The doctrine of hell

[Dave-W]

THE MULTITUDE OF EVIL ANGELS: CAST INTO THE LAKE OF FIRE | Paw Creek Ministries
"The Lake of Fire is simply an extension of Hell that we see throughout the Bible. "

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

 

[Sammy-San]

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

What does it mean that death was cast into the lake of fire? Death is not a place its a state of being.

 

[Sammy-San]

Revelation 20:14 And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Extension means, "
A part that is added to something to enlarge or prolong it; a continuation."

 

[Dave-W]

What does it mean that death was cast into the lake of fire? Death is not a place its a state of being.

The greek in that verse alludes to "death" and "hell" being personalities.

 

[Sammy-San]

The greek in that verse alludes to "death" and "hell" being personalities.

Fallen angels? That's the only thing that would make sense.

So you dont believe Mary K Baxter describing hell as a place inside the earth?

 

[Dave-W]

So you dont believe Mary K Baxter describing hell as a place inside the earth?

Not really. More like another dimension.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not really. More like another dimension.

Like a world within this world? Like inner space? Is that the best way to describe it?

 

[Dave-W]

Like a world within this world? Like inner space? Is that the best way to describe it?

Nah. More like the Phantom Zone. (if you are a Superman fan)

 

[Sammy-San]

Nah. More like the Phantom Zone. (if you are a Superman fan)

I'm not familiar with that concept.

 

[Sammy-San]

Not really. More like another dimension.

These heaven and hell stories dont make sense-another guy spoke at my church (I have the book he wrote) said something that implied hell being at the edge of Heaven. These testimonies contradict each other. Do you agree?

 

[Dave-W]

These testimonies contradict each other. Do you agree?

It just means no one really knows anything about it. My "Phantom Zone" concept is just that - a concept that I look at it by. Other people have other constructs to help them keep stuff straight.

No one really knows, and if it were actually important, scripture would have a lot more on the subject.

 

[Sammy-San]

It just means no one really knows anything about it. My "Phantom Zone" concept is just that - a concept that I look at it by. Other people have other constructs to help them keep stuff straight.

No one really knows, and if it were actually important, scripture would have a lot more on the subject.

Do you believe those books people write on heaven and hell? Some people accuse them of being scammers.

 

[CrystalDragon]

Not so. Paul tells us:
Rom 11.22 Behold then the kindness and severity of God; to those who fell, severity, but to you, God’s kindness, if you continue in His kindness; otherwise you also will be cut off.

Any definition of God's love has to include that fact.

That's basically though another way of saying "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy", basically saying that it doesn't matter what the heck you do but God can throw you into hell anyway. While it says "continue in his kindness", I would hardly call the murder and assault commanded in the Bible's Old Testament "kind". In fact, in any term, it's the exact opposite. If it is "God's kindness" then we don't we term kind as "being caring to the people in your group and killing anyone who's not in your group". We'd have to do a pretty big redefining of "kind" if that's the case.

True there can be severity (like the "tough love" argument I've seen), but most love shows compassion and caring, not torment threat on those you feel deserve it just because you want to.

It just means no one really knows anything about it. My "Phantom Zone" concept is just that - a concept that I look at it by. Other people have other constructs to help them keep stuff straight.

No one really knows, and if it were actually important, scripture would have a lot more on the subject.

I'd call eternal destiny pretty dang important. If some people are supposed to be cruelly tortured for all eternity, then why not focus on that a lot? Why not have a firm focus on the reality of heaven and hell, what they're like, how to get there, etc. If eternity is what's at stake you'd think that would be the most important thing. But it's not focused on that much even in the New Testament (and talked about almost nowhere in the Old, hell is never even brought up as a possibility).

 

[Bible Highlighter]

Context determines how a word is to be understood. In Matthew 25:46, no less an authority than Jesus Himself says that everyone will fall into one of two categories, them that inherit eternal life and them that inherit eternal punishment. This is a didactic passage on the duration of the two states that all will find themselves in, being consigned to either the former or the latter. Life is constrasted with punishment, both being eternal in duration.

All the other obscure, impertinent passages which are not didactic in nature are to be interpreted in LIGHT OF THIS and other didactic passages.

Whether or not chruch tradition says this or that, or is wrong about this or that is simply irrelevant.

In Matthew 25:46:

Everlasting is the parallel (which speak of the eternal consequences).

Both life and death (destruction, i.e. the punishment) have eternal consequences or effects.
But life and death (punishment) is the contrast.

So the verse is one part parallel and one part contrast.
Now, the "everlasting punishment" is said to be "everlasting destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which is death.

So the contrast is life (reward) and death (punishment).
And everlasting is the parallel.

Anyways, if ECT was true, the verse would say,

"And these shall go away into everlasting life to be tortured in flames: but the righteous into life eternal to be in peaceful bliss."
(Matthew 25:46 ECT Influenced Translation).
​

But the verse doesn't really say that, though. In fact, no verse in Scripture says that the wicked have eternal life or immortality. But assumptions are made whereby it turns God into being some kind of non-stop angry kind of God who is beyond any kind of fair justice. But what about the loving God who is long suffering and not willing that any should PERISH? What about the God who so loved the world?​

...

 

[anonymous person]

In Matthew 25:46:

Everlasting is the parallel (which speak of the eternal consequences).

Both life and death (destruction, i.e. the punishment) have eternal consequences or effects.
But life and death (punishment) is the contrast.

So the verse is one part parallel and one part contrast.
Now, the "everlasting punishment" is said to be "everlasting destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 1:9, which is death.

So the contrast is life (reward) and death (punishment).
And everlasting is the parallel.

Anyways, if ECT was true, the verse would say,

"And these shall go away into everlasting life to be tortured in flames: but the righteous into life eternal to be in peaceful bliss."
(Matthew 25:46 ECT Influenced Translation).
​

But the verse doesn't really say that, though. In fact, no verse in Scripture says that the wicked have eternal life or immortality. But assumptions are made whereby it turns God into being some kind of non-stop angry kind of God who is beyond any kind of fair justice. But what about the loving God who is long suffering and not willing that any should PERISH? What about the God who so loved the world?​

...

He sent His Son who claimed that those who reject Him will suffer eternally. Once again, this is what Jesus said. The notion of conditional immortality was definitely not a Jewish notion, Jesus never affirmed it, nor did the apostles. You have to read into the text that which is not there to draw the conclusions you have and this is what is referred to as eisegesis, not exegesis.

Your misgiving is that you think the notion of eternal punishment doesn't jive with the notion that God is omnibenevolent. I would argue that God's goodness makes eternal separation from Him a necessity in virtue of the fact that God would not force someone to abide with Him forever if that is not what they wanted and in an attempt to alleviate the tension this creates for you, you adopt conditional immortality and then read into the texts that which is not there so that you can label it "biblical".

Why not rather just hold that God is Good, men are evil and that we all have the freedom to choose where we will spend eternity.

This would square far better with the command to preach the gospel Jesus gave to His disciples and the remarks Paul made about the terror of the Lord and persuading men and the remark that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

We tend to take sin lightly and the Holiness of God even more lightly. The Cross and Christ hanging on it should shock us out of the terrible notion that sin is not that big of a deal in God's eyes.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

He sent His Son who claimed that those who reject Him will suffer eternally. Once again, this is what Jesus said. The notion of conditional immortality was definitely not a Jewish notion, Jesus never affirmed it, nor did the apostles. You have to read into the text that which is not there to draw the conclusions you have and this is what is referred to as eisegesis, not exegesis.

Your misgiving is that you think the notion of eternal punishment doesn't jive with the notion that God is omnibenevolent. I would argue that God's goodness makes eternal separation from Him a necessity in virtue of the fact that God would not force someone to abide with Him forever if that is not what they wanted and in an attempt to alleviate the tension this creates for you, you adopt conditional immortality and then read into the texts that which is not there so that you can label it "biblical".

Why not rather just hold that God is Good, men are evil and that we all have the freedom to choose where we will spend eternity.

This would square far better with the command to preach the gospel Jesus gave to His disciples and the remarks Paul made about the terror of the Lord and persuading men and the remark that it is a terrible thing to fall into the hands of the Living God.

We tend to take sin lightly and the Holiness of God even more lightly. The Cross and Christ hanging on it should shock us out of the terrible notion that sin is not that big of a deal in God's eyes.

People today think you can sin and still be saved. Yet, they also believe in Eternal Torment. Down is up and up is down. Bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. The book on morality (which comes from the Bible) and what we know to be fair and just is thrown out the window when folks read God's Word. Tell me, how can you explain the goodness behind Eternal Torment? You can't do it. Why? Because it is not good. Anything that is not good is not of God. It's that simple. You are seeking to see what you want to see because you either believe the majority of Bible believing churches cannot be wrong or it is the only thing you have ever known in regards to this matter (Whereby a certain interpretation to a verse has been read over and over so many times it just becomes fact to you when it simply is not fact).

Again, Paul said there is an "everlasting destruction." This is what it is being spoken about in Matthew 25:46 in regards to everlasting punishment. It is a destruction that has everlasting consequences. For Jesus says I come to give you life and that you may have it more abundantly. This does not make any sense if the wicked were also were given life more abundantly, too. Also, the Bible says the last enemy to be destroyed is death. This would mean that there are other enemies of God who will be destroyed like wicked man and bad angels. Furthermore, Jesus says fear not the one who can destroy the body but fear the one who can DESTROY both body and soul in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire) (Matthew 10:28). Jesus says he can destroy the soul. Destroy means exactly that! To bring it to ruin whereby it does not exist anymore. In addition, the Second Death is called the Second Death because it is related to the first death. The First Death is the destruction of our physical body. The Second Death (the Lake of Fire) is similar to the first death. If not, then you could not call it the Second Death.


...

 

[anonymous person]

People today think you can sin and still be saved. Yet, they also believe in Eternal Torment. Down is up and up is down. Bitter is sweet and sweet is bitter. The book on morality (which comes from the Bible) and what we know to be fair and just is thrown out the window when folks read God's Word. Tell me, how can you explain the goodness behind Eternal Torment? You can't do it. Why? Because it is not good. Anything that is not good is not of God. It's that simple. You are seeking to see what you want to see because you either believe the majority of Bible believing churches cannot be wrong or it is the only thing you have ever known in regards to this matter (Whereby a certain interpretation to a verse has been read over and over so many times it just becomes fact to you when it simply is not fact).

Again, Paul said there is an "everlasting destruction." This is what it is being spoken about in Matthew 25:46 in regards to everlasting punishment. It is a destruction that has everlasting consequences. For Jesus says I come to give you life and that you may have it more abundantly. This does not make any sense if the wicked were also were given life more abundantly, too. Also, the Bible says the last enemy to be destroyed is death. This would mean that there are other enemies of God who will be destroyed like wicked man and bad angels. Furthermore, Jesus says fear not the one who can destroy the body but fear the one who can DESTROY both body and soul in Gehenna (i.e. the Lake of Fire) (Matthew 10:28). Jesus says he can destroy the soul. Destroy means exactly that! To bring it to ruin whereby it does not exist anymore. In addition, the Second Death is called the Second Death because it is related to the first death. The First Death is the destruction of our physical body. The Second Death (the Lake of Fire) is similar to the first death. If not, then you could not call it the Second Death.


...

I don't think God torments or tortures people. People in hell experience what they do as a logical outworking of them choosing to be separated from God. I think God has made a place for people to exist who do not love Him but hate Him. How is that not a good thing?

You seem to be suggesting that God should make people live with Him forever who did not want to and against their will. Heaven would be hell for someone who hated God.

 

[food4thought]

Let each man be fully convinced in his own mind...


I am done here.

 

[Bible Highlighter]

I don't think God torments or tortures people.

So you don't believe in Eternal Torment?
Who created the flames?
Who put them in that place as a part of their punishment?
Who chose the duration of time for them to be there?
I believe God judges fairly and He will punish the wicked according to their crimes. Punishing somebody waaaaay beyond what the crime calls for is not fair justice.
Nobody actually chooses hell because nobody really desires to want to go there.
Yet, this is the punishment God has chosen for the wicked.
Endless Torture? No. God is into fair justice.


...

 

[Dave-W]

Do you believe those books people write on heaven and hell? Some people accuse them of being scammers.

I usually pay them little or no mind. Many of them are scammers. Or had too many slices of jalapeno pizza before going to bed.

There may be a few true visions in there; but even those often are colored by the doctrines and world view of the person telling the tale.