot of trust in God and an open-minded exchange. 2000 years of church history bear witness to serious disputes. Shouldn’t we honor that history with our own questions? Anyone who has serious questions or wants to leave sectarian structures needs support, not further attempts at intimidation.
2000 years of church history bear witness to serious disputes. Shouldn’t we honor that history with our own questions?
The focus of the website is therefore not my favourite subject, but the attempt to present a topic in such a way that others are helped by it. It is important to name doctrines and arguments so that people can reflect on them. You can track down topics and different views on the Internet so that you can reflect on them.
Universal reconciliation over the centuries
None of what I write here on this website is new. Paul already wrote that God will one day reconcile the universe to himself by making peace through the blood of the cross (Col 1:20). That was 2000 years ago. Paul never preached about hell. Many ideas were only incorporated into doctrines centuries later and then solidified. Similarly, there have always been groups who did not believe in hell.
Hosea Ballou, in his book “The ancient history of Universalism“ (1829), shows how from the time of the apostles the idea of universal reconciliation was firmly anchored among believers until it was rejected by the Church in 553. He then shows how faith communities relied on the saving power of God up until the Reformation. In a second book, “The modern history of Universalism“ (1830), Thomas Wittemore writes about the further traces of universal reconciliation in religious communities from the Reformation to his time. The books are now available as facsimiles and can also be viewed online.
So there is no special Kernbeisser doctrine, as if I had invented or claimed it, but there is a rich and long tradition.
The doctrine of hell is like a house of cards where other doctrines are needed in support and to propagate the idea of an endless hell. The idea that everything is “endless”, namely “eternal”, is something like the divine seal of theology on the enormous responsibility of man’s faith before God, which leads to eternal torment or eternal bliss. Anyone who reads about “eternity” in the Bible today usually understands it to mean “endlessness”. However, this is an idea that was only smuggled into Scripture centuries after the Bible was written.
I have before me a facsimile edition of a translation of the New Testament by Nathaniel Scarlett from 1798. There is no word for eternity here, but “ages” is used consistently, just as in the editions of the Elberfelder Bible from the beginning of the 20th century (note the footnotes today).
These and other testimonies are often overlooked if you absolutely have to believe in hell. However, books propagating universal reconciliation are still being published today. This is not about a particular theological direction, but about recognizing the testimony of the Bible from different perspectives.
It’s never about a doctrine
If I myself have a background that is characterized by evangelical ideas, that is the reason for my personal way of dealing with things. Is this the only option? Of course not. Other people have a different background, but come to similar conclusions based on the biblical testimony. This is a strong indicator that you are on to something here.
It is never about a doctrine, but about what it achieves. It is about the understanding of God, people and the world, which is shaped by an understanding. When some contemporaries cling to a doctrine “for the sake of doctrine”, this attitude reminds me of the words of the Apostle Paul:
“Brethren! The desire of my heart and my supplication to God for them is that they may be saved. For I bear them witness that they have zeal for God, but not according to knowledge. For since they did not recognize God’s righteousness and sought to establish their own [righteousness], they did not submit to God’s righteousness.”
Romans 10:1-3
It is never about a doctrine, but about the effect (2Tim 3:16-17; Eph 2:8-10). A God who deserves this designation does not need the approval of a teaching from you or me or anyone else. Those who place doctrine at the center of their thinking are missing the point. It does not matter whether this is the doctrine of hell or universal reconciliation.
Bite the bullet (Kernbeisser wordplay)
I chose the pseudonym “Kernbeisser” as a play on words. I like to bite at the heart of things. In the choice of words, it is the affirmation of a discourse. For me, it’s about a discourse, more than a doctrine, however coined. Paul writes that we should examine what is important (Phil 1:9-11). That’s why I welcome it when other Christians get involved in discussing questions of faith. I can praise a commitment even if I am in a different place in terms of understanding.
What really connects people has nothing to do with a particular doctrine or special knowledge, but with the fact that people see themselves being called by God and His Christ. They recognize God in their own experience, are touched by the words of the Bible, by the good news of God’s grace. That changes everything. This experience connects them with other people who experienced a similar confirmation and outlook.
It is never about a special Kernbeisser doctrine. But what effect do your beliefs have on your life? That seems to me to be the more important question. How do you interpret this?