Is Hell Really Eternal? (2)

[Der Alte]

So stop doing that...

I didn't as I have explained more than once. Guess someone can't accept being proven wrong. There is a big difference between drawing a conclusion from evidence on a specific topic which was discussed and an argument from silence on a topic that was never addressed. For example Jesus never specifically addressed homosexuality therefore we cannot assume that Jesus accepted or disapproved the practice based solely on His silence.

 

[seeingeyes]

I didn't as I have explained more than once. Guess someone can't accept being proven wrong.

This argument is like every girl-fight I've ever witnessed: "You're just jealous!"

There is a big difference between drawing a conclusion from evidence on a specific topic which was discussed and an argument from silence on a topic that was never addressed. For example Jesus never specifically addressed homosexuality therefore we cannot assume that Jesus accepted or disapproved the practice based solely on His silence.

Then why do you keep saying "Jews believed x, Jesus never refuted it, therefore x is true"?

You seem to hold one set of rules for yourself and one set for everyone else.

 

[seeingeyes]

when you said sacrifice you quoted a verse speaking of "carrying crosses" didn't you? I replied to carrying crosses and being a living sacrifice that "not all will live this well, some will be carnal christians"

So Christians are salted with fire, and the unsaved are salted with fire, but "carnal Christians" are not?

Greg Koukl has a theory, it's called "never read a Bible verse"

and his theory is to read every thing in context, read 15 verses before and 15 verses after to gain the setting in which the verse was laid.

Good. No problem there. I would suggest that even more context is better.

I don't know what you are asking here?

You said: if everything sacrificed referred to everyone, then it would be everyone universally (saved and not saved that it was referring to), since that doesn't make sense

I asked why that doesn't make sense.

It doesn't make sense within your framework. That's true.

Jesus mentioned two saltings, one after the other. Wesley believed one had more grace than the other. Namely the salting of sacrifice.

No he doesn't. He mentions one salting and then says "salt is good". Only your commentator mentions two in order to make it fit with what he already believes.

To view God as weaker than say my mother or father, as more liberal, as more permitting is to wreak havoc on ones view of God. God being infinitely more aware of the minute and minor sins of thought-life will provide an infinitely more devastating judgement.

How do you reconcile this with a God who gives grace to the wicked and sends his own Son to die for those who are currently murdering him?

Are you not one of the wicked who will not be burned?

 

[createdtoworship]

So Christians are salted with fire, and the unsaved are salted with fire, but "carnal Christians" are not?

no, no christians are salted. That is confusing sacrifice in the text with christian, and there is no Biblical link here.

Good. No problem there. I would suggest that even more context is better.

good

You said: if everything sacrificed referred to everyone, then it would be everyone universally (saved and not saved that it was referring to), since that doesn't make sense

the nature of a sacrifice is that it doesn't happen universally.

No he doesn't. He mentions one salting and then says "salt is good". Only your commentator mentions two in order to make it fit with what he already believes.

you are right, there is only one salting. But after going over this a few times and you not understanding I am retreating to do other things.

(I won't be posting anymore on this)

thank you for the conversation, I suggest re- reading wesley's commentary and others. Instead of trying to find something wrong with them, try reanalyzing your view. You may find more peace with all the contradiction you have to live with.

Again thank you for the conversation.

(I am starting to work 7 days a week now so I will be giving CF a break for a while- nothing personal)

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

no, no christians are salted. That is confusing sacrifice in the text with christian, and there is no Biblical link here.

the nature of a sacrifice is that it doesn't happen universally..............

What about the final sacrifice shown in the OT and book of Revelation?

Zeph 1:7
Be-hushed! from faces of my-Lord YHWH, that near Day of YHWH. That YHWH prepares a Sacrifice, He sanctifies ones being Called of Him.

Ezekiel 39:
17 " And thou son of adam, thus He says my Lord YHWH, say thou! to bird of every wing and to all of beast of the field: 'be assembled ye! and come! together ye from round about on Sacrifice of Me which I Sacrificing for ye, a great Sacrifice on Mountains of Israel,
and ye eat flesh and ye drink blood.
18 Flesh of mighty-ones ye shall eat, and blood of princes of the Land ye shall drink.....
[Revelation 19]

The Destruction of Jerusalem - George Peter Holford, 1805AD
THE DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM

Reve 19:
17 And I perceived one messenger standing in the sun, and he cries-out in great voice saying to all the birds, the ones flying in mid-heaven, "hither! be ye being gathered! into the Supper of the Great God.
18 That ye may be eating fleshes...... [Zeph 1:7/Ezekiel 39:19]


.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

It is better for you to know that He stands in hell with you.

May God bless you and keep you, brother.

Thanks. I guess that would be a nice thought if I ever doubted God is always with us in this life.

The point was not whether God is with us in our suffering. The point was whether it appropriate to see God as torturing just because He allows suffering.

 

[he-man]

anyone who doesn't believe in eternal Hell is forced to say that Jesus ceased to exist for three days, then reinvented a new soul and a new body at the resurrection. He could not have the same one because it ceased to exist. Therefore you must too accept Christ was a different person, and not the same Christ that suffered the first time. Hence the crucifixion would be useless and the Resurrection a hoax.

No devil, no literal Hell just the grave, Christ was not raised until the 3rd day, so how would Jesus be able to say Today, you shall be with me in Paradise. Unless you think Paradise is Hell?

Talking donkey, talking snake, angel, both adversaries, which God did make to talk.

Num 22:27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. 28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee,

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And it said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

 

[createdtoworship]

No devil, no literal Hell just the grave, Christ was not raised until the 3rd day, so how would Jesus be able to say Today, you shall be with me in Paradise. Unless you think Paradise is Hell?

Talking donkey, talking snake, angel, both adversaries, which God did make to talk.

Num 22:27 And when the ass saw the angel of the LORD, she fell down under Balaam: and Balaam's anger was kindled, and he smote the ass with a staff. 28 And the LORD opened the mouth of the ass, and she said unto Balaam, What have I done unto thee,

Gen 3:1 Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And it said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?

so you believe Christ was not annihilated at death, this proves my view that annihilationism is in error.

 

[he-man]

so you believe Christ was not annihilated at death, this proves my view that annihilationism is in error.

Christ was given power to resurrect himself which we do not have. So annihilation did not apply to him , not to mention the fact that he did not sin, unlike us. and the bad guys are still treated as 2 Thess 1:9. destroyed eternally.

Joh 5:26 For as the Father hath life in himself; so hath he given to the Son to have life in himself;
27 And hath given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

2Th 1:8 in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who know not God, and those who do not obey the glad tidings of our Lord Jesus Christ;
9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might

Isa_5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.

No devil, no literal Hell just the grave,where Christ went until Christ was raised the 3rd day, so how would Jesus be able to say Today, you shall be with me in Paradise. Unless you think Paradise is Hell?

 

[createdtoworship]

Christ was given power to resurrect himself which we do not have. So annihilation did not apply to him ,

if anything, because He took on the sin of the world- Jesus would definitely be annihilated. Because according to you, the wages of sin is annihilation. Rom 6:23. Unless you reject the whole idea of annihilation altogether, which is recommended.

 

[he-man]

if anything, because He took on the sin of the world- Jesus would definitely be annihilated. Because according to you, the wages of sin is annihilation. Rom 6:23. Unless you reject the whole idea of annihilation altogether, which is recommended.

Deuteronomy 12:30 take heed to yourself that you are not ensnared to follow them, after they are destroyed from before you, and that you do not inquire after their gods, saying, "How did these nations serve their gods? I also will do likewise." (31) You shall not worship the LORD your God in that way; for every abomination to the LORD which He hates they have done to their gods; for they burn even their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

Matthew 15:9 And in vain they worship Me, Teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.""

Ps 6:5 For in death there is no remembrance of thee: in the grave who shall give thee thanks?

 

[Der Alte]

This argument is like every girl-fight I've ever witnessed: "You're just jealous!"

Oh, I've seen this response before, "I'm right and you're wrong! Am too! Nuh Huh!" It was at the Little Bo Peep day care center.

Then why do you keep saying "Jews believed x, Jesus never refuted it, therefore x is true"?

You seem to hold one set of rules for yourself and one set for everyone else.

Since I have already refuted this exact same false accusation, it is now a deliberate misrepresentation of my argument. Want to see if you can get it right?

 

[createdtoworship]

1. Matthew 25:46
   "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."
   
   Augustine raised the argument that since Aionios in Matthew 25:46 refers to both life and punishment , it had to carry the same duration in both cases.
   
   Annihilationists are stuck to believe the duration is relative to whom it is given.
   
2. secondly the soul has to be eternal because satan and angels are eternal and it is them that share the experience of Hell with the wicked. Again annihilationists are stuck to believe that the duration is relative to whom it is given.
   
3. thirdly, the beast and the false prophet are in hell a thousand years in the Revelation. They will be tossed in before the millennium and abide until the end of the 1000 years when Satan is thrown in.
   
   Revelation 14:11
   "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."
   
   Rev 20:10
   "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."
   
   notice it states that they currently ARE there in revelation 20:10, placed in prior to the millenium, and still there 1000 years later! Literally speaking!
   Even Edward Fudge admits that the third argument is an argument for traditionalism regarding Hell. But then he dodges the context trying to play the game of illegitimate totality transfer again with the words, as he usually does.

(I will not be able to respond as this is my last post on CF for awhile - while working 7 days a week, TTYL)

(thanks for all the input DerAlter!)

 

[Prufrock]

So that the passerby on this thread does not have to be completely inundated with mountains of scholarship, I'll give my opinion, which after much consternation, I have come to the conclusion is entirely reasonable and most-likely.

"Hell" (and for that matter whatever other terms have been used for afterlife torments) has universally been used by the political and religious oppressor against the oppressed in order to control behavior. Fear is a great motivator.

God, having no need to be oppressive, and Jesus, from all accounts siding with the oppressed, do not seem to fit the type for wanting to use fear as a motivator. I think there are some biblical passages that express this sentiment.

It is reasonable to believe that no hell exists except for in one's mind. No one knows what happens when we die. I tend to think our soul will be born again in another time and place.

I'm not concerned with the theologians and proof-texts. All of your resorting to biblical texts and your various hermeneutics cannot change the fact that none of us have experienced death, and thus we are all really just trying to formulate something reasonable.

In discriminating between several reasonable conclusions about the afterlife, I find most attractive those that tend to eschew coercion and violence in favor of love and peace.

cheers...

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Welcome to the party Prufrock.

Since God spoke of a Hell before going to the Cross to make it possible to escape that fate, am unclear how we could imagine He said those things about it He is recorded as saying but did not wish us to believe Hell exists.

 

[Prufrock]

Your first sentence is loaded with assumptions.

1. Jesus was God.
2. What Jesus said about hell is accurately recorded within the gospels
3. Jesus' death made it possible to escape the fate of Hell

I will grant that these are long-held orthodox views. I would also argue that each of these propositions developed over the course of several centuries in response to various other heretical propositions. The fact that certain propositions won out as orthodox beliefs says more about early Christians than it does about God or Jesus.

As for Jesus' teachings on hell, from all of the fragmentary accounts we have, Jesus also promoted forgiveness, mercy, love for one's neighbor, and love for one's enemies. He taught that the Kingdom of God is within us. Much more of his recorded ministry centers on personal growth and rebirth than on eternal torment. It is reasonable to conclude that if Jesus really did teach on hell, it was in a context of subjective suffering and alienation from God, which are horrible things, but not tantamount to intentional eternal punishment administered by God against the will of the damned.

That said, I am not saying that eternal torment is not a reality. It is something that we all experience to a degree. There are times when existence can be very trying due to feelings of alienation from God, and feelings of grief, loss and anxiety over the future. When these fears control us, we are subjectively trapped in a hellish state. Faith in God transcends these apparent realities of an otherwise finite existence. Without faith in God's purposes and in his love for us, one exists in a constant (read "eternal") hell, medicated by the grace given to escape such hell through aesthetics, and ethics. Kierkegaard had much to say on this subject, regarding the three stages of spiritual life.

If the gates of hell are sealed, they are sealed from the inside.

 

[Der Alte]

. . . In discriminating between several reasonable conclusions about the afterlife, I find most attractive those that tend to eschew coercion and violence in favor of love and peace.

cheers...

I almost said I am a child of the 60s but alas I was an adult in the 60s. That being said this last phrase reminds me of one of the mantras of that era. "If it feels good do it." You are basing your belief on a certain point because it is most attractive to you. So are a lot of other people here. Creating God in their own image, "I'm kind and gentle, so God must also be kind and gentle. I would never hurt anyone so God would never hurt anyone either, etc."

 

[seeingeyes]

I almost said I am a child of the 60s but alas I was an adult in the 60s. That being said this last phrase reminds me of one of the mantras of that era. "If it feels good do it." You are basing your belief on a certain point because it is most attractive to you. So are a lot of other people here. Creating God in their own image, "I'm kind and gentle, so God must also be kind and gentle. I would never hurt anyone so God would never hurt anyone either, etc."

If God isn't gooder than me, we're all in deep s***. Just sayin'.

 

[Prufrock]

You are basing your belief on a certain point because it is most attractive to you. So are a lot of other people here.

Creating God in their own image, "I'm kind and gentle, so God must also be kind and gentle. I would never hurt anyone so God would never hurt anyone either, etc."

In general, we all accept a proposition as true if it corresponds to our own perception of reality. Propositions regarding the nature of our existence after death are highly speculative, so why not believe what is most attractive and what makes me happy?

Creating God in their own image, "I'm kind and gentle, so God must also be kind and gentle. I would never hurt anyone so God would never hurt anyone either, etc."

I'm not a child of the '60's but I am a child of post-modern thought. I think we are all made free to create our own idea of God. The God outside our own imagining of God is just that: outside our capability of imagination.

Our ideas about God also shape our selves, so that our image of God is different based upon who we are--depending on whether we are gracious or stern; loving or spiteful; courageous or cowardly, etc.

God therefore constantly changes us and we change God, and this is God's will for each of us: that we have complete freedom to develop our own perception of him. This does not subtract from the sovereignty of God, it magnifies it.

So, back to Hell, it is part of our image of God. We apparently do not share the same image, but no two people do exactly.

 

[he-man]

1. Matthew 25:46 "And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal."

1. And what is the penalty that they shall pay?
   2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

   [*]secondly the soul has to be eternal because satan and angels are eternal and it is them that share the experience of Hell with the wicked. Again annihilationists are stuck to believe that the duration is relative to whom it is given.

   Only God has immortality: 1Ti 6:16 who only has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen, nor is able to see; to whom be honour and eternal might. Amen.
   

   [*]thirdly, the beast and the false prophet are in hell a thousand years in the Revelation. They will be tossed in before the millennium and abide until the end of the 1000 years when Satan is thrown in.

   Who are the beast and false prophet? Psa 2:2 The kings of the earth set themselves, and the rulers plot together, against Jehovah and against his anointed:
   Rev 19:19 And I saw the beast the kings of the earth and their armies gathered together to make war against him that sat upon the horse, and against his army.

   Revelation 14:11
   "And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

   Isa_5:24 Therefore as the fire devoureth the stubble, and the flame consumeth the chaff, so their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom shall go up as dust: because they have cast away the law of the LORD of hosts, and despised the word of the Holy One of Israel.
   
   Psa 37:20 For the wicked shall perish, and the enemies of Jehovah shall be as the fat of lambs: they shall consume, like smoke shall they consume away.
   
   Hos 13:3 Therefore they shall be as the morning cloud, and as the early dew that passeth away, as the chaff driven with the whirlwind out of the threshing-floor, and as the smoke out of the chimley.
   
   Psa 68:2 As smoke is driven, thou wilt drive them away; as wax melteth before the fire, the wicked shall perish at the presence of God.
   2Th 1:9 who shall pay the penalty of everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his might,

   Rev 20:10
   "And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever."

   Isa 33:14 The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites. Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?
   Isa 33:11 Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble: your breath, as fire, shall devour you. 12 And the people shall be as the burnings of lime: as thorns cut up shall they be burned in the fire. Isa 29:6 Thou shalt be visited of the LORD of hosts with thunder, and with earthquake, and great noise, with storm and tempest, and the flame of devouring fire.
   

   Even Edward Fudge admits that the third argument is an argument for traditionalism regarding Hell. But then he dodges the context trying to play the game of illegitimate totality transfer again with the words, as he usually does.

   Today, as a growing host of evangelical (and other) scholars bear witness, the evidence for the wicked's final total destruction (rather than the traditional view of unending conscious torture, which sprang from pagan Platonic theories of immortal, indestructible souls) is finally getting some of the attention it demands.
   
   I would like to present a concise summary of the case against traditionalism's conscious unending torment and at the same time the case for the total, ultimate, everlasting extinction of the wicked.
   
   The Fire That Consumes (2) does not allow us that easy assumption. All three traditional premises prove rather to be false. The traditional doctrine turns out, upon historical investigation, to be a pollution from paganism via the apologists and their followers and not at all the clear teaching of Scripture.
   2E. Fudge, The Fire That Consumes: A Biblical and Historical Study of Final Punishment (Providential Press, 1982).
   
   JETS 27/3 (September 1984) 325334 THE FINAL END OF THE WICKED Edward Fudge*