Is hell eternal?

\
Ed

 

Amen, DHK!!

Those who do not believe in Hell, when they die I believe they will wake up knowing and experiencing the reality of Hell. For if one does not believe in hell, they cannot believe in the Christ of the Bible who warned of hell.

And without belief in Christ, one will never enter heaven.

 

I have changed my position on this matter. For many years, I believed in an eternal hell. Now, I think that the annihilation position is probably correct. In this post, my intent is not to deal with the Biblical arguments.

Instead, I wish to give my version of the "moral argument" - the argument that the notion of an eternal hell cannot be reconciled with our notions of love and justice.

I would ask you to consider what it means to understand the content of concepts like "love" and "justice". I maintain that if asked to explain what we mean by "love" or "justice", we would list off a series of propositions. I will focus on "love" for the present.

Propositions about "love" will tend to be expressed in what I will call "useful" or "operational" terms. What I mean by this is that our propositions would be expressed in the form of generalizations about identifiable behaviours that we think are constitutive of the concept "love". So for example we have:

1. To love is to provide care - food, shelter, education, medical care, etc.

2. To love is to act so that the person we love thrives - we want the person to be fulfilled and find meaning.

3. To love is take a course of action that will make the other person happy.

4. To love is to take those actions that allow the person to achieve their full potential.

5. To love sometimes means entails curtailing the freedom of another to do something or even inflicting pain on the person. We would only do these things because we believe such actions to be in the long terms best interests of that person, only because such actions will make the person happy in the end.

etc, etc.

I do not think that any of the above are particularly controversial.

Now let's introduce the proposition that consigning someone to an eternity of torment is consistent with these notions of love. I should think that it is clear that this simply cannot work. To ask us to believe this really amounts, by simple reasons of logical consistency and rational thinking, to abandon all of other notions of love. Why? Simply because all of our other ideas of love, ideas that we are taught on our mother's knees, from the "school of life", and even from the Scriptures, cannot accomodate this kind of thing.

This is because all of our propositions about love share one thing in common - they all involve working for the long term happiness and well-being of those that we love. Eternal torment does not fit.

I will stop now. There is a lot more that could be said, and I am not unaware of counterarguments about God's love being constrained by God's justice.

At the end of the day though, I would say that, while I do not share the atheist's unbelief, I share his mystification at how a believer in eternal torment can reconcile this item of doctrine with the kind of love that many of us aspire to - that love which seeks the ultimate good for the other.

One qualification - Faith Alone has suggested something to the effect that God may not really have had a choice about the matter of an eternal hell - it may be an unavoidable consequence of achieving his great purposes. I am certainly open to such an idea. I do, as you can see, have big problems with the idea that God would will an eternal hell into existence.

 

Luke 16:23 And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom.

Do you have a problem with the words of Jesus?

 

Luke 16 is an excellent example of a Jewish parable and legend where --

#1. Abraham is "in charge of all dead saints"
#2. The dead in hell can pray "directly TO Abraham" to make requests.
#3. Abraham does NOT refer to any other authority for making decisions.
#4. The point is made that those who turn a deaf ear and blind eye to Moses WILL NOT listen to a Messiah that rises from the dead!
#5. Real eyes and tounge and fingers (literal body) is in hell and real water is viewed as real relief.


And of course these are all good "clues" to Christians that this parable is not in fact "a historical account of the wicked praying to the righteous dead being prayed on behalf of the living!". (Though I think some are inclined to simply ignore the inconvenient details and believe "parts of the parable" are historic accounts anyway).

But that anyone could actually believe that all the dead saints are sitting in Abraham's lap while he fields requests from the wicked dead -- it is "impossible" to fathom that this parable found in a long string of Parables in Luke - would be clung to as though IT breaks out of that string of parables as a literal account!

And yet some do it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

That is the best proof I have seen

 

From http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3603/10.html#000136

Pretty interesting that merely "quoting" the text is "scripture twisting" if you don't agree with it.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Luke 16 is neither legend nor a parable. Why do you discredit the words of Jesus so? Do you not believe him?
In this actual account Jesus uses names just as Luke does in recording the transfiguration of Jesus in chapter 9. Are both parables??
This has none of the characteristics of the typical parables that Jesus tells.

However, even if it were, words still have meanings. Unless you were to allegorize the entire Bible including the death, burial and resurrection of Jesus Christ, how do you account for a rich man in hell being tormented day and night. What was the meaning of the teaching of Jesus. Parable or not, Jesus was still teaching truth. The truth is that there is eternal torment. Hell cannot be just allegorized away "like the crucifixion of Christ??" If you allegorize one, why not the other. Parables teach truth as well. What did Jesus mean when he said he was being tormented. He meant just what he said: he was being tormented in these flames. Words have meanings.
DHK

 

When the reference is used to defend a particular doctrine then it is used out of context isn't it?

If the title of this thread was "Purgatory," and I quoted the same Scripture, you would say the same thing, have the same reaction, wouldn't you? But now you are on the defensive because you are defending an aberrant doctrine. Twisting Scripture to defend an aberrant doctrine.
DHK

 

I beg to differ.

If someone said "I believe in purgatory and here is proof -- (Bible text quoted here)".

Then I do not charge them with "scripture twisting" until they take the text in paraphrase and show some part of it as a speaking of purgatory. If they simply quote the text saying "Hey I believe in purgatory - now read these 10 verses from Matt 10 and consider what they say" - it is not scripture twisting.

I fully "expect" all Bible believing Christians to feel obligated to show some scripture in favor of their views - even if I am opposed. Simply quoting the text is not "the error".

It is in taking the text apart and paraphrasing it in such a way (in the "specifics" in the "details" that they use to spin the text) that becomes scripture "twisting".

One may "say" -- "My car can drive across Lake Michigan" all they want. But it is not until they actually get in the car and drive it into the lake that I can charge them with "bad driving".

In Christ,

Bob

 

If that is what you believe Bob, then you owe me an apology, for you misrepresented me. I went to the link you posted, and I have done exactly what you said you would do. I explained why the verse could not be used to defend annihilation.
There was no verse that was simply quoted and left without an answer. Shall I say that is a lie?
DHK

 

There are 4 parables in Luke leading up to the parable in Luke 16. I do not consider it a "discredit to Christ" to admit that.

Why in the world would you suppose that to think that Christ spoke in parables is to "discredit" Him?

I point out the details "in the parable" that show it to appeal perfectly to His hostile Jewish audience that had just stated their total rejection of the string of parables he had just given.

Sure I do. He makes the case that this parable "proves" that if one does not accept the teaching of Moses they will not accept the teaching of the Messiah risen from the dead! He gives the summary point for His own parable - and I firmly believe it!

I also see how it perfectly fits the need of the moment by providing an "acceptable" parable to Jews that were rejecting His previous examples!

Every detail in the transfiguration is perfectly doctrinally acceptable to Christians.

But prayers to the dead, all saints sitting in Abraham's lap, Abraham literally in charge of all dead saints, Abraham's authority ALONE being the authority to appeal to regarding the living!...

NONE of that works as "literal" for a Bible believing Christian.

NONE of that can be found in the case of the Transfiguration.

And in the case of the Transfiguration there is no hostile audience to be given a parable so they will consider the point. NEITHER is there a "summary lesson" given AFTER the transfiguration as in the case of parables!

In the OT when the trees come to elect a king - the various ones are NAMED -- it is a "parable anyway".

Nobody points to the names of the different types of trees as "proof" that trees really talk.

And we need not point to Luke 16 names as "proof" that the dead are really sitting in Abraham's lap or that the wicked dead a praying directly to Abraham OR that Abraham is in charge of the ministry that is to be given to the LIVING from the dead!

The "very details themselves" are rejected even by those who "want" Luke 16 not to be a parable!

What could be more obvious?

In Christ,

Bob

 

BobRyan,

In all the stories Jesus told where the Bible specifically calls them parables, a personal name was not named one time. In the story in Luke chapter 16, the name of the beggar is given. That story is not a parable as many would surmise, it is a real account Christ is telling of. The rich man was in hell and in torment, Lazarus was in Abraham's bosom and comforted.

Luke 16 is not a parable.

 

Here is the link again - http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3603/10.html#000136

Notice that in all the quote boxes you give - you do not show any paraphrasing or any "incorrect detail" in the post to which you are responding.

You merely show how you view the text quoted to fit your own view.

So you make the charge about "scripture twisting" but don't show any actual quote selected by you of that post you are responding to - that has a "detail being twisted".

That was my point.

in Christ,

Bob

 

#1. It can not be shown that every parable Christ told had the word "parable" in the text.

#2. There is no stated rule in all of scripture that states that an actual name can not be used in a parable. The names of the trees that elect a king being a good example.

#3. It has been shown repeatedly that the list of "details" in the parable totally rejected EVEN by those who want the parable to be true - are undeniable!

Those are the TWO details that ARE accepted as literal in the story by those who hope that it is not a parable - as they reject ALL the other details so unnacceptable to Christians (details pointed out repeatedly here and NOT listed by you as you mention the PARTS of the parable you DO accept as literal).

I am just pointing out that this is quite obvious.

In Christ,

Bob

 

Here is a good example of me "listing details" that show what everyone rejects as being literally true in the parable of Luke 16.

If you differ with my view - this is a good example of a post to review "point-by-point" with each detail that I claim you reject in Luke 16 as "literally true".

BY CONTRAST if you take the fact that the rich man is in "hell" or in "the fire, in flames" you take that literally - word for word.

But Lazarus "in Abrham's lap" you do not.

The wicked dead praying directly to Abraham?

The wicked dead SEEING Abraham?

Abraham literally in charge of all dead saints?

Abraham literally in charge of the ministry that will be given to the LIVING from the realm of the dead??

Where is the clamoring for the "literal details" that you are glossing over here?

I am highlighting them repeatedly but nobody is taking up their cause.

 

You look at the link again. Every verse quoted I have refuted. What is your problem. I have told why they cannot be used ion defense of annihilation, and why they are "scripture twisting." I am sorry that you cannot see that, when others can.
DHK

 

To deny the existance of an eternal hell is to deny the very existance of the Christ of the Bible who taught and warned of hell.

Not only did Jesus say hell was eternal, but He also affirmed that those assigned thereto because of their wickedness and unbelief were assigned there for all eternity.

Matthew 25:41 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:
Matthew 25:42 For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink:
Matthew 25:43 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.
Matthew 25:44 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?
Matthew 25:45 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.
Matthew 25:46 And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

Everlasting punishment? Let's look at the word 'everlasting', shall we?

166. aionios
Search for G166 in KJVSL
aiwnioV aionios ahee-o'-nee-os

from 165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well):--eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).

See Greek 165

Everlasting: perpetual, eternal, forever, everlasting... I see no annhilation there.

Jesus said it, that settles it; whether you believe it or not.

One cannot be perpetually tormented and annhilated too. I will believe the Words of my Lord. Hell is eternal, people will burn in hell for all eternity.

 

btw,

the greek for the word 'punishment' affirms that it is not annhilation as well...

2851. kolasis
Search for G2851 in KJVSL
kolasiV kolasis kol'-as-is

from 2849; penal infliction:--punishment, torment.

See Greek 2849

 

I have some questions for everyone - both the annihilationists and the ETers (ET = eternal torment). Let's look at a text where a "plain reading" (one where one uses the dictionary definition of the relevant words to ascribe meaning) supports ET:

Daniel 12
1 And at that time, Michael shall stand up, the great ruler who stands for the sons of your people. And there shall be a time of distress, such as has not been from the being of a nation until that time. And at that time, your people shall be delivered, everyone that shall be found written in the Book.
2 And many of those sleeping in the earth's dust shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to reproaches and to everlasting abhorrence.

Apparently the Hebrew word that is translated as "everlasting" really does mean "without end".

Now consider a text like Romans 6:23 whose plain reading supports annihilation:

For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.

I believe that the "dictionary definition" of the word "death" implies perishing and extinction.

I suspect that I am not the only one who thinks that both sides have a real problem, namely that there are texts that suggest annihilation and there are texts that suggest eternal torment.

I will address the following material to the ETers but it applies equally to the annihilationists.

Presumably if you believe in inerrancy, you believe that all the texts that seem to support annihilation cannot be taken at a "plain reading". Some argument must be made to the effect that they are metaphorical or that they are otherwise misunderstood by the annihilationists.

Consider six people who sit down at a circular banquet table. Each person sees one dinner roll to their left and one dinner roll to their right - there are 6 diners and 6 rolls. After several awkward moments, one person takes the initiative and reaches for the roll to her left. Now the ambiguity has been solved and all the hungry diners reach for the roll to their left. If the pro-active diner had reached for the roll to her right, everyone else would have done likewise.

I wonder if the ET position is not subject to a criticism that something analogous is going on in respect to how they interpret the scriptures. If one seizes on a text whose "plain meaning" supports ET, then might always be able to "explain away" a text "T" whose plain reading supports annihilation. This would be doneby resolving whatever ambiguity there might be about the meaning of T in a direction that is favourable to ET. The ETer might try to defend their view about T by appeals to allegorical meanings, etc.

It would seem that a rigorous defence of the ET position would need to justify a non "plain reading" interpretation of texts like T without appeals to a "framework of interpretation" that is based on an earlier decision to allow a small subset of all texts that deal with the fate of the unredeemed (and in particular, that subset where a "plain reading" supports ET) to establish an interpretive framework that favour the ET stance . However, sound reasoning would require that any attempt to "explain away" a text T could not legitimately depend on some previous interpretation or selection of texts that "could have gone the other way" - just like the selection of a dinner roll.

I hope what I am trying to communicate is clear. My present purpose is not to debate individual texts, but ask a more "proces-related" question about the nature of how we build up our views on this matter.

Is it possible that the views we hold on this issue are extremely sensitive to some initial decision that was not based on a sober, "global" view of scriptures. Once that initial choice was made, everything else seems to "fall into place", just as it does for the diners once that first diner has chosen a roll. But what if the diner chose the roll to her right?