What if you’re wrong about hell?

Saint Steven said:

Like the hug and comfort AFTER the spanking.

Click to expand...

Haha, the spanking and the hugging are simultaneous. It's just the awful truth of the sinful heart being revealed in the light of God's perfect glory, bringing kings to shame and lighting an acceptance into an unimaginably better realm. Resistance truly is futile under those conditions. Submission is to be raised up in the newness of life in Christ, with a cleansed heart and repentant mind. The humbling enriching gifts of God's grace.

We believe in the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous.

He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”

6He said to me: “It is done. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End. To the thirsty I will give water without cost from the spring of the water of life. 7Those who are victorious will inherit all this, and I will be their God and they will be my children. 8But the cowardly, the unbelieving, the vile, the murderers, the sexually immoral, those who practice magic arts, the idolaters and all liars—they will be consigned to the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.”

In regard to the resurrection of the righteous it was well understood and taught that it would be on the last day. Jesus gathers His own from the ends of the heavens. It would be a bodily resurrection of us all on that day.

There are Christians noted in the 1st resurrection written in revelation. Therefore those not raised on that day must be those who suffer.

Shrewd Manager said:

Now I've heard it all. I'll wager the damnation delusion (along with occult scientism in the form of big bang cosmology and Darwinism) is the biggest thornbush in the soil of unbelievers' hearts and minds.

Damnationism certainly irritated our Lord, to wit:

Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you compass sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves. (Mt 23:15)

Click to expand...

Hell is a non-issue for the saved. Be fair and present it in context.

Saint Steven said:

Although, I wonder if most of us will need a "tune-up" of some sort.
What is that wood hay and stubble that burns up? And will we not ALL be salted with fire?

1 Corinthians 3:11-13
For no one can lay any foundation other than the one already laid, which is Jesus Christ. 12 If anyone builds on this foundation using gold, silver, costly stones, wood, hay or straw, 13 their work will be shown for what it is, because the Day will bring it to light. It will be revealed with fire, and the fire will test the quality of each person’s work.

Mark 9:49
Everyone will be salted with fire.

Click to expand...

If we walk in the Spirit we won't doubt our salvation. If we become lukewarm, we also become lukewarm in our beliefs about hell too. But God usually corrects us through chastisement. The voice of experience speaking.

Saint Steven said:

Your post reminds me that there is more than just individual "judgment" (for lack of a better term) kings and nations will be judged as well. How do you see that playing out?

Click to expand...

Aren't we told that things will get worse, Babylon will rule over them, until the tribulation and its destruction? And eventually after the millennial reign Satan will amass armies from the 4 corners of the earth who'll come to attack Jerusalem, but will be consumed by divine fire, only to emerge repentant in the new heavens and earth, and then before the ever-open pearly gates of the New Jerusalem:

The nations will walk by its light, and the kings of the earth will bring their glory into it. (Rev 21:24)

Is that your understanding of it (in brief)?

Der Alter said:

…
When Jesus taught e.g.,

• “Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:” Matthew 25:41
• "these shall go away into eternal punishment, Matthew 25:46"
• "the fire of hell where the fire is not quenched and the worm does not die, Mark 9:43-48"
• "cast into a fiery furnace where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth,” Matthew 13:42, Matthew 13:50
• “But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea.” Matthew 18:6
• “And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.” Matthew 7:23
• “woe unto that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! it had been good for that man if he had not been born. ” Matthew 26:24
• “But I say unto you, that it shall be more tolerable in that day for Sodom, than for that city.” Luke 10:12​

…..These teachings tacitly reaffirmed and sanctioned a then existing significant Jewish view of eternal hell, outlined above. In Matt. 18:6, 26:24 and Luk 10:12, see above, Jesus teaches that there is a punishment worse than death or nonexistence.…..

Click to expand...

These have the usual problem about the meaning of eternal fire. See e.g. in Mat 13:40 he compares this eternal fire with weeds that are collected and burned up.

The Jewish background that you quote is also equivocal, because there was the same range of beliefs that we see now. One common belief was that hell was temporary, either for everyone or for most. Hillel seems to have thought that. The description you quote was for the exceptions, the few very wicked.

Saint Steven said:

Thanks for your post.
There seems to be a conflict idea in your post though. (and frankly, I'm not immune to conflict either)
You begin by saying, "We believe in the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous."
And end by saying, "Therefore those not raised on that day must be those who suffer."
Can you resolve this one direction or the other? (okay if not) Something to consider.

Click to expand...

There are Christians noted in the 1st resurrection in revelation. Those not raised on that day must be those who suffer. The 2nd resurrection is noted a 1000 years later. Those who suffer are raised to be thrown in the lake of fire. In other words the resurrection as noted in Rev that is not the 1st would be considered the 2nd and would be the resurrection of the unrighteous to eternal judgment.

Does it really matter what version of hell is real? Eternal lake of fire, conscious separation from God, or temporary anguish followed by oblivion? Believers aren’t going.

If one were to use a forced marriage as an analogy (“Marry me or I’ll kill you”) it wouldn’t really qualify as a relationship in the heart of either party.

A relationship with God is based on love, the desire to do his will, the desire to spend eternity in his presence, not fear of the alternative.

Saint Steven said:

Yes. This one of the biggest issues with Damnationism. The "gun to the head" conversion. (or else)

Click to expand...

For the time is come that judgment must begin at the house of God: and if it first begin at us, what shall the end be of them that obey not the gospel of God?

And if the righteous scarcely be saved, where shall the ungodly and the sinner appear?

Wherefore let them that suffer according to the will of God commit the keeping of their souls to him in well doing, as unto a faithful Creator. 1Peter 4:17-19

Saint Steven said:

That's why I asked you. I'm admittedly not as studied in that area as you are. Your perspective on this is important.

Click to expand...

Ah, but the first will be last and the last will be first. So not only does this indicate your ascendancy in this area, but the fact the kings of the earth are likely to be last into the Kingdom of the King of Kings.

Saint Steven said:

I hadn't considered that the "judgment" (for lack of a better term) will commence upon the arrival of Christ in the Second Coming. (at the Battle of Armageddon) That's a great point If I am understanding you. ???

Click to expand...

I've followed the trajectory of the nations through Revelation, but not specifically looked at whether the kings of the earth a treated any differently. I'll have to get into it. But that's my understanding, we learn that:

Then the kings of the earth who committed sexual immorality and lived in luxury with her will weep and wail at the sight of the smoke rising from the fire that consumes her. (Rev 18:9)

The disenfranchised kings next return for the Battle of Armageddon in 19:19:

And I saw the beast and the kings of the earth and their armies assembled to make war against Him who sat on the horse and against His army.

And their fate?

And the rest were killed with the sword which came from the mouth of Him who sat on the horse, and all the birds were filled with their flesh. (19:21)

The rest of the dead did not come back to life until the thousand years were complete. This is the first resurrection. (20:5)

The resurrection of the righteous? It's not clear as to whether any of the kings killed by the gospel are included at this point. However, they're conspicuous by their absence in v.20:7-8 when satan goes out to assemble the nations from the 4 corners. He doesn't call the kings to assemble the nations.

And in the GWT judgment all those dead 'both great and small' are standing there (20:12), indicating that earthly status has no bearing.

The kings of the earth next return along with the nations in 21:24, finally alive to God to bring their glory to the throne.

Saint Steven said:

More directly to my question, it seems that there is a progression in "judgment".
- The kings (leaders of nations throughout history)
- The nations (as whole peoples within those nations throughout history)
- Individual (judgment of works)

Click to expand...

I'm not sure it's so clear/ cut and dried. Seems all are judged individually on the basis of whether they are dead to Christ and need life. The judgments become progressively escalated until the final remedy for the stubborn recalcitrant and reprobate, being a bath in the LoF.

There's no doubt a lot of relevant OT prophecy that may shed more light on this.

Sorry, doubt I've answered your questions lol.

Saint Steven said:

The article doesn't say that.

Click to expand...

Sure it does. The opening of the article states,


The entire article is built upon and written in response to that comment!

The word "fault" means "responsibility for an accident or misfortune." This then makes the the opening of the article read,


Which, of course, is not true. I am not responsible for people going to hell if my view of hell is incorrect. That is a false-cause fallacy.

Saint Steven said:

However, the concept of a "loving" God that tortures people for all eternity is a barrier to the gospel for many. My own sister-in-law said she couldn't believe in a God like that. Even though she had been raised Christian.

Click to expand...

That is an appeal to emotion. That too is a logical fallacy. God can do whatever He so chooses to do and the creature is not the judge of the Creator. Thinking they are might get them sent off to hell .


God is glorified in regards to His justice when He metes out the just response to sin. God is glorified in regards to His grace when He shows mercy and forgives. He is glorified either way and the creature imagining s/he knows what is just or unjust is at a minimum sheer ignorance and at worst unadulterated arrogance.


And, Saint Steven, I am not an adherent to the endless-torture paradigm. I am an annihilationist. That doesn't mean I don't see the logical flaws in the various arguments for and against endless torture (or any other view of hell). So please don't think I'm defending the endless torture view as an adherent of that view. Jersak's article is flawed. Do you care? Do you see the flaws yourself? Do you want to see them? Any interest in discussing them? Is the intent of this op to discuss Jersak's article or the nature of hell apart from Jersak's article. You gonna be able to tolerate what I bring to the discussion?

Jersak's article is flawed.


lol. That's funny. His article doesn't look anything like Jesus in Matthew 23. Is he suggesting Jesus wasn't "Jesus-composed" when confronting sin? I understand Jersak is interested in having an inviting conversation. Good. Very commendable. But that is not the standard by which all discourse is measured especially when his efforts not to scare others is rife with fallacy.

Jersak's article is flawed.

Wanna talk about it?

hedrick said:

These have the usual problem about the meaning of eternal fire. See e.g. in Mat 13:40 he compares this eternal fire with weeds that are collected and burned up.
The Jewish background that you quote is also equivocal, because there was the same range of beliefs that we see now. One common belief was that hell was temporary, either for everyone or for most. Hillel seems to have thought that. The description you quote was for the exceptions, the few very wicked.

Click to expand...

I expected better from you. Have you ever actually read the sources I quoted? I already addressed your objections. Had you actually read my post you might have read this in the second paragraph. "There were different groups within Judaism; Sadducees, Pharisees, Essenes etc. and there were different beliefs about resurrection, hell etc. That there were differing beliefs does not rebut, refute, change or disprove anything in this post."
What makes you assume that what I quoted from 3 sources was for the exceptions? The belief was significant enough to be addressed in three separate Jewish sources.
.....Concerning the weeds I think my post on the definition of "aionios" addresses that
In twenty four [24] of the following verses αἰών/aion and αἰώνιος/aionios are defined/described as eternal, everlasting, eternity etc, by comparison or contrast with other adjectives or adjectival phrases.
List of verses cited:1 Timothy 1:17, 2 Corinthians 4:17-18, 2 Corinthians 5:1, Hebrews 7:24, 1 Peter 1:23, 1 Timothy 6:16, Galatians 6:8, John 6:58, John 10:20, 1 John 2:17, 1 Peter 5:10, Romans 2:7, Luke 1:33,Revelation 14:11, John 10:28, John 3:15, John 3:16, John 5:24, John 8:51, Ephesians 3:21, Romans 1:20, Romans 5:21, Romans 16:26, John 3:36 , John 4:14, John 6:27
…..In the NT “aion/aionios” sometimes refer to things which are not eternal but neither word is ever defined/described, by other adjectives or adjectival phrases, as meaning a period of time less than eternal, as in the following verses.
…..In 9 of these verses Jesus has defined “aionios” as eternal. In 10 verses Paul has defined “aionios” as eternal.
In Rom 1:20 Paul refers to God’s power and Godhead as “aidios.” Scholars agree “aidios” unquestionably means eternal, everlasting, unending etc. In Rom 16:26, Paul, the same writer, in the same writing, refers to God as “aionios.” Paul has used “aidios” synonymous with “aionios.” In this verse by definition “aionios” means eternal, everlasting.
In this verse the reign βασιλευσει/basileusei, which is the verb form of the word, is "aionas" and of the kingdom βασιλειας/basileias, the noun form of the same word, "there shall be no end.” “Aionas” by definition here means eternal.
In this passage “aionios” is contrasted with “for a moment,” vs. 4, and “temporal,” vs. 5. “Age(s)” an indeterminate finite period, it is not the opposite of “for a moment”/”temporal/temporary” “eternal” is. “Aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse “aionios house” is contrasted with “earthly house which is destroyed.” Is God going to replace our destroyed earthly house with a house which only lasts a little longer and will be destroyed at the end of an age? The aionios house is not destroyed, the opposite of “is destroyed.” Thus, “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse “aion” is paired with “unchangeable.” If “aion” means “age(s),” Jesus cannot continue “for a finite period” and be “unchangeable” at the same time. Thus “aion” by definition here means “eternal.”
In verse 23 “word of God” is paired with “imperishable.” The same writer, Peter, in the same writing 1 Peter in verse 25 writes the word of God “endures εις τον αιωνα unto eternity. ” Thus by definition “aion” here means “eternity.”
In this verse “aionios” is paired with “immortality.” If “aionios” is only a finite period, God cannot be “immortal” and only exist for a finite period at the same time. Thus “aionios” by definition means “eternal.”
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “corruption.” “Fleshly” people reap “corruption” but spiritual people reap “life aionios,” i.e. “not corruption.” “Age(s), a finite period, is not opposite of “corruption.” Thus “aionios life” by definition here means “eternal/everlasting life.”
In this verse Jesus contrasts “aionios life” with “death.” If “live aionios” is only a finite period, a finite period is not opposite “death.” Thus “aionios” by definition here means “eternal.”
In this verse Jesus pairs “aionios” and “aion” with “[not] snatch them out of my hand.” If “aion/aionios” means “age(s), a finite period,” that is not the opposite of “[not] snatch them out of my hand’” “Aionios life” by definition here means “eternal life.”
In this verse “aionios” is contrasted with “pass away,” “lives aionios” cannot mean a finite period, which is is not opposite of “pass away.” Thus “lives aionios” by definition here means “lives eternally.”

[Character limit. Continued next post.]


.

Josheb said:

God is glorified in regards to His justice when He metes out the just response to sin. God is glorified in regards to His grace when He shows mercy and forgives.

Click to expand...

So God's all functionally compartmentalised like a robotronic gearbox? Law mode upshift to grace mode. May I suggest there is no tension between grace and justice, or mercy and punishment, which are reconciled in restorative justice. All glory to the Great Physician, for His Salvation is the Omega Plan.

Josheb said:

I am an annihilationist.

Click to expand...

Well how about that? I'm also an annihilationist, having faith that God will obliterate sin by transforming the sinner into a new creature. So annihilation's good news too, and Christological to boot.