The doctrine of hell

14messenger · Mar 14, 2014

seeingeyes said:
God, according to this theory. I can't imagine that His hands are tied in the matter.

Christians as well. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the argument "If there were no hell, what would be the point of following Christ?"

Men as a whole. We throw each other into hell all day every day.

Thats weird beliefs in those posts.

Humans choose God or hell for themselves.

14messenger · Mar 14, 2014

seeingeyes said:
Who is attacking God? The one who says "God is good, and He will prove it by His actions", or the one who says, "Do what He says, but not what He does, because He doesn't do what He says"?

God is good. God doesnt force a creation to do good or bad, creation chooses for itself.

seeingeyes · Mar 14, 2014

14messenger said:
Thats weird beliefs in those posts.

Humans choose God or hell for themselves.

14messenger said:
God is good. God doesnt force a creation to do good or bad, creation chooses for itself.

Who created creation? Who created choices? Who created hell?

"Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made."

Everything we see and don't see was made by God. So if we believe in a certain type of hell (which we can't see yet), that belief is a direct reflection of who we believe our God is and what He is doing.

Nanopants · Mar 14, 2014

14messenger said:
God is good. God doesnt force a creation to do good or bad, creation chooses for itself.

Nobody is attacking God here at least intentionally- we're having a discussion on the doctrine of hell. Some say it's not in God's nature to torture people for eternity, so we're having a disagreement.

seeingeyes · Mar 14, 2014

14messenger said:
Sarcasm(lying) is of the devil.

It was not my intention to offend. Please let me rephrase.

If God created with torture in mind (which surely He did if one believes that x number of people will be tortured for eternity), then why does He not want us to torture each other?

If we say that God has the "right" to do what He wants with His own creation, then yes, He can. Absolutely.

But Jesus seemed not too happy with those whose actions were inconsistent with their words, and if we believe that if we've seen Jesus, we've seen the Father, then we must believe that God Himself disapproves of those who teach one way and then act another.

food4thought · Mar 14, 2014

Achilles6129 said:
Right, and Christ said that indeed all his followers would know the truth and have the truth.

Well that is a loaded statement... while it is true that the Holy Spirit will lead us into all truth if we allow Him to, I suggest that the truth we need for salvation is very basic: Jesus is Lord, Jesus died for our sins, and Jesus rose from the dead.

Achilles6129 said:
I would say the deeper I dig into the Biblical doctrine of hell the more I realize just how serious Scripture is when it warns us about such things. I also see no other way but to take such statements as "torment," "fire," and so on as straightforwardly as possible.

It can be difficult to know when to take something literally or figuratively when reading unless there are specific indications in the text to do so. As we saw with Jesus' use of hyperbole, the only way we knew to take it as hyperbole was because the literal understanding just didn't make sense in light of other scriptural teachings.

If you look at the entire body of Jesus' teachings, you will see that He spoke quite often in illustrations, parables, and metaphorical expressions. Such an understanding of His teachings on hell would not be out of line.

Achilles6129 said:
Correct, but that is talking about his children. You will notice that those who disobey his commands are not his children at all. So this is speaking about two different groups of people here.

In a unique sense the saved are called sons of God (since by the new birth by the Spirit we become direct new creations of God), yet Paul clearly says that all mankind are children of God in Acts 17:28-29. The negative consequences of sin are felt by all humans in some way.

Achilles6129 said:
No, I am suggesting that humans who disobey God's commands are not in the image of God at all.

They are not acting in line with the image of God. Why does sin anger God so? I suggest that aside from the harm that it does to others, it is a direct affront to God because we who are made in His image are acting contrary to that image... thus blaspheming God.

Achilles6129 said:
There are other examples, then, such as death for encroachment upon the tabernacle and so on.

As I said, not every single part of our moral nature remains intact, yet the vast majority of God's moral law is in accordance with man's conscience... it is the severity of the punishment for breaking that law that man tends to rebel against. You could use this to support the idea of a literal understanding of the lake of fire, I suppose... yet I believe that other passages of Scripture argue against that view. The actions of Jesus towards sinners being the primary example.

Achilles6129 said:
Satan has an entirely different nature than God. We're not talking here about intellectual choices, we're talking about the actual nature of something. At the tree of the knowledge of good/evil man's nature was changed. This is why there are so many statements about light/darkness in the Scriptures.

When speaking of Satan as the king of Tyre, indicating that he was the real power in Tyre as opposed to the human ruler that he had just spoken of as the prince of Tyre, the LORD through Ezekiel said this:

Eze 28:12 NASB "Son of man, take up a lamentation over the king of Tyre and say to him, 'Thus says the Lord GOD, "You had the seal of perfection, Full of wisdom and perfect in beauty."

Before he fell, Satan was full of wisdom... indicating quite strongly that he knew right from wrong. Yet he corrupted this wisdom through selfish pride and rebelled against God. Man has followed the same pattern all through history, knowing to one degree or another what God demands of us through our conscience, yet continually subverting that conscience in order to serve ourselves. What changed at the fall was that man changed from predisposed to obey God in our nature to predisposed to disobey God in our nature. Yet we still have a remnant of God's nature in our conscience... otherwise we would have no sense of guilt for our wrongs.

Achilles6129 said:
I would say the context is entirely different. There is no reason not to take fire literally; throughout the OT we are given plenty of examples of God using literal fire and so many statements about fire throughout the NT that there is really no reason to not take them straightforwardly.

And I say that there are plenty of instances in the OT and NT that show that God often speaks of things we cannot fully understand by means of metaphor, analogy, and parable.

Achilles6129 said:
In no case in the above examples is the word used of "trying" or "testing" anything. The word is used to describe the adverse affect of something in those particular contexts. It is not being used to describe anything beneficial.

Who says the testing has to be beneficial to the thing being tested? The testing in hell does not benefit the occupants of hell because they are completely given over to their sin.

Achilles6129 said:
I would say that the passage is not speaking of Gehenna and thus cannot really be used to interpret what goes on at Gehenna.

I was not trying to say that it was, yet the principal can be applied.

Achilles6129 said:
A further note. I believe Christ used the word "Gehenna" to describe the place of the damned because of the dreadful things that used to go on at Gehenna in ancient times. The idea is probably supposed to correlate with what goes on to the damned in hell.

I suppose you could see it that way if you wanted to.

Achilles6129 said:
Well, he sure seems to talk about fire alot and manifest himself in literal fire alot so clearly there is something about fire that is an essential part (or maybe even the essential part) of God's nature. Since no one has ever seen God's physical presence at any time, you would obviously not know whether or not he was a literal fire or not, although from some depictions it appears as though part of him may indeed be:

"26 And above the dome over their heads there was something like a throne, in appearance like sapphire;[e] and seated above the likeness of a throne was something that seemed like a human form. 27 Upward from what appeared like the loins I saw something like gleaming amber, something that looked like fire enclosed all around; and downward from what looked like the loins I saw something that looked like fire, and there was a splendor all around. 28 Like the bow in a cloud on a rainy day, such was the appearance of the splendor all around. This was the appearance of the likeness of the glory of the Lord." Ezek. 1:26-28 (NRSV)

There is something about fire which forms a part of the essential nature of God.

Yes, I can agree with that last part. Yet we have established that the Bible does use fire as symbolic of something, not necessarily meaning that every aspect of fire is in line with what the symbol is trying to represent (such as the other ways that God's character/actions are symbolized by the lion, the lamb, etc.). What I am suggesting is that the fire symbolizes God's judgment in that fire consumes and brings to ruin, and thus God's judgment on unbelievers need not mean agony in burning flames.

EDIT--------------------------

After reading what you said more carefully, I don't think I can completely agree with your point here. God is Spirit, not physical. Fire speaks of His judgment, which consumes and brings to ruin. God is in absolutely no way a literal fire.

END EDIT---------------------

Let me ask you something... Do you truly love God as you see Him to be?

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

seeingeyes said:
Who is attacking God? The one who says "God is good, and He will prove it by His actions", or the one who says, "Do what He says, but not what He does, because He doesn't do what He says"?

BobRyan · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
Keep in mind that Christ took our curse....He tasted the 2nd death. How did it come about? Did God do it?

"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf" 2Cor 5.

"God was In Christ reconciling the World to Himself" 2Cor 5

"the Father has sent the Son to be the Savior of the World" 1John 4:14.

"The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a GUILT offering" Is 53:10.

Roman soldiers will not be in the Lake of Fire in Rev 20 to torment the wicked and ensure that the wicked pay the exact amount of debt owed for the exact amount of sin that they committed.

The 2nd death punishment is not "the punishment of Roman soldiers".

Christ paid the Debt that the law of God demands - the exact debt owed. A calculation that only God could make - and application that only God could provide.

in Christ,

Bob

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

BobRyan said:
"He made Him who knew no sin to be sin in our behalf" 2Cor 5.

He (God) made Christ, as the Son of God who was sinless, to be sin as the Son of Man.

"God was In Christ reconciling the World to Himself" 2Cor 5

Jesus was God....And He was also the Son of Man. However, Christ did not depend on His Deity, instead He depended on His Father. That why Christ states, "I can do nothing of Myself".

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

BobRyan said:
"The Lord was pleased to crush Him, putting Him to grief; If He would render Himself as a GUILT offering" Is 53:10.

I have a better one:

Matt 26:31 "I (God) will strike the shepherd (Jesus), and the sheep of the flock will be scattered."

Now go back to Is 53:4 last part:

"we thought him afflicted, struck down by God and tormented."

From our human perspective it looked like God struck Jesus down. Just like the Bible says, "I (God) will strike the shepherd"

Now, did God actually strike down Christ?

No! God abandoned Christ!!!! That's why Christ cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Do you know what that meant to Christ? It meant that the hope of the resurrection went with that abandonment. When the Father forsook Him in terms of Christs feeling, then the hope of the resurrection went with it. Jesus was now treading the winepress alone. He could no longer look on the Father with hope and assurance as far as His feelings were concerned. He felt the agony of God-abandonment, exactly what the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads with the guilty race.

Leaders from your denomination agree:

He (Jesus) could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him the coming forth from the grave a conqueror or tell Him of the Fathers acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that their separation was to be eternal. (Ellen White)

Do you realize what Christ was tempted to do on the cross as He hung there? The Father had forsaken Him. But remember, He was still God. He could have taken hold of His divinity independent of the Father, against the Fathers wishes, and come down from the cross to save Himself.

Christ was tempted to come down from the cross and save Himself. Can you understand the temptation? The issue He faced was not to screw up His will power and say, Ill hold on for a few hours or for three days. That is no sacrifice for a God who lives in eternity. The issue was good-bye to life forever, never again to see His Father, never again to go back to heaven. It meant to give up His glory, to give up His life. That was the issue. That is the curse of God.

As He hung on the cross experiencing Gods curse for our sins, Jesus had to make a choice. He could not save Himself and the world at the same time. And He did make the supreme choice. He chose to die eternally that you and I may live in His place. That's agape....

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
"My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?"

Luke 22:52 Then Jesus said to the chief priests, captains of the temple, and the elders who had come to Him, "Have you come out, as against a robber, with swords and clubs? 53 When I was with you daily in the temple, you did not try to seize Me. But this is your hour, and the power of darkness."

What did Jesus mean by "this is your hour"?

John 7:30 "no one laid a hand on Him (Jesus), because His hour had not yet come."

In other words God was with Christ, but once God abandoned Christ all these evils began.

That takes us back to Deut 31:17

Then My anger (the wrath of God) shall be aroused against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?' (Deut 31:17)

~Anastasia~ · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
Do you know what that meant to Christ? It meant that the hope of the resurrection went with that abandonment. When the Father forsook Him in terms of Christ’s feeling, then the hope of the resurrection went with it. Jesus was now “treading the winepress alone.” He could no longer look on the Father with hope and assurance as far as His feelings were concerned. He felt the agony of God-abandonment, exactly what the wicked will feel when mercy no longer pleads with the guilty race.

Leaders from your denomination agree:

“He (Jesus) could not see through the portals of the tomb. Hope did not present to Him the coming forth from the grave a conqueror or tell Him of the Father’s acceptance of the sacrifice. He feared that sin was so offensive to God that their separation was to be eternal.” (Ellen White)

Do you realize what Christ was tempted to do on the cross as He hung there? The Father had forsaken Him. But remember, He was still God. He could have taken hold of His divinity independent of the Father, against the Father’s wishes, and come down from the cross to save Himself.

Christ was tempted to come down from the cross and save Himself. Can you understand the temptation? The issue He faced was not to screw up His will power and say, “I’ll hold on for a few hours or for three days.” That is no sacrifice for a God who lives in eternity. The issue was good-bye to life forever, never again to see His Father, never again to go back to heaven. It meant to give up His glory, to give up His life. That was the issue. That is the curse of God.

As He hung on the cross experiencing God’s curse for our sins, Jesus had to make a choice. He could not save Himself and the world at the same time. And He did make the supreme choice. He chose to die eternally that you and I may live in His place. That's agape....

If that is true, then THAT is one of the most profound things I have ever heard.

I have always looked at it as Christ having perfect knowledge, Christ knowing what would happen, Christ looking forward to His resurrection.

If it were true that He really did not know ... I remember one time early in my walk, when God was close, close to me. I made a great error, and He withdrew completely for two weeks. It was like a living hell for me. I was incredibly desperate, and it was a driving desolation for me. And I still have my family, my life, everything around me I could enjoy - but the loss of fellowship with God made it all worth less than nothing.

It's hard to imagine Christ, having enjoyed a much closer fellowship with the Father than I could imagine, to face giving that up forever.

As I said, one of the most profound things I have ever considered, if it is true.

ETA: (Ah, not to argue, but as soon as I hit "submit" (or whatever that button says) ... the verse came to me "for the joy that was set before Him, He endured the cross ... " ?

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Kylissa said:
If that is true, then THAT is one of the most profound things I have ever heard.

I have always looked at it as Christ having perfect knowledge, Christ knowing what would happen, Christ looking forward to His resurrection

When Christ became a man in the incarnation He had to give up not His divinity, but His divine prerogatives, in other words, the independent use of His divinity. Even His God-consciousness had to be given up. Jesus discovered He was God only by revelation. He was not God-conscious as a baby. He had to grow up in knowledge. He had to grow up in everything because He had given up the independent use of His divinity and was made in all things like unto us (Heb. 2:17).

Therefore, He was totally God-dependent all through His earthly ministry. John 5:30 says, “I can do nothing of myself.” John 6:57 says, “I live by the Father.” See also John 8:28 and John 14:10. All these texts state very clearly that Christ was totally God-dependent. Then read Rom 6:4; Acts 2:24, 32; Eph. 1:20. All of these texts clearly tell us that it was the Father who raised Christ from the dead. Keep these two things in mind:

1] Christ was God-dependent, and

2] He was dependent on the Father for the resurrection.

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Christ's death holds insights into the nature of the final destruction of the lost. God could not allow the death of Christ to be one way and the death of everyone else to be another way and still apply Christ's death to the account of the saved. They must be equal, in nature rather than circumstances. God the Father's role must be the same in both cases.

Christ's death was the sinner's death. But God did not come down to the cross and personally execute Him. Rather, when the sins of the world rolled on Jesus in Gethsemane, the sense of His Father's presence began to recede. God the Father now treated His Son as a lost sinner, deprived Him of the sense of His sustaining nearness, drawing forth from His wounded heart the anguished cry from the cross, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:47; Mark 15:34, KJV). Though sinless still, He bore the sin of a world and the Father's drawing away from that sin. Just as human rejection caused Christ to withdraw in His earthly life, His role as the Embodiment of sinful rebellion against God caused the Father to withdraw from Him in Gethsemane and on Calvary. But God never touched Him in cruel violence. Rather, He withdrew from His Son (now Sin Personified) and released Him into the hands of the destructive forces surrounding Him. Those forces had followed Christ from His earliest moments but always without success until now, when God "made Him to be sin for us" and let Him go.

Who Delivered Christ to Die?

Christ tried to share this prospect with His disciples and thus prepare them for the approaching crisis. "For He taught His disciples and said to them, 'The Son of Man is being delivered into the hands of men, and they will kill Him.'" "Behold, we are going up to Jerusalem and the Son of Man will be delivered to the chief priests and to the scribes, and they will condemn Him to death" (Mark 9:31; 10:33). Who was "delivering" Him? Judas certainly planned to, but Jesus did not refer to him. The apostle Paul makes clear who "delivered" Him up:

"He that spared not his own Son, but delivered Him up for us all, how shall he not with him also freely give us all things?" (Romans 8:32, KJV; Romans 4:24, 25). It was the Father who delivered Him (or released Him) to the destructive forces around Him. (See also Matthew 26:2, 14, 15; 27:18; Mark 10:33, 34; 14:10; 15:1, 11; Luke 22:4; Acts 2:23.)

Significantly, Pilate also "delivered" Christ to be crucified. But not before our Lord informed the proud ruler he would have no power to do this if God did not allow it (John 19:11). There can be no question that God's role in the punishment of the Sin-bearer was to withdraw and hand him over or release him to the power of destruction, but not to perform the execution itself. . . .(MM Campbell)

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
God's role in the punishment of the Sin-bearer was to withdraw and hand him over or release him to the power of destruction, but not to perform the execution itself. . . .(MM Campbell)

This is how God works. God's wrath is not sinful, human wrath. God's wrath is the reluctant departure from those who have persistently and ultimately rejected Him. Hence God's wrath is passive.

But so many times God states that He does these things. What's up with this?

One of the clear teachings of the Bible is the sovereignty of God. That means that nothing happens in the universe without the permission of God. That’s what it means. God is sovereign. Did God know that Lucifer would sin? Yes. Then why did He create him? That’s one of the big questions.

If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross.

Let me give you an illustration. When Adam sinned and God came to visit him, what did he say to God when God asked why did you sin? He said, “This woman, whom You gave....” So upon whom was he putting the blame? On God. Today you will hear it all the time: “If God is love why is He allowing all the sicknesses and problems? If God is love, why is He allowing a drought in America?” These are the kind of questions that have to be solved.

So what does God do? God actually assumes the blame! He assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. There is a text which I want you to look for, it’s in the Old Testament, where God is speaking. He says, “I have created evil.” You will find many texts in the Bible where God assumes the blame for many things. For instance God said, “I have hardened Pharaoh’s heart.” These texts cause a lot of problems to many Christians. You wonder why those texts are there. Well, it’s because God assumes the blame until the Day of Atonement. Because He’s sovereign and He allows things to happen, He has to assume the blame. Does He assume the blame for a good reason? Yes. But we will not know it until the judgment.

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
Christ's death holds insights into the nature of the final destruction of the lost. God could not allow the death of Christ to be one way and the death of everyone else to be another way and still apply Christ's death to the account of the saved. They must be equal, in nature rather than circumstances. God the Father's role must be the same in both cases.

So then, knowing the justice of God, the lost are not executed by God, but rather they are abandoned and released to the destructive forces around them.

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
If God is sovereign, then He has allowed Satan to come in. He has allowed Satan to tempt Adam and Eve. This has created a problem and this was not solved on the cross.

According to the Hebrew scholars (these are not Christian scholars, but Jewish scholars), Azazel is the name of the devil. We do have not the Hebrew manuscript but we do have the Syriac manuscript, which is one of the oldest manuscripts. The Syriac manuscript for Azazel has this phrase the angel that revolted. Very interesting and a very reliable manuscript. Most Christian scholars interpret Azazel as the Scapegoat. What does scapegoat mean? If you looked it up in a dictionary, what does it mean? We use it in our English language.

Someone has to take the blame. That is the issue! When you deal with sin in a legal sense, as a transgression of the law, there are three things involved. First there is guilt. Then there is punishment. Then there is responsibility.

Did the cross deal with the issue of blame? The answer is No. The cross did not deal with the blame. Who was to blame for sin? The cross only took our guilt and our punishment. As far as we are concerned, there is an atonement between us and God through the blood of Christ. But the issue now is, Who is to blame for sin?

Here's perfect example:

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]One Perspective

The anger of the Lord was aroused against Israel and He moved David . . . to . . . number Israel and Judah (2 Sam. 24:2).

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Another Perspective

Now Satan stood up against Israel and moved David to number Israel (1 Chron. 21:1)

We only know from Scripture that God punished David for this action (1 Chronicles 21:14), strongly suggesting that, as humans would express it, He had nothing to do with David's decision to initiate a census in Israel.
[/FONT]

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Bob Ryan,

I have another quote from one of your church co-founders:

God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. His history is a fearful illustration of the truth of the words that whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. Gal. 6:7. Did men but realize this, they would be careful what seed they sow. {COL 84-5}

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

Setyoufree said:
Bob Ryan,

I have another quote from one of your church co-founders:

God destroys no man. Everyone who is destroyed will have destroyed himself. Everyone who stifles the admonitions of conscience is sowing the seeds of unbelief, and these will produce a sure harvest. By rejecting the first warning from God, Pharaoh of old sowed the seeds of obstinacy, and he reaped obstinacy. God did not compel him to disbelieve. The seed of unbelief which he sowed produced a harvest of its kind. Thus his resistance continued, until he looked upon his devastated land, upon the cold, dead form of his first-born, and the first-born of all in his house and of all the families in his kingdom, until the waters of the sea closed over his horses and his chariots and his men of war. His history is a fearful illustration of the truth of the words that “whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.” Gal. 6:7. Did men but realize this, they would be careful what seed they sow. {COL 84-5}

Who killed the firstborn of Egypt?

[FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]One Perspective

God speaking: “For I will pass through the land of Egypt on that night and will strike all the firstborn in the land of Egypt, both man and beast; against all the gods of Egypt I will execute judgment: I am the Lord” (Exodus 12:12).

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana, Arial, Helvetica]Another Perspective

For the Lord will pass through to strike the Egyptians: and when He sees the blood on the doorposts, the Lord will pass over the door and not allow the destroyer (Satan) to come into your houses to strike you (Exodus 12:23; emphasis supplied).
[/FONT]

Setyoufree · Mar 15, 2014

The Destroyer

The Bible clearly depicts Lucifer, whose name was changed to Satan, as a liar and deceiver. It also denotes him as the destroyer, a point vital to the present study.

Isaiah 14 continues, You "made the world as a wilderness and destroyed its cities," destroyed the land and slew the people. Close comparison of Revelation 9 with Isaiah 14:12-20 and Revelation 12 leaves no question that the "destroyer" of Revelation 9:12 is Satan himself.

The doctrine of hell

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Newbie

Nanopants

Guest

Newbie

Loving truth

Newbie

Junior Member

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

† Handmaid of God †

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Newbie

Similar threads