Let's Talk About Hell (2)

[Timothew]

You sound like a politician evading a question...
In other words, Hillsage is right. You believe that they are temporarily awakened just to be told, "Hey you suck. So long sucker!!!"

I agree with Hilsage here, that is a bizarre concept of God's actions at the End Times.


That is exactly my reading of scripture here too. In this regard Hilsage is dead on.

(Funny how alliances shift and change with the subject. When it comes to Universalism you and I agree and disagree with Hilsage, but when it comes to annihilationism Hilsage and I agree and disagree with you.)

Obviously you are committed to a worldview that includes eternal torment in hell for non-believers. Anything anyone says or any scripture that says otherwise is pooh-poohed away.

For just as the Father raises the dead and gives them life, even so the Son gives life to whom he is pleased to give it. Moreover, the Father judges no one, but has entrusted all judgment to the Son, that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father, who sent him. “I tell you the truth, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be condemned; he has crossed over from death to life. I tell you the truth, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live. For as the Father has life in himself, so he has granted the Son to have life in himself. And he has given him authority to judge because he is the Son of Man. “Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned. By myself I can do nothing; I judge only as I hear, and my judgment is just, for I seek not to please myself but him who sent me.

And we know what the condemnation is because Paul tells us: the wages of sin is death.

So it may not make sense to you that Jesus will resurrect the just and the unjust and give eternal life to the just and refuse eternal life to the unjust, but that is what scripture says will happen.

 

[LutheranMafia]

LutheranMafia, I do have to agree with Timothew about name calling. Clearly he is not an atheist. His views on where we go right after we die may differ quite a bit from yours, but he is most certainly not an atheist. An atheist is someone who does not believe in the existence of a god or any supernatural being. Timothew clearly does.

That's beneath you Mr. Lutheran.

I didn't call him an atheist. Don't put words in my mouth. I said his disbelief in an afterlife is atheistic because his arguments sound exactly the same as an atheist's argument against afterlife. Also note what he said here:

Originally Posted by LutheranMafia

I have the same definition of death as the vast majority of people with religious and spiritual beliefs. You use the same definition of death as an atheist. Does that mean that it would be easier for you to talk to an atheist?
​

It would be, because they don't have your preconceived notions and your closed mind and your stubbornness and your refusal to see the actual definitions of words and agree to those definitions.

In other words he finds the vast majority of Christians to be stubborn and close mind as compared to those open minded atheists. That is exactly what he said, what more proof do you need that his disbelief in an afterlife is atheistic?

 

[Timothew]

I didn't call him an atheist. Don't put words in my mouth. I said his disbelief in an afterlife is atheistic because his arguments sound exactly the same as an atheist's argument against afterlife. Also note what he said here:In other words he finds the vast majority of Christians to be stubborn and close mind as compared to those open minded atheists. That is exactly what he said, what more proof do you need that his disbelief in an afterlife is atheistic?

In my view of the afterlife it is God who raises us from death.
In atheist's view of the afterlife it is NOBODY who raises us from death.
I never said the vast majority of Christians are as stubborn and close minded as you are. Really, how could they/we be? You are uniquely stubborn and close minded.
Also I said that I believe in the afterlife. How is that disbelief in an afterlife?

 

[Timothew]

My beliefs are not atheistic. Here is a short summary of my beliefs (include the asterisks):

The Nicene Creed (with scriptural references)

We believe in (Romans 10:8-10; 1John 4:15)
ONE God, (Deuteronomy 6:4, Ephesians 4:6)
the Father (Matthew 6:9)
Almighty, (Exodus 6:3)
Maker of Heaven and Earth, (Genesis 1:1)
and of all things visible and invisible. (Colossians 1:15-16)

And in ONE Lord Jesus Christ, (Acts 11:17)
the Son of God, (Mathew 14:33; 16:16)
the Only-Begotten, (John 1:18; 3:16)
Begotten of the Father before all ages. (John 1:2)
Light of Light; (Psalm 27:1; John 8:12; Matthew 17:2,5)
True God of True God; (John 17:1-5)
Begotten, not made; (John 1:18)
of one essence with the Father (John 10:30)
by whom all things were made; (Hebrews 1:1-2)
Who for us men and for our salvation (1Timothy 2:4-5)
came down from Heaven, (John 6:33,35)
and was incarnate of the Holy Spirit and the Virgin Mary, (Luke 1:35)
and became man. (John 1:14)
And was crucified for us (Mark 15:25; 1Cointhians 15:3)
under Pontius Pilate, (John 19:6)
and suffered, (Mark 8:31)
and was buried. (Luke 23:53; 1Corinthians 15:4)
And the third day He rose again, according to the Scriptures. (Luke 24:1 1Corinthians 15:4)
And ascended into Heaven, (Luke 24:51; Acts 1:10)
and sits at the right hand of the Father. (Mark 16:19; Acts 7:55)
And He shall come again with glory (Matthew 24:27)
to judge the living and the dead; (Acts 10:42; 2Timothy 4:1)
whose Kingdom shall have no end. (2 Peter 1:11)

And in the Holy Spirit, (John 14:26)
the Lord, (Acts 5:3-4)v
the Giver of Life, (Genesis 1:2)
Who proceeds from the Father; (John 15:26)
Who with the Father and the Son together is worshipped and glorified; (Matthew 3:16-17)
Who spoke through the prophets. (1 Samuel 19:20 ; Ezekiel 11:5,13)

In one, (Matthew 16: 18)
holy, (1 Peter 2:5,9)
catholic*, (Mark 16:15)
and apostolic Church. (Acts 2:42; Ephesians 2:19-22)

I acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins**. (Ephesians 4:5; Acts 2:38)
I look for the resurrection of the dead, (John 11:24; 1Corinthians 15:12-49; Hebrews 6:2; Revelation 20:5)
and the life of the world to come. (Mark 10:29-30)
AMEN. (Psalm 106:48)

*The word "catholic" (literally, "complete," "universal," or "according to the whole") refers to the universal church of the Lord Jesus Christ and not necessarily or exclusively to any particular visible denomination, institution, or doctrine.

**May be interpreted as baptism is a matter of obedience and not a requirement for salvation or as a regenerating ordinance.


Alternately you could merely read the bible to discover my beliefs.

In particular, for our discussion, notice the clause: I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Obviously you are committed to a worldview that includes eternal torment in hell for non-believers. Anything anyone says or any scripture that says otherwise is pooh-poohed away.

I have argued repeatedly to others (like gort and Lord H) against this view. I do not think that it has anything to do with belief, as I have stated repeatedly. But this is an interesting point. You believe that all non-believers will be annihilated?

So it may not make sense to you that Jesus will resurrect the just and the unjust and give eternal life to the just and refuse eternal life to the unjust, but that is what scripture says will happen.

Why is it that you put everything through loop-de-loops so that everyone else's point of view comes out twisted? What is bizarre is the notion of waking them up only to put them back to sleep for good? Why wake them up at all, why not just leave them in a state of non-existence? It doesn't make any sense.

When your notion of the Bible is paradoxical and self contradictory it is probably purely a product of a flawed interpretation.

 

[Timothew]

I have argued repeatedly to others (like gort and Lord H) against this view. I do not think that it has anything to do with belief, as I have stated repeatedly. But this is an interesting point. You believe that all non-believers will be annihilated?


Why is it that you put everything through loop-de-loops so that everyone else's point of view comes out twisted? What is bizarre is the notion of waking them up only to put them back to sleep for good? Why wake them up at all, why not just leave them in a state of non-existence? It doesn't make any sense.

When your notion of the Bible is paradoxical and self contradictory it is probably purely a product of a flawed interpretation.

What loop-de-loop? I quoted Jesus Christ and Paul.
I'm sorry that this doesn't make any sense to you.

You believe that all non-believers will be annihilated?

I won't answer this unless you rephrase the question.

 

[Timothew]

I searched the concordance for πάσχω (suffering) in all of it's forms.
There is a lot about Jesus' suffering, and a lot about the suffering that Christians are called to endure, but not a verse about the eternal suffering of the lost.

What I said before is still true.

 

[Hillsage]

The difference is that you need to face the fact that a lot of people go to Heaven, some don't even have to die to do it. If Enoch could go to Heaven without even dying, how much less unlikely is it that someone who lived a compassionate life will go to Heaven after they die? Why is it so hard for you to accept that Luke 23:43 is real?

Already proven by scripture that Enoch died. Refute Heb 11:13 or stop lying to yourself as well as others. As for "a lot of people go" where do you even come up with this stuff? Not scriptural, which is the basis I back things with. Give us one person...let alone making up "a lot of people"...which is just a lot of hooey.

You are creating your own definitions and superimposing them on what is written. To live means to have physicality.

He comes up with his own definition you say...you on the other hand come up with your own words....physicality!!!

(Funny how alliances shift and change with the subject. When it comes to Universalism you and I agree and disagree with Hilsage, but when it comes to annihilationism Hilsage and I agree and disagree with you.)

The truth can certainly make 'strange bedfellows' I agree.

TIMOTHEW,

You quote the Nicene Creed as a basis for your belief and that's OK. It is interesting to note than NONE of the Christian creeds of the early church mention anything about eternal hell. Only in later years when theology increased and Christ was replace with a vicar in the temple/church did the belief in eternal torture come to pass. For such a belief served the purposes of the church, though they never served the purposes of Christ.

 

[LutheranMafia]

I won't answer this unless you rephrase the question.

You believe that the billions of people from other religions will be annihilated simply because they don't believe in Jesus. I'm not going to ask you since you can't seem to answer a straight forward question. I'll simply state it as a fact, what you have said means that you believe billions will be resurrected to annihilation.

This is not the slightest bit better than believing in eternal torment. I believe in eternal torment for a small few who are truly psychopathic while you believe in a henious annihilation of billions of people. There is a certain irony here. Suddenly I am turned from being frustrated with Hilsage's tendency to start rattling of scripture in an out of context manner, to feeling very simpathetic with Hilsage and sorry I said what I said to him in the face of the Hitlerian belief that you hold to. Lord H and Hilsage rile against the notion of eternal torment for billions (as they have stated) and I agree with this, although I think that the likes of Hitler will undergo eternal torment. But now I find that you believe all those who do not believe in Jesus will be annihilated, and I must say, that as rude as I was with Hilsage, I am much more disgusted with this point of view that you have put forward, as exmplified by my windbag response as opposed to a my usual curt rebuttal.

Hilsage, I deeply apologize about what I said to you. The truth is dawning on me that I am much closer to your point of view than to Timothew's.

 

[LutheranMafia]

Already proven by scripture that Enoch died. Refute Heb 11:13 or stop lying to yourself as well as others.

I'm not lying to anyone, not even myself. Heb 11:5 says, "so that he did not experience death". It says it there in black and white my friend. Go and reread it. Although I must admit that I was completely unaware that this had been discussed in this thread before and if so I am baffled at why there is any question on the matter. At any rate this was not any kind of issue at all between me and Timothew, so I don't know why you are getting so hot under the cloar about it.

As for "a lot of people go" where do you even come up with this stuff? Not scriptural, which is the basis I back things with. Give us one person...

Uh, the thief in Luke 23:43...? What are you getting so upset about???

let alone making up "a lot of people"...which is just a lot of hooey.

So you are a bleeding heart liberal who believes that everyone will be saved, and then you turn around and espouse a statement of certainty that no one goes to Heaven? You don't make any sense at all, my friend.

He comes up with his own definition you say...you on the other hand come up with your own words....physicality!!!

I hate to tell you this, my friend, but physicality is most definitely a word in the English language, a language which you should become more acquainted with:

phys·i·cal·i·ty

noun \ˌfi-zə-ˈka-lə-tē\
plural phys·i·cal·i·ties
Definition of PHYSICALITY
1: intensely physical orientation : predominance of the physical usually at the expense of the mental, spiritual, or social
2: a physical aspect or quality

From Physicality - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Damn you look stupid now.

The truth can certainly make 'strange bedfellows' I agree.

Yes, and I'm sorry I sent you an olive branch, you are missing a few rocks upstairs.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

Don't worry too much Lutheran, i get angry too

 

[LutheranMafia]

Sorry, I get frustrated when people are angry with hypocrisy.

 

[Hillsage]

I'm not lying to anyone, not even myself. Heb 11:5 says, "so that he did not experience death".

I have read it and I told you what it means in light of Hebrews 11:13 which is contrary to your half truth/scripture view of 11:5...which you STILL have not addressed. You can't have a cut and paste theology and make me happy. Deal with them all or quit dealing and fold.

At any rate this was not any kind of issue at all between me and Timothew, so I don't know why you are getting so hot under the cloar about it.

You know me, just a stickler for the truth the WHOLE truth...and not just a half truth like you are presenting. So once again I ask for another verse proving 'ONE' more of these "some people who don't die and go to heaven" that you mentioned. PLEASE.

Uh, the thief in Luke 23:43...? What are you getting so upset about???

HE DIED LM...HE DIED. That was my real point, not how many go. No hypocrisy on my part ALL will eventually. No one has gone without dying. Especially in the OT before Jesus even made heaven/life available...since ALL have sinned...including Enoch.

So you are a bleeding heart liberal who believes that everyone will be saved, and then you turn around and espouse a statement of certainty that no one goes to Heaven? You don't make any sense at all, my friend.

Hopefully my explanation above helps it to make sense.

I hate to tell you this, my friend, but physicality is most definitely a word in the English language, a language which you should become more acquainted with:

I STAND CORRECTED and I apologize. It sounded wrong to me so I goggled it and came up with nothing. I apparently misspelled it. YOU ARE RIGHT!

Damn you look stupid now.
Yes, and I'm sorry I sent you an olive branch, you are missing a few rocks upstairs.

Well hopefully now I look more humble and wiser...unlike so many here who wouldn't change their theology if Jesus himself told them the same things I am. They'd yell 'false Christ' for sure.

Hilsage, I deeply apologize about what I said to you. The truth is dawning on me that I am much closer to your point of view than to Timothew's.

I'm not so sure, but the apology was nice...even though short lived...kind of a "olive branch/bed fellow quickie"...so to speak. It was good to see you try though.

 

[gort]

Thank you! Then you are better than most.

I'm sure that you agree that the Bible says in Romans that the wages of sin is death. So you agree that the results of sin is death, not eternal torment in hell. I'm sure then, that you will also agree that when John speaks of the Lake of Fire in the Book of Revelation that he means the second death that unbelievers experience, having lost out out on eternal life. I'm sure you will agree with the other John when he wrote in 1 John 5 that whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life. I'm confident that you agree that someone who does not have life cannot have eternal life being tortured in hell.

You won't insist on different definitions of the words "we" use to describe to you what the bible says. I'm sure that you won't insist that Romans 6:23 is merely speaking about some sort of "spiritual death". I'm sure that you won't twist the meaning of "eternal life" to mean something other than living for eternity.

You won't insist that I am an annihilationist, and then object that at the sub-atomic level nothing is ever really annihilated.

The wages of sin is death, it is clear enough to understand. Since the wages of sin is death and not eternal torment in hell, we know for sure that there is no eternal torment in hell. Since you won't "insist" on any other definitions, you will agree with this. Welcome aboard!

I'm still looking for annhilation in the garden of Eden. I'm not looking for a mix and match of NT and OT to parse together a plausible existence of annhilation in the garden of Eden.

I'm looking for equity from anothers demands of evidence. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.


However, if you believe that being dead is non-existence, then what was once tangible and then no longer is could term you as an annhilationist.

 

[gort]

Doesn't say anything at all about eternal torture, even in the verse you quoted in Revelations. Let me explain. God hinted at a savior and then said how they would suffer for sinning, right? I believe those who hung on to that promise and tried to please God would be judged accordingly for doing so. Hebrews 11 talks about this. However, Hebrews 11 as well as all of the New Testament, including Revelations, has to go back to what God said in the beginning. Basically, if something is true, it needs to be true now and then, forever and ever. It can be elaborated on down the road, but it cannot be something pulled out of thin air.

And the same is true for your game. Show me annhilationism in the garden of Eden. You don't get to say, " Basically, if something is true, it needs to be true now and then, forever and ever. It can be elaborated on down the road, but it cannot be something pulled out of thin air" something like this and demand something different from others.

What you're going to have to come to grips with is the fact of what the scriptures have to say; there is either eternal punishment or there is eternal life. You can try to water it down any way you want, that's fine with me. Your arguement is with the scriptures.

Hell doctrine didn't pop up until much much much later on. Judgement day is vaguely mentioned, but it is mentioned. What I'm saying is, the creation story says that people return to the dust when they die. Their spirit is returned to God. That's completely in opposition of people who reject or actively sin against God being burned forever, or even having an eternity's worth of suffering.

And where does it say their spirit returns to God in the garden of Eden?

Let me cut straight to the point. If something is supposed to happen to someone, it should be mentioned from the very beginning.

As I again cut strait to the point....annhilationism + garden of Eden= ?

The hell doctrine was introduced later on, and it actually contradicted the old way of thinking. Adam and Eve were chased away from the tree of life when they were run out of Eden. As a matter of fact, God put an angel with a flaming sword to guard the way back to the tree of life. To me, its flat out shouting that they were cut off from eternal life when they sinned against God.

You really don't think that something outside of God is really going to give eternal life like that tree, do you?

What your preaching (Eternal Torment) would mean the following also:

1.) Sin never gets destroyed since sinners will remain in torment forever. (The scriptures preach the destruction of sin by making sin to no longer exist)

That's right, the scriptures preach the destruction of sin because they death and hell get tossed into the lake of fire.

2.) Sin will get a dominion where it shall keep its subjects under its power for the rest of eternity.

scriptures don't teach that, yes?

3.) Sinners will inherit immortality (no other way to burned in fire and last forever without being immortal. Physical, meta-physical, spiritual, soul, whatever you want to coin it, it means sinners will have immortality, or in other words eternal life.).

sorry, no

4.) Sinners will receive a form of life that last the rest of eternity. (scriptures teach that the wages of sin is death)

you're getting warmer

5.) Since sin would remain because sinners will remain - it would mean that Jesus failed to destroy all the works of the devil which is sin.

you're getting colder

6.) Sin would get a victory because sin still exist in the Eternal Torment doctrine (it is never eradicated since sinners will continue to exist).

even colder

7.) It would be contradictory to the parables and teachings of Christ and represent a misunderstanding of the Spirit of God.

brrrr...you are correct, sir. As Jesus said, there is either etenal punishment or eternal life. Any other message that what Jesus said is contradictory as you state above.

Let's be honest, its a sick theology to think some people are going to be brutally tortured forever. Its not just, its not right, its not God's ways being higher than our own, its just disturbing that people eat this crap up. Its disturbing how you have a picture that says you love Jesus yet you would be willing to allow God to 'lovingly' condemn over half of humanity to something you wouldn't even want your worst enemy to suffer through. Its disturbing that you have a quote about truth and yet you're willing to twist that same truth to support an old doctrine that no reason even existing. I have no grievance with you sir, I really don't, just the theology that you support. I get mad and angry and I want to ring your theological neck, but I don't hate you. I grew up with the same beliefs.

I have to stick with the scriptures, OK? Can you possibly understand that? I don't have to twist anything to come up with a punishment of eternal wrath. I have already come to terms with it. My opinion is that you're still a young enough man that you have no idea yet the depth that sin goes down to. I'm not going to fashion God in my own image and try and tell someone else that the scriptures don't really mean eternal punishment when they do!

The ultimate question is this. What good is there in a theology that sends people who reject it into eternal torture? I'm not asking to lay it out fully before me, just tell me how God benefits in any way from doing this. Just tell me how any person benefits from doing this. What point is there? If hell is such an important foundation to Christianity, why is it barely even mentioned in regard to the whole Bible?

That's not even close to the ultimate question. Tell you what, you read the OT bible again from the start with a yellow highlighter pen. But first, you ask God to show you Jesus in the OT. When you get done, get hold of me and we'll compare notes, I've already got one chock full of yellow marks in the OT. Maybe you'll have a few I missed.

And then you can rethink that ultimte question thingy again.

Its like Hillsage said, we both know why its not there. Because it was never meant to be. Its a false doctrine.

Yeah, it was meant to be there. I'll be around...

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

If God alone is immortal, how can someone who rejects eternal life be punished literally forever?

Why do we insist that man's soul is immortal?

Why didn't the hell doctrine pop up until much later on?

What good comes from God torturing people for all eternity in hellfire?

All you've done in this post is say "I disagree, therefore its wrong." Its annoying.

Interesting link about eternal as we've interpreted it
http://www.tentmaker.org/articles/EternalPunishmentNotTrueToGreek.html

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

How do you guys interpret this?


2 Thessalonians 1

3 We ought always to thank God for you, brothers and sisters, and rightly so, because your faith is growing more and more, and the love all of you have for one another is increasing. 4 Therefore, among God’s churches we boast about your perseverance and faith in all the persecutions and trials you are enduring.
5 All this is evidence that God’s judgment is right, and as a result you will be counted worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are suffering. 6 God is just: He will pay back trouble to those who trouble you 7 and give relief to you who are troubled, and to us as well. This will happen when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven in blazing fire with his powerful angels. 8 He will punish those who do not know God and do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. 9 They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might 10 on the day he comes to be glorified in his holy people and to be marveled at among all those who have believed. This includes you, because you believed our testimony to you.

Now wait a minute, here it says they'll be punished with everlasting destruction, but in Matthew it says they'll be sent to eternal punishment. Could it be they're one and the same?

As much as I'd like to believe in the everyone is saved eventually theology, I just don't see how it can fit in with Paul being so up front about it. Remember, didn't Peter say that Paul's word was as good as their word, or something to that effect?

 

[Lysimachus]

For those of you who are interested, Dr. LeRoy Edwin Froom, Church Historian, has practically done more research on hell and death than just about any theologian I know.

For those of you interested in reading the books, you can read them for free online here:

Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers -- a 2 Volume set of about 2,476 pages. Make sure to first download the DJVU plugin first to be able to view the books. If you want to see them in color format, make sure you click the versions that end with "_C", and it would be "_B" for Black and White.

Protestant teachers from all over the world appeal to LeRoy Froom's work, even though he was a Seventh-Day Adventist. His research stands on its own two feet.

The Conditionalist Faith of Our Fathers is a masterpiece collection!

Blessings!

Lysimachus

 

[createdtoworship]

You're missing the entire point sir. You're caught up in whether or not God would kill them right then and there. I've asked repeatedly, three times if I remember correctly, about what would happen to Adam and Eve if they hadn't ate of the tree of knowledge. Don't ignore this question as its pretty important. You insist that they only died a spiritual death. I ask in return, why are we all dying if physical death wasn't included as a punishment for sin? Why do we age and die? We can explain it scientifically, but why does it happen to us?

You're saying I'm wrong but you won't even answer why I'm wrong other than the fact it disagrees with your notions. I've given examples of promises of physical death that didn't occur right away. I've given the example of Abimelech twice now. How many times do I have to keep providing examples of eternal suffering not even being in the Torah? You say you agree with the translators decision to keep "that" in there, but you ignore all the other translations that don't use "that" and instead simply say "you will surely die" which is what the KJV also says. For crying out loud, the New Testament is reaffirming this by saying the wages of sin is death. How much clearer do I have to be?

I'm wrong because you say I'm wrong. I may be wrong about a lot, but I'm less wrong than you are on this one matter. I just can't see how you can stand behind your beliefs so steadfastly when I'm pulling up evidence saying otherwise.

Adams fall caused spiritual death and physical death but the judgment mentioned was the spiritual death only.

 

[Lord Herdsetk]

Gradyll, read my post about 2 Thessalonians 1. It pertains to the eternal punishment part of the argument.

Back to the fall now. I can accept that a spiritual death occurred in man because of sin. How does it explain us aging and dying though? Physical death is real. How we die has been explained already. We die in several different how's. Why do we die though if the judgement was only mentioning spiritual death? It doesn't say "If you eat of the tree of knowledge you shall spiritually die." It just says (in the day that you eat of the fruit or as soon as you eat of the fruit) you shall surely die.