Never enough...

Until it's too much...

Commenter Michael responded to my post about sola scriptura by suggesting that the lack of details in the Bible made it inferior to Catholic sources, such as decrees, writings, and the apocrypha. And, that "Protestants" (his word, not mine) say the Bible has answers to "everything". Rather than give a brief response, I thought his points were worth bringing up in some detail, because they're common objections that others might encounter.

Part of the point of the original post was that works such as the apocrypha are cited specifically because they support preferred (or common practice) beliefs that pop up. The sinless-ness of Mary, which mutated from nonexistent to superstition to a Papal decree in 1854 (not a typo, that's a good 18 centuries after her death) is a perfect example. Below, you can find Michael's quoted comment and a response.

The comment (copied from the original post) is quoted here. Note, interestingly, that he calls people like me "Bible Christians". Outside of the present context, I'd take that as a compliment. One has to wonder if the irony of using that phrase in the negative is lost on people who deny sola scriptura.

Michael:

Where is the Reference? Bible Christians, believers in Sola Scriptura, teach that the Bible is complete and that it is all that is needed. They teach that all answers are given by Scripture.

I wish to refute that thinking by showing that there are a lot of questions brought up in Scripture that are not answered therein. So where do we go to find those answers so that we have the fullness of truth and not just some of it?

Matthew 11:21, "Woe to thee, Corozain...For if in Tyre and Sidon had been worked the miracles that have been worked in you, they would have repented long ago in sackcloth and ashes." What are these miracles in Corozain? Where is the reference?

Matthew 23:2, "The Scribes and the Pharisees have sat on the chair of Moses." Where is this 'chair of Moses' referenced in Scripture?

Acts 20:35, "In all things I have shown you that by so toiling you ought to help the weak and REMEMBER the Word of the Lord Jesus, that He Himself said, 'It is more blessed to give than to receive.'"Show me the verse where Jesus said these words.

Matthew 2:23, "And He went and settled in a town called Nazareth; that there might be fulfilled what was spoken through the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene." In what verse did the prophets say this?

James 4:5, "Or do you think that the Scripture says in vain, "The Spirit which dwells in you covets unto jealousy."" Where does Scripture reference this?

2Timothy 3:8, "Just as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so these men also resist the truth..." Who are Jannes and Jambres? Where is the reference? If you know, by what means did you find it?

Hebrews 11:35, "Women had their dead restored to them by resurrection. Others were tortured, refusing to accept release, that they might find a better resurrection." Who are these 'others', the ones searching for a better resurrection? Where is the Bible reference?

Jude 1:9, "Yet when Michael the Archangel was fiercely disputing with the devil about the body of Moses..." Where can this 'dispute' be found in Holy Scripture?

Jude 1:14, "Now of these also Enoch, the seventh from Adam, prophesied, saying, 'Behold, the Lord has come with thousands of His holy ones.'" Where is this prophecy in Scripture? Where is the reference?

Since non-Catholics are bound to Scripture and Scripture only (Sola Scriptura), the purpose of this file is to show that everything is not in the Bible. Answers to some of the questions asked here can be found through Tradition, and others through the seven books that non-Catholics do not have in their Bibles. Some can be found in the multitude of apocryphal writings, and in the very large library of writings by the Church Fathers.

Others simply cannot be found anywhere but have been lost forever for various reasons. It is thought that about 400,000 priceless historical writings alone were lost due to the great fire in the library of Alexandria Egypt in 48 B.C. (the actual date is debatable). Others have been lost simply by the deterioration of the scroll media used by the various authors of antiquity.

Catholics have the fullness of truth since they can draw on so many resources outside of Scripture as mentioned above. Protestantism has many pieces missing to their puzzle of GOD's salvation history unless they are willing to search the Catholic sources listed.

As long as they cling to the false doctrine of sola scriptura, they will never see the full picture. They will never have the fullness of truth.

Michael made one of the classic mistakes in trying to deny sola scriptura – making a silly caricature of the concept instead of dealing with the real issue.

Neither I, nor others who subscribe to and understand sola scriptura, are saying that the Bible contains “answers to everything.” It has all the answers and information we need to understand God’s will and His plan for salvation. It also gives us a framework for judging doctrine and practice. The Bible doesn’t tell us what color Peter’s eyes were, or what John’s favorite food was. We don’t know for sure the names of the thieves executed with Jesus. Are any of these important for salvation? For our spiritual life? No. The Bible tells us what we need to know.

Consider John 21:25 and Job chapter 38. Both remind us that we don’t need to know absolutely every single tiny detail to understand God’s will, or to trust in His plan.

“Traditional” beliefs that fill in some of these details are fine, so long as we keep them in perspective. Just because “tradition” has some details that the Bible does not doesn’t mean those details are accurate. It certainly doesn’t mean that they’re just as authoritative as inspired scripture. God-inspired words can be spoken and written today, of course, but the reason God gave us His written word is so we have a foundation of truth to compare them to.

The argument that some of God’s truths were lost is contrary to the Bible itself. The (real) Bible says “The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the Word of the Lord endures forever. And this is the word which was preached to you (1 Peter 1:24-25).” Michael suggests that God’s truths – necessary, important truths – can be lost, so we need to be open to additional sources, like the apocrypha and other writings. Never mind that the books Catholicism added to the Bible were certified specifically because they support concepts that Catholics couldn’t justify using scripture.

The point here is that scripture – the real, inspired Word – is the ultimate and only valid authority for doctrine and practice. Sola scriptura says that anything which contradicts the Bible should be rejected. Non-Biblical sources should be interpreted in light of the Bible. Catholicism says that later writings, Papal decrees, and even popular opinion can change the meaning and interpretation of the Bible.

Sola scriptura is not a claim that every single thing a believer might ever want to know is contained in the Bible, which is more or less what Michael seems to expect. In fact he teeters on suggesting that just because a source provides “an answer”, it’s automatically better than one with “no answers”, regardless of the importance of the question, or the inspiration of the source.

So, when asking about Chorazin, Jannes and Jambres, the dispute in Jude, and so forth, what’s the point? That any source which explains these fully should be treated as equal with the Bible? In each case, we get enough information to get the gist of the point being made. It might be nice to know more, but are we going to contradict Job 38 by saying we can’t believe them unless we get 100% of the details?

Looking at it from another perspective, I've written dramatic material for my home church's Passion Play ministry. In doing so, I've given names and back-stories to characters that the Bible didn't flesh out to that extent. I've written conversations and interactions that support the message of the Bible, but obviously don't actually come from first-hand knowledge or divine inspiration, at least not the kind that generated holy scripture. I'd be horrified to find my scripts being quoted 500 years from now by someone trying to prove that the adulterous woman and Peter argued over the meaning of the crucifixion. These details have some teaching value, but they're not "real" details.

Regarding Acts 20:35, the reference is…Acts 20:35. Does it have to be in two places in order to be believed? Once again, we have John 21:25. It’s recorded in a book inspired by the Holy Spirit, written by Luke. Does Catholicism claim to have a complete list of every word spoken by Jesus from birth to death? This is a perfect example of how denying sola scriptura on the basis of “we need more info” can get a little silly.

Regarding the Chair of Moses, it should be clear that Jesus is speaking symbolically –the Pharisees assumed the position of Moses as God’s appointed lawgiver. He’s not talking about furniture. Remember, Jesus was criticizing them for adding their own rules and traditions on to God’s actual Word to suit their own preferences, then acting as though it was all of the same authority. Just like the Catholic Church. He’s not talking about furniture.

In regards to the prophecies mentioned, recall what was said above about not all valid prophetic statements being recorded (or needing to be recorded) in scripture.

Specifically:

Looking at Matthew 2:23, Isaiah 11:1 calls Messiah a “branch” (Hebrew neser) of Jesse. There’s a phonetic similarity between the words that’s being invoked. Nazareth was also a place of Roman garrisons, and of little religious importance; this fits with Messiah’s prophesied low status during life and lack of contemporary appreciation. There were likely other prophetic statements being briefly summed up in this verse.

The same is true for Jude 1:14. He’s using different wording than the apocryphal book of Enoch, so it’s not a quote. What’s most likely is that the actual prophecy was also mentioned in Enoch, and Jude is endorsing the truth of that particular prophecy. That the book contains a truth does not make it inspired. There are many truths written on this blog; that (certainly, absolutely, unquestionably) doesn’t make it divinely inspired.

James 4:5 has been seen as notoriously hard to translate for millennia. One ultra-literal translation says this: “Or think you that vainly the Scripture says to envy yearns the spirit which was made to dwell in you, but He gives great grace.” Another, “The spirit which He has made to dwell in us lusts with envy.” The most sensible assessment is that James is speaking of the general message of scripture, especially when you read the next verse, James 4:6.

What we need to know, we will always have access to in inspired scripture. There’s a reason God gave us the written Word, and a good reason Jesus so often referred to it. There’s a reason He made such an overt point of criticizing the Pharisees’ addition of tradition on top of God’s actual commandments. And there’s a reason Catholicism will always be at the mercy of superstition and pop culture – God’s word does not change, because God does not change. Catholic doctrine does nothing but change, because it’s not anchored to the Word of God.

Read more!

Here We Go Again

Been there, seen this...

I saw this story about a professor suing for religious discrimination and was appalled by the specific language being used. In reviewing him for a position, though his credentials are impeccable, he was derided as “something close to a creationist" and "potentially evangelical." Never mind the fact that his scientific opinions are well in line with his peers, or that the minutiae of his opinions on evolution should be somewhat irrelevant, since he’s an astronomer.

Whether any actual discrimination took place, time will hopefully tell. He may have ultimately been passed over for legitimate reasons – but the fact remains that his faith became a part of the discussion. And, far worse, it was seen as a major problem, regardless of his actual scientific positions. Not an uncommon problem, unfortunately.


I’ve discussed the difference between dislike, discrimination, and actual persecution here before. This is another example of anti-religious sentiment that some, if not most, of the New Atheists will try to defend. As I said in a prior post:

“De facto” (in practice) discrimination has a bad habit of becoming “de jure” (by law) discrimination. When New Atheists spew out rhetoric about religion being “private”, or having no place in government, or having no place in science, or equating it with child abuse, they take a step down a very dark road….A legitimately “secular” society is interested in maintaining freedom of religion, not freedom from religion, not freedom of one religion, not freedom in spite of religion, and not freedom against religion. It’s certainly not in the best interests of America to have some, any, or all religious worldview(s) declared unacceptable for public expression.

Americans should easily recognize that we’re nowhere near this level of religious persecution, for any creed of any kind. Atheists aren’t being rounded up and jailed for rejecting belief in God. Buddhists aren’t being ticketed for discussing their views with non-Buddhists. Christians are not being forced to worship in homes rather than in churches. All the same, there is a growing attitude of intolerance – yes, I said intolerance – being levied against religious viewpoints.

When Sam Harris reviewed the book “The Language of God” by Francis Collins, he spoke straight from his bigoted heart. Harris declared first and foremost that Collins was obviously not possessed of a scientific mind…because he believed in God, and never mind his titanic achievements. That was the theme, substance, and foundation of every other embarrassingly snide remark made in his assessment. Richard Dawkins has placed religious upbringing lower in his personal moral gauge than pedophilia. This is the man titled by Oxford as the chair for “The Public Understanding of Science”, by the way. The books, articles, and lectures roll on, accompanied by suggestions, both overt and covert, that religion is a burden people ought to be freed from – one way or another…

…Here’s the warning for the religious critic so giddy about the prospect of expunging foolish superstition from polite society: what happens when the “Secular” state changes its mind? Once only one worldview is permitted, in practice, there is little to stop it from being enshrined into law. Once the establishment gets the right to decide what metaphysical, religious, or worldview ideas are or are not acceptable, what are you going to do when those in power start drifting away from your opinion? Complain about discrimination? When they tell you to either keep your fool ideas at home or spend a night in jail, or find another career, are you going to argue that even unpopular ideas have the right to be freely aired at all levels of society?

Of course, some will argue that the professor is free to say or believe whatever he wants; he just can't expect to get a job in a university if he does so. I'm 100% sure that type of argument would never be accepted by a New Atheist if a professor was turned down for being "something like an atheist" or "potentially anti-religious". Opinions and beliefs have consequences, but it's the responsibility of a free society to disallow discrimination where those beliefs don't impede or damage the job in question.

Read more!

Sola Scriptura

Yes, it's in there

Sola scriptura is the concept that inspired scripture should be the ultimate authority for all matters of faith and practice. According to this approach, anything not compatible with scripture is not compatible with legitimate Christianity. It doesn't view the Bible as the only valid source for knowledge or practice, but as the only legitimate authority on spiritual matters.

I was recently questioned on the concept of sola scriptura by someone concerned over some content of the Got Questions website. Their concern was twofold: 1) If sola scriptura isn't actually taught explicitly in the Bible, is it a valid doctrine; and 2) how does that place sola scriptura in relation to quasi-biblical ideas such as infant baptism. Plus, there was some unease over Luther's theological quirks. Actual question and my response below.

The article the questioner is referring to is published at Got Questions.org.

...First of all, [the article] says: “Catholics argue that the Bible nowhere states that it is the only authoritative guide for faith and practice. While *this is true*, they fail to recognize a crucially important issue. ... So, while *the Bible itself may not explicitly argue for sola scriptura*, it most definitely does not allow for traditions that contradict its message.”

How can the leading doctrine of our Reformation not be explicitly taught in Scripture? And how can we believe in a doctrine that isn’t explicitly taught in Scripture anymore than Infant Baptism is? It makes me shudder to the core.

And the article says “infant baptism” is a Roman Catholic invention, yet Methodists, Anglicans, Reformed, and Lutherans believe and defend this teaching. The article says Luther stood by Sola Scriptura, yet he rabidly defended infant baptism all his life and hated Baptists. How can this be?

I don’t know how I can be Protestant after hearing this answer. It scares me to think we broke apart the Church for a doctrine that we admit is not clearly taught in the Bible. Help?

Luther and the other Reformers recognized that the teachings of the Bible – words actually recorded under the guidance of the Holy Spirit – did not support many concepts being taught by the Catholic Church. They also recognized Jesus’ own teachings on the subject (see below). When confronted with this contradiction, Catholic leadership responded by appeals to “tradition”.

It’s true that sola scriptura isn’t explicitly mentioned in the Bible; this doesn’t mean that it’s not mentioned at all. Jesus clearly stated that God’s people ought to rely on His Word for doctrine, not human habits or preferences. Refer to Mark 7:5-13. Here, Jesus is speaking with the Pharisees, who added their own traditions onto God’s Word (the scriptures of what we now call the Old Testament). Eventually, those traditions became dominant to the point of blatant contradiction. Jesus even gives an example of how this worked itself out in the lives of the Pharisees.

Take special note of Mark 7:6-9:

[Jesus] replied, ‘Isaiah was right when he prophesied about you hypocrites; as it is written: “These people honor me with their lips, but their hearts are far from me. They worship me in vain; their teachings are merely human rules.” You have let go of the commands of God and are holding on to human traditions.’ And [Jesus] continued, ‘You have a fine way of setting aside the commands of God in order to observe your own traditions!’

That is a clear summary of sola scriptura. According to Christ, the Pharisees’ error was “letting go the commands of God”, meaning scripture, in favor of “human rules.” He is stating that doctrine ought to rely on God’s Word, not human tradition. In particular, traditions that defy or dilute the message of the Gospel have no place in a believer’s life. Combining this with the Bible’s encouragement to use scripture for learning and doctrine (2 Timothy 3:16; Acts 17:11), we see sola scriptura being taught without being explicitly referenced.

Popularity does not mean accuracy. Methodists, Lutherans, Anglicans, even Baptists are free to believe whatever they want, but that doesn’t make it correct. That’s precisely what bad traditions are: habits that mutate into religious laws. It’s also true that an in-depth study of Luther’s life shows him to be an unpleasant and often cruel person. His theology was far from perfect. That makes no difference whatsoever about the truth of sola scriptura.

God used Luther in a powerful way, despite his shortcomings, just as He does with each of us. Jonah was a spiteful, disobedient, heartless man. When the people of Nineveh repented, and were spared, Jonah responded with anger (Jonah 3:10-4:3). One can only imagine what sorts of things Jonah said or did that aren’t recorded in the Bible. Samson was a womanizer. David was a murderer, as was Moses. None of those change the fact that God used these people to accomplish a purpose. That Luther wasn’t a perfect person, or a perfect theologian, shouldn’t discourage a person from belief in the truth.

Infant baptism, prayers to saints, prayers to Mary, purgatory, and so forth, are contradictory to the Bible. In response to the Reformers’ claim that scripture did not support those practices, the Catholic Church attempted to “certify” texts that had never been considered part of the canon before, at the Council of Trent. The same council continued the practice of equating tradition with Biblical commandments in terms of authority.

This mindset, not sola scriptura, should be blamed for “breaking apart the church”. In truth, the true church is the body of believers, which cannot be broken. A more accurate view would be that those who rejected the Bible in favor of human tradition abandoned the (true) church.

Read more!

Kick the Tires and Light the Fires

Well, sort of...

After being practically unable to even look at Gladio Mentis since October of 2009, I'm finally back in position to add some content. I don't plan on resuming a routine posting schedule, but I'll toss up whatever seems relevant or interesting. Still taking requests, as always.

In a nutshell, I took a job last year that demanded nearly 90 hours a week for the first several months, and bizarre hours thereafter. Surprise! What time was left after work and sleep was mostly spent on things more critical than blogging (like my son). I'm glad to be back in business (so to speak), and to see what's shaking since I've been gone.

I'd put the comments into moderation to prevent anything unsavory from popping up while I wasn't looking. I plan to keep the moderation on, so please don't be surprised if comments take a day or so to post once you submit them.

Read more!

Still Here...

But short on time...

It's been slow (to say the least) here for quite a while, in no small part because of not-internet reality. Work and such are taking a heavy toll on my time right now, so things might stay a bit quiet at Gladio Mentis for a while. both the site and yours truly are still in commission, however, and posts will pop up every so often 'till things get back up to speed. since I can't watch the site as much as I'd like, I'll be turning on comment moderation. New comments will post, but they may not pop up right away.

Read more!

Todd Friel, Adjust Your Antenna

You're coming in loud, but fuzzy...

I was recently referred to a website containing an article by Todd Friel, a Christian radio host associated with Kirk Cameron and Ray Comfort’s “Way of the Master”. The person referencing it was concerned because it made them doubt their salvation.

Frankly, the article is not full of bad theology so much as bad writing. I’m sure that in a face-to-face conversation, what Friel believes about salvation is not really different that what is actually being taught in most Bible-believing churches. Unfortunately, you have to read between the lines to see that. Most of the confusion is the fault of Friel’s awful, awful presentation of whatever it is he’s actually trying to say.

The big confusion here is in terminology. The vast majority of evangelical Christians will see the phrase “ask Jesus into your heart” and understand it the way it’s presented in most Bible-based churches. They will assume it means, “repent of sin, trust in Christ, and ask Him to save you.” That’s not what Friel means when he uses the phrase, though. He uses that phrase to mean, “just say some words in a prayer without repenting or having any faith.” In this way, unfortunately, he's being as uncharitably obtuse as some atheistic critics of religion like Sam Harris or Christopher Hitchens.

Friel’s basic contention is that merely “asking Jesus into your heart” is not enough for a person to be saved. That’s true, given how he uses the phrase (see above). He indicates that a person must repent of sin and trust in Christ, because merely saying a prayer is not enough. That’s also true. Friel goes further, though, in implying that “asking Jesus into your heart” is necessarily (i.e. always) different than repenting and trusting. That’s where the real problem is. Friel is creating a straw man. When he speaks of churches or people using this phrase, he creates a false impression that anyone who uses that idea in any way is “doing it wrong”.

Friel also makes an early, and important theological error, regarding backsliding. He claims that backsliding is not possible for one truly saved. He cites 2 Corinthians 5:17, but seems to forget about Peter, Noah, Moses, David, and all of the other men who undoubtedly demonstrated saving faith, but who undoubtedly sinned afterwards. He doesn’t mention Romans 7, 1 John 1:8, or Romans 3:23, all of which remind us that even saved believers cannot live sinless lives. It would be interesting to ask Todd Friel if he has lived a perfectly sinless life ever since he trusted in Christ.

Consider these other flaws in his ten points:

1. Bible-believing churches don’t teach that “The Sinner’s Prayer” saves you. They teach that a sinner’s prayer is what a person says when they repent and choose to trust in Christ. There's a difference there that should be as obvious as it is important. If Friel wanted to emphasize that some so-called-Christian leaders don’t properly explain salvation, he ought to have said so directly. Instead, he ends up implying that every church using the phrases “ask Jesus into your heart” or “sinners prayer” is leading people to Hell. Not true.
2. By asking silly questions like “which ventricle of the heart is Jesus coming into”, Friel again sounds just as pathetically snide as atheists like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens. He seems to forget, also, that if a child has trouble understanding “ask Jesus into your heart”, they’re going to have even more trouble with concepts like submissive repentance, justification, and so forth. It’s a meaningless point.
3. and...
4. Here, Friel assumes that those who call others to “ask Jesus into their hearts” never mention either repentance or faith. That’s not just a stretch, but it borders on dishonesty. This is where the “straw man” comes in. To take this article seriously, one has to assume that it refers to evangelism efforts which never mention repentance or trust, but merely blurt out that people should “ask Jesus into their hearts”. And, that this represents a large proportion of evangelical churches.
5. Friel borders on a theological problem here, as well, when he says that those “who sincerely, but wrongly, asked Jesus into their hearts think they are saved but [they are not]”. That sounds like a Pharisee talking to me. It is true that a person who is not repentant and trusting when they “ask Jesus” won’t be saved. But once again, that’s essentially a straw man argument. Those who sincerely “ask Jesus” - in repentance and faith - cannot “do it wrong” as Friel, possibly accidentally, implies. Jesus isn’t going to reject the truly repentant sinner who prays, “Jesus, come into my heart”.
6. Same straw man as above.
7. Friel claims that “asking Jesus into your heart” makes God a “beggar” and “robs Him of His sovereignty”. He gives no explanation for how, nor for how his method avoids the same.
8. and...
9. Friel again repeats the assertion that “real” Christians don’t sin (“Born again believers…don’t get divorced.”) Todd Friel needs to read 1 Corinthians 10:12 very, very carefully. He should probably read about what David did to Bathsheba’s husband (2 Samuel 11) and decide if he wants to argue that David was never really a believer before then. He claims that false conversions contribute to the ridicule of Christ, which is true. And yet, so does the claim that “real” believers don’t sin – that hands atheism the valid argument that there are apparently no “real” Christians at all.
10. When you understand how Friel is using the phrase, “ask Jesus into your heart”, this makes sense. But since Friel doesn’t make that clear, his assertion that “People who ask Jesus into their hearts are not saved and they will perish on the Day of Judgment,” teeters on the edge of vulgarity.

There is no “right” or “wrong” way to evangelize, assuming that what is done is consistent with the commandments and teachings of Christ. Part of the problem with the Way of the Master and its associates (including Friel) is the melodramatic way they claim that all other approaches leave people unsaved and hell-bound. That’s simply not true. Articles such as the one linked above put Todd Friel at the forefront of well-meaning but poorly-equipped believers reaching well beyond their qualifications.

Read more!

The Gay Jesus Movie (BF)

Rated "F" for fake...

Fire and brimestone coming down from the skies! Rivers and seas boiling! 40 years of darkness, earthquakes, volcanoes! The dead rising from the grave! Human sacrifice! Dogs and cats, living together! Mass hysteria! Why? They're making a major motion picture - "Corpus Christi" - where Jesus is gay! or are they?

There's not much else to say about this one except: no, they are not. Not that there aren't enough frothing anti-Christians in the entertainment industry who'd probably do it out of spite. Still, no such movie exists. What does exist is a half-baked stage play, in which Jesus and his disciples are homosexuals. It's performed for more or less the same reasons it was written: to make Christians angry. And yet, it's neither well known nor popular. It's just an oddity of the age. The chain emails which inspire so much anger and reaction are sent for the same reasons: to make Christians angry, and see what we do without thinking. Let's break that chain, shall we?

Read more!

One Hoax of a Hell (BF)

Drilling for truth...

I routinely get questions, forwards, and tips regarding "the sounds of Hell". Supposedly, a team of scientists drilled dozens of miles deep into Siberia and then(for some reason) decided to drop in a microphone and a thermometer. They allegedly discovered a massive open space, outrageously hot, and filled with screams and other eerie noises. Apparently, they dug so deep they hit Hell. This must be true, because the internet said so.

Scripturally, there is no information about exactly “where” Hell is. Scriptural passages that describe Hell as being “down” or “below” should be understood in their literary context. Heavenly, good, or righteous things are spoken of as being “higher”, while evil and wicked things are spoken of as being “lower”. This does not mean that they are literally below our feet or over our heads. The same relationship works for God’s reaction to certain people or actions. Those who are rewarded or helped are being “lifted up”, those who are being punished are being “cast down”. The terms are symbolic more than literal.

With that in mind, we cannot say for sure where Hell is, or even if it is a place in this physical universe. Both Heaven and Hell might be in a different dimension, for all we know. Since the Bible does not specify, what we do know is that the actual location of Hell is not nearly so important as knowing how to avoid it! (Romans 8:1)

What is certain is that man would not be able to get into our out of hell just by drilling into it. The story about voices from underground is an ‘urban legend’, or a modern fable. In 1984, a geographic survey team in Siberia drilled about 7 miles deep. They found unusually high temperatures and strange rock formations, but little else. For some reason, descriptions of this drilling started to gain details as it was passed around, as many legends do. At one point, someone even put together an audio recording that was supposedly made by the scientists, complete with tormented screaming. In reality, none of this actually happened, and the story is just a tall tale.

There are a few things about Hell that we can be sure of: it exists (Revelation 21:8), it is eternal (Mark 9:44), and it is avoidable (Mark 16:16). We don’t know exactly where it is, or if people now living have seen it. Since the Bible doesn’t choose to focus on those details, we can be sure that they aren’t ultimately important to our relationship with God. We can focus on Christ without worrying too much about the rest.

Read more!