Why people reject the reality of Hell

[P1LGR1M]

The five (5) qualifications for aionios kolasis/ everlasting punishment according to the Master of reconciliation =

1.________________?

2.________________?

3.________________?

4.________________?

5.________________?

Already answered:

Here is the condition made clear:


Matthew 25:45-46
King James Version

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


You are trying to take a parable that has as a first application the Millennial Kingdom (will money be relevant to the Eternal State?) and ignoring Christ's summation.

Just deal with the summation, Fine Linen.

Do you really not see that the Lord states without controversy that there will be those who go away into everlasting punishment and those that will have Life Eternal?

Why kick at the goads?


God bless.

Here it is again without the BBCode so it is not clipped:

Here is the condition made clear:


Matthew 25:45-46
King James Version

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


You are trying to take a parable that has as a first application the Millennial Kingdom (will money be relevant to the Eternal State?) and ignoring Christ's summation.

Just deal with the summation, Fine Linen.

Do you really not see that the Lord states without controversy that there will be those who go away into everlasting punishment and those that will have Life Eternal?

Why kick at the goads?


God bless.


If you feel there are five condition feel free to present them.

You can put those right beside the "two clean animals" you see in Matthew 25.

But I would ask that you refrain from spamming the same post when you have already been answered.


Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

Note the context.

1. Why pure virgins? (5 wise & 5 unwise), but virgins!

Because these ten virgins are two clean animals that meet the five conditions for Eternal Punishment?




Continued...

 

[P1LGR1M]

2. Why two clean animals rather than 1 clean and 1 unclean?

Not relevant since there is no mention of two clean animals and one unclean animal in Matthew 25.

But I am at least glad you acknowledge that the Lord is teaching Everlasting Punishment in Mattew 25.

I guess that's a start.


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

...

The beginning is God, the ending is God. He swallows all death into Himself in one big gulp!
Our Father is the ta panta of the all.

More patently false information from the trash can of universal reconciliation. No, zero, none scripture for this.

 

[P1LGR1M]

The beginning is God, the ending is God. He swallows all death into Himself in one big gulp!

Our Father is the ta panta of the all.

That's funny, because Scripture teaches that it is the Lake of Fire that swallows up death:


Revelation 20:14
King James Version

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


Since there is no death in the Eternal State...


Revelation 21:4
King James Version

4 And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away.


...would you mind presenting what Scripture you base your teaching that God swallows up death?

There is no death in God.

And...

Our Father is the ta panta of the all.

How exactly is God 1) the Father of those that reject Him, and 2) everything for those that are not in Him?

Christ didn't teach the Universal Fatherhood of God:


John 8:44
Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do. He was a murderer from the beginning, and abode not in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he speaketh a lie, he speaketh of his own: for he is a liar, and the father of it.


Why do you?


Matthew 13:36-42
King James Version

36 Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field.

37 He answered and said unto them, He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man;

38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;

39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels.

40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

41 The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity;

42 And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Christ did not teach universal salvation, either.

There are wheat and tares, and the tares are the children of the wicked one, Satan. They shall be gathered out of His Kingdom just as the five foolish virgins and the unprofitable servant, and shall be cast into a furnace of fire, the Lake of Fire, and they shall wail and gnash their teeth.

God will not be everything to them, for He will not be their Savior, He will be their Judge.


God bless.

 

[FineLinen]

That's funny, because Scripture teaches that it is the Lake of Fire that swallows up death:

Bingo!

The Lake of theion and theioo =

Our God the Lake of Fire

 

[FineLinen]

Not relevant since there is no mention of two clean animals and one unclean animal in Matthew 25.

The fact is it is very relevant! Sheep & goats are both clean animals. The Master is speaking of two clean animals & pure virgins.

 

[FineLinen]

Because these ten virgins are two clean animals that meet the five conditions for Eternal Punishment?

Good grief, you cannot be this slow!

 

[FineLinen]

Trying to disprove Everlasting Punishment by requiring these English words and ignoring the rest of the teachings of Christ and Scripture doesn't even reach a level that can be called an argument from silence.[/b]

The Master speaks of "everlasting punishment" once in St. Matthew 25:46. The qualifications are clearly enunciated!

2 clean animals, 5 wise virgins, 5 unwise virgins.

 

[P1LGR1M]

That's funny, because Scripture teaches that it is the Lake of Fire that swallows up death:


Revelation 20:14
King James Version

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

Bingo!

The Lake of theion and theioo =

Our God the Lake of Fire

God is the Lake of Fire?

Where exactly is the Scripture that teaches that God is the Lake of Fire?


God bless.

 

[Der Alte]

....

The Master speaks of "everlasting punishment" once in St. Matthew 25:46. The qualifications are clearly enunciated!
2 clean animals, 5 wise virgins, 5 unwise virgins.

Wrong! Mixing at least 2 separate narratives.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Not relevant since there is no mention of two clean animals and one unclean animal in Matthew 25.

But I am at least glad you acknowledge that the Lord is teaching Everlasting Punishment in Matthew 25.

I guess that's a start.


God bless.

The fact is it is very relevant! Sheep & goats are both clean animals. The Master is speaking of two clean animals & pure virgins.

First, the righteous are not animals. And the mention of Sheep is euphemistic.

Second, the righteous are not sacrifices or food, hence they are not cast in the character of animals in the Lord's teaching in Matthew 25.

Third, those cast into the Lake of Fire, who go into the Everlasting Punishment the Lord states they go into—are not clean, they are unrighteous.

Fourth, the Lord doesn't say all ten virgins are pure. He specifically calls five of them foolish, and in Bible terms to be a fool is not a good thing.

Lastly, there is zero mention of an unclean animal: virgins are not cast as animals either.


You are in error in your calculations and your attempt to spiritualize a very simple teaching of Christ, going so far as to make His teaching of none effect.


God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

Because these ten virgins are two clean animals that meet the five conditions for Eternal Punishment?




Continued...

Good grief, you cannot be this slow!

I don't mind the personal attacks, but when someone makes light of my humor...

...that hurts.




God bless.

 

[P1LGR1M]

As already addressed, trying to disprove Everlasting Punishment by requiring these English words and ignoring the rest of the teachings of Christ and Scripture doesn't even reach a level that can be called an argument from silence.

Why no response to this:


P1LGR1M said: ↑
The one passage addressing everlasting punishment.

That's a good error to address first:


Mark 9:43-44
King James Version

43 And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

44 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.


Here is a second of many passages addressing everlasting punishment.

What are you going to do with it?


Everlasting Punishment is taught in many passages that have been presented over and over again.

Yet you continue spamming the same post.


Continued...

The Master speaks of "everlasting punishment" once in St. Matthew 25:46. The qualifications are clearly enunciated!

2 clean animals, 5 wise virgins, 5 unwise virgins.

No, He speaks of everlasting punishment no less than three times in Matthew 25.

There are no "two clean animals" spoken of, there is no unclean animal spoken of, and the five foolish virgins are cast out of the Kingdom where there will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.

Not a single suggestion you make adds up, just as your "9 takes" which was only 7, and your "five conditions" that add up to zero, because none of them are actually relevant to the Lord's teaching itself.

Now the Public knows why you refused to answer the questions and responses given to your "9 takes."

It is appropriate to call them "takes," because your presentation reads more like Hollywood fiction than a serious treatment of the teaching of Christ in Matthew 25.


God bless.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

A God who purposes nothing but our human flourishing couldn’t want to inflict this. It would make no sense. God, if anything, must be on our side in trying to repress and desacralize human violence. How could he himself give it positive meaning? And granted the interweaving of the two strategies above, the way in which a sense of destruction as from God licences our joyful participation as agents of God, engaged in sacred massacre, the repudiation of human violence seems to require the denial of divine destruction.

So in this anthropocentric climate, where we keep any idea of the spiritual, it must be totally constructive, positive. It can’t accommodate Kali, and is less and less able to allow for a God who punishes. The wrath of God disappears, leaving only His love.

On the older view, wrath had to be part of the package. The sense of salvation was inseparable from that of our having fallen, being degraded. This in turn was inseparable from that of deserving punishment; deserved punishment has to be meted out. God owes this to his honour, [...]. So some people fry in Hell; and the others are only saved because Christ offered “satisfaction” for them. This was the heart of the juridical-penal understanding of the atonement.

But in the anthropocentric climate, this no longer makes sense, and indeed, appears monstrous. True, an earlier phase, which I called above “Providential Deism”, preserves the idea of rewards and punishments beyond the grave. And this made sense as a helpful measure to keep us on the path towards our own good, as we saw, for instance, with Locke. But as the feeling wanes that we need this kind of external prop, the last reason for divine violence, as punishment/pedagogy, disappears.

So there is a particularly strong attack against this whole dimension of the old theology, which gave a place to divine violence as punishment or trial. Hence the striking modern phenomenon, which has been described as “the decline of Hell”.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age (pp. 649-650). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

 

[Der Alte]

A God who purposes nothing but our human flourishing couldn’t want to inflict this. It would make no sense. God, if anything, must be on our side in trying to repress and desacralize human violence. How could he himself give it positive meaning? And granted the interweaving of the two strategies above, the way in which a sense of destruction as from God licences our joyful participation as agents of God, engaged in sacred massacre, the repudiation of human violence seems to require the denial of divine destruction.
So in this anthropocentric climate, where we keep any idea of the spiritual, it must be totally constructive, positive. It can’t accommodate Kali, and is less and less able to allow for a God who punishes. The wrath of God disappears, leaving only His love.
On the older view, wrath had to be part of the package. The sense of salvation was inseparable from that of our having fallen, being degraded. This in turn was inseparable from that of deserving punishment; deserved punishment has to be meted out. God owes this to his honour, [...]. So some people fry in Hell; and the others are only saved because Christ offered “satisfaction” for them. This was the heart of the juridical-penal understanding of the atonement.
But in the anthropocentric climate, this no longer makes sense, and indeed, appears monstrous. True, an earlier phase, which I called above “Providential Deism”, preserves the idea of rewards and punishments beyond the grave. And this made sense as a helpful measure to keep us on the path towards our own good, as we saw, for instance, with Locke. But as the feeling wanes that we need this kind of external prop, the last reason for divine violence, as punishment/pedagogy, disappears.
So there is a particularly strong attack against this whole dimension of the old theology, which gave a place to divine violence as punishment or trial. Hence the striking modern phenomenon, which has been described as “the decline of Hell”.
Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age (pp. 649-650). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

I can't seem to find the book of "Charles Taylor" in my Bible. There is not one single vs. of scripture cited in support of anything this guy Taylor says.

 

[PuerAzaelis]

You didn’t read the passage as being somewhat sympathetic to your position?

Oh well, as you were.

 

[P1LGR1M]

So there is a particularly strong attack against this whole dimension of the old theology, which gave a place to divine violence as punishment or trial. Hence the striking modern phenomenon, which has been described as “the decline of Hell”.

Which some view as the decline of serious Bible Doctrine.

Which contributes to the decline of the Church, which contributes to the decline of the Church's impact on a lost world.

What some view as "rethinking" can be seen as no thinking involved at all. Go through the threads and read the proof texts provided to support universal salvation and annihilation. Any serious Bible Scholar would recognize the out-of-context applications that are necessary to deny one of the clearest teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

Similarly, your post is completely barren of Scripture and seeks to rationalize something that is objected to.

It begins with the familiar argument:

A God who purposes nothing but our human flourishing couldn’t want to inflict this.

That is correct—God doesn't want to have to judge men and women who reject His longsuffering as He gives them every opportunity to be saved from Everlasting Punishment.

But the truth is—God does what has to be done:


Hebrews 10:5-8
King James Version

5 Wherefore when he cometh into the world, he saith, Sacrifice and offering thou wouldest not, but a body hast thou prepared me:

6 In burnt offerings and sacrifices for sin thou hast had no pleasure.

7 Then said I, Lo, I come (in the volume of the book it is written of me,) to do thy will, O God.

8 Above when he said, Sacrifice and offering and burnt offerings and offering for sin thou wouldest not, neither hadst pleasure therein; which are offered by the law;


Don't you think that if God did not have to veil His glory in human flesh, suffer at the hands of wicked men, be put to death, and rise again the third day—He might have done something different?

Is it God that men...


Hebrews 10:28-29
King James Version

28 He that despised Moses' law died without mercy under two or three witnesses:

29 Of how much sorer punishment, suppose ye, shall he be thought worthy, who hath trodden under foot the Son of God, and hath counted the blood of the covenant, wherewith he was sanctified, an unholy thing, and hath done despite unto the Spirit of grace?


...or is it men and women that decide to reject His will?

How hard is it to understand...


Matthew 25:41-46
King James Version

41 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels:

42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:

43 I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not.

44 Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee?

45 Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me.

46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.


...?

I agree, God doesn't want to judge those who reject His will, but He will, and He makes that very clear in Scripture.

God bless.

 

[David's Harp]

A God who purposes nothing but our human flourishing couldn’t want to inflict this. It would make no sense. God, if anything, must be on our side in trying to repress and desacralize human violence. How could he himself give it positive meaning? And granted the interweaving of the two strategies above, the way in which a sense of destruction as from God licences our joyful participation as agents of God, engaged in sacred massacre, the repudiation of human violence seems to require the denial of divine destruction.

So in this anthropocentric climate, where we keep any idea of the spiritual, it must be totally constructive, positive. It can’t accommodate Kali, and is less and less able to allow for a God who punishes. The wrath of God disappears, leaving only His love.

On the older view, wrath had to be part of the package. The sense of salvation was inseparable from that of our having fallen, being degraded. This in turn was inseparable from that of deserving punishment; deserved punishment has to be meted out. God owes this to his honour, [...]. So some people fry in Hell; and the others are only saved because Christ offered “satisfaction” for them. This was the heart of the juridical-penal understanding of the atonement.

But in the anthropocentric climate, this no longer makes sense, and indeed, appears monstrous. True, an earlier phase, which I called above “Providential Deism”, preserves the idea of rewards and punishments beyond the grave. And this made sense as a helpful measure to keep us on the path towards our own good, as we saw, for instance, with Locke. But as the feeling wanes that we need this kind of external prop, the last reason for divine violence, as punishment/pedagogy, disappears.

So there is a particularly strong attack against this whole dimension of the old theology, which gave a place to divine violence as punishment or trial. Hence the striking modern phenomenon, which has been described as “the decline of Hell”.

Taylor, Charles. A Secular Age (pp. 649-650). Harvard University Press. Kindle Edition.

Man seems to have made a lot of progress "in this anthropocentric climate....". I wonder what God makes of our 'progress'.

I can't seem to find the book of "Charles Taylor" in my Bible. There is not one single vs. of scripture cited in support of anything this guy Taylor says.

He's not even a theologian, but a philosopher!

 

[P1LGR1M]

You didn’t read the passage as being somewhat sympathetic to your position?

Oh well, as you were.

I didn't see it as sympathetic either.

It is seeking to rationalize the efforts of those who reject the teachings of Christ and the Apostles.

Sorry.


God bless.