Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

[BobRyan]

What about Revelation 14:10?
It doesn't say tortured in the presence of Yahweh, but in the presence of the Lamb. Interesting verse....

http://www.kingdombiblestudies.org/savior/SOW7.htm
　

TORMENTED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE LAMB​

The words torment, tormented, tormentors, and torments occur twenty-one times in the King James version, and all in the New Testament. Three of these are in connection with the lake of fire. Let me give you the quotations.

Ah, the torment comes not from the Lamb.

In Rev 14:10 they are "tormented with fire and brimstone" in Rev 20 we are told that this fire and brimstone comes from God - and in Rev 14 it is the wrath of God.

All the torment takes place " in the presence of the Lamb and of His Angels" according to Rev 14.


Notice how often it is referred to as the "wrath of God" in Rev 14

“If anyone worships the beast and his image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also will drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.” 12 Here is the perseverance of the saints who keep the commandments of God and their faith in Jesus.

13 And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, “Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’” “Yes,” says the Spirit, “so that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them.”
The Reapers

14 Then I looked, and behold, a white cloud, and sitting on the cloud was one like a son of man, having a golden crown on His head and a sharp sickle in His hand. 15 And another angel came out of the temple, crying out with a loud voice to Him who sat on the cloud, “Put in your sickle and reap, for the hour to reap has come, because the harvest of the earth is ripe.” 16 Then He who sat on the cloud swung His sickle over the earth, and the earth was reaped.
17 And another angel came out of the temple which is in heaven, and he also had a sharp sickle. 18 Then another angel, the one who has power over fire, came out from the altar; and he called with a loud voice to him who had the sharp sickle, saying, “Put in your sharp sickle and gather the clusters from the vine of the earth, because her grapes are ripe.” 19 So the angel swung his sickle to the earth and gathered the clusters from the vine of the earth, and threw them into the great wine press of the wrath of God.

The Lamb is merely present. He does not torment.

It is the "wrath of God" pointed out several times in Rev 14.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

Ahh... but for many, the truth is only what their denominational leaders tell them.

Now there is a sad truth.

But true it is for many.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[By Faith Alone]

John 1 "to as many as received Him to them he gave the right to be called the sons of God" -- when the context is earth - that is exactly what the phrase means without exception.

this is true in Genesis 6 and it is true in John 1.

on that much - I agree with Old Jack.

but the daughters of men in Gen 6 is the daughters of Cain and it is the problem combining idol worshipers with the people of God - unequally yoked -- compromise and destruction of the religion that was until that time "the salt of the earth".

Thus the entire earth became corrupt.

in Christ,

Bob

There is a BIG difference in being CALLED a Son of God by faith (a NEW creation/new nature) and actually being a DIRECT creation at God's hand.

Take note here:
Luke 3:36-38
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.

Angels are "sons of God" by virtue of direct creation and Adam is the ONLY human that ever lived that can claim to be such.

Sons of God and daughters of men. That is GOD over against MEN. The translation should be the man ADAM.
Genesis 3:15 gives us...TWO...seeds. Figure THAT out along with the wheat and tares mentioned above. Angels had the ability to take on human form. Jude 6.

I was born at night but NOT last night.

 

[BobRyan]

I don't like the idea of cherry-picking scriptures to support arguments, but I'll bite. In Matthew 10:28, we are told that man can kill man, however, man cannot kill the soul. Correct?

That is correct.

And in Ezek 18:4 "the soul that sins it shall die".

Jesus then says that we should fear the one who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Correct? Here is where annihilationists go astray. The Greek word that is used in this verse is different when it comes to man can do to man (apokteino) vs what God can do (apollumi).

That is true.

Apokteino is less than Apollumi. In the one case "kill" but in the second case not only kill - but destroy.

it does not require or demand "continued existence" but rather the lack of it. A complete and final end.

It could not work in the form "do not fear man who can kill the body but not the soul - rather fear Him who does not kill either body or soul in fiery hell"

Notice Apollumi in these verses


[FONT=&quot] Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.[/FONT]


Jude 7
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.


2 Peter 2:6
and if He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to destruction by reducing them to ashes, having made them an example to those who would live ungodly lives thereafter;


Luke 17:29-30
29 but on the day that Lot went out from Sodom it rained fire and brimstone from heaven and destroyed them all.
30 "It will be just the same on the day that the Son of Man is revealed.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[BobRyan]

There is a BIG difference in being CALLED a Son of God by faith (a NEW creation/new nature) and actually being a DIRECT creation at God's hand.

Take note here:
Luke 3:36-38
36 Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,
37 Which was the son of Mathusala, which was the son of Enoch, which was the son of Jared, which was the son of Maleleel, which was the son of Cainan,
38 Which was the son of Enos, which was the son of Seth, which was the son of Adam, which was the son of God.


Angels are "sons of God" by virtue of direct creation

I agree but the term "sons of God" (as opposed to Adam 'the son of god') is very specific when the context is this fallen world and it always means what you find in John 1 "to them He gave the right to be called the sons of God" - when the context is this world -

and Adam is the ONLY human that ever lived that can claim to be such.

I agree. And even in his case it is not "sons of God" but "son of God" the only man ever directly created by God.

. Angels had the ability to take on human form. Jude 6.

Jude 6 says nothing at all about "human form".

Matt 22 says that Angels do not form family units among themselves -let alone with other species.

in Christ,

Bob

 

[By Faith Alone]

[/B]
I agree but the term "sons of God" (as opposed to Adam 'the son of god') is very specific when the context is this fallen world and it always means what you find in John 1 "to them He gave the right to be called the sons of God" - when the context is this world -



I agree. And even in his case it is not "sons of God" but "son of God" the only man ever directly created by God.



Jude 6 says nothing at all about "human form".

Matt 22 says that Angels do not form family units among themselves -let alone with other species.

in Christ,

Bob

Good grief, Bob. If you cannot see the ROOT of evil I cannot help you. Matthew 22 says angels in HEAVEN and they are NOT fallen angels (nephilim).

I have a headache now. Good night.

 

[BobRyan]

In Matt 2 Christ is describing the basic function of angels -- how they are made by God and pointing out that they do not form family units - no "baby angels in heaven" .

Imposing a human biology on angels in Gen 6 is out of the question - and Christ proves it.

They don't have the biology for it - even among themselves - much less with other species.

So then when looking for the phrase "sons of God" having a context of Earth - we find it in places like John 1 and we know what it means. So when we find the same thing in Gen 6 it is easy to see the point.

(Not sure how this subject even comes up on a thread titled like this one)

in Christ,

Bob

 

[MoreCoffee]

But the point is that God's Judgment resulted in destruction, the flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. God's judgment of sin results in destruction, Not eternal conscious torment. This proves that destruction is the fate of the wicked, not eternal conscious torment in hell.

It seems odd to think of temporal destruction (destruction in time) as being the end of an eternal matter and it seems even more odd that temporal destruction is treated as the end of the matter when God's memory is perfect and the rebellion, sin, wickedness, and suffering of those who are destroyed would remain in God's memory eternally. Unless God can forget in the sense with which an alzheimer's patient can forget then there is an eternal presence of the wicked with absolutely no possibility of change in their state. An eternal hell that is made so by the wicked's own rejection of God, his love, his mercy, and the possibility of redemption (even if they will never ever avail themselves of it) seems more merciful than this alleged annihilating destruction proposed by some. So, what is it that is supposed to be better about annihilation and why is it better?

 

[James Is Back]

It seems odd to think of temporal destruction (destruction in time) as being the end of an eternal matter and it seems even more odd that temporal destruction is treated as the end of the matter when God's memory is perfect and the rebellion, sin, wickedness, and suffering of those who are destroyed would remain in God's memory eternally. Unless God can forget in the sense with which an alzheimer's patient can forget then there is an eternal presence of the wicked with absolutely no possibility of change in their state. An eternal hell that is made so by the wicked's own rejection of God, his love, his mercy, and the possibility of redemption (even if they will never ever avail themselves of it) seems more merciful than this alleged annihilating destruction proposed by some. So, what is it that is supposed to be better about annihilation and why is it better?

They think annihilation is better than eternal torment because you don't suffer from annihilation.

 

[MoreCoffee]

They think annihilation is better than eternal torment because you don't suffer from annihilation.

I think you do, isn't that lake of fire in Revelation a place where there's wailing and gnashing of teeth (as the KJV says)? Surely those words convey the idea of suffering.

Have you read "The Great Divorce" by C S Lewis?

 

[By Faith Alone]

I think you do, isn't that lake of fire in Revelation a place where there's wailing and gnashing of teeth (as the KJV says)? Surely those words convey the idea of suffering.

No. Being cast into outer darkness where there is wailing and gnashing of teeth is for the offenders of Israel not allowed into the land. They are cast out into the gentile nations and suffer persecution:

Ezek 20:34-38
34 And I will bring you out from the people, and will gather you out of the countries wherein ye are scattered, with a mighty hand, and with a stretched out arm, and with fury poured out.
35 And I will bring you into the wilderness of the people, and there will I plead with you face to face.
36 Like as I pleaded with your fathers in the wilderness of the land of Egypt, so will I plead with you, saith the Lord God.
37 And I will cause you to pass under the rod, and I will bring you into the bond of the covenant:
38 And I will purge out from among you the rebels, and them that transgress against me: I will bring them forth out of the country where they sojourn, and they shall not enter into the land of Israel: and ye shall know that I am the Lord.

That is the bond of the New Covenant. No unbelievers allowed in the land of Israel

 

[Timothew]

It seems odd to think of temporal destruction (destruction in time) as being the end of an eternal matter and it seems even more odd that temporal destruction is treated as the end of the matter when God's memory is perfect and the rebellion, sin, wickedness, and suffering of those who are destroyed would remain in God's memory eternally. Unless God can forget in the sense with which an alzheimer's patient can forget then there is an eternal presence of the wicked with absolutely no possibility of change in their state. An eternal hell that is made so by the wicked's own rejection of God, his love, his mercy, and the possibility of redemption (even if they will never ever avail themselves of it) seems more merciful than this alleged annihilating destruction proposed by some. So, what is it that is supposed to be better about annihilation and why is it better?

I don't claim that destruction is better that eternal torture. I am saying that the Bible says that the fate of the lost is destruction and not eternal torture in hell. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed; the offspring of the wicked will perish. That is Psalm 37:28, NIV

 

[MoreCoffee]

I don't claim that destruction is better that eternal torture. I am saying that the Bible says that the fate of the lost is destruction and not eternal torture in hell. For the LORD loves the just and will not forsake his faithful ones. Wrongdoers will be completely destroyed; the offspring of the wicked will perish. That is Psalm 37:28, NIV

The bible is a big book and it says all sorts of things that one can choose to run with while ignoring other things that it says that point to a different conclusion. The truth is never easy to discover when reading the bible, unless it is something absolutely obvious and almost intuitive. Hell, heaven, rewards and punishments are obvious in one sense that's why even annihilationism looks for punishment of some sort and rewards of some sort. But what do you do with passages that actually do point to a conscious after-this-world-life for both the good and the wicked? The rich man and Lazarus story points to conscious suffering for the wicked - in his case the wickedness was heartless indifference to the poor and needy - do you dismiss it as a parable that one need not take as indicating what actually happens? Samuel's spirit also rises from the place of the dead to condemn Saul the king was that a demon pretending to be Samuel? Yet every word spoken by Samuel came to pass and the story never hints at Samuel being a fake. And what is Paul's unnamed person who ascended to the third heaven and heard things that no man can utter? Was that just a vision? And Paul's desire to depart and be with Christ, was that just a pious expression about the first resurrection?

There are many passages one can cite on these matters and one can pit the one passage against another and end with confusion or one can admit that they are all there in scripture and ask how do we resolve this? It's obvious that careful bible reading doesn't resolve the matter - if it did then either those who believe in hell and eternal punishment as well as heaven and eternal joy are misreading the bible or those who believe in soul sleep and annihilation for the wicked and resurrection and eternal joy in heaven or on the earth (depending on their theology) are misreading the bible yet both groups will claim to be reading the scriptures carefully and arriving at their opposite conclusions regarding the wicked. There has to be anther place to go to get a resolution and that can't be to God directly since both sides will be claiming God's teaching as well as scripture for their beliefs. In the end some source beyond the verses and prayer is needed; it can't be personal opinion since that will resolve nothing at all and it can't be a majority vote because if it were then the heaven and hell group would win hands down and you'd be left wondering if the election was rigged. So where are you going to go to get the answer?

 

[Timothew]

The bible is a big book and it says all sorts of things...

I have carefully read through the Bible, and have been doing so for over 20 years including the New Testament in the Original Greek and I have come to the conclusion that it does not support the traditional doctrine that the lost go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead.

Your side has not established that the Bible says anywhere that the lost will go to hell when they die where they will be alive and conscious of torment forever. Your side makes the claim that to believe the lost are actually destroyed is a heresy, but your side has not proven that the Bible says that the lost are not destroyed, and I have given several (unanswered) instances where the Bible says exactly that.

IF your side wishes to call us Heretics, they had better have solid proof, not the ambiguity you are talking about. Heresy is a serious charge, in the past a charge of heresy would get a person killed.

I read through your post, none of that proves that the lost are not destroyed. Does Luke say that the rich man's torment was eternal? Does the account of Samuel say ANYTHING at all about the fate of the wicked? The account doesn't even say that the disembodied spirit of Samuel arose from the grave. Does Paul's vision prove that the lost are not destroyed but are kept alive in hell forever? Does Paul's vision say anything about hell whatsoever? No.

The belief in eternal conscious torment in hell is based on idle speculation like this, not solid biblical proof. And I have given solid biblical proof that the wicked will be destroyed. It appears to be sheer stubbornness on the part of people who what to believe in the traditional view.

I'm not going to get the answer by majority vote. If we all were to vote on which path to take, the majority would win the election. Jesus said that the way is wide that leads to destruction (Notice that he said "destruction" and I agree with him, and not "eternal torment in hell") and many follow it and the way is narrow that leads to life and few find it. Finding truth by majority vote is risky at best, and leads to destruction at worst.

 

[MoreCoffee]

I have carefully read through the Bible, and have been doing so for over 20 years including the New Testament in the Original Greek and I have come to the conclusion that it does not support the traditional doctrine that the lost go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead.

Your side has not established that the Bible says anywhere that the lost will go to hell when they die where they will be alive and conscious of torment forever. Your side makes the claim that to believe the lost are actually destroyed is a heresy, but your side has not proven that the Bible says that the lost are not destroyed, and I have given several (unanswered) instances where the Bible says exactly that.

IF your side wishes to call us Heretics, they had better have solid proof, not the ambiguity you are talking about. Heresy is a serious charge, in the past a charge of heresy would get a person killed.

I read through your post, none of that proves that the lost are not destroyed. Does Luke say that the rich man's torment was eternal? Does the account of Samuel say ANYTHING at all about the fate of the wicked? The account doesn't even say that the disembodied spirit of Samuel arose from the grave. Does Paul's vision prove that the lost are not destroyed but are kept alive in hell forever? Does Paul's vision say anything about hell whatsoever? No.

The belief in eternal conscious torment in hell is based on idle speculation like this, not solid biblical proof. And I have given solid biblical proof that the wicked will be destroyed. It appears to be sheer stubbornness on the part of people who what to believe in the traditional view.

I am about to go out for the evening so this reply is going to be very short and deal only with your first paragraph. God willing I will come back to your reply later unless the conversation moves on to other matters.

I've been reading the bible carefully in English and in Greek (I do not know Hebrew) for upwards of forty years and I do accept the Traditional teaching about heaven and hell and the new heavens and new earth and the resurrection and all that because it does fit what scripture says. So now what? Do we just start calling one another ignorant of the truth or of the facts? Honestly it can't work that way otherwise there'd be no room for differing conclusions would there? We're both reading the same bible (more or less) as honestly as we know how and yet reach very different conclusions. We're both also reading within a tradition no matter how hard to try not to and that is what is fuelling our conviction about the truth of the conclusions we've reached. Nobody reads the bible in a vacuum, not even the most ardent isolationist bible student.

 

[Timothew]

I am about to go out for the evening so this reply is going to be very short and deal only with your first paragraph. God willing I will come back to your reply later unless the conversation moves on to other matters.

I've been reading the bible carefully in English and in Greek (I do not know Hebrew) for upwards of forty years and I do accept the Traditional teaching about heaven and hell and the new heavens and new earth and the resurrection and all that because it does fit what scripture says. So now what? Do we just start calling one another ignorant of the truth or of the facts? Honestly it can't work that way otherwise there'd be no room for differing conclusions would there? We're both reading the same bible (more or less) as honestly as we know how and yet reach very different conclusions. We're both also reading within a tradition no matter how hard to try not to and that is what is fuelling our conviction about the truth of the conclusions we've reached. Nobody reads the bible in a vacuum, not even the most ardent isolationist bible student.

No, we should not call each other ignorant of the truth.
Nor should we call each other Heretics, Unorthodox or any of the other lovely names your side calls us.

 

[MoreCoffee]

No, we should not call each other ignorant of the truth.
Nor should we call each other Heretics, Unorthodox or any of the other lovely names your side calls us.

Us being who?

 

[Timothew]

Us being who?

All of us who believe that the wicked will be destroyed instead of tortured forever in heck, of course!
Remember the thread title? Is not believing in eternal hell a heresy?

 

[Rick Otto]

I think Adolph Hitler is dead

So you heard about him dying of old age in South America, too?

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

I have carefully read through the Bible, and have been doing so for over 20 years including the New Testament in the Original Greek and I have come to the conclusion that it does not support the traditional doctrine that the lost go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever while they are dead..............

Must be a KJV thang. Look how many times it uses the word "HELL" in place of both Sheol and Gehenna:

KJV Search Results for "hell"
"hell"
occurs 54 times in 54 verses in the KJV.

This covenantle parable shoud be studied more my Christians, IMHO.......

Lazarus and the Rich Man - Here a little, there a little - Commentary

LUKE 16:
22 "So it was that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels to Abraham's bosom.
The rich man also died and was buried."
23 "And being in torments in Hades, he lifted up his eyes and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom."

In contrast to Lazarus, the rich man was buried in Hades. An understanding of the original meaning of the Greek word hades is necessary to grasp the message of the parable. Regarding the possible etymology of this word, the The New International Dictionary of New Testament Theology states that hades ". . . comes from idein (to see) with the negative prefix, a-, and so would mean the invisible . . . In the LXX hades occurs more than 100 times, in the majority of instances to translate Heb. she'ol, the underworld which receives all the dead. It is the land of darkness . . ." (p. 206, vol. 2).

Most likely, hades originally meant "unseen." Later, it came to refer to the hidden state of those buried in the earth. Symbolically, this parable shows that a point would come when the House of Judah would become "unseen" by God, out of favor because of their unbelief. There would come a time when the Jews as a whole would no longer be God's favored nation. God would harden their hearts, leading them to reject their Messiah (John 1:11).



.