Is not believing in an eternal hell Heresy?

[Albion]

If universal reconciliation was true, then it would still be true that Jesus came down to save us from punishment, to bring Mankind to Heaven. It's not like UR is going to get rid of God's Justice/Punishment, it just believes a human being is not going to get tortured/punished for all time and will eventually choose Christ, if not in this life, then the next.

But there's nothing implicit in the idea of universal salvation that says everyone will eventually choose Christ. This makes Hell into a re-education center or a holding tank until you come to your senses and accept Christ--a place for second chances. This is not a hell of punishment and regret, and divorces it from any connection to sin and justice.

Even posters who think God would not subject people to torment FOREVER should agree to this. It's the FOREVER part that they usually reject most emphatically.

 

[James Is Back]

I think your putting to much emphasize on punishment instead of the importance of people being saved through Jesus Christ.

No I'm not what I'm trying to do is make people realize that this belief that Hell/Lake Of Fire isn't punishment is a fairy tale that people want to wish for but in Truth does not exist according to scripture.

True it is important for people to be saved but that's not the discussion we're having.

Those who come to Christ will come to Him.

 

[shturt678s]

Good to "hear" from you too Bro.

The BLOOD is the life of the flesh of both man and animal.
Along with the breath given man:
Job 32:8 But there is a spirit in man: and the inspiration of the Almighty giveth them understanding.
Job 27:3 All the while my breath is in me, and the spirit of God is in my nostrils;

We MUST be careful in devaluing the resurrection.


In Revelation it is the UNholy trinity suffering. The second resurrection mentioned in Revelation are the ones that took the mark of the beast are resurrected for judgment at the GWTJ and suffered the SECOND death in that very same lake.

Let's see the value in "1" "Resurrection," Jn.5:28, 29 (2nd part of "1 Resurrection) at the end of time. All the living souls from Adam forward that passed on fulfilled the symbolic 1st part of "1" "Resurrection," ie, bodily resurrection at the end of time.

Old Jack's opinion

btw only off the top so could have some errors in the minors?

 

[MoreCoffee]

I get the impression that abandoning belief in hell is being presented as a means to save God from accusations of cruelty, but if God really did end the pre-flood world by drowning all its inhabitants and if God will be ending this age with a general judgement that ends in fire for the wicked then you haven't saved God from accusations of cruelty at all; you've merely removed the eternal element in hell and left the pain and suffering and destruction in place. If you really think that it is cruel or bad for God to judge the world and condemn the wicked then you might as well abandon any thought of punishment because no matter how gentle you care to make the last judgement it will always end in tears for some and that will be construed as cruel by many. God judges and condemns as well as saves and rewards, there's no way out of it unless you toss the entire bible aside and create a new religion based on whatever it is that you think is kindly and gentle and loving for God to do. But don't be deceived you'll be creating a God in your own image if you do.

 

[By Faith Alone]

I get the impression that abandoning belief in hell is being presented as a means to save God from accusations of cruelty, but if God really did end the pre-flood world by drowning all its inhabitents and if God will be ending this age with a general judgement that ends in fire for the wicked then you haven't saved God from accusations of cruelty at all; you've merely removed the eternal element in hell and left the pain and suffering and destruction in place. If you really think that it is cruel or bad for God to judge the world and condemn the wicked then you might as well abandon any thought of punishment because no matter how gentle you care to make the last judgement it will always end in tears for some and that will be construed as cruel by many. God judges and condemns as well as saves and rewards, there's no way out of it unless you toss the entire bible aside and create a new religion based on whatever it is that you think is kindly and gentle and loving for God to do. But don't be deceived you'll be creating a God in your own image if you do.

There is NO such thing as a general judgment in Revelation. That judgment at the GWT is reserved ONLY for those that succumbed to the demands of the "beast".

Do you even know the reason for the Noah's Flood?

 

[By Faith Alone]

Let's see the value in "1" "Resurrection," Jn.5:28, 29 (2nd part of "1 Resurrection) at the end of time. All the living souls from Adam forward that passed on fulfilled the symbolic 1st part of "1" "Resurrection," ie, bodily resurrection at the end of time.
Old Jack's opinion
btw only off the top so could have some errors in the minors?

Wellll ole buddy. You may have to re-phrase that one for me.

 

[shturt678s]

I get the impression that abandoning belief in hell is being presented as a means to save God from accusations of cruelty, but if God really did end the pre-flood world by drowning all its inhabitents and if God will be ending this age with a general judgement that ends in fire for the wocked then you haven't saved God from accusations of cruelty at all; you've merely removed the eternal element in hell and left the pain and suffering and destruction in place. If you really think that it is cruel or bad for God to judge the world and condemn the wicked then you might as well abandon any thought of punishment because no matter how gentle you care to make the last judgement it wwill always end in tears for some and that will be construed as cruel by many. God judges and condemns as well as saves and rewards, there's no way out of it unless you toss the entire bible aside and create a new religion based on whatever it is that you think is kindly and gentle and loving for God to do. But don't be deceived you'll be creating a God in your own image if you do.

Putting in for your Christian paygrade increase!

 

[shturt678s]

Wellll ole buddy. You may have to re-phrase that one for me.

The "1 Resurrection" had already began at Matt.27:53, ie, both the 1st part of "1 Resurrection" and the 2nd part of "1 Resurrection" (These are not the ones in hell being in mental torments awaiting for their new bodies to be in both mental and physical torments for ever and ever.)

MC has this dialed in and is of a higher paygrade than myself,

Old Jack's opinion

 

[AmericanChristian91]

I get the impression that abandoning belief in hell is being presented as a means to save God from accusations of cruelty, but if God really did end the pre-flood world by drowning all its inhabitents

We'll since we don't find evidence in human history of all ancient civilizations (and people who were not in civilization) being wiped out to only 1 family, then evidence is not found on the natural world of a global flood. I think it is correct to say that God did not drown almost all of humanity several thousand years ago.

 

[James Is Back]

Do you even know the reason for the Noah's Flood?

Well it certainly wasn't to create a giant swimming pool!

 

[Timothew]

Well it certainly wasn't to create a giant swimming pool!

I believe the reason for the flood was to destroy the wicked.
(Genesis 6:13 "behold I will destroy them")

So is it really so inconceivable that God will actually destroy the wicked instead of keeping them alive forever in torment in hell? There is a precedent. The flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

 

[hedrick]

I get the impression that abandoning belief in hell is being presented as a means to save God from accusations of cruelty, but if God really did end the pre-flood world by drowning all its inhabitents and if God will be ending this age with a general judgement that ends in fire for the wicked then you haven't saved God from accusations of cruelty at all; you've merely removed the eternal element in hell and left the pain and suffering and destruction in place.

That may be true currently, but annihilation is normally traced back to the Restoration movement. They reconsidered all of theology, supposedly working directly from Scripture rather than tradition, though i question whether they were as independent of tradition as they hoped. But I think there can be purely Biblical reasons.

There's another issue, which could support either annihilation or universalism: Paul sees Christ as in the end being all in all. That isn't obviously consistent with people who remain enemies.

If you don't cherry-pick, but look at their characteristic views, my feeling has always been that Paul tends to sound universalist, and Jesus annilhiationist, though it's also possible that he held the belief that punishment was temporary. The Revelation can be read in a couple of ways.

At any rate, you know by now that I'm not really advocating any one view. I think that beyond judgement and accountability, evidence is ambiguous.

 

[By Faith Alone]

I believe the reason for the flood was to destroy the wicked.
(Genesis 6:13 "behold I will destroy them")

So is it really so inconceivable that God will actually destroy the wicked instead of keeping them alive forever in torment in hell? There is a precedent. The flood and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah.

The sons of God went into the daughters of men and bare children. GIANTS. Cannot spiritualise this away. ALL flesh had corrupted itself with these fallen angels likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah. Only NOAH and his family were of pure blood from Seth. The eight souls were a remnant of God. There were giants AFTER the flood. Another irruption of fallen angels. Jude 6.

God promised no more floods, so the sword of Israel were to destroy them but they made a pact with the devil and failed to do so.

"So as in the days of Noe were so shall the coming of the Son of Man be".

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay...they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men....but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and ...shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

The times of the gentiles be over.

Dan 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

The Lord reigns TRIUMPHANT!!

 

[shturt678s]

The sons of God went into the daughters of men and bare children. GIANTS. Cannot spiritualise this away.

"son's of God" without a doubt were the Sethites, ie, strictly speaking applied to the Godly.

"daughters of men" without a doubt refers simply indiscribinately to all "the daughters of mankind," whether Sethite or Cainite. No monsters here or fallen angels.

ALL flesh had corrupted itself with these fallen angels likewise with Sodom and Gomorrah. Only NOAH and his family were of pure blood from Seth. The eight souls were a remnant of God. There were giants AFTER the flood. Another irruption of fallen angels. Jude 6.

God promised no more floods, so the sword of Israel were to destroy them but they made a pact with the devil and failed to do so.

"So as in the days of Noe were so shall the coming of the Son of Man be".

Dan 2:43 And whereas thou sawest iron mixed with miry clay...they shall mingle themselves with the seed of men....but they shall not cleave one to another, even as iron is not mixed with clay.

Rev 11:18 And the nations were angry, and thy wrath is come, and the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and ...shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth.

The times of the gentiles be over.

Dan 2:34 Thou sawest till that a stone was cut out without hands, which smote the image upon his feet that were of iron and clay, and brake them to pieces.

The Lord reigns TRIUMPHANT!!

Old Jack's opinion

 

[By Faith Alone]

"son's of God" without a doubt were the Sethites, ie, strictly speaking applied to the Godly.

"daughters of men" without a doubt refers simply indiscribinately to all "the daughters of mankind," whether Sethite or Cainite. No monsters here or fallen angels.

Old Jack's opinion

The sons of God went to see God and Satan was with them. If it is as you say then Job should have been there too.

Num 13:33 And there we saw the giants, the sons of Anak, which come of the giants: and we were in our own sight as grasshoppers, and so we were in their sight.

Cannot go into the Garden of Eden with this one. Against site rules:
John 8:44 Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.
Who was the first murderer?

Matt 13:38-40
38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;
39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.
40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

Those are literal people. Not the heart or doctrine.

You may think as you like, but I have too many hours' study to change my mind about this one.

 

[Timothew]

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.

 

[By Faith Alone]

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.

Hey. I am with you Bro. But the unregenerate crowd will moan and groan about the Flood saying God is unjust to destroy in such a manner.
It is important to be able to answer those type people.

 

[BobRyan]

"son's of God" without a doubt were the Sethites, ie, strictly speaking applied to the Godly.

"daughters of men" without a doubt refers simply indiscribinately to all "the daughters of mankind," whether Sethite or Cainite. No monsters here or fallen angels.

Old Jack's opinion

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

 

[Timothew]

Hey. I am with you Bro. But the unregenerate crowd will moan and groan about the Flood saying God is unjust to destroy in such a manner.
It is important to be able to answer those type people.

Thanks.

I would say that it wouldn't be just to allow wickedness to continue on forever. (Hmmm, another reason to reject Eternal Conscious Torture in Hell? If the wicked remain in Hell forever, then wickedness continues on forever.)

Most of all, we know for sure that the fate of the wicked is destruction and not eternal conscious torment in hell, because the Bible specifically says that the fate of the wicked is destruction and not eternal conscious torment in hell.
But transgressors shall be altogether destroyed;
the future of the wicked shall be cut off.
Psalm 37:38

 

[BobRyan]

Annihilationism is a heresy that started in restorationist circles and is today commonly found among Adventists and Jehovah's Witnesses. I absolutely believe annihilationism to be a heresy.

.

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

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.

in Christ,

Bob