Hell.....

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[expos4ever]

I think we already covered this some posts back in this thread. I pointed out in that earlier post - as you are here - that words in Scripture don't always mean precisely the same thing in every instance where they are used. As I explained, the immediate context and the general context are the primary means by which any particular term is to be understood. You are focused on "forever" in your example above, but I showed that terms like "dead," "destroy" and "perish" are not always used in a strictly literal way in Scripture.

For examples see Romans 6:1-11, Matthew 9:17, Colossians 3:3, 2 Peter 3:6.

Selah.

I agree, but the fact that "forever" does not always mean forever means that one cannot simply argue that since certain texts say people will be tormented forever, we have to take that literally.

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[vinsight4u]

/

 

[aiki]

You do know that under Roman laws, there were two levels of sonship, right? One could adopt the son that came of their own biological line.

You do know what Scripture plainly states, right? I mean, I gave you actual passages that explain the matter of our spiritual adoption.

No. He took none of the benefits with him. He took what HE found valuable, the inheritance. However, he received the TRUE benefits of being part of the family when he returned.

Well, now, you're contradicting yourself. If the Prodigal took the inheritance with him (which he did), then he took with him at least a part of the benefit of being a member of his family. To say he took none defies your own words (and the words of the parable). The inheritance was nothing if not a benefit of the Prodigal's membership in his family. And it was the one benefit he desired above any other. Talking about true benefits is really just the No True Scotsman Fallacy at work in your thinking. Jesus makes no such distinction as he shares the parable.

With the ring, he could sign documents as an official representative of the family, make business transactions as part of the family, and even adopt someone into the family. The inheritance was ephemeral. It wasn't a real benefit.

Sorry, this really is an example of the No True Scotsman Fallacy. Saying the inheritance wasn't a real benefit makes little sense. It was real: the Prodigal possessed it, and spent it, and enjoyed its...benefits. It may have been ephemeral but it was nonetheless real. One could say the same thing about a tornado. But all those who were directly affected by it would tell you it was very real.

Refer again to the Prodigal. Had he died outside of the family's estate, in a land where his family was unknown, he wouldn't have received any of the burial his family would have. The benefits of being part of the family, as I said earlier, were lost.

Some of them -- perhaps. Jesus' parable makes no comment on the things about which you're speculating here.

You haven't made the argument that sin is worthy of eternal punishment without implicating God by saying He artificially inflates the severity of our sins.

How does God "artificially inflate" the severity of our sin? He is God, the Creator and Sustainer of All, He stands with authority, and power, and knowledge beyond human calculation and understanding. When we rebel against such incalculable divine supremacy and disobey God how can the sin of that rebellion not be correspondingly enormous? It isn't that God overstates His authority and power in reaction to our sin. He doesn't add to His incomparable glory and majesty and thereby increase the seriousness of our sin against Him. No, our sin is quite serious enough with it being against God as He is. What it seems to me you're arguing for is that God ought to diminish the seriousness of our sin. God won't let our sin slide, however, and so you accuse Him of over-inflating its seriousness. That seems a much-to-be-expected tactic from a sin-cursed creature under the condemnation of a holy, awesome God.

I can't imagine a serf in a feudal kingdom getting away with this sort of reasoning: "Your Lordship, Ruler of this land, I rebelled against you, and broke your law, and disobeyed you. You may give me land to work, a place to live, and your protection and you may rule this kingdom as the supreme authority of it, but none of that matters, really. Why should the fact that you're the king make any difference to what I've done? So what if it was your law I broke? Be a good king and just forgive my lawbreaking. Don't make a fuss. If you don't forgive me, you'll be the one who makes my crime a bad thing. You'll be the guilty one. You don't want that, do you?" What king would capitulate to this sort of reasoning? Not a just and wise one, that's for sure!

If God does not artificially give them eternality, then how do they carry on past their natural ends?

Natural ends? Who says what is the "natural end" of your sin? You? I don't think so. That's God's call and He says that without accepting the atonement of Christ on your behalf, your sin has an eternal consequence, a consequence that never ends. As I said, your sin is never just a finite temporal thing but a sin against the infinite Ruler of the Universe. When you sin, you break His law and in so doing defy Him. And when you defy the eternal, omnipotent, God of All, the consequences are very, very serious. Nothing artificial about that, as far I can see.

1. As I said, your God is not just, as He tips the scales by artificially inflating the severity of our sins.

And I think your reasoning here is seriously flawed.

2. God is limited? I thought He was all-powerful

Well, think again.

3. Then it is naught but God torturing people for no constructive reason whatsoever. What, if He truly WILLED that they not suffer, then He would simply stop torturing them. So I guess He wants them to suffer. We've established He isn't just because He is punishing the finite with infinite results.

Penal punishment is itself a constructive purpose. It is the proper, just response to a lawbreaker. That is why God never simply forgave our sins outright, but put upon Christ the just punishment we should have borne for our sin ourselves. Our forgiveness does not come cheap. It wasn't free. Someone atoned for our sin with his own blood and it is only because that happened that we have God's forgiveness. Serving justice is, then, as God demonstrates in the atonement, a very necessary and constructive thing.

If God suddenly stopped the just punishment of the wicked, then He would not be a just Judge (and God). Imagine a human judge suddenly ending the sentence of every criminal and setting them all free. Would that be a just thing to do? Obviously not. And it would be equally unjust for God to do so. Like it or not, penal suffering is an instrinsic necessary part of justice.

Unlimited forgiveness was already given.

But at a terrible price. Christ bought that forgiveness with his own life and blood.

In the Orthodox model, forgiveness is not all that salvation is.

That is not all salvation is for the Protestant evangelical Christian, either.

Do you think God made them experience such pain that they caused the end of their own lives? Where does that pain come from? It comes from a lack of hope, a lack of joy. And it has nothing to do with the absence of God, Who is literally right there in their room with them, wanting them to experience the joy He offers.

But here the problem is, in a figurative sense, a matter of absence. God is absent - from the throne of the person's heart and this is fundamentally why they are despairing. And He cannot be "found" (though He is omnipresent) unless He reveals Himself to us.

What happens when you plug a computer into a power source it isn't compatible with. It needs alternating current, but you plug it into a direct current. You'll fry the computer. The same thing happens when men are put into contact with God. If they are not compatible with God's love, then it fries them. It isn't something God does uniquely to them, but something they have done to themselves.

Scripture please. Where, exactly, in God's word is any of this described?

God isn't just in either of our descriptions of His actions. In yours, He is artificially inflating the severity of our crime.

I'm sorry, but He is not. No matter how many times you assert this, I am not going to concede it. See above.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

I agree, but the fact that "forever" does not always mean forever means that one cannot simply argue that since certain texts say people will be tormented forever, we have to take that literally.

But it doesn't necessarily mean we have to take them figuratively, either.

Selah.

 

[expos4ever]

But it doesn't necessarily mean we have to take them figuratively, either.

Selah.

Of course. But on what does your belief in eternal torment rest Biblically, if not a literal interpretation of those texts?

 

[Catherineanne]

I know why atheists say that - why do Anglicans say it??

Because it is true. And because our Trinity does not comprise God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Scriptures.

 

[Catherineanne]

All of that is true. But denying the wicked eternal life is a final, never revoked - never returned to life punishment of sin no matter what your view is of the length of time that -- torture -- is added to that time of punishment.

The wages of sin is death, not eternal punishment.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6:23&version=KJV

 

[BobRyan]

The wages of sin is death, not eternal punishment.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+6:23&version=KJV

Agreed but why do you say the Bible teaches "a lot of nonsense"?

And the 2nd death of Rev 20 is eternal - is never ending - no matter if you believe the torture aspect is also unending or not -- wouldn't you agree?

Matt 10:28 "fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"
Speaking of the 2nd death Ezek 18:4 says 'the soul that sins it shall die'

 

[BobRyan]

But it doesn't necessarily mean we have to take them figuratively, either.

Selah.

It means that "it pays" to look at those texts very closely and try not to insert doctrine into them by mere inference.

 

[Catherineanne]

Agreed but why do you say the Bible teaches "a lot of nonsense"?

And the 2nd death of Rev 20 is eternal - is never ending - no matter if you believe the torture aspect is also unending or not -- wouldn't you agree?

Matt 10:28 "fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"
Speaking of the 2nd death Ezek 18:4 says 'the soul that sins it shall die'

Kindly do not misquote me. I said there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. I did not say the Bible teaches a lot of nonsense. I might have said that people teach a lot of nonsense based on their own personal interpretation of the contents of Scripture, because that is true.

The Bible does not teach. It simply says what it says. Then it is up to us to work out what it means, with the help of whatever denomination we belong to. The Bible does not interpret itself.

As for the Bible poker; if you can find me a verse of Scripture authorising this game, then I will play. I won't hold my breath.

The death which Paul speaks of is not eternal punishment; it is annihilation; total destruction. God's divine fire does not destroy; it purifies.

 

[JacksBratt]

Kindly do not misquote me. I said there is a lot of nonsense in the Bible. I did not say the Bible teaches a lot of nonsense. I might have said that people teach a lot of nonsense based on their own personal interpretation of the contents of Scripture, because that is true.

The Bible does not teach. It simply says what it says. Then it is up to us to work out what it means, with the help of whatever denomination we belong to. The Bible does not interpret itself.

As for the Bible poker; if you can find me a verse of Scripture authorising this game, then I will play. I won't hold my breath.

The death which Paul speaks of is not eternal punishment; it is annihilation; total destruction. God's divine fire does not destroy; it purifies.

God's divine fire does destroy. It destroys anything that is not Godly. When I get to heaven I will pass through God's fire judgement. All that is not worthy of Him will be burned away and I will be left with my cleansed soul at the very least.

If a person is not saved, their soul will not survive the purifying fire of judgement as it will be part of the chaff. There will be nothing left.

Only pure gold will come out of the purification sorceress. If there is no gold, nothing will be left.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

God's divine fire does destroy. It destroys anything that is not Godly. When I get to heaven I will pass through God's fire judgement. All that is not worthy of Him will be burned away and I will be left with my cleansed soul at the very least.

If a person is not saved, their soul will not survive the purifying fire of judgement as it will be part of the chaff. There will be nothing left.

Only pure gold will come out of the purification sorceress. If there is no gold, nothing will be left.

I tend to agree, and that is also my understanding according to the Hebrew/Jewish scriptures.
I view the parable of the Rich Man and Lazarus as "covenantle". The religion of OC Judism and its Temple and Priesthood being "abolished" in favor of worshipping Jesus/GOD in spirit and truth. Just MHO........

Mala 3:
2 "And who enduring the day of His coming? And who the one standing in appearance of Him? That He is fire of refiner and soap of launderers.
3 And He sits a refiner and a purifier of silver and He purifies the sons of Levi, and purges them as gold and as silver,
and they become to YAHWEH ones bringing close an offering/present in righteousness

http://www.herealittletherealittle.net/index.cfm?page_name=Lazarus
JESUS VS THE JUDEAN RELIGIOUS RULERS

Luke 16:24 And he sounding said: "Father Abraham! be you merciful to-me! and send Lazarus! that he should be dipping the tip of the finger of him of water, and should be cooling down the tongue of me,--
that I am being pained in the flame/flogi, this."

Luke 16:26 And on all of these, between Us [NC Faith/Life] and Ye [OC Law/Death] a great chasm/gulf hath been established,
so that those willing to cross-over/diabhnai <1224> (5629) hence toward ye not be able to,
no yet thence toward us may be ferrying/diaperwsin <1276>.


.

 

[sculleywr]

You do know what Scripture plainly states, right? I mean, I gave you actual passages that explain the matter of our spiritual adoption.

Which do not mean that God is not the Father of all men, as Scripture clearly and plainly states. This is the problem with "Scripture plainly states", because "Scripture plainly states" a lot of things according to a lot of people, so don't bring it in here. If it were so plain, then there would be unanimous agreement on the statement.

Well, now, you're contradicting yourself. If the Prodigal took the inheritance with him (which he did), then he took with him at least a part of the benefit of being a member of his family. To say he took none defies your own words (and the words of the parable). The inheritance was nothing if not a benefit of the Prodigal's membership in his family. And it was the one benefit he desired above any other. Talking about true benefits is really just the No True Scotsman Fallacy at work in your thinking. Jesus makes no such distinction as he shares the parable.

The inheritance was just a financial benefit. It's no different, in practice, than the father giving the same amount of money to someone in charity. It isn't the true benefit of being in the family. In this case, the Scotsman fallacy isn't even applicable because you claimed that he squandered ALL of the benefits of being in the family. But there are obviously benefits that he could never claim that are part of being in the family. He couldn't represent the family. He couldn't partake in the feasts, victories, and celebrations of the family. He couldn't contribute to the success of the family. Had he died, he would have not received the burial of the family. These are benefits of being in the family. These are not finite, either. The earthly inheritance is not a benefit of the family. It's a transaction, and it if it is the true inheritance of being in God's family, then we are left with the conclusion that the inheritance we are to co-inherit with Christ is able to be squandered.

Some of them -- perhaps. Jesus' parable makes no comment on the things about which you're speculating here.

The parable doesn't say that he didn't leap over tall buildings, either. Shall we leave that in the realm of possibility simply because the narrative doesn't leave it out? If the parable were to include everything that the son didn't do, it would have been a very long parable. These things can be inferred from the information in the parable itself, such as the fact that if he had had a signet ring (which grants all of the legal benefits I mentioned), then why did the father give him another one? In fact, he was already bringing it out with him, which means it was his intent all along, so the father had to know the ring was not with his son.

How does God "artificially inflate" the severity of our sin? He is God, the Creator and Sustainer of All, He stands with authority, and power, and knowledge beyond human calculation and understanding. When we rebel against such incalculable divine supremacy and disobey God how can the sin of that rebellion not be correspondingly enormous? It isn't that God overstates His authority and power in reaction to our sin. He doesn't add to His incomparable glory and majesty and thereby increase the seriousness of our sin against Him. No, our sin is quite serious enough with it being against God as He is. What it seems to me you're arguing for is that God ought to diminish the seriousness of our sin. God won't let our sin slide, however, and so you accuse Him of over-inflating its seriousness. That seems a much-to-be-expected tactic from a sin-cursed creature under the condemnation of a holy, awesome God.

I can't imagine a serf in a feudal kingdom getting away with this sort of reasoning: "Your Lordship, Ruler of this land, I rebelled against you, and broke your law, and disobeyed you. You may give me land to work, a place to live, and your protection and you may rule this kingdom as the supreme authority of it, but none of that matters, really. Why should the fact that you're the king make any difference to what I've done? So what if it was your law I broke? Be a good king and just forgive my lawbreaking. Don't make a fuss. If you don't forgive me, you'll be the one who makes my crime a bad thing. You'll be the guilty one. You don't want that, do you?" What king would capitulate to this sort of reasoning? Not a just and wise one, that's for sure!

How does God artificially inflate the severity of our sins? Pretty simple to demonstrate:

1. Our sins are the finite actions of finite beings that naturally have finite consequences.
2. God takes our finite actions and transforms them into infinite consequences.

Do I need to tell you the logical conclusion here? If God did not put Himself into the equation, as any JUST being would avoid doing, then our punishment for our sins would be finite. Finite punishment for finite actions. Of themselves, our sins are finite.

Natural ends? Who says what is the "natural end" of your sin? You? I don't think so. That's God's call and He says that without accepting the atonement of Christ on your behalf, your sin has an eternal consequence, a consequence that never ends. As I said, your sin is never just a finite temporal thing but a sin against the infinite Ruler of the Universe. When you sin, you break His law and in so doing defy Him. And when you defy the eternal, omnipotent, God of All, the consequences are very, very serious. Nothing artificial about that, as far I can see.

Your sin is the same as a sin against God. But that doesn't change the NATURE OF THE SIN ITSELF. If God did not ADD to your sin, it would NEVER be infinite. Adding to the sin is artificial inflation. You're telling me that I created something EQUAL TO GOD. If my sin is infinite, it is equal to God. If it is eternal, it is equal to God. You're telling me that God has an equal in my sin. If my sin is not equal to God, then it is not infinite or eternal. It couldn't be infinite or eternal because only God is infinite and eternal.

And I think your reasoning here is seriously flawed.

Not at all flawed. According to you, God makes our sin infinite, which is artificial inflation by TEXTBOOK definition.

Well, think again.

Good to know that God is finite, then. So now you're telling me that a FINITE being can somehow do something against my infinite sin. This is just getting worse, now.

Penal punishment is itself a constructive purpose. It is the proper, just response to a lawbreaker. That is why God never simply forgave our sins outright, but put upon Christ the just punishment we should have borne for our sin ourselves. Our forgiveness does not come cheap. It wasn't free. Someone atoned for our sin with his own blood and it is only because that happened that we have God's forgiveness. Serving justice is, then, as God demonstrates in the atonement, a very necessary and constructive thing.

If God suddenly stopped the just punishment of the wicked, then He would not be a just Judge (and God). Imagine a human judge suddenly ending the sentence of every criminal and setting them all free. Would that be a just thing to do? Obviously not. And it would be equally unjust for God to do so. Like it or not, penal suffering is an instrinsic necessary part of justice.

That's not a constructive purpose. There isn't a single good thing that comes out of God torturing people.

But at a terrible price. Christ bought that forgiveness with his own life and blood.

So let's get this right. God set an arbitrary rule, just so that He would have someone to torture. And this is a loving God? You do know that the rules you're saying limit God were set by God Himself, right?

That is not all salvation is for the Protestant evangelical Christian, either.

It's all that matters in reality. It's illustrated in how Protestants will ask "do you know if you died today if you would go to heaven?"

But here the problem is, in a figurative sense, a matter of absence. God is absent - from the throne of the person's heart and this is fundamentally why they are despairing. And He cannot be "found" (though He is omnipresent) unless He reveals Himself to us.

That's the thing, I had already accepted Him into my heart. He is ALWAYS revealing Himself to us. Scripture even says this multiple times. The Heavens declare the glory of God and the firmament shows His handiwork. See, if God truly loves us, then He is always revealing Himself. David wrote many psalms in such a state where he actively wondered if God had abandoned him. But God never abandons or forsakes us. So the only logical conclusion is that we are unable to see what He is revealing.

Scripture please. Where, exactly, in God's word is any of this described?

Since Scripture never says that God causes the pain of hell, the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that God Himself is actively torturing people, not the other way around. Interpreting the pain of hell as the natural consequences of not being able to experience God's love for what it is is a lot older than the newbie concept of pure penal law that didn't really take hold until more than a millennia after Christ.

 

[paul becke]

Psychopathic in the light of a God who is agape.

The deepest truths are almost always paradoxical, Rick. And that has become more qqnd more evident in the quantum mechanics of modern physics. In the faith we call them 'mysteries', don't we.

Once you start denying Jesus' words as recorded in the canon of scripture, you might as well become a Protestant of the cookiest sect, because that is where it can lead. The modernists/gnostics seem to think Jesus, a bit downmarket, simple fare for the plebs. The great Origen conjectured in this way about universalism, but I believe even he was content to see it as no more authoritative than a conjecture. How could he have done otherwise, when Jesus' own words were so unequivocal. I was mulling over

Jesus' extreme-sounding strictures about ogling women lustfully and his prescription that we would do better to remedy it by mutilating our bodies than going to hell, an and it occurred to me that, strictly-speaking, what he was actually conselling was true ! Granted his knowledge that, if unrepented of, the transgressor faced hell, it was true. Objectively speaking. But, on the other hand, he knew better than to stress that he would take mitigating factors into account, since he realised how little it takes for us to look for excuses for continuing to do what we like.

But the main point, it seems to me, is to accept that while it might sound psychopathic to us, if when so perplexed, we question his judgment rather than our own, then surely there is a significant flaw in our faith. Still, I would think there is a line, however fine, between admiring a woman's figure and lusting after it - having your eyes linger on it for an inordinate time.

 

[Rick Otto]

The deepest truths are almost always paradoxical, Rick. And that has become more qqnd more evident in the quantum mechanics of modern physics. In the faith we call them 'mysteries', don't we.

Once you start denying Jesus' words as recorded in the canon of scripture, you might as well become a Protestant of the cookiest sect, because that is where it can lead. The modernists/gnostics seem to think Jesus, a bit downmarket, simple fare for the plebs. The great Origen conjectured in this way about universalism, but I believe even he was content to see it as no more authoritative than a conjecture. How could he have done otherwise, when Jesus' own words were so unequivocal. I was mulling over

Jesus' extreme-sounding strictures about ogling women lustfully and his prescription that we would do better to remedy it by mutilating our bodies than going to hell, an and it occurred to me that, strictly-speaking, what he was actually conselling was true ! Granted his knowledge that, if unrepented of, the transgressor faced hell, it was true. Objectively speaking. But, on the other hand, he knew better than to stress that he would take mitigating factors into account, since he realised how little it takes for us to look for excuses for continuing to do what we like.

But the main point, it seems to me, is to accept that while it might sound psychopathic to us, if when so perplexed, we question his judgment rather than our own, then surely there is a significant flaw in our faith. Still, I would think there is a line, however fine, between admiring a woman's figure and lusting after it - having your eyes linger on it for an inordinate time.

I'll think about your words as I respect your concern.

 

[Linet Kihonge]

I just need to ask this. When the LORD told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree in the garden that they would surely die, did he refer to loss of hope, dispair or spiritual death or did he literally mean that. All the People from the OT not only died physical death but their spirit never went anywhere other than the "realm of the Dead."

When the LORD told Moses that he would not enter Canaan did he refer to paradise or Canaan?

When the LORD said, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth." Was he referring to psychological torment or emotional distress? Christ was lashed, had nails driven through his wrists and feet, "Yet did not open His mouth."

If you want to build castles that hell isn't real, I have no WORDS for you :/

 

[BobRyan]

I just need to ask this. When the LORD told Adam and Eve that if they ate of the tree in the garden that they would surely die, did he refer to loss of hope, dispair or spiritual death or did he literally mean that. All the People from the OT not only died physical death but their spirit never went anywhere other than the "realm of the Dead."

When the LORD told Moses that he would not enter Canaan did he refer to paradise or Canaan?

When the LORD said, "He was oppressed and He was afflicted, Yet He did not open His mouth; Like a lamb that is led to slaughter, And like a sheep that is silent before its shearers, So He did not open His mouth." Was he referring to psychological torment or emotional distress? Christ was lashed, had nails driven through his wrists and feet, "Yet did not open His mouth."

If you want to build castles that hell isn't real, I have no WORDS for you :/

Before the cross (so the OT age) Moses appears with Christ in glorified form - Matt 17

I do believe in a literal hell in the literal lake of fire the burns literal bodies of the literal wicked and that Christ's Matthew 10:28 statement is literally true.

 

[BobRyan]

Matt 10:28 "fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"
Speaking of the 2nd death Ezek 18:4 says 'the soul that sins it shall die'

Once you start denying Jesus' words as recorded in the canon of scripture, you might as well become a Protestant of the cookiest sect, because that is where it can lead. The modernists/gnostics seem to think Jesus, a bit downmarket, simple fare for the plebs. The great Origen conjectured in this way about universalism, but I believe even he was content to see it as no more authoritative than a conjecture. How could he have done otherwise, when Jesus' own words were so unequivocal. I was mulling over

Jesus' extreme-sounding strictures about ogling women lustfully and his prescription that we would do better to remedy it by mutilating our bodies than going to hell, an and it occurred to me that, strictly-speaking, what he was actually conselling was true ! Granted his knowledge that, if unrepented of, the transgressor faced hell, it was true.

He said that it would be better - rather than "having two eyes to be cast into hell" - so then it is literally true that it is both body and soul that are destroyed in fiery hell.

Matt 10:28 "fear Him who is able to destroy BOTH body AND soul in fiery hell"