Why does God send GOOD Non-believers to Hell

[morgan4445]

I really don't care what W.E. Vine's opinions are. His quotes are not scripture. Thank you. I don't mind reading yours though.

 

[morgan4445]

Aiki. Please ignore my last post. I'm sorry if I came across a little snooty. ha. You are allowed to post whatever you want. You've had to endure reading all of my long posts. LOL. We could continue going back and forth probably for a long time and neither one of us is gonna change our beliefs. Maybe we will just have to agree to disagree. lol. We both love Jesus. We have that in common. Peace. Take care.

 

[morgan4445]

Oh, and also, earthly prisons do perpetuate crime. Ask anyone who's been in prison. Crime happens in prison also, and most of the time does not even deter crime. Most of the time prisoners are even worse when they get out. But, that's neither here nor there. Earthly prisons are not the issue. And as far as annhilation not being a punishment, I bet the people that are going to be thrown into the Lake of fire would not agree with you at all. Paying for your sins with your very life most certainly is punishment! (Mathew 10:39) "Whoever finds his life will lose it, and whoever loses his life for my sake will find it." ok. I'm done. LOL. Peace.

 

[aiki]

For God to have an eternal place of torment somewhere in the universe would not eradicate sin, but perpetuate it.

How would sin be perpetuated in a place where people are entirely alone, in darkness, tormented by eternal fire? Sinners endure their eternal punishment in hell, but that is all that goes on there. Its not like sinners get together in hell and plan sin parties.

The Gehenna Fire/Lake of Fire will be on this earth. (2Peter 2:6) "He condemned the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah by burning them to *ashes*, making them an *example* of what's going to happen to the ungodly."

You are reading the location of hell into the verse, I'm afraid. I don't know what version you're quoting from, but my King James Bible says:

"And turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an example unto those who after should live ungodly." (2Pe. 2:6)

There is nothing at all in this verse (or its context) that warrants asserting that it teaches that hell is going to be on earth. All it says is that the judgment of Sodom and Gomorrha would serve as a reminder of God's punishment of sin to later generations of the ungodly. That's it. Your rendering of the verse, however, makes the verse say something quite different. I'm curious from which Bible version you take your rendering.

(2Peter3:6) (regarding Noah's flood) states "By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the Day of Judgment and *destruction* of ungodly men."

You know what's interesting? That this verse says that the world was destroyed. Obviously, it wasn't destroyed in the sense that it was annihilated, or Noah wouldn't have floated about on it for forty days and nights. But if "destroyed" in this instance doesn't mean annihilated, what does it mean? Well, we see that it means just what W.E Vine says it means:

Gk. - "Apollumi" - The idea is not extinction but ruin, loss, not of being, but of well-being.

If the term "destroy" or "destroyed" isn't used in Scripture to mean extinction or annihilation, but rather loss of well-being or ruin, as we see it does in the case of how Peter describes what happened to the world in the Great Flood, then isn't it reasonable to think that when Scripture says that people are destroyed in hell, that it doesn't mean they are annihilated? Obviously, yes (especially when the same Greek word is used in both instances).

As for using these verses from 2 Peter 3 as a basis for the idea that God will place hell on earth, well, again, this is something you have to read into the verse, rather than draw out of it. All the verses say is that the earth and heavens are reserved for fire. They don't indicate that it is specifically the fire of hell. And verse 10 of this chapter effectively rules out the reading you're giving verses 6 and 7: "But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night: in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved..." (2 Pe. 3:10, 11a) Now this is how the Bible describes annihilation! Phrases like "melt with fervent heat," "burned up," and "dissolved" leave little doubt that nothing will be left of the heavens and earth when the Day of the Lord arrives. Certainly, there won't be any place to put hell on a planet that has been dissolved, burned up, and melted with fervent heat!

When Jesus spoke of Gehenna Fire using the words "where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched", he was quoting (Isaiha 66:24) which states: "And they(the redeemed) will go out and look upon the bodies of those who rebelled against Me; their worm will not die, nor will their fire be quenched, and they will be loathsome to all mankind." This is on the earth, unless the "redeemed" take a trip to hell.

As we've just seen, the apostle Peter leaves no room for this assertion. Hell will not be on earth because it will have been dissolved with fervent heat. You're going to have to rethink your above interpretation.

The fire is "unquenchable", so to speak, because nothing can thwart God's Judgment, nothing can put this fire out until it's purpose is served. Sodom and Gomorrah were said to be destroyed with an "unquenchable fire", but they're not still burning.

Oh? Where in Scripture does it say the fire that destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah was "unquenchable"? The Genesis account doesn't say that... A simpler, more appropriate reading of "unquenchable" might be simply "it cannot be quenched." And inasmuch as Jesus himself describes the fire of hell as "everlasting," (Matt. 18:8) it is more appropriate and reasonable to understand that this is what "unquenchable" means, too.

Why do ppl not believe God is capable of destroying us when He says throughout the bible that is what He is going to do?

Because what you think is meant by destruction and what Scripture means by it are not the same thing. Take for instance Luke 5:37:

"And no man puts new wine into old bottles; else the new wine will burst the bottles, and be spilled, and the bottles shall perish (or gk. - apollumi - destroyed)"

Is Jesus saying that the old bottles filled with new wine are annihilated? No, not at all. They are ruined by bursting, they are no longer in a good state, but they still exist.

Or what about 1 Peter 1:7?:

"That the trial of your faith, being much more precious than of gold that perishes...(or gk. - apollumi - is destroyed)"

What kind of gold "perishes" or is "destroyed"? Gold may be damaged, or melted down, or be diminished by impurities, but it doesn't just wink out of existence, like it would were it annihilated. Obviously, Peter means something else besides "annihilated" when he uses the phrase "is destroyed" in this verse.

How about Luke 15:24?:

"For this my son was dead, and is alive again; he was lost, and is found."

Many people who like to suggest the "Second Death" means annihilation seem to ignore the way the term "dead" is used in this verse. Very clearly here, "dead" does not mean annihilation. Instead, the father of the Prodigal Son explains that it means he was simply lost to the father, that they were separated one from the other. And this is how, among other things, the phrase "Second Death" is to be understood also: The eternal separation of the wicked from their Creator, not annihilation.

"The wages of sin is *death*(doesn't say eternal torment forever),

It doesn't have to since in other places in Scripture this is what death in hell is explained as being.

"God gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believeth in Him should not *perish*, but have everlasting life." Why doesn't it say "should not be tormented and burned for all eternity, but have everlasting life?"

See my explanation above.

How come the OT is silent about eternal torment?

It isn't.

Deut. 32:22 - For a fire is kindled in mine anger, and shall burn unto the lowest hell...

2 Samuel 22:6 - The sorrows of hell compassed me about...

Psalm 9:17 - The wicked shall be turned into hell, and all the nations that forget God.

Psalm 116:3 - The sorrows of death compassed me, and the pains of hell gat hold upon me: I found trouble and sorrow.

Proverbs 15:11 - Hell and destruction are before the Lord:

Proverbs 15:24 - The way of life is above to the wise, that he may depart from hell beneath.

Proverbs 23:14 - Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell.

And so on. These verses indicates that hell burns; that it is painful and sorrowful; that it goes hand in hand with destruction; that it may be avoided by wise and righteous living and thus, by implication, is the "home" of the wicked who are dead.

Well, I could go on, but it seems pretty clear to me (and perhaps to you, too) that you haven't exegeted Scripture very well. I think continuing would be simply beating a dead horse. I hope you will carefully reconsider your mistaken views on what hell actually is.

Selah.

 

[aiki]

The parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man is a parable, a story. The bible is highly symbolic, especially Jesus' parables.

Christ's parables may have a symbolic dimension, but as I explained in one of my last posts to OWG, they are always expressed through the mundane. Jesus used familiar, common occurences to illustrate his teachings, not fantastical or surreal ones. His audience could immediately recognize in his parables situations that were based in reality: A shepherd looking for a lost sheep; a bridegroom inviting guests to his wedding feast; a man buying a field in which he has discovered buried treasure; a rich man building bigger barns to hold his bountiful harvest, and so on.

We come to the parable of Lazarus and the Rich Man and find, again, that it, too, is anchored in mundane reality. Beggars and Rich Men were common enough to the people to whom Jesus was sharing his parable. Jesus explains that both men die, which, again, happens all the time. But, when Christ begins to talk of what happened after the men had died, suddenly, we are to understand that this part of the parable is completely false? Everything Jesus says Lazarus and the Rich Man experience after their death is utter nonsense? He doesn't do this in any other parable, so why assume he is doing so in this one? Certainly, nothing in what Jesus says as he communicates the latter part of the parable suggests that he thought what he was saying was totally fiction.

Really, the point of the parable is lost if what happened to Lazarus and the Rich Man after their death is false.

If we are to take every single word Jesus says absolutely literally, then we Christains should be going around with our eyes plucked out and our limbs cut off.

Only if they offend such that they place us in jeopardy of hell. What does Christ say?:

Matthew 5:29-30
29 If your right eye causes you to sin, pluck it out and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.
30 And if your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and cast it from you; for it is more profitable for you that one of your members perish, than for your whole body to be cast into hell.

Do you think Jesus was kidding when he said it is better to lose a body part to avoid sin than to allow it cause the eternal destruction of your whole body? I don't.

Are we to believe all of the rich go to hell while all of the poor go to heaven/paradise?

This isn't what Christ taught, is it? It is much harder for the rich to enter the kingdom of God, but not impossible. (Matt. 19:24)

And that if someone were literally engulfed in flames writhing around in torment, they would only ask for a drop of water?

I think Christ would know better than you if this was true or not.

Are we to believe that the saved in heaven/paradise can see and converse with the damned burning in flames?

What did Jesus teach? This is the question, not whether or not you're inclined to believe it. Do you believe Moses parted the Red Sea? That's just impossible, right? Nobody can do that! Or what about Elijah calling down fire from heaven? Ridiculous, eh? Why are these things even in the Bible? They are just too far-fetched to believe! And this sort of stuff is all over Scripture. (I'm being facetious now)

Seriously, if Jesus teaches that such things are possible after death, I'm going to believe him.

And how could someone in torments, writhing around in flames even speak?

But Jesus taught in his parable that he did, nonetheless.

And who really cares that the Rich Man was wearing purple when thrown into hell? Who cares that he had "5" brothers, or that dogs were licking Lazarus' wounds--unless these descriptions all symbloze something.

Actually, the details make the parable more, rather than less, real. Dogs licking the wounds of injured beggars was a common sight in Jesus' day. That the Rich Man had siblings would have resonated with those in the audience who had family, too. The purple robe simply emphasized the wealth of the Rich Man. Together these little details help bring the parable to life, increasing its impact upon the hearers of it.

Even if the interpretation you have given the parable is accurate, it doesn't alter the fact that Jesus used mundane, familiar situations to frame a more subtle, spiritual meaning. There were such things as beggars licked by dogs and rich men dressed well; all people die no matter their financial state; hell (or Hades) contains both the abode of the souls of the tormented wicked and the paradise for the souls of the righteous dead.

Selah.

 

[morgan4445]

Oh my! ALL of the OT scriptures you quoted where hell is mentioned actually mean the grave. Do you only have one translation of the bible at home? Maybe you need to study how hell has been translated in the bible. Sounds like you really need to. And as far as me changing my view on an eternal torture chamber---NEVER!! I believe it when God says that "the wages of sin is DEATH." I don't believe God is a liar. It's sad that you obviously do. I think we can both agree that our discussions are over. Good bye.

 

[aiki]

Oh my! ALL of the OT scriptures you quoted where hell is mentioned actually mean the grave. Do you only have one translation of the bible at home? Maybe you need to study how hell has been translated in the bible. Sounds like you really need to.

Don't be too quick to think I've made an ignorant mistake here. I know full well that hell is something of a catch-all term encompassing Sheol, Gehenna, Tartarus, etc. Maybe you should consider my comments on the OT verses more carefully, rather than trying to dismiss them out of hand.

I did write a great deal of which these OT verses constitute only a small part. Perhaps you'd like to comment constructively on the rest of what I've written?

Please know that I don't mean to threaten or demean you in this discussion, but I do wish to challenge how you're interpreting Scripture. My goal is to encourage you toward the truth rather than simply exposing faulty conclusions.

Selah.