Is Hell really a place of fire?

[The Fire Rises]

I've been reading an excellent book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Faith". One of the proffessors he interviews is philosopher J.P. Moreland.

When talking about Hell, Moreland claims that the "fires of hell" are just figurative speech. Here's an excerpt:

Lee: "You have to admit that when it comes to talking about Hell, the Bible certainly does have a tendency to refer to flames."

Moreland: "That's true, but the flames are a figure of speech."

Lee: "Okay, wait a mintue. I thought you were a conservative scholar. Are you going to try to soften the idea of Hell to make it more palatable?"

Moreland: "Absolutely not. I just want to be biblically accurate. We know that the reference to flames is figurative because if we try to take it literally, it makes no sense. For example, Hell is described as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames, too. How can that be? Flames would light things up."

"In addition, we're told Christ is going to return surrouned by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of His mouth. But nobody thinks he'll be choking on a sword. The figure of the sword stands for the word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement. In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. Yet nobody thinks God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is way of saying he's a God of judgement."

Frankly, this makes sense to me. I've also read NDE's where people describe Hell as being very dark, but mention nothing about any sort of flames or eternal fire.

In our culture Hell is always characterized by fire but is it not beyond possibility that this is just taking a figure of speech out of context?

 

[Shulamite7]

It is not a figure of speech. I have watched many NDEs which talks of people thrown into fire and tormented there. It is an endless process and it goes on and on.

Philosophers, scholars and scientists are dangerous. They only want to prove everything and end up twisting the Word. It will do you good if you don't listen to people like these. Instead of following the opinion of man ask God about it and He will reveal the truth to you.

 

[madetoworship]

I think a lot of things in the Bible that are mere words of imagery and hyperbole can be taken out of context. A lot of people make this mistake. What Hell looks like and the specific descriptions are not important and if someone uses the lack of detail of something as the basis for its nonexistence is really off track. That would be the equivalent to saying "your brain doesn't exist because I don't know all the details of it."

My view of Hell is:

When someone chooses to reject God, God grants it to us and eternally separates us from Him.

What would that look like? Well, I can tell you a bit about my past that made me feel like that would be like Hell. But many people have different views.

 

[madetoworship]

/oops double post

 

[manitouscott]

Revelation 20:14,15 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. If anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

John is def talking about fire. I could see how someone may want to take this as a figure of speech if they were not saved.

 

[The Fire Rises]

Well, I think we can assume that the philosopher in this case was saved, so that's definitely not why he's claiming this.

Also, doesn't eternal fire bring the word "torture" to mind? We can all agree that Hell is a punishment, a natural consequence of rejecting God. But we know that God never actually "tortures" people. The Bible tells us that He "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked".

Why else would Hell be full of fire other than to make it more painful? To me, Hell seems like a place, or alternate existence, separated from God, a place of such misery and heartache that it's unbearable. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I fail to see how fire would somehow be a necessary part of Hell. Also, the issue of darkness and fire brining light still doesn't make sense.

I know that many would say "Well, there are some things that only God understands" which is true, and really I'm just asking for curiosity's sake.

 

[The Fire Rises]

It is not a figure of speech. I have watched many NDEs which talks of people thrown into fire and tormented there. It is an endless process and it goes on and on.

Philosophers, scholars and scientists are dangerous. They only want to prove everything and end up twisting the Word. It will do you good if you don't listen to people like these. Instead of following the opinion of man ask God about it and He will reveal the truth to you.

That's a pretty broad assumption. There are many respected philospohers such as Mr. Moreland who, in my view, were probably revealed the truth to them by God. I agree that God should be the first one we go to with a question, but I don't think it's necessary to automatically dismiss everything these people have to say just because it may not line up with our traditional viewpoint, such as Hell being a place of literal flames.

 

[madetoworship]

Well, I think we can assume that the philosopher in this case was saved, so that's definitely not why he's claiming this.

Also, doesn't eternal fire bring the word "torture" to mind? We can all agree that Hell is a punishment, a natural consequence of rejecting God. But we know that God never actually "tortures" people. The Bible tells us that He "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked".

Why else would Hell be full of fire other than to make it more painful? To me, Hell seems like a place, or alternate existence, separated from God, a place of such misery and heartache that it's unbearable. I'm not trying to be argumentative, but I fail to see how fire would somehow be a necessary part of Hell. Also, the issue of darkness and fire brining light still doesn't make sense.

I know that many would say "Well, there are some things that only God understands" which is true, and really I'm just asking for curiosity's sake.

Well one can only guess what eternal separation from God may look like. Torturous? I bet! Would eternal fire be good imagery for it? Probably.

In my opinion, the idea of Hell being torturous because of it being eternally separated from God can only be fully feared by God's chosen. From a nonbeliever's perspective, I wouldn't think being separated from God would be that bad.

Once you are saved, you realized that God's hand was in how you eventually knew Him and accepted Him into your life. Seeing and realizing God's hand in your life - you can probably imagine that hand not being there and think of where you would be (lost, even dead perhaps?).

Just something to think about...

 

[The Fire Rises]

Well one can only guess what eternal separation from God may look like. Torturous? I bet! Would eternal fire be good imagery for it? Probably.

In my opinion, the idea of Hell being torturous because of it being eternally separated from God can only be fully feared by God's chosen. From a nonbeliever's perspective, I wouldn't think being separated from God would be that bad.

Once you are saved, you realized that God's hand was in how you eventually knew Him and accepted Him into your life. Seeing and realizing God's hand in your life - you can probably imagine that hand not being there and think of where you would be (lost, even dead perhaps?).

Just something to think about...

Oh, absolutely.

And I do realize the issue of whether there is fire or not is ultimately irrelevant, but I do think it's kind of an interesting point.

 

[Johnnz]

The concept of torture is a slander on God. Sin has consequences. The inly source of anything good is God. Thus, living apart from God in eternity will not be at all pleasant. But that is very different from seeing God as teh supreme torturer.

Fire is imagery and is used as such in many places in Scripture. "God is a consuming fire" is patently a metaphor.

Job 18:5 e lamp of the wicked is snuffed out; the flame of his fire stops burning. NIV Again, not literal.

Ps 18:8 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth,burning coals blazed out of it. NIV
Literal? Hardly.

Isa 9:18 Surely wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns, it sets the forest thickets ablaze, so that it rolls upward in a column of smoke. NIV
Isa 65:5 Such people are smoke in my nostrils,a fire that keeps burning all day. NIV
Clearly metaphor

1 Thess 5:19-20 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. NIV
The reality of the passion and enlivening Holy Spirit amongst believers is described as fire.

From Genesis to Revelation Scriptures contain language that uses literary devices, including Jesus himself - "I am the true vine" - as one example.

John
NZ

 

[The Fire Rises]

The concept of torture is a slander on God. Sin has consequences. The inly source of anything good is God. Thus, living apart from God in eternity will not be at all pleasant. But that is very different from seeing God as teh supreme torturer.

Fire is imagery and is used as such in many places in Scripture. "God is a consuming fire" is patently a metaphor.

Job 18:5 e lamp of the wicked is snuffed out; the flame of his fire stops burning. NIV Again, not literal.

Ps 18:8 Smoke rose from his nostrils; consuming fire came from his mouth,burning coals blazed out of it. NIV
Literal? Hardly.

Isa 9:18 Surely wickedness burns like a fire; it consumes briers and thorns, it sets the forest thickets ablaze, so that it rolls upward in a column of smoke. NIV
Isa 65:5 Such people are smoke in my nostrils,a fire that keeps burning all day. NIV
Clearly metaphor

1 Thess 5:19-20 19 Do not put out the Spirit's fire; 20 do not treat prophecies with contempt. NIV
The reality of the passion and enlivening Holy Spirit amongst believers is described as fire.

From Genesis to Revelation Scriptures contain language that uses literary devices, including Jesus himself - "I am the true vine" - as one example.

John
NZ

Thank you; this is what I've been trying to get across.

A lot of people hold the misconception that Hell is a place God created in order to punish and torture those who reject Him - which would be consistent with Hell being a place of fire. But this is simply not true. Hell was created due to the fact that some people simply do NOT want to live with God.

God cannot force them to choose them, since that would violate their free will and essentially make them slaves; He wants us to choose to love Him, not be forced or threatened into it.

I feel that "Hell fire" is a centuries-old idea that people have grown so accustomed to that many simply don't want to consider that maybe, it's not to be taken literally. For whatever reason, I'm not sure. I used to take it quite literally, but there was always doubt nagging at my mind saying "Something about that just doesn't seem right"

 

[Eric Hibbert]

I've been reading an excellent book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Faith". One of the proffessors he interviews is philosopher J.P. Moreland.

When talking about Hell, Moreland claims that the "fires of hell" are just figurative speech. Here's an excerpt:

Lee: "You have to admit that when it comes to talking about Hell, the Bible certainly does have a tendency to refer to flames."

Moreland: "That's true, but the flames are a figure of speech."

Lee: "Okay, wait a mintue. I thought you were a conservative scholar. Are you going to try to soften the idea of Hell to make it more palatable?"

Moreland: "Absolutely not. I just want to be biblically accurate. We know that the reference to flames is figurative because if we try to take it literally, it makes no sense. For example, Hell is described as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames, too. How can that be? Flames would light things up."

"In addition, we're told Christ is going to return surrouned by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of His mouth. But nobody thinks he'll be choking on a sword. The figure of the sword stands for the word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement. In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. Yet nobody thinks God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is way of saying he's a God of judgement."

Frankly, this makes sense to me. I've also read NDE's where people describe Hell as being very dark, but mention nothing about any sort of flames or eternal fire.

In our culture Hell is always characterized by fire but is it not beyond possibility that this is just taking a figure of speech out of context?

Moreland has a great many talents, but I suspect that physics and chemistry are not among them. If they were, he would know that not all flames produce light.

In any event, the Bible portrays Hell as a literal, eternal punishment, with literal, eternal fire. So that's what I choose to believe.

If God can create a Universe out of nothing with nothing more than a wave of His hand, then I would imagine He should have no trouble producing a Hell that functions the way He wants without checking with human scientists first.

 

[toolite]

I've been reading an excellent book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Faith". One of the proffessors he interviews is philosopher J.P. Moreland.

When talking about Hell, Moreland claims that the "fires of hell" are just figurative speech. Here's an excerpt:

Lee: "You have to admit that when it comes to talking about Hell, the Bible certainly does have a tendency to refer to flames."

Moreland: "That's true, but the flames are a figure of speech."

Lee: "Okay, wait a mintue. I thought you were a conservative scholar. Are you going to try to soften the idea of Hell to make it more palatable?"

Moreland: "Absolutely not. I just want to be biblically accurate. We know that the reference to flames is figurative because if we try to take it literally, it makes no sense. For example, Hell is described as a place of utter darkness and yet there are flames, too. How can that be? Flames would light things up."

"In addition, we're told Christ is going to return surrouned by flames and that he's going to have a big sword coming out of His mouth. But nobody thinks he'll be choking on a sword. The figure of the sword stands for the word of God in judgement. The flames stand for Christ coming in judgement. In Hebrews 12:29, God is called a consuming fire. Yet nobody thinks God is a cosmic Bunsen burner. Using the flame imagery is way of saying he's a God of judgement."

Frankly, this makes sense to me. I've also read NDE's where people describe Hell as being very dark, but mention nothing about any sort of flames or eternal fire.

In our culture Hell is always characterized by fire but is it not beyond possibility that this is just taking a figure of speech out of context?

I don't agree with the fire... from what I've seen.. regarding souls in torment its generally an issue or their sin that torments them constant.. the soul still knows and can experience fear etc.. Im almost confident to say each persons torment is based on that individual.. one may experience this and one may experience that but, for sure its torment and its endless..

Glory To God

 

[The Fire Rises]

Moreland has a great many talents, but I suspect that physics and chemistry are not among them. If they were, he would know that not all flames produce light.

In any event, the Bible portrays Hell as a literal, eternal punishment, with literal, eternal fire. So that's what I choose to believe.

If God can create a Universe out of nothing with nothing more than a wave of His hand, then I would imagine He should have no trouble producing a Hell that functions the way He wants without checking with human scientists first.

I have no doubt that God is capable of creating flames that don't produce light.

My question is why the flames are necessary at all. When God created Hell, why fill it up with flames? What purpose could they possibly serve other than to create everlasting torment.

I feel that, and this is what Moreland is getting at, that living without God is sheer Hell in and of itself. Why would eternal flames be necessary, to somehow act as " icing on the cake"?

We agree that everything God creates, is good. He created Hell, which as strange as it may sound, is good in that it enables Him to honor people's free will, it honors their decision to reject Him. If He created Hell fire, is that good? What purpose would it serve? God is not a torturous fiend, He would not be worthy of our praise if that was the case.

So I don't think Moreland is arguing this in a chemistry sense, but rather the fact that torturous flames wouldn't be consistent with the idea of a loving God. Yes, He is a just God, but flames really seem like over-kill to me.

But hey, this is just my opinion.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

My question is why the flames are necessary at all. When God created Hell, why fill it up with flames? What purpose could they possibly serve other than to create everlasting torment.

That's the purpose.

I feel that, and this is what Moreland is getting at, that living without God is sheer Hell in and of itself.

Why? Why would it be "Hell" for the unregenerate to live without God? They already rebel against Him, break His laws, etc. It seems to me that living without God is what they're already doing.

We agree that everything God creates, is good. He created Hell, which as strange as it may sound, is good in that it enables Him to honor people's free will, it honors their decision to reject Him.

First, people do not have free will.

Second, if God sent people to Hell for rejecting Him, as opposed to sending them to Hell as punishment for their sins, then He would be spiteful and capricious and, thus, neither Holy, Righteous, nor Just.

[qquote]If He created Hell fire, is that good?[/quote]

Yes. It is good.

What purpose would it serve?

To punish the wicked and to uphold the sanctity of His laws.

God is not a torturous fiend, He would not be worthy of our praise if that was the case.

No, God would still be worthy of your praise. You just wouldn't submit to Him to praise Him.

So I don't think Moreland is arguing this in a chemistry sense, but rather the fact that torturous flames wouldn't be consistent with the idea of a loving God.

Why not?

Yes, He is a just God, but flames really seem like over-kill to me.

That's because you've fashioned a little god in your own image, rather than looking to the God of the Bible and submitting to Him.

 

[gideon123]

"Philosophers, scholars and scientists are dangerous ... "

YES - because they THINK.
Is seeking the truth dangerous? It is to some.

Look at it this way - Why should we criticize Muslims for being blind followers of a doctrine determined by a "select few"? If we ourselves also become blind followers ... are we any different???

Back to the OP.
What's hell like ... I don't know. Ask someone who's been there
Christians spend a lot of time pontificating on things that they really don't know. Nobody ever said that the Bible tell us ALL the answers.

blessings,
Gideon123

 

[The Fire Rises]

That's the purpose.



Why? Why would it be "Hell" for the unregenerate to live without God? They already rebel against Him, break His laws, etc. It seems to me that living without God is what they're already doing.



First, people do not have free will.

Second, if God sent people to Hell for rejecting Him, as opposed to sending them to Hell as punishment for their sins, then He would be spiteful and capricious and, thus, neither Holy, Righteous, nor Just.

[qquote]If He created Hell fire, is that good?

Yes. It is good.



To punish the wicked and to uphold the sanctity of His laws.



No, God would still be worthy of your praise. You just wouldn't submit to Him to praise Him.



Why not?



That's because you've fashioned a little god in your own image, rather than looking to the God of the Bible and submitting to Him.

[/QUOTE]

So there's no such thing as free will, and a torturous God who delights in suffering would be worthy of our praise? You and I clearly belong to different schools of thought, so I can already see that there won't be much chance of reaching an agreement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

I would like to say this.

Please do not make such brash assumptions or accusations about my faith, the relationship between me and my Creator is of our concern, and frankly you have no right to deem whether it's genuine or not, considering you have no way of knowing.


I must say I'm pretty dissapointed that you would accuse a fellow brother of worshipping a false idol just because I have one question, about one specific detail of one specific subject (Hell).

While I'm not accusing you of being flat-out wrong, as you have done with me, I will stand firm in my belief that Hell fire could be a figure of speech. That doesn't make me any less of a Christian for considering that possibility.

Lastly, I'm not interested in an argument on this topic, I've seen way too many threads derailed by one petty disagreement so let's try to avoid that.

I think I've shown you respect and I ask the same in return, there's no reason to start a huge argument over this.

 

[Eric Hibbert]

So there's no such thing as free will, and a torturous God who delights in suffering would be worthy of our praise?

"A torturous God who delights in suffering"??? Seriously? Have you ever even read the Bible?

Yet you say, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ Hear now, O house of Israel: Is my way not just? Is it not your ways that are not just? 26When a righteous person turns away from his righteousness and does injustice, he shall die for it; for the injustice that he has done he shall die. 27Again, when a wicked person turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he shall save his life. 28Because he considered and turned away from all the transgressions that he had committed, he shall surely live; he shall not die. 29Yet the house of Israel says, ‘The way of the Lord is not just.’ O house of Israel, are my ways not just? Is it not your ways that are not just?
30“Therefore I will judge you, O house of Israel, every one according to his ways, declares the Lord God. Repent and turn from all your transgressions, lest iniquity be your ruin.d 31Cast away from you all the transgressions that you have committed, and make yourselves a new heart and a new spirit! Why will you die, O house of Israel? 32For I have no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Lord God; so turn, and live.” Ez 18: 25-32

Does that really sound like a torturous God who delights in suffering? It doesn't sound like that to me. To the contrary, it sounds like a loving God who pleads with the wicked to repent.

You and I clearly belong to different schools of thought

Clearly.

so I can already see that there won't be much chance of reaching an agreement. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

Not as long as you base your opinion on...well, your opinion, on emotion, and on a god fashioned in your own image who is not consistent with the God of the Bible, no.

Please do not make such brash assumptions or accusations about my faith

I didn't.

the relationship between me and my Creator is of our concern, and frankly you have no right to deem whether it's genuine or not, considering you have no way of knowing.

I didn't say it wasn't genuine.

I must say I'm pretty dissapointed that you would accuse a fellow brother of worshipping a false idol just because I have one question, about one specific detail of one specific subject (Hell).

Actually, it wasn't because you had a question. It is because you projected your will and your opinion onto God.

While I'm not accusing you of being flat-out wrong, as you have done with me, I will stand firm in my belief that Hell fire could be a figure of speech. That doesn't make me any less of a Christian for considering that possibility.

No, but it does make you someone who has no regard for the Bible's teaching.

I think I've shown you respect and I ask the same in return, there's no reason to start a huge argument over this.

Then don't.

 

[The Fire Rises]

"A torturous God who delights in suffering"??? Seriously? Have you ever even read the Bible?



Does that really sound like a torturous God who delights in suffering? It doesn't sound like that to me. To the contrary, it sounds like a loving God who pleads with the wicked to repent.



Clearly.



Not as long as you base your opinion on...well, your opinion, on emotion, and on a god fashioned in your own image who is not consistent with the God of the Bible, no.



I didn't.



I didn't say it wasn't genuine.

[quoteI must say I'm pretty dissapointed that you would accuse a fellow brother of worshipping a false idol just because I have one question, about one specific detail of one specific subject (Hell).

Actually, it wasn't because you had a question. It is because you projected your will and your opinion onto God.



No, but it does make you someone who has no regard for the Bible's teaching.



Then don't.[/quote]

I honestly feel like we may be arguing two different things, I haven't conveyed my opinion very well thus far. In the interest of this thread, I think I'll just PM you to talk about this rather than launching into a huge discussion on the topic which would inevitably get the thread closed.

 

[stormdancer0]

First, people do not have free will.

Second, if God sent people to Hell for rejecting Him, as opposed to sending them to Hell as punishment for their sins, then He would be spiteful and capricious and, thus, neither Holy, Righteous, nor Just.

Yes, people DO have free will. Not going to debate that, because there is scripture on both sides, and we've all heard it before.

God doesn't send anyone to hell. We are all destined for hell. We all deserve to go there. Those of us who accept Jesus' substitute atonement, and make Him Lord of our lives, are granted the righteousness of Christ, and are bound for Heaven.

If people reject God, they will go to hell. Their own sin will send them there. But it is the acceptance/rejection of the sacrifice of Christ that dictates which direction we will go.