Those who believe in this doctrine(it is not in the Bible) are trying to save people, whom the doctrine says will burn in hell if they do not convert here and now in this life. If these people do not convert, then God is powerless, so to speak, to save anyone else. In the doctrine of hell, the vast majority of humanity is “lost forever.” God chases down an estimated 95% of humanity and torments them forever, while a minority is rewarded for their faith. A horror story that is nowhere to be found in the Bible.

The conversation

The young people all seemed very friendly and not at all as radical as the texts they were carrying around. A conversation ensued and I inquired if they were serious about heaven and hell. Of course, was the answer, it says so in the Bible.

When I inquired whether they knew that there is no clear word for “hell” in the Bible, there is no word for it in the basic text, the astonishing reaction came: it was immediately conceded that they had not studied the Bible that much. It was all the more astonishing that, despite the lack of justification, they were not afraid to proclaim to the people on the street an endless torment in hell. This is so different from what Jesus and the apostles ever did.

In justification, it has now been pointed out that every person has the responsibility to decide. This was an allusion to the doctrine of a “free will,” which is also not in the Bible. With the help of this teaching, the responsibility for hell is shifted from the Creator to the creation.

Then, as if out of the blue, the Trinity was brought forth, to which the young man himself immediately remarked that this doctrine is nowhere mentioned in the Bible, but is nevertheless valid and must be absolutely believed. When I raised my concerns about this approach, a Bible passage was immediately quoted (John 14:9) – in which, however, nothing was clarified, but merely interpreted into it. When I pointed out that the Bible passage did not substantiate the statement, it was immediately swept off the table and already I was being warned against false teachings.

A conversation was not possible. I sought a common denominator (“we share the same vocation”), after which we parted amicably. I consider this young man a brother, but he saw things very differently from me.

The imprint of tradition

I call these experiences because they are so typical. I experienced such situations over many decades and also the readers of kernbeisser.ch regularly report such things back to me in various ways. You face a conversation like a wall. No conversation takes place.

Viewed soberly, one is confronted with an ideology. There is no clean exegesis (interpretation), but rather eisegesis (insertion). This is a real challenge, especially when proponents of heaven and hell lecture on the fact that their doctrine is in the Bible, but you can’t use the Bible in conversation.

However, I can well understand this attitude. I used to stand in the exact same spot where this young man was standing. However, I was shaken up. There have been people who have consistently pointed out to me that you should check the Scriptures yourself for this. There were studies that provided better interpretations than the traditional teaching. Thus, I was allowed to compare interpretations and gain a broader view from them. I have learned. I learned to distinguish between tradition and the Bible, between what is said “about” the Bible and what is written “in” the Bible.

That was a longer process. The gospel of God’s grace shone forth and everything changed for me. I had to correct many of my views.

This conversation on the street was about three topics:

• Heaven and Hell Doctrine
• Free will of man
• Trinity

None of these views are substantiated or mentioned in the Bible. So it was 100% argued from tradition, without the slightest trace of real reasoning from the text and context. Inferences are merely derived thoughts, which here are in direct contradiction with Scripture. It does not help to quote a Bible verse out of context and claim that the verse means this or that. However, this is a common way of interpretation and many a believer has never learned or experienced it any other way. On the street now, it was put forth as “biblical truth,” although in the same breath it was admitted that they had not really examined the Scriptures for it.

In a nut shell, this experience shows what it’s like in many communities. Understanding is like a house of cards, from which you cannot take away a card without the house collapsing. One is religious, but not self-reflective in doctrine.

Because the self-image arose from such notions, it remains extraordinarily difficult to engage in examination. Because that would mean that you would have to question yourself, your understanding. Because these very things became the “identity,” the first rejection, while not useful, is understandable.

Even quoting a Bible verse can seem threatening if the Bible challenges traditional teaching (e.g., about heaven and hell). Many then prefer to stick with the old familiar. It is difficult for a single person and even more difficult for a Bible study group or even a church to change course. I know of only one congregation that has dared to make a doctrinal correction and decades ago dared to make a radical break with what was previously believed. “Dared”, because that takes courage and trust in God. However, this congregation shows that it is also possible for a church or community to make a course correction with vision. However, this is neither new nor outlandish. Rather, it is a very living conversion.

Words like “conversion,” “conversion” or “reformation” imply such lively rethinking. Time and again, people have made such course changes in their lives. However, it seems to become a challenge for many once you are firmly entrenched in a community and tradition.

Between argumentation and message of grace

Back to the conversation. There is no point in trying to impose your own point of view in an argument. This only hardens the fronts. An imitator of Christ does not argue (2 Timothy 2:24-26). If you don’t have questions, you can’t bring answers. We don’t have to convince others. It is about making everything grow in love, toward Him, Christ Jesus our Lord (Ephesians 4:15-16).

Once upon a time, I thought that the point was to liberate truth from error.

Once upon a time, I thought that the point was to liberate truth from error. That is actually valuable in itself. It is important to clarify your own questions. Clarifying questions, however, is not the goal. Cognition is not the goal. When you think you have recognized something, you continue not to recognize it as it should be (1 Cor. 8:2). God Himself is the goal – through Christ Jesus. His love far surpasses all knowledge (Eph. 3:19). Our God and Father wants to become everything in us, which includes relationship and says nothing about certain knowledge (1 Cor. 15:28).

Our knowledge remains fragmentary. Many things can be clarified because you read about them in the Bible. The contrast also applies: many details remain unanswered because nothing is written about them. So it would be a mistake to think that everything can be explained from the Bible. It takes courage to learn to trust, but it also takes courage to let the unclear be unclear.

If something is still unclear, it is still possible to think ahead. We don’t have to know everything to form community and reach out to Christ together. This is how Paul saw it (Phil 3:12-15).

One may also recognize God’s purpose, the great arc from beginning to end (Rom 11:32-36). From this comes foresight. It sets our lives on a new track, makes us realize that we are called (Rom 1:6) and that today we recognize a (!) day of salvation (2 Cor 6:2). This drives us not to receive the grace of God in vain (2 Cor. 6:1).

The gospel of grace does something. grace educates (Titus 2:11-12). We learn to recognize God’s activity in Christ Jesus, His Son. From this comes a good news, the only basis of all evangelism (2 Cor. 5:14-21).

The dispute

If I have the good of the other person in mind, then there is a view characterized by grace in the dispute. When I am in conversation with people, it is not about them thinking like me, but about how they may experience something of His grace through me.

To the Colossians, Paul writes the following:

“Stop in prayer and watch in it with thanksgiving, praying at the same time also for us, that God may open for us a door for the word, to speak about the mystery of Christ, for whose sake I also am bound, that I may reveal it as I must speak. Walk in wisdom before those who are outside, buying the opportunity. Let your word always be in grace and seasoned with salt, knowing how you should answer each one.”
Col 4:2-6

Even though Paul once specifically mentions those “outside” the church, His hints are also important in the discussion with dissenters within the church. Our word should always be in grace and seasoned with salt. We should know how to answer everyone. We should keep peace (2 Cor. 13:11). If we were to do this for each other, then everyone wins. This presupposes that we persevere in prayer and watch in it, with thanksgiving, praying continually also that God may open a door for us to speak the word, so that the mystery of Christ (Col 1:26-27) may be spoken. Paul is describing an attitude of faith here. We can still place the individual statements in a broader context, but an attitude to life characterized by grace already clearly speaks out here. We should hold on to that. We should become wide ourselves if we want to lead others out into the wide.

“Our mouth has been opened to you, O Corinthians; has your heart also been enlarged? You are not straitened in us, but you are straitened in your innermost being! In return (as to children I speak) you also become wide!”
2Cor 6:11-13

This was Paul’s concern in the church at Corinth, which was once characterized by sectarianism (1 Cor. 1:10-13). Sectarianism has no place in the community, nor do hobbyhorses, pet topics, conspiracy theories, and the like. Faith is sober and Christ should be central. Everything else is secondary (Phil 3:15-16).

We should become wide ourselves if we want to lead others out into the wide.

Feel headwind

Imagine what happens when you are critical of the doctrine of heaven and hell. It is not uncommon to feel a strong headwind. It takes very little to be heretized, muzzled, slandered, disinvited, ostracized, and the like. “Quite a little,” for example, is when one quotes a Bible verse (e.g., 1 Tim. 4:9-11, Rom. 8:20-21, 1 Cor. 15:28).

Questioning is enough to make some people go to the barricades. Maybe you try to keep peace with all people, but people do not want to keep peace with you. This can be a painful experience. But this is not alienating. Hard teaching makes hard hearts.

Imagine getting to the bottom of certain questions, and the contradictions in the Bible gradually resolve themselves. It is reported in one’s own circles and there is a strong rejection – even when one can justify the questions and possible answers perfectly from the Bible. It is enough to neutrally acknowledge certain arguments as “valid” without immediately taking a different position.

What can this look like? Imagine that you have discovered statements of the Bible, such as this:

• the reconciliation of the universe is mentioned (Col 1,20)
• the justification of all people is an issue (Rom 5:18)
• the making alive of all people according to the example of Christ (1Cor 15,20-22) is to take place
• and the like.

If one can not only quote these texts, but has also found good and conclusive explanations to possible problem texts, then the problems begin. By intensively looking up the Bible for these topics, something like a new understanding grew. You can argue and probably know the subject better than most interlocutors. Does this starting position then make a better figure? Is it about arguing better? No. That is not the point, as has already been pointed out above. However, when you find yourself in a discussion on the topic for a reason, what happens?

Here’s what I’ve often experienced, and I’ve behaved so unreasonably myself: People shoot Bible passages at each other, which is completely counterproductive. I have often experienced that representatives of a heaven and hell doctrine think that you do not know the Bible. That is why you are “confronted” with Bible passages. If one dares to interpret such a passage in context and according to the basic text, which clearly refutes the supposed meaning, then one jumps to the next biblical passage. An evasive maneuver takes place. One does not examine the interpretation, but jumps to other arguments.

Several times I have experienced in such discussions that the proponents of hell jump from Bible passage to Bible passage and always come up with new arguments. Thus, one does not listen properly, but assumes without examination that the doctrine of heaven and hell is true and that any biblical passage that speaks of something else is probably misinterpreted. If an interpretation is refuted, one looks away and jumps to the next argument. Such a discussion is not fruitful. We should avoid them.

Lack of understanding of the Bible

What is lacking here? Well, soberly considered, there is a lack of understanding of the Bible. By this I don’t mean that you have to share the same knowledge, but that you have an understanding of the Bible itself, of its interrelationships, of biblical history, of the passage of time and the development in Scripture. Likewise, it needs a good understanding of the text, namely a good use of language.

Many contradictions are immediately resolved by following the 6 tips for healthy Bible viewing. They are basic rules for Bible study that many people have never heard of. If you observe these, then you are no longer so much at the mercy of people’s opinions. Surprisingly, I learned these basic rules where they also advocated hell. It is therefore not a foreign way of looking at things, but one’s own way of looking at things, consistently applied, which refutes the doctrine of hell.

Without understanding the Bible, the way to read the Bible, there is no fruitful conversation. Therefore, there are many posts on this website about how to read the Bible on your own with profit. You need such a toolbox so that you can compare objectively.

Even with an objective comparison, you may not always find yourself in agreement, but you can at least see at what point the interpretations diverge. That in itself is a win and the basis perhaps for a later rapprochement.

The desire for conformity

Another phenomenon I have often observed is the desire for security and conformity. Representatives of a heaven and hell doctrine not infrequently fancy themselves in the majority or see themselves as true representatives of Christianity. To put it casually, they see themselves as the guardians of the Holy Grail. Anyone who thinks that God will save all people one day (1 Timothy 4:9-11) is simply wrong. The majority is right.

Such an opinion also makes it particularly easy to heresy the others. You feel you are in a position of strength. This feeling can be prevalent in a community. One strives for conformity in one’s own ranks and resists other thoughts. Everything within your own group is good, everything outside is bad or dangerous. This, by the way, is a typical characteristic of cults.

In many a free church or in studies on the subject, one warns against “liberal” thoughts in this sense. What one thinks oneself is “biblical”, what is formulated in a different way is called “liberal”. Liberal is dangerous. You are not free to look and investigate anything. Instead, people pigeonhole and dismiss anything that sounds different. Liberal is also used as a term when the other opinion is not liberal at all, but simply concerns sound and good Bible study. Liberal here is another word for xenophobia, the fear of the different.

Liberal here is another word for xenophobia, the fear of the different.

Issues of importance

Really important in any dispute are only the respective own questions. How can I explain something to someone that they don’t want to know? Not all questions are important at all times. Not everyone has the same questions. Questions, however, about life and death, about ultimate events, about grace and about God’s nature are not sideshows of our existence. They are essential questions.

Cecil J. Blay once aptly wrote:

“It is perplexing, indeed downright frightening, that some who are justified in God’s grace for nothing, who have been undeservedly made partakers of His goodness, should rebel violently against the idea that those who are presently less fortunate will one day also be reconciled to God.” (Cecil J. Blay, “Become Wide”).

I consider it a privilege to be able to look up the Bible on what was actually written on these subjects. Paul prayed over and over again for believers to grow in the knowledge of God.

Deepening

• Bible study basics
• Universal Reconciliation