Hell

[SoulBap6]

I am doing a message this weekend on Hell. the more I think about it the more disturbing it is -- everlasting torture? I am a Bible believing Christian. It just seems so harsh -- everlasting punishment for temporal crimes. What am I missing?

Luke 16:19 There was a certain rich man, which was clothed in purple and fine linen, and fared sumptuously every day:
[20] And there was a certain beggar named Lazarus, which was laid at his gate, full of sores,
[21] And desiring to be fed with the crumbs which fell from the rich man's table: moreover the dogs came and licked his sores.
[22] And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried;
[23] And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.
[24] And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame.
[25] But Abraham said, Son, remember that thou in thy lifetime receivedst thy good things, and likewise Lazarus evil things: but now he is comforted, and thou art tormented.
[26] And beside all this, between us and you there is a great gulf fixed: so that they which would pass from hence to you cannot; neither can they pass to us, that would come from thence.
[27] Then he said, I pray thee therefore, father, that thou wouldest send him to my father's house:
[28] For I have five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment.
[29] Abraham saith unto him, They have Moses and the prophets; let them hear them.
[30] And he said, Nay, father Abraham: but if one went unto them from the dead, they will repent.
[31] And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead.

God would not be a just God if sin was not punished, just think what Jesus Christ suffered, for you and me to escape the wrath of God. I think sometimes people do not understand for those who our saved how privileged we our, God loves us because of his son and his sacrifice, our works are a filthy rags, it is by God Grace that we our saved because we have faith, but be sure to understand it was the blood of Jesus Christ that we our saved. We did nothing for salvation that was done by Jesus Christ.

When you read the scriptures Romans 6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

Revelations 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Sin is serious make no mistake about the judgment of God hell or the Lake of Fire.


Heb.10

1. [31] It is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm not allowed to, outside of the UT Forum.

But if you go to the UT Forum, you should be able to find out very easily.

Also, I recommend Edward Fudge's excellent theological work, "The Fire that Consumes, the biblical case for Conditional Immortality".

But by CF Rules I am not allowed to discuss A***********ism outside of UT. So I won't. Go to the UT Forum and the biblical case for my position is spelled out there.

Thanks,
Baptist Tim

What exactly is the UT forum, Timothew?

 

[Timothew]

What exactly is the UT forum, Timothew?

UT stands for Unorthodox Theology.
Annihilationism is allowed by CF rules to be discussed there.

Here's a link:
http://www.christianforums.com/f130/

 

[Hupomone10]

If I understand annihilationists and those who lean toward the temporary view of hell correctly, for those sincere at least, it is because of a belief that the view of eternal punishment misrepresents God, misreprepresents the Christian faith, and will cause people not to come to Christ. ?

First, that would seem like arguing whether "Life Imprisonment" is truly for the rest of your natural life or if it is only 20 yrs (or 7 yrs). Would the immigrant to this country (USA, sorry, we're stuck on ourselves) be more apt to believe in the judicial system if "Life" were only 10 or so years instead of his whole life?

And if so, would it be because he thinks the American system is more merciful and kind, or because his carnal nature desires less punishment for his crimes should he commit them?

And, if it is a more merciful and kind system that limits the punishment, would not the death penalty be the obvious choice of such a system, being swift and not drawn out over many years of being a forced sex-slave to a tattooed weight-lifter for the rest of his life?

And that is the "second" point of my musings. Although there are many sincere people who believe they believe the Bible who hold to a temporal view of hell, the liberal definitely gravitates to this view. If there is any punishment at all, it must be short. Interestingly, it is also the liberal who believes that capital punishment doesn't work.

Therefore, the liberal Christian believes a perfect and all-knowing God would choose short term severe punishment for sin, IOW a capital punishment that was severe, short, and doesn't work.

Since man cannot determine which view is right or more scriptural, sometimes it helps to simply follow a reasoning to the end of its road and see where it leads.

 

[Timothew]

If I understand annihilationists and those who lean toward the temporary view of hell correctly, for those sincere at least, it is because of a belief that the view of eternal punishment misrepresents God, misreprepresents the Christian faith, and will cause people not to come to Christ. ?

First, that would seem like arguing whether "Life Imprisonment" is truly for the rest of your natural life or if it is only 20 yrs (or 7 yrs). Would the immigrant to this country (USA, sorry, we're stuck on ourselves) be more apt to believe in the judicial system if "Life" were only 10 or so years instead of his whole life?

And if so, would it be because he thinks the American system is more merciful and kind, or because his carnal nature desires less punishment for his crimes should he commit them?

And, if it is a more merciful and kind system that limits the punishment, would not the death penalty be the obvious choice of such a system, being swift and not drawn out over many years of being a forced sex-slave to a tattooed weight-lifter for the rest of his life?

And that is the "second" point of my musings. Although there are many sincere people who believe they believe the Bible who hold to a temporal view of hell, the liberal definitely gravitates to this view. If there is any punishment at all, it must be short. Interestingly, it is also the liberal who believes that capital punishment doesn't work.

Therefore, the liberal Christian believes a perfect and all-knowing God would choose short term severe punishment for sin, IOW a capital punishment that was severe, short, and doesn't work.

Since man cannot determine which view is right or more scriptural, sometimes it helps to simply follow a reasoning to the end of its road and see where it leads.

You can't discuss annihilationism outside of UT. If you wish, make a thread with these objections there. Have you considered the possibility that people are annihilationists because they believe the bible supports that position better than any other position?

 

[phoenixdem]

You can't discuss annihilationism outside of UT. If you wish, make a thread with these objections there. Have you considered the possibility that people are annihilationists because they believe the bible supports that position better than any other position?

"Have you considered the possibility that people are annihilationists because they believe the bible supports that position better than any other position? "

Not anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures and accepts them as written.

 

[Hupomone10]

You can't discuss annihilationism outside of UT. If you wish, make a thread with these objections there. Have you considered the possibility that people are annihilationists because they believe the bible supports that position better than any other position?

I run into this everywhere, even in myself. You are falling into the trap of reading my post and listening to what you are thinking instead of what I said.

I have answered your question in the post you quoted:

Although there are many sincere people who believe they believe the Bible who hold to a temporal view of hell

and I would include as a follow-up: "who believe they believe the Bible and hold to annihilationism."

They think they believe the Bible, and they sincerely hold a position of annihilationism, thinking that is what the Bible teaches. They, like yourself in answering my post, are reading the Bible, but go away listening to what they themselves are thinking instead of what it is saying. Inductive Bible study is the great need of the church today. Having lost it, we carry our own presuppositions into the scriptures, filter out that which doesn't confirm it, and in our minds bold-face that which seems to agree.

My post is not about annihilationism, but about our approach to scripture: eisogesis rather than exegesis.

My previous post was not about annihilationism, but an observation of a fallacy in reasoning in those who adopt the idea that short-term punishment in eternal matters (a little hell, then annihilation) is reasonable and what an infinitely rational God would come up with, but short-term punishment such as capital punishment, for earthy matters, doesn't work.

If capital punishment doesn't work, and instead an entire life lived with Bubba the tattooed inmate having sex with me against my will is somehow more merciful, then it seems that God would know this as well.

 

[Hupomone10]

Hello Timothew, perhaps you might share your position and why you hold to that.

God bless.

PILGR1M,
this brother has gotten into trouble here in the past for supporting and arguing for the doctrine of annihilationism, and therefore he is trying to be sensitive to discussions about it. That is why instead of supporting the position, he is advocating a book that supports the position, probably not realizing that it is the same author mentioned by the OP who said initially he was undecided as to the position he should teach, if I understood him correctly.

Due to this, we should be careful not to discuss the doctrine as a doctrine per se, or we will be likewise reported.

Oz's suggested book looks like the most interesting one, and most objective. Years ago I read a book entitled "Revelation, Three Viewpoints", which gave an author of each who explained the position, and they could be easily compared. Although the theologian supporting Ammillenialism was a very popular teacher in Southern Baptist circles at the time, his lack of ability to defend the position from scripture taken in a literal way let me compare it with the other two positions of post-millenialism and pre-millenialism.

 

[Timothew]

I run into this everywhere, even in myself. You are falling into the trap of reading my post and listening to what you are thinking instead of what I said.

I have answered your question in the post you quoted:
and I would include as a follow-up: "who believe they believe the Bible and hold to annihilationism."

They think they believe the Bible, and they sincerely hold a position of annihilationism, thinking that is what the Bible teaches. They, like yourself in answering my post, are reading the Bible, but go away listening to what they themselves are thinking instead of what it is saying. Inductive Bible study is the great need of the church today. Having lost it, we carry our own presuppositions into the scriptures, filter out that which doesn't confirm it, and in our minds bold-face that which seems to agree.

My post is not about annihilationism, but about our approach to scripture: eisogesis rather than exegesis.

My previous post was not about annihilationism, but an observation of a fallacy in reasoning in those who adopt the idea that short-term punishment in eternal matters (a little hell, then annihilation) is reasonable and what an infinitely rational God would come up with, but short-term punishment such as capital punishment, for earthy matters, doesn't work.

If capital punishment doesn't work, and instead an entire life lived with Bubba the tattooed inmate having sex with me against my will is somehow more merciful, then it seems that God would know this as well.

Likewise, my post is not about annihilationism but exegesis/eisegesis.

You believe that you are reading the words of the bible and deriving meaning from those words, but you are really reading your own doctrine into the pages of the bible. For example: John 3:16
For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.

If you read this verse without "knowing" that the lost are tormented in hell for all eternity, you would think that perish means perish. But since your doctrine says the lost are tormented in hell for all eternity, you have to use eiesgesis to get your doctrine out of this verse. You can't take the normal meaning of this verse out of this verse, you have to read your doctrine into it.

Example 2: Romans 6:23
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

What are the wages of sin, according to this verse? If you don't read any doctrine INTO the verse (eiegesis) you would say "death". But if you have a doctrine that you need to defend, you would say "well death doesn't really mean death in this verse, it means something other than death."

That's eisegesis.
You are doing what you say I am doing, while I am not.

 

[OzSpen]

"Have you considered the possibility that people are annihilationists because they believe the bible supports that position better than any other position? "

Not anyone who is familiar with the Scriptures and accepts them as written.

I do not support annihilation, but some Christians who have promoted this view to me have taken the line that Scriptures that advocate 'eternal destruction' and 'perish' are supporting the annihilationist theology. Many SDAs take this line.

Here is some of my reasoning why I reject annihilation:

This is what 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (ESV) states:

They [those who do not know God, v8] will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.
​

We are told the nature of this ‘destruction’ in context. Second Thess 1:7-8 says of unbelievers (those inflicting punishment on the believers at Thessalonica) that ‘God considers it just to repay with affliction…. inflicting vengeance’. That’s the language of God and he says that this is what happens when ‘they will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’ (1:9).

To summarise what the Scriptures state in the context of 2 Thess. 1:7-9.

• unbelievers will be repaid with affliction;
• In this affliction, God is inflicting vengeance;
• This vengeance is called ‘eternal destruction’’;
• And it means being ‘away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’.

This is the justice that all unbelievers will receive from the absolutely just Almighty God of the universe. ‘Destruction’ in 2 Thess 1:9 is a descriptive term and it tells us its content. Those who want to find destruction to mean something that is destroyed and that’s the end (as this person seem to be inferring) are found to be wrong because of the Greek word, aiwnios (eternal). There is no time frame here. It is timeless eternity and this destruction goes on to the aeon to come. This is what the adjective, aiwnios, means. It is true that the eternal life of the believers is as long at the eternal destruction of unbelievers.

Second Thess 1:9 says that this will be happening ‘away from the presence of the Lord’ and from ‘the glory of his might’. Please don’t minimise the seriousness of this destruction. The saints are surrounded by the glory of the Lord God’s presence. The unbelievers are excluded from the presence of the Lord and are experiencing God’s vengeance by means of eternal destruction. You and I don’t invent the meaning of ‘destruction’. It is explained in context.

Elsewhere the experience of unbelievers after death is described as being sent to the place where it is ‘outer darkness. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth’ (Matt. 22:13).

In 2 Thess. 1:9, the fact that destruction is eternal, never ending (see also 1 Thess 5:3; 1 Cor 5:5: 1 Tim 6:9) means that it does not mean a contemporary understanding of destruction. It cannot mean annihilation or going out of existence. Instead, it means to be away from the face of the Lord and from the glory of his might. When I reverse over my child's toy and destroy it, it is not annihilated out of existence.

Everlasting destruction is the manifestation of God’s vengeance and is the very opposite of everlasting life to be experienced by the believers.

Oz

 

[Timothew]

Example 3. Exegesis versus Eisegesis (Not having any thing to do with Annihilationism)
2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

Exegesis says the punishment is destruction, because it says "destruction"
Eisegesis says the punishment can't be destruction because we "know" that the punishment is eternal torment. So even though this verse says "destruction" the word destruction can't mean destruction, it must mean eternal torment. This is reading an existing doctrine into scripture rather than taking doctrince from what scripture says.

 

[OzSpen]

Example 3. Exegesis versus Eisegesis (Not having any thing to do with Annihilationism)
2 Thessalonians 1:9
They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction,away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might.

Exegesis says the punishment is destruction, because it says "destruction"
Eisegesis says the punishment can't be destruction because we "know" that the punishment is eternal torment. So even though this verse says "destruction" the word destruction can't mean destruction, it must mean eternal torment. This is reading an existing doctrine into scripture rather than taking doctrince from what scripture says.

You have not engaged with the exposition I provided. Therefore, you have imposed your view of 'destruction' on the text. That also is called eisegesis.

Is my child's toy annihilated when it is destroyed when I reverse my car over it?

'Everlasting destruction' means that the penalty is everlasting, never-ending. That's what the Greek word, aiwnios means. The fact that this destruction (see also 1 Cor 5:5; 1 Thess 5:3; 1 Tim 6:9) is everlasting clearly indicates it is NOT referring to annihilation. If death of unbelievers means they are zonked out of existence, it is ridiculous to speak of it as being everlasting. I buried my dead cat and its remains are dust now. Does that mean it has an everlasting existence as dead dust? This is ridiculous thinking.

Second Thess 1:9 tells us clearly what the meaning is of "everlasting destruction". It is being "away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might". That is not a description of being annihilated out of existence. Second Thess 1:8, the preceding verse, is clear about what this absence from the presence of the Lord involves. It is "inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus".

So eternal destruction = inflicting vengeance and it will happen "away from the presence of the Lord". That's biblical exegesis and it is not imposing on the text as you are want to do.

Therefore, eternal destruction is banishment from loving fellowship with God Himself and means expulsion "from the glory (radiant splendour) of his might". However the presence in that glory is what Christian believers will be experiencing after death.

Oz

 

[Timothew]

Is my child's toy annihilated when it is destroyed when I reverse my car over it?
Oz

Yes!

 

[OzSpen]

Yes!

I asked:

Is my child's toy annihilated when it is destroyed when I reverse my car over it?

This is a further demonstration that you do not know the meaning of annihilation.

My child's toy is destroyed from proper use, but it is not annihilated out of existence.

I think it's time that you learned to differentiate between destruction and annihilation.

Oz

 

[Timothew]

I asked:

This is a further demonstration that you do not know the meaning of annihilation.

My child's toy is destroyed from proper use, but it is not annihilated out of existence.

I think it's time that you learned to differentiate between destruction and annihilation.

Oz

Please don't ask me to respond to questions about annihilationism here. IT isn't allowed.

Your reponse shows that you don't understand it, but I'm not allowed to debate it here. Let's take it to UT. The toy is destroyed. For all intents and purposes, it is "dead". Yes, it has been annihilated. If you line up all of your child's toys and run over them with your car, you will have annihilated his toys.

 

[SoulBap6]

an·ni·hi·late

Merriam Webster

   /əˈnaɪəˌleɪt/ http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/IPA_pron_key.htmlShow Spelled[uh-nahy-uh-leyt] http://dictionary.reference.com/help/luna/Spell_pron_key.htmlShow IPA
verb (used with object), an·ni·hi·lat·ed, an·ni·hi·lat·ing. 1. to reduce to utter ruin or nonexistence; destroy utterly: The heavy bombing almost annihilated the city.

2. to destroy the collective existence or main body of; wipe out: to annihilate an army.

3. to annul; make void: to annihilate a law.

4. to cancel the effect of; nullify.

5. to defeat completely; vanquish: Our basketball team annihilated the visiting team.

This is not what Hell is all about, eternal torment not vaporizing something or someone, believe me when I say they will have a New Body in the lake of Fire. Where the worm dieth not. It sad but its true, Hell is real and so is the lake of Fire.

 

[Timothew]

unsubscribing

If you want to talk to me, I can talk in UT.

 

[P1LGR1M]

PILGR1M,
this brother has gotten into trouble here in the past for supporting and arguing for the doctrine of annihilationism, and therefore he is trying to be sensitive to discussions about it. That is why instead of supporting the position, he is advocating a book that supports the position, probably not realizing that it is the same author mentioned by the OP who said initially he was undecided as to the position he should teach, if I understood him correctly.

Due to this, we should be careful not to discuss the doctrine as a doctrine per se, or we will be likewise reported.

Oz's suggested book looks like the most interesting one, and most objective. Years ago I read a book entitled "Revelation, Three Viewpoints", which gave an author of each who explained the position, and they could be easily compared. Although the theologian supporting Ammillenialism was a very popular teacher in Southern Baptist circles at the time, his lack of ability to defend the position from scripture taken in a literal way let me compare it with the other two positions of post-millenialism and pre-millenialism.

Hello hupomone, at the ER with my mom right now and on my phone so this will be brief.

I would invite you to take a look at the UT forum in "Why don't se people believe hell is real." It is shaping up to be a good discussion.

I would be surprised if the staff did not recognize annihilation as doctrine, a false one, but one all the same.

Someone posted an article on Luke 16 and I can't wait to break that down.

A few errors found in it would be the rich man is never found unrighteousness, they say he is "buried in hell," he represents Judah, well, as I said I can't wait to look at that.

God bless

 

[Timothew]

unsubscribing

If you want to talk to me, I can talk in UT.

Moderator Supplicant Hat on:
Could this thread be moved to UT so we can discuss this freely without fear of repercussion?
Moderator Supplicant Hat off:

 

[DeaconDean]

Here is my problem with the whole theory of annilationism.

The same doctrine proposed and supported by such groups as the JW's.

If the doctrine is true, why be saved in the first place?

If it is true that after a certain amount of time burning and paying for your sins, you burn up into nothing, you have essentially escaped eternal damnation.

So why be saved in the first place.

And it breeds complacency. If your gonna be annilated in the end, why not just live any way you wish, there will be no eternal penalty?

R.C. Sproul qutes Johnathan Edwards saying:

Wicked men will hereafter earnestly wish to be turned to nothing and forever cease to be that they may escape the wrath of God.”

Hell, By: R. C. Sproul

God Bless

Till all are one.