Re-Thinking Hell

[P1LGR1M]

And I will say up front that I reject the modern Arminian error that man has an inherent ability in his natural state to understand the spiritual things of God.

Okay. However, that's not even in the same ballpark as what I had requested.

Actually it is, and sadly it is likely you will never understand why.

I'll try anyway: if you do not understand how men are Eternally Redeemed you are never going to understand how men are Eternally Damned.

When you understand the difference between being alive and dead and being Eternally Redeemed as opposed to still dead you will understand why Eternal Judgment is just that: Eternal Judgment.

Not universal salvation.

Not annihilation.

Everlasting Separation, Torment, Judgment, and Punishment.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

I'm pretty fair about it: I think both sides are wrong.

Okay.

Glad you agree.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

~ MISCELLANY ~

Okay.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

And this is relevant to what I said...how?

It's not relevant at all—and it wasn't addressed to you.

Actually, it was.

When you post two members' statements together you correlate them.

If you do not mean to correlate them then you need to do separate posts.

Squiggly lines do not separate them.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

If you go back to that post, you will see three consecutive little tilde signs, center-aligned in the post (~~~), marking the transition from talking to you to addressing someone else.

Again, when you post two members' statements in one post it is usually for the purpose of correlating what they have said.

What you think means a transition doesn't change the fact that you grouped me in with a member that I am in direct conflict of doctrine with, and I doubt they appreciated being lumped in with me any more than I appreciated being quoted with them.


Continued...

 

[wendykvw]

Why would anyone have any interest in assertions without biblical support?
If there is no support for them then the assertions would be seen as lacking fidelity to the truth.
There is only one way to eternal life. That way is through the cross of Christ. All other paths lead to eternal destruction.
I would posit that those who seek to create a false path to eternal life such as re-thinking hell are really creating for themselves an escape route around the truth of scripture.

My faith is based on the finished work of Christ. Scripture is my authority, including church history and traditions of the early Eastern Patristic Church.

 

[P1LGR1M]

I have made a case that pretty much everything this member teaches is false.

Again, wasn't addressed to you.

It was.

And I will just end with both of these quotes.

Here's a good one: "Rethinking Hell is like Martin Luther rethinking grace." (Close quote, possibly, but covers the intent of what was said).

Okay. But, again, completely irrelevant to what I had requested of you.

It isn't irrelevant: we hold opposing positions and this is just an example of the rationalization of Bible Doctrine instead of serious interpretative efforts.

"Rethinking Hell" is not like Martin Luther rethinking grace (which he never did), it is like rethinking gender.

It is taking something that is so basic to Bible Doctrine and trying to negate the basic truths taught in Scripture.

Just like trying to say a man is not a man or a woman is not a woman because someone decides they do not like that truth.

If Everlasting Judgment were not everlasting, there would be Scriptural presentations as to why this is not the case. And all we see are verses pulled out of context in such manner that not even junior high English students would fail to see the conflict.

Oh, and we also see temper tantrums, lol.

My bad, don't want to misrepresent anyone.


God bless.

 

[wendykvw]

Repeat cancel.

 

[David's Harp]

@P1LGR1M I had tried exploring the issue of fear itself in posts #81 & #89 here: The decline of hell doctrine and church attendance
What I'm wondering is do you see fear as something that has different aspects? Also how does that line up with 1 John 4:18?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Correct, I was not basing my claim on confessions or catechisms.

Okay, well, then please understand that your three claims badly misrepresented a Reformed view.

Claim 1: "For the Protestants with a Reformed view (Calvinism), everything was finished at Calvary. They believe it takes no effort on our part to become purified." This is false. Progressive sanctification is a synergistic work that involves our repentance and faith as God conforms us to the image of Christ Jesus "from one degree of glory to another" (2 Corinthians 3:18). Both parties have their role. Scripture encourages the church to "continue working out your salvation with awe and reverence, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Philippians 2:12-13). The puppet-on-a-string caricature is very old and remains false.

Claim 2: "Those of a Reformed view see salvation as determined by God, and not by human will." This is also false. Salvation is determined by God AND by human will. We are commanded again and again to repent, believe, choose, trust, etc., all of which are acts of the will. "Salvation" is a large umbrella term that includes monergistic and synergistic elements; some things strictly God does (e.g., election), other things strictly we do (e.g., sin), and still others both God and we do (e.g., being made holy). That is what Protestants with a Reformed view believe.

Claim 3: "[Calvinist type] Protestants have a very light view of sin." This one literally surprised me, given the criticism that Calvinism usually receives for its doctrine of total depravity. Calvinists absolutely do not have a very light view of sin. They, more than any other Christians, make the most noise about human sin (especially reflected in the five solas).

 

[wendykvw]

Okay, well, then please understand that your three claims badly misrepresented a Reformed view.

Claim 1: "For the Protestants with a Reformed view (Calvinism), everything was finished at Calvary. They believe it takes no effort on our part to become purified." This is false. Progressive sanctification is a synergistic work that involves our repentance and faith as God conforms us to the image of Christ Jesus "from one degree of glory to another" (2 Corinthians 3:18). Both parties have their role. Scripture encourages the church to "continue working out your salvation with awe and reverence, for the one bringing forth in you both the desire and the effort—for the sake of his good pleasure—is God" (Philippians 2:12-13). The puppet-on-a-string caricature is very old and remains false.

Claim 2: "Those of a Reformed view see salvation as determined by God, and not by human will." This is also false. Salvation is determined by God AND by human will. We are commanded again and again to repent, believe, choose, trust, etc., all of which are acts of the will. "Salvation" is a large umbrella term that includes monergistic and synergistic elements; some things strictly God does (e.g., election), other things strictly we do (e.g., sin), and still others both God and we do (e.g., being made holy). That is what Protestants with a Reformed view believe.

Claim 3: "[Calvinist type] Protestants have a very light view of sin." This one literally surprised me, given the criticism that Calvinism usually receives for its doctrine of total depravity. Calvinists absolutely do not have a very light view of sin. They, more than any other Christians, make the most noise about human sin (especially reflected in the five solas).

Thank you for clearing up the misconceptions. Do you also agree with the five points of Tulip? Are there different versions of Calvinism? Are there any versions of Calvinism that reject free will?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Okay, so let's "think" about this:

Okay, let's.

You "think" that because something is in the Beigic Confession of Faith that I should automatically "think" the Belgic Confession of Faith has the truth of all matters?

No. I mean, where did that even come from? I neither said that, nor could anything I did say even be construed as implying it. Ergo, you couldn't get further away from what I actually said if you tried.

[Do you think] that it is relevant to anything I have said?

No. And it's also not relevant to anything I said. Your entire deflection here is incredibly confused.

Am I supposed to "think" that because you can't find something in an extrabiblical source that it is relevant?

Relevant? No. Related? Yeah, a bit. There are only two sources in my experience to have made a similar claim, the Belgic Confession of Faith and you. Since the Confession had zero biblical support for its claim, I was sincerely hoping that the only other source for this species of claim—that'd be you—would have at least some biblical support.

(But this hope imposes no obligation on you. If your view is not based on Scripture, so be it. To each their own before God.)

I'm thinking you should probably stop using the Belgic Confession of Faith as a standard of measure for Bible Doctrine.

Nobody uses the Confession as a standard for biblical doctrine. Even the Confession itself says, "We receive [the 66 canonical] books and these only as holy and canonical, for the regulating, founding, and establishing of our faith." It is simply an expression of biblical doctrines. I hope you know the difference between an expression of doctrines and a standard thereof.

[That the damned will receive bodies suited to eternal torment] is simply a basic Bible doctrine, taught in Scripture both explicitly and explicitly.

Great. Where?

You say I have given you no support for my view yet you ignored what was given to you so far.

I did not ignore what you provided. I quoted it and dealt with it. That puts the ball in your court. Please interact with my criticism. But don't pretend I didn't give any.

... the Scripture given so far was only meant to be a beginning to the discussion.

Indeed. And the discussion did begin. I asked for biblical support, you provided what you thought was biblical support, I critically evaluated it, and that put the ball in your court. Let's finish dealing with those initial scriptures before appealing to more.

I am breaking this up so that you will not have opportunity to miss a single thing I say this time.

I have missed nothing of what you said. Just because I don't include every single word and instance of punctuation when I quote you, that doesn't mean I was ignoring anything. If you feel that I failed to quote or address something terribly important, simply tell me: "I said X. You didn't quote it or seem to interact with it. Please do." And then I can do so. Or I can carefully explain how my response did interact with it.

I guess you don't get around much?

Not too much, nope. Just an average blue-collar Joe raising a family in a small town. If there are other sources which teach that the damned will receive everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment—and your remark here seems to imply that there are—then please let me know.

Here is my initial response: ...

I already addressed your reference to Revelation 20:11-15. Please interact with what I said.

So, I ask you again, what does it mean that the dead are raised to life again? Just to be annihilated in the Lake of Fire? Where do we see that in Scripture? What we see is that the spirits of the dead are in Hades, and they "lived again" according to Revelation 20:5 after the thousand years are over.

Why are you asking me questions? I requested biblical support for your claim that the damned will receive everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment. One of the passages you cited was Revelation 20:11-15. I critically evaluated that. Please interact with that evaluation. Yes, the damned are resurrected, judged, and thrown into the lake of fire. Where do those passages refer to the kind of body that the damned receieve?

And you have found this nowhere but in the Belgic Confession of Faith? Please answer the question this time.

I am requesting the scriptural proofs supporting your particular view, which I understand to be somewhat different from the view expressed in the Confession—which was merely of passing historical interest at any rate (i.e., it was the only other place I've seen a claim like yours). I can't figure out why you're spilling so much ink over something of extremely limited interest and relevance (except as deflection, which I hope is not the case). Move past this, please. We're talking about your claim, derived from your view, allegedly drawn from Scripture.

I gave you a scriptural proof—Revelation 20:11-15 and Revelation 20:5—which shows that the dead, those who do not have the life of Christ and are not part of the kingdom of God, are raised to physical life again.

I know, and I acknowledged that in my critique. Again, you gave me scriptural proofs for the damned being (a) resurrected and (b) thrown into the lake of fire, points which were not in question. What I asked for is scriptural proofs for the damned receiving everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment.

When the tribulation martyrs are raised, they are raised in such a way that they live for a thousand years. This suggests that it is at this time that they are glorified. They are given bodies suited for their eternal destiny.

Assuming a premillennial eschatology, there is clear and ample scriptural proofs for the saints being "given bodies suited for their eternal destiny." Where is the clear and ample scriptural proofs for the damned receiving everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment?

When the dead are raised a thousand years later it is implicit in the text that they too are raised in bodies suited to their eternal destinies.

Where? In Revelation 20:11-15, or perhaps Revelation 20:5? Where does the text imply that? Let's get into the textual exegesis of the Greek text.

For example, "The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were ended." As you say, this is not where the discussion ends but rather where it begins, so let's begin here. Where, in this text you cited, is anything implied about the nature of their resurrected bodies? There are Greek interlinear Bibles online we can both access. Let's get into this.

The first thing you should have done is answer my question. So you can decide if you want to talk with me, or at me, it makes no difference to me. I can make this a discussion either way. Quite a bit more enjoyable, though, if it is in fact a discussion. We are wasting a lot of time due to the nature of your response, but, that's okay.

The irony is so thick you can cut it with a knife.

So answer my question: Why are the dead raised to physical life again?

Your question here seeks an answer involving my beliefs. However, we are not discussing my beliefs but rather yours—specifically, where Scripture says that the damned will receive everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment.

Well, you can use the Belgic Confession of Faith as your standard and I will use the Bible for mine.

Again, literally nobody uses the Confession as a standard for biblical doctrine. It's a credo of what us Reformed folk believe, the truths we confess, not the basis for those beliefs. The Confession itself points to what the standard is—the 66 canonical books of the enscripturated word of God. This is now twice I've had to make this point. (To be more precise, the Confession forms a part of our official statements of doctrine, the other two being the Heidelberg Catechism and the Canons of Dort, collectively the Three Forms of Unity.)

And I'm still waiting for you to use the Bible for yours.

You refused to address the Scripture presented to you as a beginning to the discussion.

This is verifiably an unmitigated falsehood. As everyone (except you?) can see, I have addressed all four of your biblical citations, two of them now twice. And you have not responded to that criticism—which, again, is verifiable.

I am surprised, I would think the Belgic Confession of Faith would define what a principle is in a Theological Debate.

Then you are astonishingly unfamiliar with not only the Confession but also the nature of confessions generally. Anyone halfway familiar with Reformed confessions, even if only this one, would not expect it define that.

And, again, this has nothing to do with the Belgic Confession of Faith in the first place. This is about your views. Stop deflecting.

I'll give you an example of what kind of principle I mean: ... [insert several verses of Scripture, from Hebrews 5:10 to Hebrews 6:2].

Given the context of this passage and the link to the Strong's entry on the relevant term, you're essentially saying, "Yes, by ‘principle’ I mean an article of faith or a fundamental doctrine or tenet" (i.e., basic, rudimentary).

Now, since I very clearly anticipated that response, let's review the remainder of what I said:

ME: Where in Scripture does it say that the damned will receive bodies suited to eternal torment?

YOU: It’s a basic doctrine that most students of Scripture understand.​

Well, sure, I can see that it is, yes. But back to my question, please.

You identified this as a biblical doctrine and I replied, "Great, where does Scripture say this?" And your response to that is, "It's a basic doctrine." Yes, I am not questioning the "basic doctrine" part, I am questioning the "biblical" part. So, maybe let's move past the fact that it's a basic doctrine and get to the part about it being biblical (i.e., the scriptural proofs).

Here is a "first principle" of the resurrection of the Dead and of Eternal Judgment: Daniel 12:1-2 ...

Okay, this passage tells us that some of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake "to shame and everlasting contempt." Again, this is a scriptural proof for the resurrection of the damned—which, as I have repeatedly indicated, is not in question. Like the other four passages you have cited thus far (and haven't engaged my critique thereof), this one likewise says nothing about the nature of the resurrected bodies of the damned. Are they everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment? This passage doesn't speak to that.

We are up to five biblical citations now and they are all about the damned being resurrected or being thrown into the lake of fire, points which were not in question.

And here is a more complete teaching: Matthew 25:31-34, 41, 46.

And does this passage address the nature of the resurrected bodies of the damned? You know it doesn't.

Yes, the goats will be put on his left side and he'll send them away, cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. You're thinking that this is involves eternal conscious torment and that the damned will have been given everlasting bodies suited to that. Is that a conclusion you drew from this text? If so, how? Please demonstrate the textual exegesis. (This involves an argument, not merely quoting the passage.)

While one might rationalize this to mean annihilation, they must equally conclude that the Eternal Life that everlasting punishment is contrasted with isn't everlasting either.

I am asking about your view. Since you're not an annihilationist, what they believe is not relevant.

So the next question I would ask at this point is this: is the "everlasting" of Daniel 12:2 and Matthew 25:46 everlasting or isn't it?

Neither "everlasting contempt" nor "everlasting punishment" tells us that the damned receive everlasting bodies suited to that. While everlasting bodies is just one of the ways that God could sustain them in that infernal state, your claim is that Scripture identifies this as the way he does so. But where?

Second question: is it not made clear in Matthew 25 that the foolish virgins and the Goats do not enter into the Kingdom of God?

Let's suppose we have agreed that the goats do not enter the kingdom of God. Does that tell us the nature of their resurrected bodies?

No.

Third question: Is the unprofitable servant annihilated when he is cast into outer darkness? Matthew 25:30 ...

Again with annihilation. What does this have to do with your view?

Wait, are you under the impression that proving annihilationism to be unbiblical establishes your view as biblical?

Most that read this chapter do not come to a conclusion other than both of the two resurrections Christ teaches are everlasting: John 5:29 ...

This is now, what, the sixth or seventh Bible passage you have cited? Are you familiar with the well-known debate tactic known as a Gish gallop? It's what you're doing. You began this discussion by citing four Bible passages. I addressed those four in my reply—which you never engaged. (Anyone can scroll back and verify that.) Instead, here you are tacking on several more in a long stream of posts, without ever demonstrating that the FIRST four passages established what you claimed.

Maybe set these additional passages aside until we have resolved the first four in some fashion—beginning with you engaging my response to them.

Fourth question: why would eternal life be everlasting and not damnation when those are the only two resurrections taught by Christ, the apostles, and the scriptures as a whole?

Let's assume that the punishment of the damned is eternal conscious torment. Isn't there more than one way God could sustain them in that state? Where does Scripture say that he does it by giving the damned everlasting bodies suited to eternal torment?

Fifth question: Why are the dead resurrected to physical life before being cast into the lake of fire?

If you have the answer and it is relevant, please provide it. We are exploring your allegedly biblical view—which involves a host of things I disagree with, including premillennialist eschatology—so questions inquiring about my view are a red herring I will not chase.

If you had addressed the Scripture and the points made we would be having a fine discussion right now.

I did. The ball has been in your court since then. It's your move. Please make it.

Why didn't you respond to the point concerning the resurrection of the dead?

I did. Why didn't you respond to what I said there about it?

Question: do you think that Satan and his demons will, as Scripture states here, be tormented day and night forever?

Second question: on what basis would you deny that the Beast and the False Prophet—who were cast into the Lake of Fire one thousand years before this—are also tormented day and night forever?

Third question: on what basis would you deny that the goats and the rest of the dead that are raised again to physical life before being cast into the Lake of Fire are also tormented day and night forever and ever?

Fourth question: does not everlasting torment described in Scripture correlate to fire not being quenched, the worm not dying, and the wailing and gnashing of teeth that are described by Christ?

Stop asking questions that seek an answer involving my beliefs. We are discussing your views, not mine.

... but we'll discuss that more. I am trying to make these posts as short as possible to make it easier for you to respond.

I came home to discover 36 posts from you addressed to me. Thirty-six! Exactly how is that easier for me to respond?

It's not. Gish gallops are not loving, respectful, or charitable.

P.S. This is as far as I got. I have no idea how many more posts of yours there are to wade through, but an hour and a half of my time is all you are getting tonight.

I doubt that very much. If you were "hoping I had it," you would have addressed the response instead of throwing a temper tantrum.

Sigh. Did you really just stoop to that level?

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

Thank you for clearing up the misconceptions.

Cheers.

Do you also agree with the five points of TULIP?

Yes. Those are derived from the Canons of Dort, which forms a part of the official statements of Reformed doctrine that our covenant community confesses. There are three altogether—the Belgic Confession of Faith, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort—and they are collectively the Three Forms of Unity.

Are there different versions of Calvinism?

Yes. For example, there are those who are Reformed and others who are Presbyterian. (Their confessional statements are the Westminster Standards—the Westminster Confession of Faith, Larger Catechism, and Shorter Catechism.) Examples could be multiplied but this sufficiently proves the point.

Are there any versions of Calvinism that reject free will?

That's a theological landmine. Depending on how you define free-will, the answer could range from "none of them reject it" to "all of them reject it."

Defined in terms of libertarianism, all forms of Calvinism reject it (because it's stained with the Pelagian heresy).

 

[Receivedgrace]

My faith is based on the finished work of Christ. Scripture is my authority, including church history and traditions of the early Eastern Patristic Church.

Scripture is written by God and inspired. Scripture is truth given by God that we have all we need to live righteous and holy lives for His Glory.
2Ti 3:17 That the man of God may be perfect, thoroughly furnished unto all good works.
Church history other than that given in the bible is written by men. It lacks God's inspiration and inerrancy. Traditions old or new are subject to and very much reflect the errors of the men that teach them.

 

[FineLinen]

If you do not understand how men are Eternally Redeemed you are never going to understand how men are Eternally Damned.

Redemption out of ABBA is a manifold experience of becoming one with Him. He is the Origin & Consummation of the radical all of His creation.

Aidios krisis is a figment of your imagination! Our God loses nothing, not remnant pieces of bread & fish, & most assuredly the broken lives of those for whom He is the High Priest of reconciliation.

Yah is the Beginning & Ending of ta panta.

 

[P1LGR1M]

@P1LGR1M I had tried exploring the issue of fear itself in posts #81 & #89 here: The decline of hell doctrine and church attendance
What I'm wondering is do you see fear as something that has different aspects? Also how does that line up with 1 John 4:18?

I did see at least one of those posts and meant to get to it and make a comment or two but have been running a little behind in y responses.

I will take a look at them, hopefully, after I address the alerts in order.

I will say at this time that while we all know that a "reverential awe" is often the "type" of fear that we, Christians are supposed to hold to, I think we limit the Scripture's intent by trying to "tone down" fear as applied to men in regards to how they view God.

In other words, yes, we do hold God in reverent awe, but at the same time we do not forget that there is a reason to fear God Who after He has determined to end the life of someone in the physical realm—is able to destroy both the person (their conscious being) and their body (their physical being) in Hell.

And that fear motivates our concern for our neighbor.

That this is ridiculed by others and held in derision is shocking.

For the unbeliever it should be sheer terror. I know in my own conversion it was and having spoken to others it seems there is a pattern among those who have turned to Christ to escape judgment.

I will never forget that morning, after being dragged to a church, I heard the Gospel preached and great fear fell on me. I was shaking and sweating, but ten men could not have kept me from going forward to fall on my knees before God to ask Him to forgive me.

And I will be honest, that fear did not completely leave in my early walk with Christ. While I did have a peace concerning my eternal destiny, that peace was marred by an uncertainty of doctrine. I used to keep a radio on my jobsites and I listened to preaching all day long, trying to learn more than I could by the three weekly services available to me from the fellowship I attended (Southern Baptist, and not the one I was saved out of, but the one I was baptized in).

One day it dawned on me that the preachers on the radio were not all teaching the same thing. Some said Salvation was everlasting, some said it was not. It shocked me, literally, that not all preachers taught the same thing.

So there was fear concerning loss of salvation. One thing I knew is that if salvation was up to me—I was in big trouble, lol.

It would take years before my heart was settled on the issue, and I am happy to report that I now understand the Gospel and that I understand that salvation is and always will be dependent on what Christ did, not what I do. That does not mean I think I can do what I want (another unfortunate form of derision used to deny a Bible Doctrine), simply that I know that in regards to being righteous Christ is my only hope.

But I still fear Hell, and I fear the God that will have no choice but to judge those that reject His will. It is not just reverent awe, it is an acknowledgment of His holiness and justice.

I fear for those who are blinded to the Gospel.

I fear for those who resist the Spirit of Grace.

I even fear for those who teach false doctrine. Some of them, I know, are sincere in their beliefs. But most will not take into consideration some very basic truth. When you can show someone something that is so obviously in error and they fail to recognize that error—it makes you wonder why. And it makes you have fear for their destiny.

So the "fear" we see spoken of in Scripture is not, in my view, merely a matter of reverent awe, but is defined by Scripture itself.

If God speaks against those who have "no fear" of Him and gives a context that is easy to understand—


Psalm 2:11
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.


Jeremiah 2:19
Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts.


Romans 3:18
There is no fear of God before their eyes.


2 Corinthians 5:10-11
King James Version

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


Jude 1:23
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.


One of my favorite verses:


Malachi 3:16
King James Version

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.


Scripture defines fear for us, and gives us the example and fate of those who do—and those that do not.

The wicked do not lack reverential awe for God, they lack fear.

How much more should those that recognize and acknowledge God's great power fear? How much more should we fear for those whose eyes the god of this world has blinded?

If John the Apostle can fall down on his face as dead before God, is there one among us who thinks he or she will not? Is it not for God to say "Fear not?"

So when we see men and women actively teaching the lost "There is no need of fear for God" because God is love—we see a departure from what we should be telling men and women.

I do not view Christ as giving an appeal to reverential awe here:


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Luke 12:4-5
King James Version

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


Only God can remove the fear, yet we have men and women seeking to stand in that position, to remove fear that is commanded by Christ.

While God removes fear from our lives as we know Him better, there is never a cancellation of man's need to fear God in Scripture. If anyone had a reason not to fear, it would be John the Apostle, and he maintained what I view as a fear of God that is taught in Scripture to the end of his days:


Revelation 1:17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:


In this time of judgment there will be no one that will not fear, and a question is asked:


Revelation 15:4
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.


R.C. Sproul rightly said, "The holiness of God is traumatic to unholy people."

When we recognize the holiness of God and the condition we now live in, is there reason for us—not to fear?

When we get so comfortable with sin that we can go out and tell people they have no need of fear we have departed from a Basic Bible Principle that even those with no fear of God can recognize. How can they not despise a people that is called to be holy who minimize the holiness of their own God?

And we wonder why, in our country, people have changed from being a people with a fear of God to people who post stickers on the back of their cars saying "No Fear."

But they will show fear when someone blows up buildings. They will increase "church attendance" for a little while, and stand unified, so who are they fearing?

And Who is it that we are to fear?

Okay, that's probably more than you wanted to hear, lol.

God bless.

 

[DamianWarS]

It is very enticing to claim that the Christian concept of "Hell" was somehow derived from Dante's 14th century writing “Inferno,” or some later writing.

OT Sheol is an indiscriminate place of ignorance that all must pass through. It's like a door that you pass through upon death but you don't know what's on the other side. Jews adopted greek concepts of the afterlife during the Hellenization period and this is where you see works like the book of Echo come from which influenced books like Dante's Inferno. What's interesting to me about these names is they are myth based. Gehenna is Jewish mythology, Hades and Tartarus are Greek mythology and "Hell" is Norse mythology. Biblically speaking it seems to borrow words to carry it's concepts. Tartarus is a place where the titans are bound, the bible uses to show where angels are bound. Hades is a greek God and an indiscriminate place of the dead the bible uses it to show we may be saved from it. I don't know what the place is like or how clear it can be described in physical terms but what is clear is it is an unwanted place that we can be saved from.

 

[Der Alte]

OT Sheol is an indiscriminate place of ignorance that all must pass through. It's like a door that you pass through upon death but you don't know what's on the other side. Jews adopted greek concepts of the afterlife during the Hellenization period and this is where you see works like the book of Echo come from which influenced books like Dante's Inferno. What's interesting to me about these names is they are myth based. Gehenna is Jewish mythology, Hades and Tartarus are Greek mythology and "Hell" is Norse mythology. Biblically speaking it seems to borrow words to carry it's concepts. Tartarus is a place where the titans are bound, the bible uses to show where angels are bound. Hades is a greek God and an indiscriminate place of the dead the bible uses it to show we may be saved from it. I don't know what the place is like or how clear it can be described in physical terms but what is clear is it is an unwanted place that we can be saved from.

While much of this is probably true, in some sense, if one wants to know what a particular culture believed about something such as "hell" the best source would be something written by historical writers of that culture.
[1]1925 Jewish Encyclopedia, Gehenna
The place where children were sacrificed to the god Moloch … in the "valley of the sons of Hinnom," to the south of Jerusalem (Josh. xv. 8, passim; II Kings xxiii. 10; Jer. ii. 23; vii. 31-32; xix. 6, 13-14). … the valley was deemed to be accursed, and "Gehenna" therefore soon became a figurative equivalent for "hell." Hell, like paradise, was created by God (Sotah 22a);
[“Soon” in this paragraph would be about 700 BC +/-, DA]
Note: This is according to the ancient Jews, long before the Christian era, NOT any assumed/alleged bias of “modern” Christian translators. DA
…..This refutes the false narrative that the eleven [11] times Jesus mentioned “Gehenna” He was referring to the valley of Ge Hinnom/Gehenna where trash and bodies were supposedly always burning. It never happened.
”(I)n general …sinners go to hell immediately after their death. The famous teacher Johanan b. Zakkai [30 BC-90 AD] wept before his death because he did not know whether he would go to paradise or to hell (Ber. 28b). The pious go to paradise, and sinners to hell(B.M. 83b).
“But as regards the heretics, etc., and Jeroboam, Nebat's son, hell shall pass away, but they shall not pass away" (R. H. 17a; comp. Shab [Talmud]. 33b). All that descend into Gehenna shall come up again, with the exception of three classes of men: those who have committed adultery, or shamed their neighbors, or vilified them (B. M. 58b).[/i]
“… heretics and the Roman oppressors go to Gehenna, and the same fate awaits the Persians, the oppressors of the Babylonian Jews (Ber. 8b).[Talmud] “When Nebuchadnezzar descended into hell, [שאול/Sheol] all its inhabitants were afraid that he was coming to rule over them (Shab. 149a; [Talmud] comp. Isa. xiv. 9-10). The Book of Enoch [x. 6, xci. 9, etal] also says that it is chiefly the heathen who are to be cast into the fiery pool on the Day of Judgment (x. 6, xci. 9, et al). "The Lord, the Almighty, will punish them on the Day of Judgment by putting fire and worms into their flesh, so that they cry out with pain unto all eternity" (Judith xvi. 17). The sinners in Gehenna will be filled with pain when God puts back the souls into the dead bodies on the Day of Judgment, according to Isa. xxxiii. 11 (Sanh. 108b)[Talmud].
Link: Jewish Encyclopedia Online
Note, scripture references are highlighted in blue.
= = = = = = = = = =
[2]1972 Encyclopedia Judaica:
Gehinnom (Heb. גֵּי בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּי בְנֵי הִנֹּם, גֵּיא בֶן־הִנֹּם, גֵּיא הִנֹּם; Gr. Γέεννα; "Valley of Ben-Hinnom, Valley of [the Son (s) of] Hinnom," Gehenna), a valley south of Jerusalem on one of the borders between the territories of Judah and Benjamin, between the Valley of *Rephaim and *En-Rogel (Josh. 15:8; 18:16). It is identified with Wadi er-Rababi.
…..During the time of the Monarchy, Gehinnom, at a place called Topheth, was the site of a cult which involved the burning of children (II Kings 23:10; Jer. 7:31; 32:35 et al.; ). Jeremiah repeatedly condemned this cult and predicted that on its account Topheth and the Valley of the Son of Hinnom would be called the Valley of the "Slaughter" (Jer. 19:5–6).
In Judaism the name Gehinnom is generally used as an appellation of the place of torment reserved for the wicked after death. The New Testament used the Greek form Gehenna in the same sense.
Link:
Gehinnom
http://www.jevzajcg.me/enciklopedia/Encyclopaedia Judaica, v. 07 (Fey-Gor).pdf
= = = = = = = = = =
[3]Talmud -Tractate Rosh Hashanah Chapter 1.
The school of Hillel says: . . . but as for Minim, [i.e. followers of Jesus] informers and disbelievers, who deny the Torah, or Resurrection, or separate themselves from the congregation, or who inspire their fellowmen with dread of them, or who sin and cause others to sin, as did Jeroboam the son of Nebat and his followers, they all descend to Gehenna, and are judged there from generation to generation, as it is said [Isa. lxvi. 24]:
"And they shall go forth and look upon the carcases of the men who have transgressed against Me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched." Even when Gehenna will be destroyed, they will not be consumed, as it is written[Psalms, xlix. 15]: "And their forms wasteth away in the nether world," which the sages comment upon to mean that their forms shall endure even when the grave is no more.
Concerning them Hannah says [I Sam. ii. 10]: "The adversaries of the Lord shall be broken to pieces."
Link: Tract Rosh Hashana: Chapter I.

 

[David's Harp]

I did see at least one of those posts and meant to get to it and make a comment or two but have been running a little behind in y responses.

I will take a look at them, hopefully, after I address the alerts in order.

I will say at this time that while we all know that a "reverential awe" is often the "type" of fear that we, Christians are supposed to hold to, I think we limit the Scripture's intent by trying to "tone down" fear as applied to men in regards to how they view God.

In other words, yes, we do hold God in reverent awe, but at the same time we do not forget that there is a reason to fear God Who after He has determined to end the life of someone in the physical realm—is able to destroy both the person (their conscious being) and their body (their physical being) in Hell.

And that fear motivates our concern for our neighbor.

That this is ridiculed by others and held in derision is shocking.

For the unbeliever it should be sheer terror. I know in my own conversion it was and having spoken to others it seems there is a pattern among those who have turned to Christ to escape judgment.

I will never forget that morning, after being dragged to a church, I heard the Gospel preached and great fear fell on me. I was shaking and sweating, but ten men could not have kept me from going forward to fall on my knees before God to ask Him to forgive me.

And I will be honest, that fear did not completely leave in my early walk with Christ. While I did have a peace concerning my eternal destiny, that peace was marred by an uncertainty of doctrine. I used to keep a radio on my jobsites and I listened to preaching all day long, trying to learn more than I could by the three weekly services available to me from the fellowship I attended (Southern Baptist, and not the one I was saved out of, but the one I was baptized in).

One day it dawned on me that the preachers on the radio were not all teaching the same thing. Some said Salvation was everlasting, some said it was not. It shocked me, literally, that not all preachers taught the same thing.

So there was fear concerning loss of salvation. One thing I knew is that if salvation was up to me—I was in big trouble, lol.

It would take years before my heart was settled on the issue, and I am happy to report that I now understand the Gospel and that I understand that salvation is and always will be dependent on what Christ did, not what I do. That does not mean I think I can do what I want (another unfortunate form of derision used to deny a Bible Doctrine), simply that I know that in regards to being righteous Christ is my only hope.

But I still fear Hell, and I fear the God that will have no choice but to judge those that reject His will. It is not just reverent awe, it is an acknowledgment of His holiness and justice.

I fear for those who are blinded to the Gospel.

I fear for those who resist the Spirit of Grace.

I even fear for those who teach false doctrine. Some of them, I know, are sincere in their beliefs. But most will not take into consideration some very basic truth. When you can show someone something that is so obviously in error and they fail to recognize that error—it makes you wonder why. And it makes you have fear for their destiny.

So the "fear" we see spoken of in Scripture is not, in my view, merely a matter of reverent awe, but is defined by Scripture itself.

If God speaks against those who have "no fear" of Him and gives a context that is easy to understand—


Psalm 2:11
Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.


Jeremiah 2:19
Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the Lord thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord God of hosts.


Romans 3:18
There is no fear of God before their eyes.


2 Corinthians 5:10-11
King James Version

10 For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ; that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad.

11 Knowing therefore the terror of the Lord, we persuade men; but we are made manifest unto God; and I trust also are made manifest in your consciences.


Jude 1:23
And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh.


One of my favorite verses:


Malachi 3:16
King James Version

16 Then they that feared the Lord spake often one to another: and the Lord hearkened, and heard it, and a book of remembrance was written before him for them that feared the Lord, and that thought upon his name.


Scripture defines fear for us, and gives us the example and fate of those who do—and those that do not.

The wicked do not lack reverential awe for God, they lack fear.

How much more should those that recognize and acknowledge God's great power fear? How much more should we fear for those whose eyes the god of this world has blinded?

If John the Apostle can fall down on his face as dead before God, is there one among us who thinks he or she will not? Is it not for God to say "Fear not?"

So when we see men and women actively teaching the lost "There is no need of fear for God" because God is love—we see a departure from what we should be telling men and women.

I do not view Christ as giving an appeal to reverential awe here:


Matthew 10:28
King James Version

28 And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


Luke 12:4-5
King James Version

4 And I say unto you my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that have no more that they can do.

5 But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


Only God can remove the fear, yet we have men and women seeking to stand in that position, to remove fear that is commanded by Christ.

While God removes fear from our lives as we know Him better, there is never a cancellation of man's need to fear God in Scripture. If anyone had a reason not to fear, it would be John the Apostle, and he maintained what I view as a fear of God that is taught in Scripture to the end of his days:


Revelation 1:17
And when I saw him, I fell at his feet as dead. And he laid his right hand upon me, saying unto me, Fear not; I am the first and the last:


In this time of judgment there will be no one that will not fear, and a question is asked:


Revelation 15:4
Who shall not fear thee, O Lord, and glorify thy name? for thou only art holy: for all nations shall come and worship before thee; for thy judgments are made manifest.


R.C. Sproul rightly said, "The holiness of God is traumatic to unholy people."

When we recognize the holiness of God and the condition we now live in, is there reason for us—not to fear?

When we get so comfortable with sin that we can go out and tell people they have no need of fear we have departed from a Basic Bible Principle that even those with no fear of God can recognize. How can they not despise a people that is called to be holy who minimize the holiness of their own God?

And we wonder why, in our country, people have changed from being a people with a fear of God to people who post stickers on the back of their cars saying "No Fear."

But they will show fear when someone blows up buildings. They will increase "church attendance" for a little while, and stand unified, so who are they fearing?

And Who is it that we are to fear?

Okay, that's probably more than you wanted to hear, lol.

God bless.

Thank you so much P1LGR1M. That was an excellent response, and much appreciated given the time you've been taking in addressing other comments. The only thing missing was how you would balance that with 1 John 4:18 "perfect love casts out fear".
It requires further study on my part. This is where it could be helpful to look at the Greek translations.
I do agree that this aspect of our Lord should be preached about and understood more. Thanks again.

 

[Der Alte]

Thank you so much P1LGR1M. That was an excellent response, and much appreciated given the time you've been taking in addressing other comments. The only thing missing was how you would balance that with 1 John 4:18 "perfect love casts out fear".
It requires further study on my part. This is where it could be helpful to look at the Greek translations.
I do agree that this aspect of our Lord should be preached about and understood more. Thanks again.

PMFBI But "perfect love casts out fear" has a context, which appears to be missing here.

EOB Matthew:25:46 When he will answer them, saying: ‘Amen, I tell you: as much as you did not do it to one of the least of these, you did not do it to me.’ 46 These [ones on the left] will go away into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] punishment, [κόλασις/kolasis] but the righteous into eternal [αἰώνιος/aionios] life.”​

Greek has been the language of the Eastern Greek Orthodox church since its inception, 2000 years ago +/-. Note, the native Greek speaking Eastern Orthodox Greek scholars, translators of the EOB, translated “aionios,” in Matt 25:46, as “eternal,” NOT “age.”
Who is better qualified than the team of native Greek speaking scholars, translators of the Eastern Greek Orthodox Bible [EOB], quoted above and below, to know the correct translation of the Greek in the N.T.?
Link to EOB online:
The New Testament ( The Eastern-Greek Orthodox Bible) : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive
…..The Greek word “kolasis” occurs only twice in the N.T., 1st occurrence Matt 25:46, above, and the 2nd occurrence 1 John 4:18., below.

EOB 1 John 4:18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear is connected with punishment.[κόλασις/kolasis] But the one who fears is not yet perfect in love.​

In the EOB the Greek word “kolasis” is translated “punishment” in both Matt 25:46 and 1 John 4:18. Some mis/uninformed folks claim “kolasis” really means “prune” or “correction.” However, that is an etymological fallacy. According to the EOB Greek scholars “kolasis” means “punishment.”
Note: in 1 John 4:18 there is no correction, the one with “kolasis” is not made perfect. Thus “kolasis” does not/cannot mean “correction.”
…..It is understood that modern Greek differs from koine Greek but I am confident that the Greek speaking EOB scholars, backed up by 2000 years +/- of Greek scholarship, are competent enough to know the correct translation of obsolete words which may have changed in meaning or are no longer in use and to translate them correctly. Just as scholars today know the meaning of obsolete words which occur in the KJV and to define them correctly.