The doctrine of hell

[seeingeyes]

You don't find it the least bit disturbing, or in any way unjust, that God would torture people for all eternity with the equivalent of a enormous blowtorch? T

No, not at all. Do you think God is just or don't you? Do you think that Scripture's depiction of those who disobey God's commands as children of Satan is correct or incorrect?

It's hard to be on the same page as God and also have zero compassion for sinners, wouldn't you say?

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'm a bit surprised. Did i just read something like God tortures people in hell and it's all cool? Is someone really thinking God is poking people with some grand pitchfork in hell?:o

 

[~Anastasia~]

I'm a bit surprised. Did i just read something like God tortures people in hell and it's all cool? Is someone really thinking God is poking people with some grand pitchfork in hell?:o

I'd say that's not too far off from the common understanding.

The only correction I would make is that it is probably not considered to be God Himself doing it, but some agent on His behalf.

And likely not a pitchfork, since that is acknowledged to be the construct of our imagination. But some means of torture, yes.

And one does not question it, because to do so would be to question God's sense of justice, or right to punish as He sees fit.

Are you really surprised? (Not trying to be disagreeable.) I just know this idea is very, very widespread.

A good question has come up - why do we believe this? I would have thought we could arrive at something like this from Scripture, just as the OP has done. Perhaps it really is one of those cases of reading all relevant Scriptures with that story in mind. Something I've been trying very hard to re-evaluate and not do.

But hell was not near the top of my list, so I have not given it much thought. All I can say is that I feel very uncomfortable with that image of God, and have a difficult time reconciling it with His words, actions, and seeming nature displayed in other ways.

 

[yogosans14]

Why is the denial of Hell considered Orthodoxy?

Such a shame...

 

[Sophrosyne]

Why is the denial of Hell considered Orthodoxy?

Such a shame...

Depends on how you deny it.... if it means annihilationism... that is considered unorthodox in this forum.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Why is the denial of Hell considered Orthodoxy?

Such a shame...

Orthodox (with a capital"O") refers to a particular Church.

I don't think they deny hell. I think they see it differently. I am not sure what their doctrine is exactly. You'd have to wait for an Orthodox to explain. But no, I don't think it's a denial.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

I'd say that's not too far off from the common understanding.

The only correction I would make is that it is probably not considered to be God Himself doing it, but some agent on His behalf.

And likely not a pitchfork, since that is acknowledged to be the construct of our imagination. But some means of torture, yes.

And one does not question it, because to do so would be to question God's sense of justice, or right to punish as He sees fit.

Are you really surprised? (Not trying to be disagreeable.) I just know this idea is very, very widespread.

A good question has come up - why do we believe this? I would have thought we could arrive at something like this from Scripture, just as the OP has done. Perhaps it really is one of those cases of reading all relevant Scriptures with that story in mind. Something I've been trying very hard to re-evaluate and not do.

But hell was not near the top of my list, so I have not given it much thought. All I can say is that I feel very uncomfortable with that image of God, and have a difficult time reconciling it with His words, actions, and seeming nature displayed in other ways.

I'm only a bit surprised. If I let most things I read surprise me greatly I'd constantly look like I'd just seen a ghost.

Yes pitchfork was a bad choice of words. Someone else already used the giant blow torch. What surprises me is that some see God as a torturer.

 

[Mama Kidogo]

Why is the denial of Hell considered Orthodoxy?

Such a shame...

If it were true it would be a shame. The Orthodox teach about hell. We also teach about love and hate. we just don't teach on some magic grey area between the two.

 

[food4thought]

No, not at all. Do you think God is just or don't you? Do you think that Scripture's depiction of those who disobey God's commands as children of Satan is correct or incorrect?

I absolutely 100% believe that God is just. I also agree completely with the Bible in it's description of sinners as children of Satan.

Whether I know them or love them or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not they're as evil as Scripture indicates that they are. The usual antitheistic tactic is to try to make out the people who go to hell as just so innocent, nice, kind, and so on. That's not even remotely what Scripture has to say about human beings who disobey God's commands. So there is a massive downplay here of what the Bible has to say about human beings in passages I could quote all day long.

I am not minimizing the evil of sin, what I am saying is that I believe the literal fiery torture of sinners for all eternity is not in line with the way God is described in the Bible. God is holy. God is good. God is love. God is righteous. God is merciful and compassionate. God is just. I simply cannot reconcile those characteristics of God with Him torturing sinners for all eternity in burning agony.

The doctrine of eternal torment in hell is inseparable from Christ. What is indeed a stumblingblock is telling them that there is no such thing as eternal torment in hell.

I am in no way denying eternal torment, at least for those that the Bible explicitly says will endure such. What I am saying is that the way we have traditionally understood the passages relating to hell, and how we define "torment", is quite possibly wrong. Can you accept such a possibility?

The God revealed in the Bible would not be a God who is in any way just by the standards of natural man. Take, for example, the command to burn harlots (the daughters of priests) alive in Leviticus 21:9. Or take God's burning Nadab/Abihu, the two sons of Aaron (and #3/4 ranking in Israel respectively) alive in Leviticus 10. These things are foreign to natural man; the God revealed in Scripture is something completely, totally, and utterly alien to human nature.

As for Lev 21:9, it does not specify that she should be burned alive, only that she must be burned. As an act of mercy, sometimes the Medieval Church would kill the condemned before burning them at the stake. God's fire would almost instantly incinerate those it engulfed, and is very different than eternal torture in burning agony. God is indeed holy... Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates to me that He is better than a petty tyrant who tortures those who refuse to obey Him. God has created us in His image and given us a moral conscience... yes it has been marred by sin, but I suggest that God is against torture, not the greatest practitioner of it.

Well, even supposing that he did, he certainly made no mistake about the awfulness of hell, because he warned that it would be better for you to enter into life halt or maimed or blind than to go to hell. So that's a pretty awful fate right there:

"43 If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life crippled, than, having your two hands, to go into [ac]hell, into the unquenchable fire, 44 [[ad]where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 45 If your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off; it is better for you to enter life lame, than, having your two feet, to be cast into [ae]hell, 46 [[af]where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.] 47 If your eye causes you to stumble, throw it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than, having two eyes, to be cast into [ag]hell, 48 where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched." Mk. 9:43-48 (NASB)

Do you think Jesus was suggesting to those who struggled with sin should literally gouge out their eyes and/or cut off their hands? Does not sin originate in the heart? Would not the sinner still struggle with sin without eyes and without hands? Isn't it much more likely that Jesus was using hyperbole?

I have, on many occasions. As a matter of fact, I think of hell frequently. I also wonder if you have properly considered what Scripture has to say about those who disobey the commands of God...?

Yes, Paul says that they are deserving of death (Romans 1:28-32), not unending torture in burning agony. Also note that Paul states in Romans 1:18 that God's wrath was being revealed against sinners who suppress the truth... how then is God's wrath revealed? We see all through the rest of chapter 1 that God chooses to reveal His wrath in this instance by removing His restraint of their sinfulness, or as Paul put's it, by "giving them over" to their sins. This passage proves that one valid expression of God's wrath is to remove Himself from the sinner and allow the sin to ruin the sinner. Is it possible that God's wrath will be expressed in hell in the same way? Does God really need to inflict unending fiery torture on the lost? Or could hell simply be a place where all God's good work of restraining sin in the lost and all it's destructive effects on the soul is removed, and they are "given over" to be "consumed" (as by fire) by their own sinfulness to bring them to utter ruin?

You are correct. Christianity is a shadow of its former self.

And it has been for over 1500 years. The way that we traditionally understand hell grew out of the medieval church, long after the church had traded spiritual power for temporal earthly power.

You are correct that they do not stress the "torment" (torture) aspect very much any longer. They have redefined it to be eternal "separation" from God, and are very careful about the words that they choose.

I do stress the torment, but I look at the Greek word translated "torment" in English, and I see that it literally means "tried against the stone". This could be a reference to torture, but it could also mean something very different.

But is sin the real reason they go to hell? That may be a rather diluted understanding of the doctrine. Again, I suggest you do some more research on what the Bible has to say about human nature, i.e., human beings in a state of nature outside of obedience to God's commands. "Sin" nowadays has become a rather diluted word, like eating chocolate when you're supposed to be on a diet or something like that.

The lost go to hell because they are in rebellion against God, and have not been reconciled to Him by the blood of Jesus Christ. This rebellion is our sins, our refusal to obey God. Trying to separate our rebellion and our sin is really splitting hairs, and begs the question: does our rebellion produce sin or does our sin constitute rebellion? It all starts with a sinful/rebellious heart.

I see. Is this because Scripture denies such things or because you think that the "nature of God" simply will not allow for that understanding?

Both in a way. The Scriptures that describe God as good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate denies a view of God who tortures the lost for all eternity in a literal lake of fire. The best commentary of Scripture is Scripture, so I either have to redefine my concept of good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate or I have to re-examine my understanding of the passages relating to hell. Obviously you have done the former while I am seeking to do the latter.

I am not sure at all that those passages are to be taken metaphorically, particularly Hebrews 12:29. 1 Cor. 3:11-15 also seems to be a reference to God's Spirit. No, I would disagree with this interpretation.

So you understand God to be a literal raging inferno of fire that has consciousness? Is God also a literal dove? How about a literal lamb? Or maybe a door? Perhaps a mother hen? I suggest to you that these things in some way represent aspects of God's character or action, not that every single aspect of these things corresponds to exactly what God literally is. Could the idea of fire as symbolic of God's judgment also not be a complete 1 for 1 correlation, but that some aspects of fire correspond with some aspects of God's judgment?

That is one understanding of the passage, certainly. So if Christ is saying that "their worm dieth not" then that means that their body would remain alive forever...wouldn't it...since if their body decomposed then the worms would die. The reference seems to be to an everlasting state of consciousness.

Perhaps. It could also be a reference not to the physical body, but to the carnal flesh nature which has not been crucified with Christ, and continues on.

Why not? The references clearly describe eternal torment in hell. "Tormented day and night forever and ever" is metaphorical for what exactly?

Again, the word torment can mean (literally) "tried against the stone", a metal working practice where the metal was rubbed against a certain type of stone and the mark it left indicated it's purity. In this understanding, God is constantly checking the souls of those in hell, testing them for purity, to verify their need to remain in hell. Of course, since their sinful natures is unrestrained by God they will forever continue to be corrupted by their sin... there is no escape from hell once consigned there. This "trying against the stone" acts as vindication of God's justice for confining the lost in hell, and also acts as a continuous source of wisdom for the redeemed, seeing the continuing ruinous effects of sin on the souls of the lost.

.

 

[Achilles6129]

It's hard to be on the same page as God and also have zero compassion for sinners, wouldn't you say?

Do you believe God is just or don't you? Do you have compassion for people who get sentenced to a federal penitentiary?

I'm a bit surprised. Did i just read something like God tortures people in hell and it's all cool? Is someone really thinking God is poking people with some grand pitchfork in hell?:o

See above.

All I can say is that I feel very uncomfortable with that image of God, and have a difficult time reconciling it with His words, actions, and seeming nature displayed in other ways.

I wonder if you are reading the same Bible I'm reading. Have you studied Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28?

I think you are falling for a modern Christian portrayal of Christ and God. Let me explain this a little better. Let's say we have a scale of 0-10 - we'll call it the scale of human righteousness. Ten is the best and zero is the worst. What modern Christianity has done is depict God/Christ as a 9/10 on a scale of human righteousness and present him to the world as such. I would argue that in reality, however, God/Christ would actually be a 0/1 on a scale of human righteousness, and I believe I could quote numerous passages from Scripture to support this position.

I think what you (and many others) are failing to realize is that God has nothing to do with human nature. Human nature is completely, totally, and utterly foreign and separate from God. God is outside of human nature completely and has his own nature which is completely separate from mankind. I think that this has to be realized before we proceed further because many people appear to be thinking that God actually thinks like a human being and judges right/wrong like a human being and even believes that human beings are possibly righteous. None of this is true.

 

[~Anastasia~]

I absolutely 100% believe that God is just. I also agree completely with the Bible in it's description of sinners as children of Satan.



I am not minimizing the evil of sin, what I am saying is that I believe the literal fiery torture of sinners for all eternity is not in line with the way God is described in the Bible. God is holy. God is good. God is love. God is righteous. God is merciful and compassionate. God is just. I simply cannot reconcile those characteristics of God with Him torturing sinners for all eternity in burning agony.



I am in no way denying eternal torment, at least for those that the Bible explicitly says will endure such. What I am saying is that the way we have traditionally understood the passages relating to hell, and how we define "torment", is quite possibly wrong. Can you accept such a possibility?




As for Lev 21:9, it does not specify that she should be burned alive, only that she must be burned. As an act of mercy, sometimes the Medieval Church would kill the condemned before burning them at the stake. God's fire would almost instantly incinerate those it engulfed, and is very different than eternal torture in burning agony. God is indeed holy... Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates to me that He is better than a petty tyrant who tortures those who refuse to obey Him. God has created us in His image and given us a moral conscience... yes it has been marred by sin, but I suggest that God is against torture, not the greatest practitioner of it.




Do you think Jesus was suggesting to those who struggled with sin should literally gouge out their eyes and/or cut off their hands? Does not sin originate in the heart? Would not the sinner still struggle with sin without eyes and without hands? Isn't it much more likely that Jesus was using hyperbole?



Yes, Paul says that they are deserving of death (Romans 1:28-32), not unending torture in burning agony. Also note that Paul states in Romans 1:18 that God's wrath was being revealed against sinners who suppress the truth... how then is God's wrath revealed? We see all through the rest of chapter 1 that God chooses to reveal His wrath in this instance by removing His restraint of their sinfulness, or as Paul put's it, by "giving them over" to their sins. This passage proves that one valid expression of God's wrath is to remove Himself from the sinner and allow the sin to ruin the sinner. Is it possible that God's wrath will be expressed in hell in the same way? Does God really need to inflict unending fiery torture on the lost? Or could hell simply be a place where all God's good work of restraining sin in the lost and all it's destructive effects on the soul is removed, and they are "given over" to be "consumed" (as by fire) by their own sinfulness to bring them to utter ruin?





And it has been for over 1500 years. The way that we traditionally understand hell grew out of the medieval church, long after the church had traded spiritual power for temporal earthly power.



I do stress the torment, but I look at the Greek word translated "torment" in English, and I see that it literally means "tried against the stone". This could be a reference to torture, but it could also mean something very different.



The lost go to hell because they are in rebellion against God, and have not been reconciled to Him by the blood of Jesus Christ. This rebellion is our sins, our refusal to obey God. Trying to separate our rebellion and our sin is really splitting hairs, and begs the question: does our rebellion produce sin or does our sin constitute rebellion? It all starts with a sinful/rebellious heart.



Both in a way. The Scriptures that describe God as good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate denies a view of God who tortures the lost for all eternity in a literal lake of fire. The best commentary of Scripture is Scripture, so I either have to redefine my concept of good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate or I have to re-examine my understanding of the passages relating to hell. Obviously you have done the former while I am seeking to do the latter.



So you understand God to be a literal raging inferno of fire that has consciousness? Is God also a literal dove? How about a literal lamb? Or maybe a door? Perhaps a mother hen? I suggest to you that these things in some way represent aspects of God's character or action, not that every single aspect of these things corresponds to exactly what God literally is. Could the idea of fire as symbolic of God's judgment also not be a complete 1 for 1 correlation, but that some aspects of fire correspond with some aspects of God's judgment?



Perhaps. It could also be a reference not to the physical body, but to the carnal flesh nature which has not been crucified with Christ, and continues on.



Again, the word torment can mean (literally) "tried against the stone", a metal working practice where the metal was rubbed against a certain type of stone and the mark it left indicated it's purity. In this understanding, God is constantly checking the souls of those in hell, testing them for purity, to verify their need to remain in hell. Of course, since their sinful natures is unrestrained by God they will forever continue to be corrupted by their sin... there is no escape from hell once consigned there. This "trying against the stone" acts as vindication of God's justice for confining the lost in hell, and also acts as a continuous source of wisdom for the redeemed, seeing the continuing ruinous effects of sin on the souls of the lost.

.

Very interesting, and while I am not in a position to agree/disagree, what you suggest is infinitely more in line with the nature of God, imo. I don't see necessarily any contradiction with Scripture, offhand.

Just one more note, since you often mention "tried against a stone" ... Christ is sometimes mentioned through metaphor as a stone. I also have some thoughts as the saints being "living stones". I'm not sure if there is an intended correlation, but it's interesting.

I feel much more peace reading your description.

 

[~Anastasia~]

Do you believe God is just or don't you? Do you have compassion for people who get sentenced to a federal penitentiary?



See above.



I wonder if you are reading the same Bible I'm reading. Have you studied Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28?

I think you are falling for a modern Christian portrayal of Christ and God. Let me explain this a little better. Let's say we have a scale of 0-10 - we'll call it the scale of human righteousness. Ten is the best and zero is the worst. What modern Christianity has done is depict God/Christ as a 9/10 on a scale of human righteousness and present him to the world as such. I would argue that in reality, however, God/Christ would actually be a 0/1 on a scale of human righteousness, and I believe I could quote numerous passages from Scripture to support this position.

I think what you (and many others) are failing to realize is that God has nothing to do with human nature. Human nature is completely, totally, and utterly foreign and separate from God. God is outside of human nature completely and has his own nature which is completely separate from mankind. I think that this has to be realized before we proceed further because many people appear to be thinking that God actually thinks like a human being and judges right/wrong like a human being and even believes that human beings are possibly righteous. None of this is true.

I understand what you are saying. And I don't watch the smiling "God loves you!" pastors.

I do see God as perfectly holy and perfectly just, and mankind as having no inherent righteousness (not what God calls righteousness!).

However, I do NOT see God as someone watching each person, just waiting for any slip-up, so He can justify tossing us into hell. (Not saying you do either.) I don't see a God who gleefully twists the knife for all eternity, gloating, "See, I told you that you had it coming! That's what you get!" It all seems very petty to me.

Instead, I see a God who hates sin and yet loves His creation so much that He laid down His life. A God who desires that all come to repentance - and who I believe is grieved at every one who rejects Him. A God who spoke true when He said that He "takes no pleasure in the death of the wicked."

I don't think He's looking forward to tormenting them forever.

I may be wrong. Regardless, I think salvation is vital, and I don't desire to see anyone condemned either. But I do have difficulty reconciling the God I know (personally and from Scripture) with one who delights in torment.

 

[Achilles6129]

I am not minimizing the evil of sin, what I am saying is that I believe the literal fiery torture of sinners for all eternity is not in line with the way God is described in the Bible. God is holy. God is good. God is love. God is righteous. God is merciful and compassionate. God is just. I simply cannot reconcile those characteristics of God with Him torturing sinners for all eternity in burning agony.

Then I suggest that your understanding of the words "holy, good, love, righteous, merciful, and compassionate" is simply incorrect.

I am in no way denying eternal torment,

I thought that's what this thread was all about?

at least for those that the Bible explicitly says will endure such.

That would be everyone who goes to hell, then.

What I am saying is that the way we have traditionally understood the passages relating to hell, and how we define "torment", is quite possibly wrong. Can you accept such a possibility?

Not really. Scripture is pretty clear about hell, and I think we could even deduce there is a hell without Scripture at all. We could certainly deduce there is punishment after death for crimes committed in this life.

As for Lev 21:9, it does not specify that she should be burned alive, only that she must be burned.

Yes, and obviously the only way to do that would be to burn her alive. You should really check out some ancient Jewish literature because the Jews actually carried this command out and God meant them to do so for approx. 1500 years until the advent of Christ.

As an act of mercy, sometimes the Medieval Church would kill the condemned before burning them at the stake.

That is not a Biblical understanding of this passage.

God's fire would almost instantly incinerate those it engulfed,

No proof of this.

God is indeed holy... Isaiah 55:8-9 indicates to me that He is better than a petty tyrant who tortures those who refuse to obey Him.

Seems to me there's more going on here than refusal to obey God's commands. From what I read in Scripture "refusal to obey God's commands" actually indicates one is very really and truly evil. Perhaps you should make that connection.

God has created us in His image

Then why call those who disobey his commands children of Satan? Is God a child of Satan? I think not. So then how can a child of Satan be made in God's image?

and given us a moral conscience...

This comes from the tree of the knowledge of good/evil, which was knowledge forbidden to Adam/Eve in the garden of Eden, and hence, evil knowledge. The imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth. Man does not know the true difference between right/wrong/good/evil, which should be evident from a cursory perusal of Scripture (or reality). The fact that they think the devil/beast/false prophet are good in the book of Revelation and think that the two witnesses are evil should raise a red flag.

yes it has been marred by sin, but I suggest that God is against torture, not the greatest practitioner of it.

Well, let me ask you this. Have you read/studied Leviticus 26 and Deuteronomy 28? Both describe very, very severe penalties to Israel for their disobedience to God. In essence, these penalties are torture for the disobedience of God's commands. After studying these chapters do you think your understanding of the nature of God might change? Let me quote you some passages:

"20 “The Lord will send upon you curses, confusion, and rebuke, in all [t]you undertake to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, on account of the evil of your deeds, because you have forsaken Me. 21 The Lord will make the pestilence cling to you until He has consumed you from the land where you are entering to possess it. 22 The Lord will smite you with consumption and with fever and with inflammation and with fiery heat and with [u]the sword and with blight and with mildew, and they will pursue you until you perish. 23 [v]The heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron." Deut. 28:20-23 (NASB)

"26 Your carcasses will be food to all birds of the sky and to the beasts of the earth, and there will be no one to frighten them away. 27 “The Lord will smite you with the boils of Egypt and with tumors and with the scab and with the itch, from which you cannot be healed. 28 The Lord will smite you with madness and with blindness and with bewilderment of heart; 29 and you will [x]grope at noon, as the blind man gropes in darkness, and you will not prosper in your ways; but you shall only be oppressed and robbed continually, with none to save you. 30 You shall betroth a wife, but another man will violate her; you shall build a house, but you will not live in it; you shall plant a vineyard, but you will not [y]use its fruit. 31 Your ox shall be slaughtered before your eyes, but you will not eat of it; your donkey shall be torn away from you, and will not be restored to you; your sheep shall be given to your enemies, and you will have none to save you. 32 Your sons and your daughters shall be given to another people, while your eyes look on and yearn for them continually; but there will be nothing [z]you can do." Deut. 28:26-32 (NASB)

"35 The Lord will strike you on the knees and legs with sore boils, from which you cannot be healed, from the sole of your foot to the crown of your head. 36 The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone. 37 You shall become a horror, a proverb, and a taunt among all the people where the Lord drives you." Deut. 28:35-37 (NASB)

"47 “Because you did not serve the Lord your God with joy and a glad heart, for the abundance of all things; 48 therefore you shall serve your enemies whom the Lord will send against you, in hunger, in thirst, in nakedness, and in the lack of all things; and He will put an iron yoke on your neck until He has destroyed you." Deut. 28:47-48 (NASB)

"53 Then you shall eat the [ah]offspring of your own body, the flesh of your sons and of your daughters whom the Lord your God has given you, during the siege and the distress by which your enemy will [ai]oppress you." Deut. 28:53 (NASB)

Let me ask you - is this not torture for disobedience to God's commands? Does this affect your understanding of the nature of God?

Do you think Jesus was suggesting to those who struggled with sin should literally gouge out their eyes and/or cut off their hands?

It's a case of extreme hyperbole used to illustrate the seriousness of rebellion against God. Christ is also using it to illustrate the terrible fate that awaits those that go to Gehenna.

Yes, Paul says that they are deserving of death (Romans 1:28-32), not unending torture in burning agony.

Physical death is what Paul was referring to. He is not addressing Gehenna in this passage - however, he does so in other passages, such as in 2 Thess. 1:8-9.

Also note that Paul states in Romans 1:18 that God's wrath was being revealed against sinners who suppress the truth... how then is God's wrath revealed? We see all through the rest of chapter 1 that God chooses to reveal His wrath in this instance by removing His restraint of their sinfulness, or as Paul put's it, by "giving them over" to their sins. This passage proves that one valid expression of God's wrath is to remove Himself from the sinner and allow the sin to ruin the sinner.

No, God chooses to reveal his wrath by simply hiding himself from them. God never causes someone to sin, they sin of their own choices and free will.

Is it possible that God's wrath will be expressed in hell in the same way?

Well, in the sense that they are away from the presence of the Lord and the glory of his power, yes. But to say that that is all that hell consists of (eternal "separation" from God, as the modern Christian pastors like to put it) is false.

Does God really need to inflict unending fiery torture on the lost?

According to Scripture that is what hell is.

Or could hell simply be a place where all God's good work of restraining sin in the lost and all it's destructive effects on the soul is removed, and they are "given over" to be "consumed" (as by fire) by their own sinfulness to bring them to utter ruin?

This is not a full Biblical depiction of hell.

And it has been for over 1500 years.

I would argue longer.

The way that we traditionally understand hell grew out of the medieval church, long after the church had traded spiritual power for temporal earthly power.

No, I think the way we traditionally understood hell (until the modern era) was simply based off of Scripture. If it were so easy to disprove the "traditional" view then it would have been done so by now. People have been resisting this doctrine since the very beginning.

I do stress the torment, but I look at the Greek word translated "torment" in English, and I see that it literally means "tried against the stone". This could be a reference to torture, but it could also mean something very different.

I think from the depictions of hell given in Scripture we can clearly see that it does mean torture. Here's a lexicon definition:

Greek Lexicon :: G929 (KJV)

The lost go to hell because they are in rebellion against God, and have not been reconciled to Him by the blood of Jesus Christ. This rebellion is our sins, our refusal to obey God. Trying to separate our rebellion and our sin is really splitting hairs,

I would actually claim that people go to hell because of their nature, i.e., who they are. But perhaps we are splitting hairs here.

Both in a way. The Scriptures that describe God as good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate denies a view of God who tortures the lost for all eternity in a literal lake of fire. The best commentary of Scripture is Scripture, so I either have to redefine my concept of good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate or I have to re-examine my understanding of the passages relating to hell. Obviously you have done the former while I am seeking to do the latter.

I would suggest, as I did above, that your definitions of "good, just, loving, merciful, and compassionate" are in fact incorrect. I would also suggest the same for the human race, and to prove it I would again submit that they think the beast/false prophet are good in the book of Revelation and they think that the two witnesses are evil.

So you understand God to be a literal raging inferno of fire that has consciousness?
Is God also a literal dove? How about a literal lamb? Or maybe a door? Perhaps a mother hen?

Well, I was going off of the passage which you quoted, Hebrews 12:29. You will notice, of course, that God descended upon Mt. Sinai in fire. Also there are clear examples of God's presence being in literal fire in the Old Testament, such as above the ark of the covenant and so on. You will notice that Hebrews 12:29 does not refer to our God as a dove, lamb, door, or mother hen.

 

[Achilles6129]

I don't see a God who gleefully twists the knife for all eternity, gloating, "See, I told you that you had it coming! That's what you get!" It all seems very petty to me.

Scripture always portrays those who go to hell as deserving to go there. Perhaps you should read what the Bible really has to say about those who disobey God's commands.

 

[Setyoufree]

Scripture always portrays those who go to hell as deserving to go there.

You don't go to hell...Hell comes to you.

Rev 20:14 states that "The lake of fire is the second death".

Have you ever seen a lake of fire?

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-tL4JYR0n4-4/TnOD-jkNuEI/AAAAAAAAJ1A/aro5ZhlATGI/s1600/DSC_3125.JPG

The lake of fire happens because God abandons the earth.

 

[Dorothea]

Well, I do believe one chooses hell or heaven when they choose or reject Christ. We were given free will to love and accept Him or reject Him, so really, it is the person who places himself/herself in one or the other.

 

[Setyoufree]

...it is the person who places himself/herself in one or the other.

Bingo! God destroys no man, man destroys himself.

How? By rejecting Christ our righteousness.

Those who ultimately and persistently reject God's mercy will come under the curse of the law, which is God abandonment.

Again, Deut 31:17 "I will forsake them, and I will hide My face from them, and they shall be devoured. And many evils and troubles shall befall them, so that they will say in that day, 'Have not these evils come upon us because our God is not among us?'

 

[Rajni]

I find it interesting how those who reject Hell cry how unfair it is, while don't really consider the very high price paid for people to be allowed (unfairly) to go to heaven. I tend to ask the one question: If God was absolutely fair with the punishment of those in Hell would those who reject it then have a reason to continue to reject it? I think the contention is that God cannot fairly send people to hell and punish them there.

From the unfairness aspect of it, one problem that I have
with hell—at least, as a permanent arrangement—is that it
seems unfair to Jesus, for the same reason you cite above.
For him to go through all that he did and not get, in full, that
for which he came and paid such a high and extremely painful
price just seems to short-change *him*, in a way.

As for what hell entails, I kind of lean towards the view that
(if there *is* a hellish state to be had after death... I have
my doubts but that's for another time) Heaven and hell are
the same place, which is in the presence of God (which I
believe cannot be escaped anyway given His omnipresence,
which takes care of any concerns about being eternally
separated from Him). For those who love God, it's Heaven.
For those who don't, not so much.

Plus, and this is just speculation, but I would think that the
transition, at physical death, from being an embodied spirit to
being disembodied might feel hellish for those going into it
with any kind of aversion to God. All of a sudden, *there's*
God, standing before them, purely visible and beautiful like
nothing they've ever seen before. Whooosh! I can only
imagine. That experience alone could feel divine or
disastrous, depending on the individual's spiritual state at
that time. God could be radiating very positive, loving 'vibes'
(for lack of a better word); I don't think He even has to be
directing any anger at them or something for them to feel like
hell. If one was actively pitted against Him during their
lifetime, and suddenly there He is in all His glory—Love
itself—that alone will be all the punishment one could take, I
would imagine. I would also hesitate to assume that such
an experience wouldn't have a healing effect.


-

 

[BobRyan]

I am not minimizing the evil of sin, what I am saying is that I believe the literal fiery torture of sinners for all eternity is not in line with the way God is described in the Bible. God is holy. God is good. God is love. God is righteous. God is merciful and compassionate. God is just. I simply cannot reconcile those characteristics of God with Him torturing sinners for all eternity in burning agony.

There are Bible texts that are not completely opposed to the Bible teaching that "God is love".

[FONT=&quot]Ps 104.[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
35 Let [/FONT]sinners be consumed from the earth
And let the wicked be no more
Bless the LORD, O my soul
Praise the LORD!


[FONT=&quot]Rev 20[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
9 They went up on the breadth of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city. And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Mal 4[/FONT]
1 “For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” 2 “But for you who fear My name, the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. 3 You will tread down the wicked, for they will be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts.

Jude 7
6 And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day,
7 just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal (everlasting) fire.

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

[FONT=&quot]Ezek 18 [/FONT]
4"Behold, all souls are Mine; the soul of the father as well as the soul of the son is MineThe soul who sins will die.

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

[FONT=&quot] Matt 10
28 ""Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather [/FONT]fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.


[FONT=&quot]Rev 14:10[/FONT][FONT=&quot]
10 he himself shall also drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out full strength into the cup of His indignation. He shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb.


=========================================================

It is entirely possible that the "reason" these texts look to be so compatible with the Bible doctrine that "God IS love" is that we simply have not 'Bent" the scriptures above enough so that they would be opposed to such a Bible doctrine on God "Is love".

And that becomes the subject of another thread - how to bend the texts above to get them to fit more solidly into a view totally opposed to "God iS Love".

in Christ,

Bob
[/FONT]

 

[Sophrosyne]

From the unfairness aspect of it, one problem that I have
with hell—at least, as a permanent arrangement—is that it
seems unfair to Jesus, for the same reason you cite above.
For him to go through all that he did and not get, in full, that
for which he came and paid such a high and extremely painful
price just seems to short-change *him*, in a way.

The price he paid doesn't allow just anyone in heaven. Everyone has an invitation to go there but unless you accept it in his name in this life and pick it up it expires at death. Those who reject Jesus will be rejected by God and sent to where everyone else who rejected God is... including Satan and his followers, the place is called Hell.

To reject salvation mocks God, it is to say Jesus death to them is meaningless that the price he paid isn't worth their accepting it. Those who reject Jesus are the ones who short-change God, God doesn't short change himself.