Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

Tzaousios said:

This sounds contradictory. Which is it, the Word of God or your heart? Is it both? If so, the question becomes how much influence relying on what your heart says influences your reading of the Bible.

Click to expand...

How can anyone not involve their heart in their faith? How else would one read and understand the Bible?
Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit resides in our heart, and that He is there to help us to understand God's word?
Didn't God promise that He would write His law on our hearts?
Yes, my heart is very much involved in my faith...and my faith is very much a part of my heart.
I say that with absolutely no shame and no apology.

Tzaousios said:

Okay, but this does not comment on why what your conscience tells you is any more valid or correct than what MoreCoffee's tells him.

Click to expand...

I suppose it's a matter of faith. MC thinks he's right. I don't agree.
It really is that simple.

Tzaousios said:

Since you brought up Galileo, have you examined the comparable instances of Protestant violence and persecution that I mentioned? If so, how does that inform your perception of what Protestants and Catholics have done/do?

Click to expand...

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post. Let me copy it for you here:
The RC has made mistakes before. Remember Galileo? Just as a for instance.
And so has every denomination on the face of this little speck of rock we humans like to call "home".
The point is that we all need to learn from our mistakes, or we risk repeating them.

Tzaousios said:

This might be true if one conflates one's particular interpretation of God's Word with God's Word. Thus, one's particular interpretation becomes subject to scrutiny just as much as church doctrine or history.

Click to expand...

I do not believe that church doctrine...ANY church doctrine, from ANY point in history, should EVER be taken to be anywhere near as important as God's word. Why would I or anyone else take any man's word over God's, no matter when that particular man, or group of men, uttered them?
How often have men, or groups of men, been mistaken?
Now, as to my interpretation, you are quite right...mine is no better or worse than anyone else's. I do not say that you ought to agree with me because I know more than you do. In fact, I do not say that you ought to believe me at all.
I would suggest to you that you read the Bible for yourself, letting the Spirit of God within you open your own heart to the understanding of it.
You might be surprised at what you'll find.
Be like those noble Bereans, and search the scriptures to see if these things be so.

Tzaousios said:

You have not explained how this works and why it provides you with the correct answer to the question at hand, while proving MoreCoffee's and Catholicism's method to be incorrect. For all anyone knows, you could be conflating your particular interpretation of God's Word with God's Word itself.

Click to expand...

It is the method of relying on other men's interpretation that I question. If the method is questionable...and I think it is...then so are the results of that method.
Now, I never said that anyone should agree with me just because I happen to believe something different.
Again, I think everyone ought to take God's Word for what they believe...certainly not mine.
Fevvinsakes, I do not want that level of responsibility! I've said and said and said in here...I'm not a scholar.
Do not even think I'm setting myself up as a teacher.
It is not my feet anyone should be sitting at to learn of God.
Rather, go directly to the Source.
Why else did God inspire men to write the Bible in the first place?

Angelquill said:

How can anyone not involve their heart in their faith? How else would one read and understand the Bible?
Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit resides in our heart, and that He is there to help us to understand God's word?
Didn't God promise that He would write His law on our hearts?
Yes, my heart is very much involved in my faith...and my faith is very much a part of my heart.
I say that with absolutely no shame and no apology.



I suppose it's a matter of faith. MC thinks he's right. I don't agree.
It really is that simple.




Perhaps you didn't read the entire post. Let me copy it for you here:
The RC has made mistakes before. Remember Galileo? Just as a for instance.
And so has every denomination on the face of this little speck of rock we humans like to call "home".
The point is that we all need to learn from our mistakes, or we risk repeating them.




I do not believe that church doctrine...ANY church doctrine, from ANY point in history, should EVER be taken to be anywhere near as important as God's word. Why would I or anyone else take any man's word over God's, no matter when that particular man, or group of men, uttered them?
How often have men, or groups of men, been mistaken?
Now, as to my interpretation, you are quite right...mine is no better or worse than anyone else's. I do not say that you ought to agree with me because I know more than you do. In fact, I do not say that you ought to believe me at all.
I would suggest to you that you read the Bible for yourself, letting the Spirit of God within you open your own heart to the understanding of it.
You might be surprised at what you'll find.
Be like those noble Bereans, and search the scriptures to see if these things be so.



It is the method of relying on other men's interpretation that I question. If the method is questionable...and I think it is...then so are the results of that method.
Now, I never said that anyone should agree with me just because I happen to believe something different.
Again, I think everyone ought to take God's Word for what they believe...certainly not mine.
Fevvinsakes, I do not want that level of responsibility! I've said and said and said in here...I'm not a scholar.
Do not even think I'm setting myself up as a teacher.
It is not my feet anyone should be sitting at to learn of God.
Rather, go directly to the Source.
Why else did God inspire men to write the Bible in the first place?

Click to expand...

Old Jack seems to think the heart is deceitful above all things. Only my opinion.

I guess if the men of Nineveh are condemning something -- they are CONSCIOUS when they are doing the condemning

I believe I already gave a caveat to the fact that Elijah didn't actually die -- as for both Moses and Elijah being "special" - well -- so?

shturt678s said:

Old Jack seems to think the heart is deceitful above all things. Only my opinion.

Click to expand...

Old Jack is wise, indeed.
I wonder...
Does Jack love the Lord with all his heart and all his mind and all his strength, and does he love his neighbor as himself?
Does he follow the Lord's command to love one another, even as He loves us?

If Jack says yes, then he admits that his heart is in his faith and his faith is in his heart.

Does old Jack believe that the Holy Spirit has come into his heart, or that God has kept His promise to write His laws on Jack's heart?
Surely, Jack would not think that God is deceitful above all things...

Anto9us said:

I guess if the men of Nineveh are condemning something -- they are CONSCIOUS when they are doing the condemning

I believe I already gave a caveat to the fact that Elijah didn't actually die -- as for both Moses and Elijah being "special" - well -- so?

Click to expand...

Mat 12:41 The men of Nineveh shall rise in judgment with this generation, and shall condemn it: because they repented at the preaching of Jonas; and, behold, a greater than Jonas is here.
Notice that "shall rise" is future tense. The men of Nineveh are not condemning anything at this time. They shall rise in judgment at some future time.

or more specifically, the Nineveh men will have risen at some point future to when Jesus was saying that

whether that point in time is still YET FUTURE; I can neither affirm nor deny

Anto9us said:

or more specifically, the Nineveh men will have risen at some point future to when Jesus was saying that

whether that point in time is still YET FUTURE; I can neither affirm nor deny

Click to expand...

Common sense would seem to indicate that Jesus is referring to the day when all men shall rise from the grave.
Trying to fit this event into any other time would take some serious twisting of scripture to achieve.

Angelquill said:

How can anyone not involve their heart in their faith? How else would one read and understand the Bible?

Click to expand...

Indeed, but the heart and feelings are not the only things that should come into play. It is not wise to denigrate church history or ignore the writings of those who came before us and were martyred for their beliefs.

Angelquill said:

Don't you believe that the Holy Spirit resides in our heart, and that He is there to help us to understand God's word?
Didn't God promise that He would write His law on our hearts?

Click to expand...

Sure I do. However, this does not explain the conundrum of widely variegated interpretations of Scripture, all with their interpreters declaring that they are delivered by the Holy Spirit, even to the point of conflating those interpretations with the Word of God itself.

Is the one and same Spirit delivering all of these? Is God writing the same law on everyone's hearts such that they are led to these different interpretations?

Angelquill said:

I suppose it's a matter of faith. MC thinks he's right. I don't agree.
It really is that simple.

Click to expand...

Still, though, how did you determine this besides by "heart" and "feelings," to which no one has access or can verify except you? Why should anyone discuss it and perhaps be persuaded by your assertions if they cannot be traced or verified? This is the conundrum I am trying to resolve.

Angelquill said:

Perhaps you didn't read the entire post. Let me copy it for you here:
The RC has made mistakes before. Remember Galileo? Just as a for instance.
And so has every denomination on the face of this little speck of rock we humans like to call "home".
The point is that we all need to learn from our mistakes, or we risk repeating them.

Click to expand...

You did not acknowledge the specific examples from Protestant history that I gave, but simply went back to the specific example from Catholic history that you originally gave. That would be different than paying lip-service to the sins of "all denominations."

Angelquill said:

I do not believe that church doctrine...ANY church doctrine, from ANY point in history, should EVER be taken to be anywhere near as important as God's word.

Click to expand...

By "church doctrine" I mean theological positions and doctrines that can be traced through history and whose source is available to be verified. The orthodox creeds, along with the decisions of the ecumenical councils, are examples of this. Also, the church's teaching on Hell and punishment can be traced and verified. That I bring these things up as important does not mean that I also devalue or equivocate God's word with something else.

Angelquill said:

Why would I or anyone else take any man's word over God's, no matter when that particular man, or group of men, uttered them?
How often have men, or groups of men, been mistaken?

Click to expand...

Herein is the problem which I have been trying to bring to the fore. Yours and others' interpretations of God's word are "any man's word" in the same way that you describe individuals' and groups' words. God's word your interpretations are not the same thing and should not be conflated.

Therefore, the question becomes whose interpretation has any historical basis and can be verified as something that Christians have believed from the beginning? The Church's teaching tradition and the decisions of the councils are much more persuasive because they do not rely on "feelings" for verification and can be traced back to their source.

So do you conflate your interpretation of Scripture with "what the Bible plainly says" or God's word itself?

Angelquill said:

Now, as to my interpretation, you are quite right...mine is no better or worse than anyone else's.

Click to expand...

If this is what you think about your interpretation then I do not understand how you can find any value in it or arrive at any notion of correctness or ultimately "truth." Can you explain how this works?

Angelquill said:

In fact, I do not say that you ought to believe me at all.
I would suggest to you that you read the Bible for yourself, letting the Spirit of God within you open your own heart to the understanding of it.
You might be surprised at what you'll find.
Be like those noble Bereans, and search the scriptures to see if these things be so.

Click to expand...

This would seem to presume that I have not done so and am not discussing these issues from the vantage point of having searched the Scriptures like the Bereans and prayed for the Spirit to open my understanding.

If so, then what should I be finding and what should I be concluding?

Angelquill said:

It is the method of relying on other men's interpretation that I question. If the method is questionable...and I think it is...then so are the results of that method.

Click to expand...

Forgive me, but based upon what you have said, there seems to be no other reason for rejecting MoreCoffee's interpretation other than some sour grapes or internalized paranoia over Roman Catholicism.

Angelquill said:

Old Jack is wise, indeed.
I wonder...
Does Jack love the Lord with all his heart and all his mind and all his strength, and does he love his neighbor as himself?
Does he follow the Lord's command to love one another, even as He loves us?

If Jack says yes, then he admits that his heart is in his faith and his faith is in his heart.

Does old Jack believe that the Holy Spirit has come into his heart, or that God has kept His promise to write His laws on Jack's heart?
Surely, Jack would not think that God is deceitful above all things...

Click to expand...

If you would have stated "Does Jack agape the Lord..." then we would be on the same page, ie, big difference between "agape" and "love"?

You're the one with wisdom as I'm at the bottom of the pecking order, ie, lowest of the paygrades with my opinions.

Thank you again...don't want to get on your wrong side my sister.

Old Jack's bottom rung opinion

"Common Sense" is not so common...

and what God has cleansed, call thou not common

Okay...perhaps if I let you in on how I arrived at my belief.
First of all, there is Romans 6:23

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of sin is death. Not eternal torment, but death.

The gift of God is eternal life.

Hold the phone!
In order to be tormented through eternity, doesn't the wicked sinner have to have eternal life?
Doesn't that mean that everyone, whether saint or sinner has eternal life?
Isn't that what we are taught from childhood? We have an immortal soul, and if we are not found in God's Book of Life, that immortal soul will be sent to hell.

So, why is God saying that He is going to give me as a gift something that I already possess?

There's more, but this is where I started doubting those ancient teachings.

Angelquill said:

Okay...perhaps if I let you in on how I arrived at my belief.
First of all, there is Romans 6:23

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of sin is death. Not eternal torment, but death.

The gift of God is eternal life.

Hold the phone!
In order to be tormented through eternity, doesn't the wicked sinner have to have eternal life?
Doesn't that mean that everyone, whether saint or sinner has eternal life?
Isn't that what we are taught from childhood? We have an immortal soul, and if we are not found in God's Book of Life, that immortal soul will be sent to hell.

So, why is God saying that He is going to give me as a gift something that I already possess?

There's more, but this is where I started doubting those ancient teachings.

Click to expand...

It's not the teachings, but the interpretation and translation of the teachings. A guy named death will also be in the lake of fire if you think it's a actual physical place.

Viren said:

It's not the teachings, but the interpretation and translation of the teachings. A guy named death will also be in the lake of fire if you think it's a actual physical place.

Click to expand...

I dunno if it's a "guy named death", but you are quite right...death will be tossed into the lake of fire.
I can't say whether it's physical...since this all takes place on an entirely different plane of existence...but evidently, hell will be tossed in along with it's nasty companion, Mr. Death.
Whether death has a persona or not, we can be pretty sure that it is totally destroyed because elsewhere we are told that death is no more.

You have hit on the next set of verses that led me to rethink my old beliefs.
It would seem a tad difficult to throw the lake of fire into the lake of fire, for one thing. So, evidently, hell is not the lake of fire.
Also, whatever goes in there is done away with completely...pfffft...nothing left but a rapidly disappearing grease spot.

For those who do not know the scripture passage, here it is:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Angelquill said:

I dunno if it's a "guy named death", but you are quite right...death will be tossed into the lake of fire.
I can't say whether it's physical...since this all takes place on an entirely different plane of existence...but evidently, hell will be tossed in along with it's nasty companion, Mr. Death.
Whether death has a persona or not, we can be pretty sure that it is totally destroyed because elsewhere we are told that death is no more.

You have hit on the next set of verses that led me to rethink my old beliefs.
It would seem a tad difficult to throw the lake of fire into the lake of fire, for one thing. So, evidently, hell is not the lake of fire.
Also, whatever goes in there is done away with completely...pfffft...nothing left but a rapidly disappearing grease spot.

For those who do not know the scripture passage, here it is:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

Concur. Looking at it with an open mind changes everything.

Angelquill said:

Okay...perhaps if I let you in on how I arrived at my belief.
First of all, there is Romans 6:23

Rom_6:23 For the wages of sin is death; but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.

The wages of sin is death. Not eternal torment, but death.

The gift of God is eternal life.

Hold the phone!
In order to be tormented through eternity, doesn't the wicked sinner have to have eternal life?
Doesn't that mean that everyone, whether saint or sinner has eternal life?
Isn't that what we are taught from childhood? We have an immortal soul, and if we are not found in God's Book of Life, that immortal soul will be sent to hell.

So, why is God saying that He is going to give me as a gift something that I already possess?

There's more, but this is where I started doubting those ancient teachings.

Click to expand...

Yes annihilationists always quote Rom 6:23. But there are more verses.


Along with Rom 6:23 this tells me that all, 100%, of mankind have sinned and will die.


These verses in every case satisfy Rom 6:23. And since all men have sinned, all 100%, of mankind will face the judgment. But what these verses don't say is, "The wages of sin is death, resurrection, judgment then a second death."

When mankind faces that judgment Jesus will say to some "these go away into everlasting punishment." Jesus did not say death. We don't use the writings of the apostles to twist Jesus' words and make them mean something else.

Angelquill said:

I dunno if it's a "guy named death", but you are quite right...death will be tossed into the lake of fire.
I can't say whether it's physical...since this all takes place on an entirely different plane of existence...but evidently, hell will be tossed in along with it's nasty companion, Mr. Death.
Whether death has a persona or not, we can be pretty sure that it is totally destroyed because elsewhere we are told that death is no more.

You have hit on the next set of verses that led me to rethink my old beliefs.
It would seem a tad difficult to throw the lake of fire into the lake of fire, for one thing. So, evidently, hell is not the lake of fire.
Also, whatever goes in there is done away with completely...pfffft...nothing left but a rapidly disappearing grease spot.

For those who do not know the scripture passage, here it is:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

The lake of fire [LOF] is called “the second death” twice in Rev. vss. 20:14 and 21:8. While this is true, Rev. never says that anyone is thrown into the LOF then they die. The terms are interchangeable, the lake of fire is the second death and the second death is the lake of fire, which is not synonymous with death or destruction.

We know that being thrown into the LOF is not synonymous with death. In Rev 19:20, 20:10 three living beings, the beast, the false prophet, and the devil, one the false prophet is a person, are thrown into the LOF but they do not die, they are tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:14 says death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. Death is the point in time end of life it has no physical presence and cannot be literally thrown anywhere but there is a death and hell which can be thrown into the LOF.


The angel of death and the demon of hell are thrown into the LOF and their power to kill ended.

Der Alter said:

Heb 9:27 And as it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment:​

These verses in every case satisfy Rom 6:23. And since all men have sinned, all 100%, of mankind will face the judgment. But what these verses don't say is, "The wages of sin is death, resurrection, judgment then a second death."

Click to expand...

Waddaya gonna do with this?

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;

Some ain't daid at this judgment. Hebrews 9:27 is the type as seen in verse 28 as the anti-type. No such thing as "general resurrection" OR "general judgment".

I can show you in the OT if you like? It concerns the priesthood in the sanctuary cities.

Angelquill said:

I dunno if it's a "guy named death", but you are quite right...death will be tossed into the lake of fire.
I can't say whether it's physical...since this all takes place on an entirely different plane of existence...but evidently, hell will be tossed in along with it's nasty companion, Mr. Death.
Whether death has a persona or not, we can be pretty sure that it is totally destroyed because elsewhere we are told that death is no more.

You have hit on the next set of verses that led me to rethink my old beliefs.
It would seem a tad difficult to throw the lake of fire into the lake of fire, for one thing. So, evidently, hell is not the lake of fire.
Also, whatever goes in there is done away with completely...pfffft...nothing left but a rapidly disappearing grease spot.

For those who do not know the scripture passage, here it is:

Rev 20:12 And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works.
Rev 20:13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works.
Rev 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.
Rev 20:15 And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Click to expand...

Consider this our God is a consuming fire...Adamic men are in darkness because they refuse God....our Lord is like a refiners soap....burning out the chaff...

On that day the covering of longsuffering and forbearance fallen man has lived under since the fall is removed and all men stand in the presance of a holy God...for believers the burning away of the remnant of the old man is bliss....for those who have nothing but that old man of darkness they are being destroyed and consumed by that holy presance so it is torment but by nature of the wicked in the presance of a holy God

I'm learning that there is a whole lot more to all of this than our pitiful human minds can understand.
It is a very complicated question that involves matters totally outside of our experience, and beyond our comprehension.
It just seems to me that some folks are too eager to consign other folks to endless torment. IMHO, for what it is worth, anyone who would actually consider the notion that God would torment anyone through eternity kinda deserves the same for him/herself.
It just isn't a very nice thought...