A real Hell???

[Baptist Believer]

Even when that person has an eternal body?

The way I understand it, those who believe that the unredeemed will experience eternal torment in lake of fire often believe that all of the dead are raised with an immortal body that cannot be destroyed, while also affirming Jesus' warning to fear God who has the authority to destroy both the body and soul in gehenna (usually "hell" in English translations -- Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28). Others believe that God somehow sustains the body while also simultaneously destroying it. In either case, those who believe in eternal conscious torment believe that God makes the unredeemed immortal for the purposes of punishment. Therefore, no one truly dies.

If that is incorrect, please correct my perception. I'm not sure I truly understand what is known as the "traditional" doctrine of "hell."

 

[The Biblicist]

The way I understand it, those who believe that the unredeemed will experience eternal torment in lake of fire often believe that all of the dead are raised with an immortal body that cannot be destroyed, while also affirming Jesus' warning to fear God who has the authority to destroy both the body and soul in gehenna (usually "hell" in English translations -- Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28). Others believe that God somehow sustains the body while also simultaneously destroying it. In either case, those who believe in eternal conscious torment believe that God makes the unredeemed immortal for the purposes of punishment. Therefore, no one truly dies.

If that is incorrect, please correct my perception. I'm not sure I truly understand what is known as the "traditional" doctrine of "hell."

The word translated "destroy" never means to annihilate in scripture but rather to RENDER USELESS or to destroy its productivity for a certain use or potential. For example the same Greek term is found two other times in this very same chapter and cannot possibly mean annihilate. Verse 6 "the LOST house of Israel." In Verse 41 "He that findeth his life shall LOSE it:" It describes Israel spiritually separated from God and therefore RENDERED USELESS for God's glory and or service. By making your life preeminent you RENDER IT USELESS for the glory of God. Those cast into Gehenna, their enmity against God and man is RENDERED USELESS.

 

[HankD]

The way I understand it, those who believe that the unredeemed will experience eternal torment in lake of fire often believe that all of the dead are raised with an immortal body that cannot be destroyed, while also affirming Jesus' warning to fear God who has the authority to destroy both the body and soul in gehenna (usually "hell" in English translations -- Luke 12:5 and Matthew 10:28). Others believe that God somehow sustains the body while also simultaneously destroying it. In either case, those who believe in eternal conscious torment believe that God makes the unredeemed immortal for the purposes of punishment. Therefore, no one truly dies.

If that is incorrect, please correct my perception. I'm not sure I truly understand what is known as the "traditional" doctrine of "hell."

It is as you have described. People with indestructible bodies that will suffer the pains of hell fire and brimstone for eternity.

HankD

 

[Baptist Believer]

The word translated "destroy" never means to annihilate in scripture but rather to RENDER USELESS or to destroy its productivity for a certain use or potential. For example the same Greek term is found two other times in this very same chapter and cannot possibly mean annihilate. Verse 6 "the LOST house of Israel." In Verse 41 "He that findeth his life shall LOSE it:" It describes Israel spiritually separated from God and therefore RENDERED USELESS for God's glory and or service. By making your life preeminent you RENDER IT USELESS for the glory of God. Those cast into Gehenna, their enmity against God and man is RENDERED USELESS.

What do you think about this argument?

"...If we limit ourselves to the use of this term in the active voice (as it appears in Matthew 10:28), in the Synoptic Gospels (so that we do not stray into writings where significantly different rends of usage might appear), where the word in context clearly refers to the action of one person or agent against another, we will be able to see if there is a clear pattern that should inform our understanding of the term as it appears in Matthew 10:28, and we will hopefully be filtering out cases that have important differences from this instance of the word, which will help to safeguard us against the temptation to engage in illegitimate totality transfer. It may not be a perfect safeguard, and it may be that we will find examples that show a range of meaning even within this strictly limited sample that will require further work, but it is a start.

However, once we apply such limiting criteria, what we immediately find is that the range of meaning that was present in the entire apoleia word group is now filtered out entirely, and one clear emphasis of meaning remains. This is because in every single instance of the word apollumi where these criteria are met – The example is in the Synoptic Gospels, the active voice is used and the word clearly refers to the actions of one person or agent against another, the term apollumi – setting aside Matthew 10:28 – always refers to the literal killing of a person, with not a single exception. I will list just seven representative examples, but the reader is encouraged to check this for themselves:

1. In Matthew 2:13, Herod wants to kill the baby Jesus.
2. In Matthew 12:14 the Pharisees conspired together about how they might kill Jesus.
3. In Matthew 21:41 (story of the wicked tenants) the vineyard owner kills the wicked tenants.
4. In Matthew 27:20, the elders and chief priests urge the people to have Barabbas released and Jesus killed.
5. In Mark 3:6, the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus.
6. In Mark 9:22, the parents of a boy with an unclean spirit tell Jesus that the spirit often throws the boy into water or into a fire, trying to kill him.
7. In Luke 6:9, Jesus asks if it is lawful on the Sabbath to save life or kill."

NOTE: Full article here.

 

[HankD]

To be forthright I have a problem with the "traditional" doctrine of "hell".

But what could it be in reality if it is not the traditional doctrine I know not.

It is what it is. God is sovereign and we must accept His final word.

The dead outside of Christ are judged at the Great White Throne - those not found in the Lambs Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire which burns with fire and brimstone . What is this Lake of Fire? is it a literal place with literal fire, allegorical or metaphorical?

If literal fire, pain and suffering, how can we be happy knowing a mother, father, son or daughter is there screaming in agony and that for eternity?

I suppose God could give us a kind of amnesia.

HankD

 

[Baptist Believer]

To be forthright I have a problem with the "traditional" doctrine of "hell".

But my own admission, I don't understand it. I haven't been able to put the pieces of it together in scripture. I understand how some verses are interpreted for the traditional view, but not others.

But what could it be in reality if it is not the traditional doctrine I know not.

It is what it is. God is sovereign and we must accept His final word.

Absolutely. I am interested in what scripture has to say. That's why I am keen to listen to the viewpoints of anyone who is interested in discussing it.

The dead outside of Christ are judged at the Great White Throne - those not found in the Lambs Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire which burns with fire and brimstone . What is this Lake of Fire? is it a literal place with literal fire, allegorical or metaphorical?

The way I understand it, whether it is literal or metaphorical, the fire is destructive. The image of the chaff being burned away comes to mind. Salty mentioned early in this thread the burning bush that Moses saw, that was not consumed. It got me thinking about this issue again. I think that is a faulty use of the story since the bush (as far as we know) is not under judgement, nor is being punished. That's different than those who are guilty, who are created in God's image and stand before the "great white throne."

If literal fire, pain and suffering, how can we be happy knowing a mother, father, son or daughter is there screaming in agony and that for eternity?

I understand that, but at the same time, I think an argument can be made that in our final state of redemption we will be made whole and have perfect understanding of holiness. In this way of thinking, we will acknowledge the goodness of God and the rightness of God punishing people with eternal conscience torment.

I suppose God could give us a kind of amnesia.

That's definitely another possibility.

I've actually gotten quite far in life without really dealing with this issue. I preached/taught the biblical language and the imagery in the scriptures, but I didn't attempt to put it together in a strongly systematic way.

Over the past few years, I have been reading scripture and talking to people about the traditional view, trying to understand it in light of the scripture, to see if it is valid. That's the point of my questions here.

About 12 years ago, I was reading through Revelation paying attention to the theme of worship throughout the redemption and judgements in the book, and suddenly was startled by the plain statement that the lake of fire was "the second death." That made me consider the nature of the first death (death of the body). I realized that the scripture seemed to be teaching that humans who are cast into the lake of fire perish. Then I noticed that there are other things cast into the lake of fire: the devil, the beast, false prophet, and those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life (which we can assume also fits the list of those in Revelation 21:8). Also, death and hell/hades are also cast into the lake of fire.

It seems to be at least an image (if not a literal reality) of destruction/annihilation... especially since non-living things are cast into it (death and hades).

 

[The Biblicist]

What do you think about this argument?

"...If we limit ourselves to the use of this term in the active voice (as it appears in Matthew 10:28), in the Synoptic Gospels (so that we do not stray into writings where significantly different rends of usage might appear), where the word in context clearly refers to the action of one person or agent against another, we will be able to see if there is a clear pattern that should inform our understanding of the term as it appears in Matthew 10:28, and we will hopefully be filtering out cases that have important differences from this instance of the word, which will help to safeguard us against the temptation to engage in illegitimate totality transfer. It may not be a perfect safeguard, and it may be that we will find examples that show a range of meaning even within this strictly limited sample that will require further work, but it is a start.

However, once we apply such limiting criteria, what we immediately find is that the range of meaning that was present in the entire apoleia word group is now filtered out entirely, and one clear emphasis of meaning remains. This is because in every single instance of the word apollumi where these criteria are met – The example is in the Synoptic Gospels, the active voice is used and the word clearly refers to the actions of one person or agent against another, the term apollumi – setting aside Matthew 10:28 – always refers to the literal killing of a person, with not a single exception. I will list just seven representative examples, but the reader is encouraged to check this for themselves:

1. In Matthew 2:13, Herod wants to kill the baby Jesus.
2. In Matthew 12:14 the Pharisees conspired together about how they might kill Jesus.
3. In Matthew 21:41 (story of the wicked tenants) the vineyard owner kills the wicked tenants.
4. In Matthew 27:20, the elders and chief priests urge the people to have Barabbas released and Jesus killed.
5. In Mark 3:6, the Pharisees plot to kill Jesus.
6. In Mark 9:22, the parents of a boy with an unclean spirit tell Jesus that the spirit often throws the boy into water or into a fire, trying to kill him.
7. In Luke 6:9, Jesus asks if it is lawful on the Sabbath to save life or kill."

NOTE: Full article here.

It remains that the term never means to annihilate. Killing a person simply renders them useless in this life.

 

[Baptist Believer]

It remains that the term never means to annihilate. Killing a person simply renders them useless in this life.

So your understanding is that even if a person is killed in body and soul, it would still allow them to experience eternal conscious torment?

 

[HankD]

But my own admission, I don't understand it. I haven't been able to put the pieces of it together in scripture. I understand how some verses are interpreted for the traditional view, but not others.


Absolutely. I am interested in what scripture has to say. That's why I am keen to listen to the viewpoints of anyone who is interested in discussing it.


The way I understand it, whether it is literal or metaphorical, the fire is destructive. The image of the chaff being burned away comes to mind. Salty mentioned early in this thread the burning bush that Moses saw, that was not consumed. It got me thinking about this issue again. I think that is a faulty use of the story since the bush (as far as we know) is not under judgement, nor is being punished. That's different than those who are guilty, who are created in God's image and stand before the "great white throne."


I understand that, but at the same time, I think an argument can be made that in our final state of redemption we will be made whole and have perfect understanding of holiness. In this way of thinking, we will acknowledge the goodness of God and the rightness of God punishing people with eternal conscience torment.


That's definitely another possibility.

I've actually gotten quite far in life without really dealing with this issue. I preached/taught the biblical language and the imagery in the scriptures, but I didn't attempt to put it together in a strongly systematic way.

Over the past few years, I have been reading scripture and talking to people about the traditional view, trying to understand it in light of the scripture, to see if it is valid. That's the point of my questions here.

About 12 years ago, I was reading through Revelation paying attention to the theme of worship throughout the redemption and judgements in the book, and suddenly was startled by the plain statement that the lake of fire was "the second death." That made me consider the nature of the first death (death of the body). I realized that the scripture seemed to be teaching that humans who are cast into the lake of fire perish. Then I noticed that there are other things cast into the lake of fire: the devil, the beast, false prophet, and those whose names are not written in the Lamb's book of life (which we can assume also fits the list of those in Revelation 21:8). Also, death and hell/hades are also cast into the lake of fire.

It seems to be at least an image (if not a literal reality) of destruction/annihilation... especially since non-living things are cast into it (death and hades).

I have great difficulty when I contemplate the lake of fire and the state of the lost therein.

HankD

 

[Yeshua1]

To be forthright I have a problem with the "traditional" doctrine of "hell".

But what could it be in reality if it is not the traditional doctrine I know not.

It is what it is. God is sovereign and we must accept His final word.

The dead outside of Christ are judged at the Great White Throne - those not found in the Lambs Book of Life are cast into the Lake of Fire which burns with fire and brimstone . What is this Lake of Fire? is it a literal place with literal fire, allegorical or metaphorical?

If literal fire, pain and suffering, how can we be happy knowing a mother, father, son or daughter is there screaming in agony and that for eternity?

I suppose God could give us a kind of amnesia.

HankD

To me, the u;timate aspect to hell is NEVER to experience presence of God, to always be in the dark of sin...

And since we will see things as God does, NONE who are there will have an excuse for being there...

 

[TCassidy]

I have great difficulty when I contemplate the lake of fire and the state of the lost therein.

HankD

It should be difficult. We need to be reminded how utterly horrifying our sin really is.

 

[The Biblicist]

So your understanding is that even if a person is killed in body and soul, it would still allow them to experience eternal conscious torment?

Matthew 10:28 says man can kill the body but not the soul - proving the soul continues after the death of the body. IN addition, the text denies that even God can "destroy" the soul after the death of the body because he does not destroy the soul except with the body in Gehenna and no one is cast into Gehenna until after the great White seat judgment (rev. 20:12-15). Hence, the soul continues to exist after the death of the body until the Great White seat judgment.