Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

[Timothew]

It's not literal. ESV says "cut off". However, destroy must not mean literally being destroyed in the sense of ceasing to exist.

Verse 10 says "the wicked will be no more" and 20 says the wicked will vanish. Well, so if we interpret it literally, one could interpret it to mean that they wont even die physically, if we take it that far.

How is it heretical to believe what it says?
Why do you get to decide what it literal? I thought my side was the side that is accused of not taking the Bible literally. You only believe that "it must not mean literally being destroyed" because of your a priori assumption that the lost are not destroyed. It says that sinners will be destroyed. Am I a heretic for believing that? Notice that it doesn't say "All sinners will be tormented alive forever in hell". (There is no verse in the entire Bible that says that, that should give you pause...)

 

[Timothew]

Perfect!

How so? The Bible says that sinners will be destroyed. Why do you think this verse contradicts that?

 

[By Faith Alone]

Annihilationism and Universal Reconciliation are heresies, yes.
He has no excuse for not being sure, since the word of God is clear in this matter.

And who died and made YOU the Pope?? If you are in such need of fire in your neck o' da woods...MOVE SOUTH!

 

[James Is Back]

Okay, here's the passage. The following chapter or two records the deaths of Saul and his family. It's rather tragic considering how Saul started ...

1 Samuel 28:3-25 NJB

(3) Now Samuel was dead, and all Israel had mourned him and buried him at Ramah, his own town. Saul had expelled the necromancers and wizards from the country.
(4) Meanwhile the Philistines had mustered and had come and pitched camp at Shunem. Saul mustered all Israel and they encamped at Gilboa.
(5) When Saul saw the Philistine camp, he was afraid and his heart trembled violently.
(6) Saul consulted Yahweh, but Yahweh gave him no answer, either by dream, divination or prophet.
(7) Saul then said to his servants, 'Find a necromancer for me, so that I can go and consult her.' His servants replied, 'There is a necromancer at En-Dor.'
(8) And so Saul, disguising himself and changing his clothes, set out accompanied by two men; their visit to the woman took place at night. 'Disclose the future to me', he said, 'by means of a ghost. Conjure up the one I shall name to you.'
(9) The woman replied, 'Look, you know what Saul has done, how he has outlawed necromancers and wizards from the country; why are you setting a trap for my life, then, to have me killed?'
(10) But Saul swore to her by Yahweh, 'As Yahweh lives,' he said, 'no blame shall attach to you for this business.'
(11) The woman asked, 'Whom shall I conjure up for you?' He replied, 'Conjure up Samuel.'
(12) The woman then saw Samuel and, giving a great cry, she said to Saul, 'Why have you deceived me? You are Saul!'
(13) The king said, 'Do not be afraid! What do you see?' The woman replied to Saul, 'I see a ghost rising from the earth.'
(14) 'What is he like?' he asked. She replied, 'It is an old man coming up; he is wrapped in a cloak.' Saul then knew that it was Samuel and, bowing to the ground, prostrated himself.
(15) Samuel said to Saul, 'Why have you disturbed my rest by conjuring me up?' Saul replied, 'I am in great distress; the Philistines are waging war on me, and God has abandoned me and no longer answers me either by prophet or by dream; and so I have summoned you to tell me what I ought to do.'
(16) Samuel said, 'Why consult me, when Yahweh has abandoned you and has become your enemy?
(17) Yahweh has treated you as he foretold through me; he has snatched the sovereignty from your hand and given it to your neighbour, David,
(18) because you disobeyed Yahweh's voice and did not execute his fierce anger against Amalek. That is why Yahweh is treating you like this today.
(19) What is more, Yahweh will deliver Israel and you too, into the power of the Philistines. Tomorrow you and your sons will be with me; and Yahweh will hand over the army of Israel into the power of the Philistines.'
(20) Immediately Saul fell full length on the ground. He was terrified by what Samuel had said and was also weak from having eaten nothing all that day and night.
(21) The woman went to Saul and, seeing his terror, said, 'Look, your servant has obeyed your order; I have taken my life in my hands and obeyed the command which you gave me.
(22) Now please, you in your turn listen to what your servant has to say. Let me offer you a piece of bread. Eat something and get some strength for your journey.'
(23) But he refused. 'I will not eat,' he said. His servants however pressed him, and so did the woman. Allowing himself to be persuaded by them, he got up from the ground and sat on the bed.
(24) The woman owned a fattened calf which she quickly slaughtered, and she took some flour and kneaded it and with it baked some unleavened cakes
(25) which she served to Saul and his servants; they ate, and then set off and left the same night.​

Thanks for posting that

 

[Timothew]

Annihilationism and Universal Reconciliation are heresies, yes.

The Bible says that sinners will be destroyed. Is the Word of God a heresy too?

 

[Jonathan95]

How is it heretical to believe what it says?
Why do you get to decide what it literal? I thought my side was the side that is accused of not taking the Bible literally. You only believe that "it must not mean literally being destroyed" because of your a priori assumption that the lost are not destroyed. It says that sinners will be destroyed. Am I a heretic for believing that?

No you're not a heretic for believing that, but for interpreting it to mean being destroyed as in being annihilated.

Notice that it doesn't say "All sinners will be tormented alive forever in hell". (There is no verse in the entire Bible that says that, that should give you pause...)

Yes the Bible says that, but not exactly that literally in one sentence like that. However it does say that hell is eternal, and that there's torment in hell.

Jesus said that the lost perish. Why doesn't that get mentioned by those who teach ECT?

How does perishing equal to being annihilated?

"And his disciples came to him, and awoke him, saying, Lord, save us: we perish." (Matthew 8:25)

Did the disciples mean they were about to be annihilated there in the tempest?

Annihilationism degrades what Jesus did, since you need to say that Jesus (among other reasons) died to save us from being annihilated, rather than going to hell.

 

[MoreCoffee]

Look again as I did respond in my response. I only quoted the first sentence of your post, but I responded to the whole post.

What I see from the traditionalist side are claims made without proof. They don't offer any scripture that directly supports their view. They use passages that DON'T say that the lost go to hell for eternal torment and then say that they mean theat the lost DO go to hell for eternal torment. If even seen Traditionalists use passages that say the lost are destroyed to prove that the lost are NOT destroyed. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a ready example of this.

I don't know what kind of response you want from me to this. I'm glad that you have read Froom. Have you read Fudge?

No, I have not read Fudge.

If you want, I can give you all of the scriptural support that I have found or my side, but I've done that many times before just to have Traditionalists ignore them all at once.

Let's deal with one passage at a time - we can include OT passages referenced in the NT passage we look at but we ought to try one passage at a time. The overall doctrine will not be proved or disproved by a single passage but each passage ought to be allowed to speak its own truth and then we can move on to another. However, I do have grave doubts that even if we follow such a procedure that a consensus will be reached. I am more than willing to say in advance that I hold to a Catholic view and am quite unlikely to be persuaded to a SDA or SDA like view.

By "Your side" I only meant "those who are defending the traditional view in this argument". You are reading much more into "Your side" than I ever intended. What am I supposed to call your side? Those who agree withyou in this thread, is there a name for those who hold the doctrine of eternal conscious torment?

If you made a point about eternal conscious torment from the parable of Lazarus and Dives, the account of the Witch of Endor, or Paul's vision, it was very unclear what it was.

If you feel I've dismissed them prematurely, tell me why you think they apply to the question of the fate of the lost. I can't see it. Dives was not eternally tormented, so I don't see how his fate proves that anyone else is eternally tormented. Samuel was not tormented at all, so I don't see his fate proving the eternal torment of the lost, and Paul was talking about another issue entirely.

The rich man and Lazarus addresses the notion of continuing conscious existence between death and the resurrection. Thus it is relevant to soul sleep, if you do not believe in soul sleep we can move on to the other implications in the story; such as torment in the state between death and the resurrection.

If I dismiss passages that say nothing about the eternal torment of the lost, how is that the same as you dismissing passages that directly state that the wicked will be destroyed? I don't understand that.

The issue I raised in post #193 and again in #216 is that throwing passages against one another will not result in a solution to the issue under debate. There are several reasons why that is so. I can explain them if you want me to. But I think you know as well as do I that passage tossing rarely results in consensus.

Many of the Church Fathers taught Conditional Immortality. I don't dismiss what they say.

I've studied much of what the early church fathers said about this issue, and many of them supported Conditional Immortality, Irenaeus comes immediately to mind.

I didn't say all of the church fathers taught any particular doctrine what I did say is that the church fathers in the first five centuries were native Greek speakers with the advantage of speaking Koine Greek and that many of them teach eternal hell with eternal torment.

I've given some of the many passages that support the doctrine of Conditional Immortality, I've shown you verses that say directly that the wicked will be destroyed, and you said that the Bible says all sorts of things. Well one thing it says it that the wicked will be destroyed, and you have never addressed that at all.

Until the meaning of "destroyed" in Greek is agreed the above line of argument is circular because you appear to assume that destroy means annihilate and that is what you're trying to prove.

Yes, Jesus said many things, he said be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna, he said "Unless you repent you will likewise perish", and he said that the road that leads to destruction is wide. Destruction, not eternal conscious torment. One thing Jesus never said, (as recorded in the Bible) is "people will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever".

The Bible as a whole is the basis for Conditional Immortality, not just the word destruction. Certainly the Bible describes the fate of the wicked as destruction, but also as being completely consumed by fire, burnt to ash, perishing, dying, being dead, being no more, and so on. All of which specifically and directly mean Destruction.

The above appears to be more circular argumentation. If you want to prove that "perish" means annihilate and that "Gehenna" signifies annihilation and that "destruction" means annihilate then you're still trying to define the words to prove your case when the proper procedure is to discover what the words actually do mean and then decide if "annihilate" fits or not. Circular argumentation is invalid.

Destruction doesn't mean "Never destroyed but kept alive forever in torment in hell".

Descruction is an English word that translates four different Greek words in the NT. I've already given you some information about the use of the Greek words in second Thessalonians. You appear to be arguing about the meaning of the English word which is almost irrelevant to the issues on the table. The Greek words are directly relevant and their meanings are somewhat broader than the English word "destruction". I am, of course, not complaining about the use of destruction as a suitable English translation nevertheless it is to the Greek that one must go when exegeting the NT.

I'm happy that you can see that the penalty that they pay is destruction, but I am baffled at how you can use to try to prove that they are not destroyed.

The above is repeating your previous stance so my response above is sufficient answer for the time being. We can examine the Greek words if you want to. That could be useful, but I am still not persuaded that you want to deal with the issues on the table for what they are rather than dealing with entrenched views derived from the teachings you accept versus the teachings that I accept. If it is the latter that you want then we need discuss the matter no further. If it is the former then let's engage on the meaning of the Greek terms in the specific passages where "destruction" is used.

The problem is not with the word dike, but with destruction.

Do you want to seriously claim that apollumi never means destruction?
You might as well claim that "there is no sufficient reason for interpreting the destruction of the reprobate as signifying their destruction".

Check up its uses in the NT and then we can discuss it.

I don't limit the range of the word eternal. This argument doesn't apply to me.
I believe the destruction of the lost is eternal, it lasts forever.

Since the meaning of "destruction" in the Greek words used as sources for the translation is in dispute we can only resolve this by consulting the Greek words in their context and deciding what the words mean, given their lexical meanings.

The answer is "No one may stand in thy sight when once thou art angry", they don't survive this, the wicked perish in His sight, just as the Bible says. They are destroyed, just as the Bible says.

Not being able to withstand the angry face of God, as is implied in the commentary you are replying to, has no implied meaning that they simply are annihilated by that angry gaze. The passage needs to be read with some care, and the meaning of the terms in the Greek help with that. If you want to dispute the commentary's exegesis then you're welcome to provide a better exegesis if you have one.

Okay? The former receive justice, I don't see how this is an argument against the destruction of the wicked. They are destroyed, they receive the just penalty for their sins, they are destroyed.

It isn't a matter of what you see or do not see but rather what is said or not said in the passage and the passages it is referring to from the OT. This too can be debated.

 

[By Faith Alone]

Hebrews 9:27 NKJV says: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,"

Type meets anti-type. Guess you did not know that.

Num 35:28-29
28 Because he should have remained in the city of his refuge until... the death of the high priest......but after the death of the high priest.... the slayer shall return into the land of his possession.29 So these things shall be for a statute of... judgment.... unto you throughout your generations in all your dwellings.

"It is appointed unto THE men once to die". It is pointing to the great day of atonement. Instead of one-versing it look at the very NEXT verse:

Heb 9:28 So Christ was once offered to bear the sins of many; and unto them that look for him shall he appear the second time without sin unto salvation.

Hebrews 9 Verse 27...TYPE. Verse 28...ANTI-TYPE.

 

[Timothew]

It's not literal. ESV says "cut off". However, destroy must not mean literally being destroyed in the sense of ceasing to exist.

You cannot base your doctrine upon that verse, when there are so many verses which talk about torment for the wicked after death.

Verse 10 says "the wicked will be no more" and 20 says the wicked will vanish. Well, so if we interpret it literally, one could interpret it to mean that they wont even die physically, if we take it that far.

Hebrews 9:27 NKJV says: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,"

How does it make sense that they'll die, be judged only to then be annihilated, when even a criminal on earth before an earthly judge (given that he's a just judge), gets his due punishment.

I see that you added to your response. Thank you, your initial response was inadequate.

You cannot base your doctrine upon that verse, when there are so many verses which talk about torment for the wicked after death.

There are many more verses which talk about the destruction of the wicked. I've looked up about a hundred of them. You can't base your doctrine on one or two verses which are always quoted by Traditionalists, but do not even say that the wicked are eternally tormented after death.

Verse 10 says "the wicked will be no more" and 20 says the wicked will vanish. Well, so if we interpret it literally, one could interpret it to mean that they wont even die physically, if we take it that far.

These all mean the same thing, the wicked will perish. It's the same thing Paul said in Romans 6:23 "For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.". It's the same thing Jesus said in John 3:16 "Whoever believes in him shall not perish but will have eternal life".

Hebrews 9:27 NKJV says: "And as it is appointed for men to die once, but after this the judgment,"

The second death occurs after the judgment. It is the result of the judgment for the lost.

How does it make sense that they'll die, be judged only to then be annihilated, when even a criminal on earth before an earthly judge (given that he's a just judge), gets his due punishment.

It makes perfect sense. They are resurrected for judgment, found guilty, deserving of death, then sentenced to death. God is a just judge.

But how does your doctrine make sense? They die and are sent to eternal torment. Then they are resurrected and judged. (Having served the first eternity prior to judgment, apparently). Then they are sent off to a second round of eternal torment. Can you honestly say this makes sense?

 

[shturt678s]

How so? The Bible says that sinners will be destroyed. Why do you think this verse contradicts that?

I'm an old man and you have a very important thing going for you my brother, you care beyond Church on Sunday for the whole hour....excellent!!!

I used my G.I. Bill for Seminary long ago keeping an old note will share as an opinion only and could even be a little off as been decades: Concept oif "Destruction": Text's Lexical use where there are two sides of a coin, ie, textual ambiguities compared to contextual interpretations where Lexical uses deepen the context, ie, not rule the context as follows for example:

Matt.10:28, "destroy," apolesai from apollumi Thayer: Matt.10:28, metaph. To devote or give one over to eternal misery. Other Lexicons to basically turn into ashes dealing with another ambiguity of a resurrection or recreation? Lk.15:8, "lose," apolese textually not "destroyed," however lost....note for me also to see more Lexicons, and etc."

Have to run,

Old Jack's opinion with an old note that I even have to go over again when i return.

BTW English translations are extremely interpretive and say anything one wants them to say. Our Lord's tools and right heart condition from His point of view...lead us into the truthful direction my brother.

 

[Timothew]

MoreCoffee, you've given me more to respond to than anyone possibly can. Let's take this one bite at a time.

Let's talk about the Greek word that is translated '"Destroy" in Matthew 10:28. That seems relevant. If the Body and Soul are destroyed in Gehenna, then they are not tormented alive forever in Gehenna. Agreed? But if the word that is translated as "destroyed" doesn't mean destroyed, then it is possible that they might not be destroyed, but instead kept forever in torment.

The Greek word in question is ἀπολέσαι. We can see the very same word used in another verse, Matthew 2:13. Now when they had departed, behold, an angel of the Lord appeared to Joseph in a dream and said, “Rise, take the child and his mother, and flee to Egypt, and remain there until I tell you, for Herod is about to search for the child, to destroy him.”

μέλλει γὰρ Ἡρῴδης ζητεῖν τὸ παιδίον τοῦ ἀπολέσαι αὐτό.

So is it possible that apolesai doesn't mean kill or destroy in Matthew 2:13? If it doesn't, how do you read Matthew 2:13? Did Herod intend to imprison Jesus? Torture Him? Lose him? No, I think we all agree that Herod's intention was to kill Jesus, and that is what apolesai means. to kill or destroy. The claim that apolesai doesn't mean destroy is simply false.

 

[By Faith Alone]

TIMOTHEW:

The GWTJ is NOT a general judgment:

2 Tim 4:1 I charge thee therefore before God, and the Lord Jesus Christ, who shall judge ....the quick and the dead..... at his appearing and his kingdom;

THAT is a general judgment and no resurrection involved. The GRWTJ is a specific people that took the mark during the great tribulation period.

 

[By Faith Alone]

**Hahahaaa! It is like stirring up the dust around their feet with a six-shooter and watching them do the rain dance!!

 

[Jonathan95]

If even seen Traditionalists use passages that say the lost are destroyed to prove that the lost are NOT destroyed. 2 Thessalonians 1:9 is a ready example of this.

Read it in context with other verses which talk about what will happen to the unsaved. Verses which talk about eternal conscious torment. Thus, destruction in that verse cannot be interpret to mean destruction as in being annihilated.

Samuel was not tormented at all, so I don't see his fate proving the eternal torment of the lost, and Paul was talking about another issue entirely.

Why'd he need to be tormented if he was righteous?

Yes, Jesus said many things, he said be afraid of the one who can destroy both body and soul in Gehenna

Does it make sense for them to be sent to hell just to be annihilated there? Why create hell in the first place then? What about the devil and his angels, will they be annihilated there as well? Does it make sense for hell to be created for them just to be annihilated there? If so, how long does it take for them before they're annihilated? Why's there an everlasting fire (which is prepared, by the way) if they wont feel any torment, but be annihilated?

"“Then He will also say to those on the left hand, ‘Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels:" (Matthew 25:41 NKJV)

"he devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." (Revelation 20:10 NKJV)

Of what use are this judgement and those books, if they'll just be annihilated afterwards?

"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books." (Rev. 20:12 NKJV)

"[...] And they were judged, each one according to his works. Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev. 20:13-14 NKJV)

I don't limit the range of the word eternal. This argument doesn't apply to me.
I believe the destruction of the lost is eternal, it lasts forever.

Well, if it was about annihilation, why'd it need to be conveyed that it's eternal? Would one otherwise think that they were only temporarily annihilated, and to be brought into existence after a while?

The answer is "No one may stand in they sight when once thou art angry", they don't survive this, the wicked perish in His sight, just as the Bible says. They are destroyed, just as the Bible says.

Psalm 7:11 says God is angry with the wicked every day. If you interpret it that literally, then how can there still be wicked people left on earth?
Another problem arises for you. How can he be angry anymore with them (even after they die) if they cease to exist through annihilation?

Even if you take it to mean that they cannot stand before God after death, there are other verses which prove it has nothing to do with being annihilated because of that:

"These will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power," (2 Thess. 1:9 NASB)

They cannot be with God after their death, due to their sins, that's why they need to go away from His presence and the glory of His power.

"And I saw the dead, small and great, standing before God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to their works, by the things which were written in the books." (Rev. 20:12 NKJV)

However, these wont stand before God eternally, only temporarily.


"he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." (Revelation 14:10 NKJV)

Okay? The former receive justice, I don't see how this is an argument against the destruction of the wicked. They are destroyed, they receive the just penalty for their sins, they are destroyed.[/QUOTE]

 

[Timothew]

I'll just respond to this, since your other questions have been asked by others and previously answered by me.

Why'd he need to be tormented if he was righteous?

He wasn't tormented, he was righteous. That is why it was illogical to use the "ghost" of Samuel to prove the everlasting torment of the wicked. It wasn't my argument, it was MoreCoffee's. Maybe he can explain why it is relevant.

 

[James Is Back]

We are ping ponging back and forth on a subject that is against the rules to discuss in the GT forum so why are we still discussing this?

I thought there was another thread about this in the unorthodox forum?

 

[By Faith Alone]

Acts 20:26-27
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

And Paul did not preach hell.

 

[By Faith Alone]

We are ping ponging back and forth on a subject that is against the rules to discuss in the GT forum so why are we still discussing this?

I thought there was another thread about this in the unorthodox forum?

There is a nice quiet golf tournament down the street if you cannot stand the excitement here. There is a such thing as unsubscribing.

 

[LittleLambofJesus]

Acts 20:
26 Wherefore I take you to record this day, that I am pure from the blood of all men.
27 For I have not shunned to declare unto you all the counsel of God.

And Paul did not preach hell.

Glad you brought that up. There just happens to be a thread on that:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7464995/
Why no mention of "gehenna" in Paul's Epistles?





.

 

[Timothew]

I'm just talking about what the Bible says. Surely that can't be against the rules.

We were discussing whether or not we should believe Psalm 37:38 and Matthew 10:28.
I think that we should believe these verses and the entire Bible.