Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

shturt678s said:

A perfect "A" for a textual interpretation or understanding!

I only received "B"s, and only with a flattening of the ol' Bell Curve.

Old contextual and aspectual Jack's opinion

Old Jack looking for a pitty party...MC also invited.

Click to expand...

Thanks, I don't know how else to understand what the Bible is saying, but by careful study of the text and prayer.

MoreCoffee said:

But you haven't defined destruction either in English or in Greek. And that was the point of this exercise wasn't it, to find out what apolesai means.

Click to expand...

The Bible definition includes the one where the thing is "reduced to ashes" as in the case of not only the wicked in fiery hell (the lake of fire) - but also Sodom and Gomorrah.

[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.



Ps 37
9 For evildoers shall be cut off: but those that wait upon the Lord, they shall inherit the earth.
10 For yet a little while, and the wicked shall not be: yea, thou shalt diligently consider his place, and it shall not be.


Ezek 18
4"Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine The soul who sins will die.

Romans 6
20 For when you were slaves of sin, you were free in regard to righteousness.
21 Therefore what benefit were you then deriving from the things of which you are now ashamed? For the outcome of those things is death.
22 But now having been freed from sin and enslaved to God, you derive your benefit, resulting in sanctification, and the outcome, eternal life.
23 For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

MoreCoffee said:

But you are pitting one passage against another, you are pointing to "descruction" as some sort of sine qua non by which all verses are to be read, a kind of filtering pair of glasses that change the story of the rich man and Lazarus into a quaint unrealistic moral lesson and that makes Samuel's appearance before the necromancer and Saul into a fake and that turns Jesus rebuke to the Sadducees faulty theology which denied angels and spirits as well as the resurrection into a lesson on the resurrection and nothing else despite Jesus specifically contradicting the Sadducees on the lack of angels and spirits (by the way, spirits seems a wider term than angel, and Revelation as well as Hebrews speaks expressly about the spirits of men in the heavens before the resurrection). So I reckon your stated theology is in fact pitting one verse against another. Isn't the above just another way of saying "I am right and you are wrong" without geing adequate reasons for it?Sacred Tradition, specifically the teaching of the ancient Church in her councils and in the writings and lessons handed down from the apostles to the bishops in the Church.
Yes, you said that before in this post, I disagree for the reasons stated in posts #193, #216, and this one.

Click to expand...

No I do not.

I read the Bible for what it says. Your litany of complaints is large, but I will address them as best I can.

1. Since the Bible says that the lost will be destroyed, in many different passages, I believe that.

2. I didn't "change" the parable of Lazarus and the rich man into a parable. I recognized that it is a parable.

3. I didn't deny anything about Samuel's appearance after death. I believe that Samuel actually did appear before Saul and the witch of Endor. The account doesn't say that it was his disembodied spirit. Please excuse me if I don't share your assumptions about the text. I suggest that you re-read it.

4. Jesus was teaching the Sadducees (who deny the resurrection) about the resurrection. I didn't change that account at all, as you accuse.

5. I haven't pitted any verse against any other verse, and I challenge you to quote me doing this.

6. I realize that you are frustrated because you are absolutely certain that the lost are tormented in hell forever when they die, but are having a very hard time proving that. Let's not think of this as a contest to win, but a fact finding mission.

7. The apostles absolutely did NOT hand down teaching to the early church that contradicts what they wrote in the New Testament. You weren't there anyway, so your claim that they handed down the tradition of hell as your denomination believes it is just an empty boast.

8. You can know what the apostles thought about the fate of the wicked by what they wrote. And these writings are called the New Testament. We can determine the truth about hell from carefully reading and accepting what the Bible says.

9. I am not going to get sucked into a discussion about the Catholic Church, and how only they can know what truth is. If you want to do that, you can just believe what the Catholic Church tells you that you must believe and leave me out of it because I am not Catholic. The Catholic Church believes in eternal conscious torment in hell, as a Catholic you are required to believe that. I'm talking instead about what the Bible says.

Timothew said:

Thanks, I don't know how else to understand what the Bible is saying, but by careful study of the text and prayer.

Click to expand...

"but by careful scrutinizing of the CONTEXT of the text and prayer." Why not go for those 5 golden stars where I couldn't even receive one...poor Jacky boy....

Old Jack's opinion

Thanks for your indulgence Timothew, I appreciate your replies. I think we've reached the impasse that was predicted in post #193.

I remain convinced that annihilationism is a heresy and I think the same is true of soul sleep. It's time to move on.

God grant wisdom and insight to all who desire it from him.

It's time for me to go to work now, I shall be back after work, God willing.

Cheers chaps

God bless.

Timothew said:

Originally Posted by MoreCoffee

Jesus upbraids the Sadducees by noting that Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob were not dead because God is the God of the living. Since Abraham is pictured in the story of Lazarus and the rich man as conscious, mentally aware, and able to converse it seems that Jesus is not attempting to teach unconscious existence between death and resurrection.
​

Click to expand...

God is the God of the living, Jesus was proving the resurrection when he said this. If people are alive when they are dead, then his statement doesn't prove the resurrection of the dead.

I believe that the parable of Lazarus and the rich man is a parable, not a factual account about hell. Lots of people use stories to illustrate what they are teaching. When the fox couldn't reach the grapes, he said "They are probably sour anyway". Is the point of the parable that foxes can talk if they are really hungry?

Click to expand...

MoreCoffee said:

The commentary offered by the evangelist is that the Sadducees didn't believe in angels or spirits or the resurrection so Jesus words set about undermining those beliefs, specifically the belief that there are no angels (he mentions that they do not marry), nor spirits (he speaks of Abraham as living), and the resurrection he speaks of the resurrection state of the man married to the wife of the seven brothers.

Matthew 22:29-32 KJV Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. (30) For in the resurrection they neither marry, nor are given in marriage, but are as the angels of God in heaven. (31) But as touching the resurrection of the dead, have ye not read that which was spoken unto you by God, saying, (32) I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob? God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.​

Click to expand...

Christ "proves" the resurrection to the Sadducees who do not believe in resurrection or angel or spirit according to Acts.

How did He "prove the resurrection" to a hostile group not willing to accept His Word for it?

He used Bible proofs that they themselves could not deny for the points fit their own argument.

1. God is not the God of the dead. Christ affirms it.
2. God said He was the God of Abraham Isaac and Jacob when speaking to Moses - at a time when all three of these saints were dead.

Conclusion: (According to Christ) -- well there must be a future resurrection.

Because the "other solution" would be "no resurrection is needed because the dead are really alive some place".

Christ specifically points out that His intent is to prove that the resurrection is the only solution to the puzzle. This is explicit in the text. No need to have someone else read it to use and explain that part.

That argument/proof Christ is using only works if you agree to the premise that the dead saints are not in a worship/conscious relationship with God while dead. Which is exactly what the Sadducees believed and what Christ affirmed explicitly in the text. no need to have someone read that part to us.

It is air tight . The Pharisees "saw that the Sadducees were put to silence!" according to Matt 22.

in Christ,

Bob

MoreCoffee said:

Thanks for your indulgence Timothew, I appreciate your replies. I think we've reached the impasse that was predicted in post #193.

I remain convinced that annihilationism is a heresy and I think the same is true of soul sleep. It's time to move on.

God grant wisdom and insight to all who desire it from him.

Click to expand...

I believe that in the examples you raised on this thread- it has been shown without a doubt that you are mistaken -- and even well known pro-immortal soul, pro-eternal hell scholarship agree with me on those specifics.

in Christ,

Bob

MoreCoffee said:

.I think your statement is not correct, there are numerous detailed exegetical texts dealing with the question of hell and heaven, eternal punishment and eternal reward, the intermediate state and the resurrection and all of them deal with the texts in sacred scripture in detail and answer numerous objections raised by conditionalists over the ages. I myself have read and dealt with Leroy Edwin Frooms's The Conditionalist Faith of our Fathers which is a Seventh Day Adventist text (two volumes) dealing with the matter of conditional immortality as it is taught by Seventh Day Adventist theologians and their church. I haven't written any books that have been published as a formal reply but I have dealt with the issue in various forums and in teaching within my own church. It is not true that my side has not put forward a credible case, it is more that you do not acknowledge it. I wrote that second paragraph in the quote above to draw you out so that you would offer a response to the issue of differing interpretive frameworks and how they leave us with no definitive answers for this issue; yet you offered none except a blanket statement that dismisses all who hold a view supportive of eternal punishment and an eternal hell. Do you think that is a serious and worthwhile way to respond?My side is people, not some kind of monolithic organisation that condemns you individually as a heretic.

Click to expand...

It would be hard to convince the scholars in the following list - that they are all Seventh-day Adventists or that being SDA is the only reason they accept the Bible truth on the fact that the fires of hell "consume the wicked" Rev 20:9.

BobRyan said:

I prefer Matt 10:28 and Rev 20:9, Ezek 18:4 to name calling.

That means that I can accept Martin Luther when he promotes that same Bible teaching. That also goes for

1. John Stott,
2. N.T. Wright - St Andrews,
3. F.F Bruce (Manchester Univ. U.K.
4. Michael Green. British scholar author "Evangelism in the New Testament"
5. E.E. Ellis - Southwestern Baptist Theol Seminary
6. Philip E. Hughes - Westminter Theo Seminary, Reformed Theol Seminary
7. Thomas Olbricht - Pepperdine Univ. Abaline Christian Univ
8. John McRay - Wheaton Graduate School
9. John Stackhouse - Regent College - Vancouver (replaced J.I. Packer)
10. Dale Moody - Southern Baptist Theol Seminary Louisville
11. John Franke - Biblical Seminary - Hatfield Penn
12. Homer Haley - Church of Christ - Abilene Christian College
13. Thomas Robinson - Union Theol Semin. Princeton Theol Semin. Pepperdine
14. Clark Pinnock - New Orleans Baptist Theol Semin
15. John Wenham - Evangelical - Anglican pioneer.
16. Richard Bauckham - Cambridge
17. Edward Fudge (see the movie "Hell and Mr. Fudge" now sold in Walmart and also Barnes and Noble.

I suppose we could line all these guys up for "name calling" but that does not seem like the scholarly or Christian solution.

Or we could just accept the Bible as it reads then name calling is not necessary.

Click to expand...

in Christ,

Bob

BobRyan said:

It would be hard to convince the scholars in the following list - that they are all Seventh-day Adventists or that being SDA is the only reason they accept the Bible truth on the fact that the fires of hell "consume the wicked" Rev 20:9.

Click to expand...

Read how the word "consumed" is used at other places in the Bible, and you'll see it doesn't refer to being annihilated, especially since (which I've pointed out before) the Bible talks clearly about the conscious, eternal torment of the wicked.
However, if it taught annihilation on the other hand, it would be more clear on this, for example after how long they'll be annihilated after they die and such.

By the way, regarding Revelation 20:9. It's talking about being devoured while still on earth, in context, as it talks about surrounding "the camp of the saints and the beloved city".

Now, we know these people didn't cease to exist, because of what Rev. 20:11-15 says. Now, if they were annihilated, how could they be resurrected in their body in verse 13 there? Read verse 15, it doesn't talk about annihilation.

"When the morning dawned, the angels urged Lot to hurry, saying, “Arise, take your wife and your two daughters who are here, lest you be consumed in the punishment of the city.”" (Genesis 19:15 NKJV)

"Why should the Egyptians speak, and say, ‘He brought them out to harm them, to kill them in the mountains, and to consume them from the face of the earth’? Turn from Your fierce wrath, and relent from this harm to Your people."(Exodus 32:12 NKJV)

If someone is consumed from the face of the earth, it doesn't mean they will cease to exist, since we know from other verses that we keep existing after we die, since we're not merely physical. Deut 2:14 also equals being consumed to dying physically.

"In this wilderness they shall be consumed, and there they shall die." (Numbers 14:35 NKJV)

Consumed in this case means physical death, which the last words show.


"fever which shall consume the eyes" (Leviticus 26:16 NKJV)

Now, does this mean their eyes would cease to exist because their eyes would be consumed, leaving a vacuum where there were once eyes?

Even our flesh and body can be consumed without ceasing to exist just because of that (see Proverbs 5:11). Because our physical body doesn't cease to exist after we die.

Now, if one's eyes, flesh and body could be consumed physically without ceasing to exist, why can't one be consumed in hell without ceasing to exist, if we've seen that consumed doesn't mean to be annihilated?

"For our God is a consuming fire." (Hebrews 12:29 NKJV)

Now, if one had to be consumed in the sense of being annihilated, by being in God's presence (since God is a consuming fire, by nature), then how come Isaiah 33:14-15 (NKJV) says:

"“Who among us shall dwell with the devouring fire? Who among us shall dwell with everlasting burnings?” He who walks righteously and speaks uprightly,
He who despises the gain of oppressions, Who gestures with his hands, refusing bribes, Who stops his ears from hearing of bloodshed, And shuts his eyes from seeing evil:"

Isaiah says in Isaiah 6:5 (NKJV)

"“Woe is me, for I am undone! Because I am a man of unclean lips, And I dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips; For my eyes have seen the King,
The Lord of hosts.”"

The Hebrew word for "undone" here is translated as (in KJV) "perish" / "cut off" / "ceaseth" / "destroyed".

Yet we know Isaiah didn't cease to exist, since otherwise he couldn't keep serving God as His prophet, as he did.

Something I came to think of. How can the wicked rise in the resurrection of the body, if they have ceased to exist because they were annihilated?

"by whom also He went and preached to the spirits in prison, who formerly were disobedient, when once the Divine longsuffering waited in the days of Noah, while the ark was being prepared, in which a few, that is, eight souls, were saved through water." (1 Peter 3:19-20 NKJV)

Why were they in prison? They weren't annihilated, even though they had been disobedient and weren't saved.

These verses also disprove Universal Reconciliation. Everyone weren't saved from the flood), so everyone wont be saved now either as those who believe in Universal Reconciliation say. The Ark is a picture of Salvation through Christ, the only Way to the Father.

BobRyan said:

The Bible definition includes the one where the thing is "reduced to ashes" as in the case of not only the wicked in fiery hell (the lake of fire) - but also Sodom and Gomorrah.

Click to expand...

To be "reduced to ashes" could be one aspect of being punished by God, however, just because someone is reduced to ashes doesn't mean this is all there is to him, since we're not only physical, but have a soul as well. Are their souls reduced to ashes?

BobRyan said:

Ezek 18
4"Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is Mine The soul who sins will die.

Click to expand...

Die doesn't mean ceasing to exist, being annihilated.

You don't cease to exist because you sin. One can die spiritually, and eventually we will all die physically, unless Jesus comes back and we're alive.

Spiritual death is a state in which one can be in, it's not a state of being annihilated.

shturt678s said:

"but by careful scrutinizing of the CONTEXT of the text and prayer." Why not go for those 5 golden stars where I couldn't even receive one...poor Jacky boy....

Old Jack's opinion

Click to expand...

Thanks Jack, That is why I always take the context into consideration when I study the scriptures. The context is very important.

MoreCoffee said:

Thanks for your indulgence Timothew, I appreciate your replies. I think we've reached the impasse that was predicted in post #193.

I remain convinced that annihilationism is a heresy and I think the same is true of soul sleep. It's time to move on.

God grant wisdom and insight to all who desire it from him.

Click to expand...

Thanks Mr Coffee

I know that you are convinced that annihilationism is a heresy, but since the Bible clearly states that the wicked will be destroyed, I believe that the wicked will be destroyed whether or not you think it is a heresy. You should have better proof that annihilationism really is a heresy before you make such a serious claim. You weren't able to prove that at all.

AmericanChristian91 said:

So if a Christian did not believe that some people will stay in hell and be eternally punished/tortured, and instead believed in Annihiliationism or Universal Reconciliation, is that heretical thought?

Or what if a Christian was not sure on which belief in hell to accept (and therefore was not 100% sure that an eternal hell exists)?

Just curious on people's opinions here on whether or not it is heresy to not accept 100% the traditional view of hell.

PS: This may belong in the unorthodox section, thought I did want to see the opinion of people who are orthodox when it comes to this matter.

Click to expand...

Here is what one scholar said about whether it should be called a heresy to disagree with the traditional view of the nature of hell:
— Howard Marshall, Professor Emeritus of New Testament, University of Aberdeen, Scotland
http://www.rethinkinghell.com/about/endorsements

By Faith Alone said:

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.

Click to expand...

Well, there are other verses which prove we will all be judged after we die.

Also, many preachers use Hebrews 9:27 before preaching the gospel, are they all wrong?

Timothew said:

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

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.

Click to expand...

I don't base it on two verses, just because I quoted two verses. There are a lot more verses.

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".

Click to expand...

Spiritual death is a state, one doesn't cease to exist because he dies spiritually. Adam and Eve didn't cease to exist because they ate of the forbidden fruit. So one can be dead, yet be in existence.

"And you He made alive, who were dead in trespasses and sins," (Eph. 2:1 NKJV)

The wicked remain dead in trespasses and sins after their physical death.

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

Click to expand...

Well, you don't cease to exist in the "first death" (physical), so why in the second?

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

Click to expand...

What about the spirits in prison that Jesus preached to? (See post #311 by me)

Yes, God is just, therefore hell is a just judgment. However, annihilation is not.

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?

Click to expand...

They're not there with their physical bodies until they're resurrected.

Also, it doesn't need to make sense. I used logic in your case as an addition, not as main argument.

AmericanChristian91 said:

So if a Christian did not believe that some people will stay in hell and be eternally punished/tortured, and instead believed in Annihiliationism or Universal Reconciliation, is that heretical thought?

Or what if a Christian was not sure on which belief in hell to accept (and therefore was not 100% sure that an eternal hell exists)?

Just curious on people's opinions here on whether or not it is heresy to not accept 100% the traditional view of hell.

PS: This may belong in the unorthodox section, thought I did want to see the opinion of people who are orthodox when it comes to this matter.

Click to expand...

This question is based on the dialectic of the tree of knowledge which bares two fruits, both fruits leading to the same truth, and deals with our reasoning, in the day (not the Lord's day) we eat. If God had not said, Thou shalt not eat, they would have had no sin, and the question of hell irrelevant.

Jonathan95,
What do you make of Psalm 37:38?
Why shouldn't accept that?

This question interests me because, while I have believed in the traditional concept of hell for most of my Christian life...some 50 years...lately I have begun to doubt it.
I do tend these days to lean more toward annihilationism.
Not only do several Bible verses seem to teach the "second death", I just can't figure out WHY God would keep people alive throughout eternity, only to torture them.
What purpose would it serve? The purpose of punishment, I always thought, was to teach the miscreant the error of his ways...it's kind of a final attempt to rehabilitate him. However, in hell, it doesn't matter how well the wicked learn their lesson...the time for that is over. If God is love, how could He be so cruel?

Anyhow, I indicated to someone that my belief seems to be changing in these forums, and he very quickly pointed out to me that I had broken CF rules. That rather surprised me. I mean, I read the rules when I first joined, but I didn't recall seeing that one on the list.

So now, I'm wondering too...why is it heresy, and why is it against the rules?
Shouldn't we all be actively seeking the truth?
Something I learned way back in sixth grade math class (I never was any good at math, btw), is that a fact does not need you to believe it, or even to understand it, for it to be a fact. I was encouraged (uncomfortably so, I might add) at that time to do my very best to ascertain the facts.
Why are we being discouraged to do so now?

Angelquill said:

So now, I'm wondering too...why is it heresy, and why is it against the rules?
Shouldn't we all be actively seeking the truth?
Something I learned way back in sixth grade math class (I never was any good at math, btw), is that a fact does not need you to believe it, or even to understand it, for it to be a fact. I was encouraged (uncomfortably so, I might add) at that time to do my very best to ascertain the facts.
Why are we being discouraged to do so now?

Click to expand...

In my opinion, it is this way because (I assume) that the CF was founded by Christians raised like the majority of Christians are raised: in a church and culture that teaches eternal torment, and never honestly encourages members/believers to read/study/and pray for proper understanding of the message presented in our Bible. Christians by and large believe in eternal torment because they were taught/told to, not because they came to that conclusion through independent study, prayer, and thought.

I know that will upset people, but it was how I was raised and how I was taught and how I believed, until much later in life when I really studied and prayed and listened for myself.

I believe and my Church teaches that: