Why do some 'Christians' believe that Hell is not eternal?

[Rajni]

It doesn't make sense to me at all, what do they think Hell* is for in that case?

Why is the the word, Christians, in the title surrounded by quotation marks?

 

[Danoded]

Why is the the word, Christians, in the title surrounded by quotation marks?

Because someone can't call themselves Christian if they don't believe that He'll is forever.

 

[Danoded]

Since when?

Its unscriptural. Even if Hell as it is now will not exist in the New World, the souls suffering there will continue to suffer for all eternity.

 

[Rajni]

Its unscriptural. Even if Hell as it is now will not exist in the New World, the souls suffering there will continue to suffer for all eternity.

According to some.

At any rate, it's against the forum rules to state or imply that another Christian member, or group of members, is/are not Christian.

 

[Danoded]

According to some.

At any rate, it's against the forum rules to state or imply that another Christian member, or group of members, is/are not Christian.

Tell that to people that tell me that Nontrinitarians can't be Christians, can't have it both ways.

 

[dreadnought]

It doesn't make sense to me at all, what do they think Hell* is for in that case?

I believe hell, the lake of fire, is the natural consequences of our sin. It always will be. That, in itself, doesn't mean we will spend an eternity there. I believe repentance is the way out.

 

[Rajni]

Tell that to people that tell me that Nontrinitarians can't be Christians, can't have it both ways.

Not supposed to have it either way. It's a reportable offense here.

 

[eleos1954]

And wherever Jesus mentioned outer darkness he added that there will also be weeping and gnashing of the teeth, definitely suffering.

When the 2nd resurrection occurs and the lost realize they are lost and nothing that can't be done about it .... yeah there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and yeah they will suffer until their final death which is total destruction by fire and they will be no more.

Matthew 22:13

Jesus said to rich man that nobody ever crosses from hell to heaven. That seems to indicate that hell is forever.

Because someone can't call themselves Christian if they don't believe that He'll is forever.

The word Christian means a follower of Christ and has nothing to do with ones belief of Hell. Yes, eternal death for the unsaved is forever.

Because someone can't call themselves Christian if they don't believe that He'll is forever.

Baloney

A Christian is a follower of Christ (his character) and has nothing to do with what one believes about hell.

 

[salt-n-light]

It doesn't make sense to me at all, what do they think Hell* is for in that case?

Several reasons, but mainly because they think an eternal punishment is unreasonable for their "small sins". They don't get the spiritual magnitude of it, so now you have all these deviances of how life after death would run (e.g. purgatory, or limbo state that you can redeem yourself)

 

[Danoded]

Not supposed to have it either way. It's a reportable offense here.

As it stands, my post is valid and has no grounds to be removed because I put Christians in quotes.

 

[Danoded]

When the 2nd resurrection occurs and the lost realize they are lost and nothing that can't be done about it .... yeah there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth and yeah they will suffer until their final death which is total destruction by fire and they will be no more.

Matthew 22:13



The word Christian means a follower of Christ and has nothing to do with ones belief of Hell. Yes, eternal death for the unsaved is forever.


Baloney

A Christian is a follower of Christ (his character) and has nothing to do with what one believes about hell.

People say they follow Christ, yet they defy him in every way, yet still call themselves Christians. Of course, having unscriptural beliefs to even consider the suffering of Hell not being eternal, then their not following the doctrine of God.

 

[Danoded]

Several reasons, but mainly because they think an eternal punishment is unreasonable for their "small sins". They don't get the spiritual magnitude of it, so now you have all these deviances of how life after death would run (e.g. purgatory, or limbo state that you can redeem yourself)

Especially when people are so eager to argue against Hell and it's suffering not being eternal, the same way people try so hard to argue that homosexuality is a not a sin, or that abortion is right, rejecting sound scripture to satisfy their itching ears for false doctrines and teachings.

 

[Der Alte]

The story of Lazarus and the poor man is a parable. What is a parable?
A parable, can be:
(1) a true story
(2) an untrue story with common reality objects and scenarios
(3) a fictitious story with unrealistic scenarios
So ... consider this:

Did you just make these up to support your false doctrine? Please show me any of Jesus' unquestioned parables which are untrue, #2, or fictitious, #3? Everything that Jesus used for an example is something which could and often did happen, e.g. a widow losing and finding a coin, a shepherd losing and finding a sheep, a wayward son who squandered his inheritance, tenants who rebel against their landlord, guests not prepared for a wedding etc.

Five reasons we can know that the story of the rich man and Lazarus is not meant to be taken literally and that it is a parable.
1. It’s comes in a list of parables

. The Merriam-Webster’s Collegiate Dictionary defines “parable” as “a usually short fictitious story that illustrates a moral attitude or a religious principle.” The story of the rich man and Lazarus comes at the end of a string of parables filled with symbolic, non-literal illustrations (see Luke 15). For instance, in the parable of the lost sheep, Jesus is certainly not teaching that His followers have four legs or eat grass; it’s all metaphor for a greater spiritual point.

Merriam-Webster is a secular dictionary therefore not a reliable source for interpreting the Bible. While the story of Lazarus and the rich man follows other parables that does not make it a parable. Jesus did not introduce the story as a parable and Jesus never explained it to His disciples.
.....Parables use something known to reveal a truth about something unknown. For example we often use parables, some people will say that turtle meat tastes like chicken. That is a parable. How can Jesus illustrate an unknown or misunderstood truth about the kingdom of heaven by using false stories which His audience know absolutely nothing about?
.....Your objection about the sheep is ridiculous. Jesus clearly explained just as the shepherd rejoiced when he found the one lost sheep, there will be rejoicing in heaven when one lost sinner is found. That is the similarity, not four legs!

2. It contains an impossible conversation

. The parable portrays the rich man in “Hades” speaking directly to Lazarus in “Abraham’s bosom.” Can people in heaven have conversations with people in hell? For that matter, do people in heaven really watch people burning in hell? Not according to Jesus, who describes a “great gulf fixed” between the saved and the lost Luke 16:26

Can a person not in heaven have conversations with persons who are? Both Paul and John did. 2 Cor 12 and Rev. If God wants the rich man in hell to be able to speak to Abraham in heaven don't you think He can make that happen?
.....In the OT there are at least 2 stories, God speaking, where men dead mean in sheol speak and move. Isaiah 14:4, Isaiah 14:9-10 Ezekiel 32:20-21, Ezekiel 32:31-32

3. It uses clear symbolic imagery.

The rich man wants Abraham to send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool his tongue (verse 24). This must be symbolic—because it can’t possibly happen physically. How much water could pass through the flames, and what help would it provide someone suffering in hell?

If a man was being tormented in flames would you expect him to be rational? So his cry for a drop of water is something that a man in agony might say.

4. It uses figurative expressions.

Do the people who died with faith in Christ find their rest in Abraham’s literal bosom? How big is Abraham’s bosom? This must be a figurative expression, for we know that angels will gather the saints at the second coming of Christ (see Matthew 24:30, 31).

First Lazarus and the rich man are not people who died with faith in Christ. They were both Jews under the old covenant. But the angels did gather Lazarus to Abraham's bosom. Luke 16;22
.....Was Jesus literally in the father's bosom John 1:18? "Abraham's bosom" is a position not a place. In that day they did not sit at tables as we do, they reclined on their left elbow, at a low table, with their feet stretched out away from the table. That is how the woman was able to wash Jesus' feet with her tears and dry them with her hair. Women did not crawl around under the table of strange men.
..... "In the bosom" is the position to the right, actually in front, of the host at a banquet. Jews believed that they would be seated in Abraham's bosom, at the heavenly banquet when they died.

5. It would otherwise contradict the rest of Scripture.

If this story were literal, it would be hard to explain why the Bible says “in death there is no remembrance” (Psalm 6:5). Instead, those who die are asleep in the grave awaiting resurrection (1 Thessalonians 4:15, 16). The Bible compares death to sleep over 50 times. See one example by Jesus in John 11:11–14.

First see the scripture I linked to above, about what happens after death. Psalm 6 is a prayer of David, he is not speaking thus saith the Lord, writing what God gave him to write. David is praying stating what he can understand from his own senses.
.....All of the early church fathers who quoted or referred to the story of Lazarus and the rich man, were native Greek speakers and considered it factual.

• Irenaeus [120-202 AD] Against Heresies Book II Chapter XXXIV.-Souls Can Be Recognised in the Separate State, and are Immortal Although They Once Had a Beginning. [was a student of Polycarp, who was a student of John.]
1. The Lord has taught with very great fulness, that souls not only continue to exist, not by passing from body to body, but that they preserve the same form [in their separate state] as the body had to which they were adapted, and that they remember the deeds which they did in this state of existence, and from which they have now ceased,-in that narrative which is recorded respecting the rich man and that Lazarus who found repose in the bosom of Abraham. In this account He states that Dives [=Latin for rich] knew Lazarus after death, and Abraham in like manner, and that each one of these persons continued in his own proper position, and that [Dives] requested Lazarus to be sent to relieve him-[Lazarus], on whom he did not [formerly] bestow even the crumbs [which fell] from his table. [He tells us] also of the answer given by Abraham, who was acquainted not only with what respected himself, but Dives also, and who enjoined those who did not wish to come into that place of torment to believe Moses and the prophets, and to receive the preaching of Him who was to rise again from the dead. By these things, then, it is plainly declared that souls continue to exist that they do not pass from body to body, that they possess the form of a man, so that they may be recognised, and retain the memory of things in this world; moreover, that the gift of prophecy was possessed by Abraham, and that each class of souls] receives a habitation such as it has deserved, even before the judgment.
Link: ANF01. The Apostolic Fathers with Justin Martyr and Irenaeus | Christian Classics Ethereal Library
• Clement of Alexandria [A.D. 153-193-217] The Instructor [Paedagogus] Book 1 Chaper 11
On the Resurrection.“There was a certain man,” said the Lord, narrating, “very rich, who was clothed in purple and scarlet, enjoying himself splendidly every day.” This was the day. “And a certain poor man named Lazarus was laid at the rich man’s gate, full of sores, desiring to be filled with the crumbs which fell from the rich man’s table.” This is the grass. Well, the rich man was punished in Hades, being made partaker of the fire; while the other flourished again in the Father’s bosom.
• Tertullian A Treatise On The Soul [A.D. 145-220.] Part First
In hell the soul of a certain man is in torment, punished in flames, suffering excruciating thirst, and imploring from the finger of a happier soul, for his tongue, the solace of a drop of water. Do you suppose that this end of the blessed poor man and the miserable rich man is only imaginary? Then why the name of Lazarus in this narrative, if the circumstance is not in (the category of) a real occurrence? But even if it is to be regarded as imaginary, it will still be a testimony to truth and reality. For unless the soul possessed corporeality, the image of a soul could not possibly contain a finger of a bodily substance; nor would the Scripture feign a statement about the limbs of a body, if these had no existence.
• The Epistles Of Cyprian (A.D. 200-258) Epistle 54 To Cornelius, Concerning Fortunatus And Felicissimus, Or Against The Heretics
A good man out of the good treasure bringeth forth good things; and an evil man out of the evil treasure bringeth forth evil things.” Whence also that rich sinner who implores help from Lazarus, then laid in Abraham’s bosom, and established in a place of comfort, while he, writhing in torments, is consumed by the heats of burning flame, suffers most punishment of all parts of his body in his mouth and his tongue, because doubtless in his mouth and his tongue he had most sinned.
• Methodius Fragments On The History Of Jonah (A.D. 260-312)
But souls, being rational bodies, are arranged by the Maker and Father of all things into members which are visible to reason, having received this impression. Whence, also, in Hades, as in the case of Lazarus and the rich man, they are spoken of as having a tongue, and a finger, and the other members; not as though they had with them another invisible body, but that the souls themselves, naturally, when entirely stripped of their covering, are such according to their essence.​

 

[faroukfarouk]

According to some.

At any rate, it's against the forum rules to state or imply that another Christian member, or group of members, is/are not Christian.

"...everything I say is therefore true..." is no way to argue around the essentials of the faith.

 

[salt-n-light]

Especially when people are so eager to argue against Hell and it's suffering not being eternal, the same way people try so hard to argue that homosexuality is a not a sin, or that abortion is right, rejecting sound scripture to satisfy their itching ears for false doctrines and teachings.

Easy, because they are their own gods. Each person does and says and think what is right in their own minds. God is a threat to their flesh. Hell is a threat to their "heaven".

I don't think we read enough on the book of Judges.

 

[Danoded]

Easy, because they are their own gods. Each person does and says and think what is right in their own minds. God is a threat to their flesh. Hell is a threat to their "heaven".

I don't think we read enough on the book of Judges.

Indeed indeed, those that try to lead people astray by trying to convince people that Hell is not eternal because their god isn't like that to do that to people are truly workers of iniquity.

 

[DarkSoul999]

Both annihilation and ECT (eternal conscious torment) can be debated from scripture. I think annhilation has a stronger scriptural foundation...but we already have a thread on that for debate.

To me ECT as a punishment is logically inconsistent with a loving God. It is literally the most evil thing you could do to someone for absolutely no purpose.

The only purpose is to express hate for his enemies. ECT means that God cannot be love itself. He would have to be an entity of both love and hate.

 

[DarkSoul999]

Wishful thinking, perhaps?

It disturbs some people to think that someone could spend eternity in Hell- even more so when they realize that there's probably going to be a lot of people there. So, they're inclined to "reason away" the idea of eternal punishment.

If you can't reason it away then it is time to reason away the "god is love" claim. Unless someone wishes to philosophically argue that hate can be another manifestation of love. Dungeon wardens will be delighted.

 

[Danoded]

The only purpose is to express hate for his enemies. ECT means that God cannot be love itself. He would have to be an entity of both love and hate.

Who are we to define God? God is the Almighty God, He decides what is just and is unjust, what is good and what is evil. God hates sin, and unrepentant sinners cannot inherit the kingdom of God, they will instead inherit satan's den, that is their reward for their evil.

 

[DarkSoul999]

Who are we to define God? God is the Almighty God, He decides what is just and is unjust, what is good and what is evil. God hates sin, and unrepentant sinners cannot inherit the kingdom of God, they will instead inherit satan's den, that is their reward for their evil.

I don't think you understand what I'm saying. What is God's attitude when he intentionally tortures his enemies for infinity times infinity? Is that love or hate? I suppose this question could get philosophically complex in terms of the function or purpose of this judgment but the question of God's attitude is the simplest one there is. We can start with the assumption that he is at least a bit cross with them...

For the sake of argument let's say one of my kids strangled a baby to death because it wouldn't stop crying. Then me being a loving father decided to tie my child to the wall in the basement and then slowly performed Chinese cutting torture on them to keep them awake and alive as long as possible. Would you call that love? That is gentle compared to God's response towards the exact same sin!

There is only one difference: I would go to death row because I am mortal. God holds absolute power