Is hell eternal?

[Faith alone]

I did not post the above studies on the Greek terms often translated as "everlasting" or "eternal" in English Bibles to support my opinion that unbelievers will be punished for eternity, but to give something to research for those interested... I've come to some conclusions on it, as can be seen, but it is not as strong as it may appear.

FA

 

[Boanerges]

quote from FA:

If it is translated by AIONION there, my opinion is that this argues for it meaning "eternal" (Or "everlasting")


And that is my only point. In Genesis 21 we find this:

Genesis 21
33 And he planted a tamarisk tree in Beer-sheba, and there he called *on the name of Jehovah the everlasting God.

A quick look at the ending Hebrew in the sentence for “on the name of Jehovah the everlasting God” reveals:

b'Shem YHWH El olawm

In the LXX we find:

kai efuteusen abraam arouran epi tw freati tou orkou kai epekalesato ekei to onoma kuriou yeov aiwniov

This is the word that was chosen for Daniel 12:2:

kai polloi twn kayeudontwn en ghv cwmati exegeryhsontai outoi eiv zwhn aiwnion kai outoi eiv oneidismon kai eiv aiscunhn aiwnion

The English versions of the LXX render this word as eternal or everlasting, depending on which one you reference.

[ January 26, 2006, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Boanerges ]

 

[Faith alone]

Boanerges,

Good argument. URs will say that of course God is eternal. But that the only term that could be used was that of a very long age. And to say that God will live throughout that very long age - as long as anyone can imagine - to the end of the horizon, if that's what it means, is not to say that he will not live beyond that. (Just playing the Devil's advocate here.)

 

[Faith alone]

Sorry, accidentally double-posted... can't delete it.

 

[Faith alone]

I decided to do a bit of a study on GEHENNA and HADES... not something into which I've looked all that closely before.

When you ask why a particular Greek word is translated "hell" that always depends on people's perception of "hell." Translation attempts to take words, phrases, etc. from a source language and communicate the intent, meaning, trying to have the same impact into the target language.

I did a little research on where we got the English word "hell." The English word 'hell' comes from the Teutonic 'Hel,' which originally meant "to cover" and later referred to the goddess of the Norse underworld, Helgardh. Hellenistic Jews took their version of "hell" from around them, and often referred to it as "Tartarus. Paul never used this expression (Tartarus) himself, though Paul was a hellenistic Jew, and ministered to regions where this term could have been well understood. But Peter did use it - the only place it's used in the NT.

Here's BGAD:

gevenna, h", hJ Gehenna, Grecized fr. µr,Nœhi (a )yG« (Josh 15:8b; 18:16b; Neh 11:30) Targum µn:hiygI (cf. Dalman, Gramm.2 183), really µr, NœhiA÷b, (a )yG«
(Josh 15:8a; 18:16a; 2 Ch 28:3; Jer 7:32; cf. 2 Kings 23:10, where the K’thibh has the pl.: sons of H.) Valley of the Sons of Hinnom, a ravine south of Jerusalem. There, acc. to later Jewish popular belief, the Last Judgment was to take place. In the gospels it is the place of punishment in the next life, hell: krivsi" th`" g. condemnation to G. Mt 23:33. bavllesqai (eij") (th;n) g. (cf. Sib. Or. 2, 291) 5:29; 18:9; Mk 9:45, 47; ejmbalei`n eij" th;n g. Lk 12:5; ajpelqei`n eij" (th;n) g. Mt 5:30; Mk 9:43; ajpolevsai ejn g. Mt 10:28; uiJo;" g. a son of hell 23:15 (Semitism, cf. uiJo;" 1cd; Bab. Rosh ha-Shana 17b µnhyg ynb
. Cf. the oracle Hdt. 6, 86, 3: the perjurer is }Orkou pavi>"). e[nocon ei\nai eij" th;n g. (sc. blhqh`nai) 5:22. As a place of fire g. (tou`) purov" (PGM 4, 3072 gevnna purov"; Sib. Or. 1, 103) hell of fire Mt 5:22; 18:9; 2 Cl 5:4. Fig. flogizomevnh uJpo; th`" g. set on fire by hell Js 3:6.—GDalman, RE VI 418ff; PVolz, Eschatol. d. jüd. Gem.’34, 327ff; GBeer, D. bibl. Hades: HHoltzmann—Festschr, ’02, 1-29; Billerb. IV ’28, 1029-1118. M-M. B. 1485.*

Bauer, Walter, Gingrich, F. Wilbur, and Danker, Frederick W., A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, (Chicago: University of Chicago Press) 1979.

I think that most of us have heard that this valley just outside Jerusalem apparently was a place where trash and garbage was burned... supposedly the fire never went out. But notice that the Jews themselves at that time began to attach some spiritual significance to this place - expecting the final judgment to take place there. Jesus uses it as such, but it could be argued that He did so being aware of the understanding in people's minds about the place. Similarly, today we use the expression, "hell," aware that most people view it as a place where unbelievers will be punished - a fiery final resting place. But that perhaps comes actually from the Lake of Fire, into which GEHENNA will be thrown at the end of the millenium period. Notice Matthew 5. where Jesus refers to "the GEHENNA [hell] of fire," or perhaps "the fiery GENENNA [hell]."

Matthew 5:22 HCSB But I tell you, everyone who is angry with his brother will be subject to judgment. And whoever says to his brother, 'Fool!' will be subject to the Sanhedrin. But whoever says, 'You moron!' will be subject to hellfire.

Liddell & Scott simply says,

gev-enna, h", hJ, = Hebr. geÆ-hinnoÆm, i.e. the valley of Hinnom, which represented the place of future punishment, N.T.

Liddell, H. G., and Scott, Abridged Greek-English Lexicon, (Oxford: Oxford University Press) 1992.

They point out that this valley outside Jerusalem represented in the Hebrew mind the place of future judgment. Now since in English this is understood to be "hell," I don't see a big problem here... Sure Revelation tells us about the Lake of Fire (LofF) but here we see Jesus refer to GEHENNA as "the fire of GEHENNA."

The story about the Valley of Gehenna is amazing. There Jews once got so sucked into idolatry that they offered their children to Molech... as burnt sacrifices:

2 Kings 23:10 He [Josiah - a young king of Judah who was bringing about reform] also defiled Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, that no man might make his son or his daughter pass through the fire for Molech.

Josiah had idols taken out of the Jewish temple in Jerusalem, and tried to stop the Baal worship which had grown in popularity under less godly kings before him. Topheth was the place where worshipers of Molech, the god of the Ammonnites (see vs. 13), burned their children as sacrifices. This was in the Valley of Ben Hinnom at the south side of Mount Zion, near Jerusalem. Josiah desecrated it so that no idolater would worship there again. It was used as a garbage dump since - where fires burned it up.

So the idea of people being burned was a natural link in the mind to the Valley of Gehenna.

Gehenna should be distinguished from Hades (hO ADHS) though, which is never used for the place of punishment (I don't think) in the NT, but for the place of departed spirits, without any reference to their spiritual state. Hell, or whatever you want to call the place of torment/punishment is actually inside Hades, but so is heaven or Abraham's Bosom. (I base this on the rich man being able to see Lazarus in Luke 16... sure it was allegorical in nature, but it makes some sense.) At any rate, that apparently was how the Jews viewed it at that time. Of course, there will be no punishment until after the Great White Throne judgment at the end of the 1000-yr. reign of Christ here on this old earth. Will Hades still be a resting place for those who have died during this time - for those who die wiuthout trusting in Christ during the Millennium? I don't know.

I guess the best we can do is recognize that the Valley of Gehenna was seen as the place of "eternal" torment and Hades as the place for the spirit of the person after his physical death. Sheol essentially means the grave, and is essentially thesame as the NT Hades.

In the past I've wondered about this because Hades in the NT is often viewed in a negative manner:

Hades (7 of 10 used):
Matthew 11:23 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day.

Matthew 16:18 "I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it.

Luke 10:15 "And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You will be brought down to Hades!

Luke 16:23 "In Hades he lifted up his eyes, being in torment, and saw Abraham far away and Lazarus in his bosom.

Acts 2:27 BECAUSE YOU WILL NOT ABANDON MY SOUL TO HADES, NOR ALLOW YOUR HOLY ONE TO UNDERGO DECAY.

Acts 2:31 he looked ahead and spoke of the resurrection of the Christ, that HE WAS NEITHER ABANDONED TO HADES, NOR DID His flesh SUFFER DECAY.

Revelation 1:18 and the living One; and I was dead, and behold, I am alive forevermore, and I have the keys of death and of Hades.

Regardless, most view Hades as the unseen world, translating the Hebrew Sheol, the land of the departed... the grave or death. And if we look closely at each of the above verses, I see no problem with translating any of them as simply "the grave" or "death." And the grave certainly should be expected to have negative connotations.

Moulton and Milligan's Vocabulary has:

The ancient pagans divided Hades (a privative and idein, to see, abode of the unseen) into Elysium and Tartarus as the Jews put both Abraham's bosom and Gehenna in Sheol or Hades (cf. Luke 16:25). Christ was in Hades (Acts 2:27,31), not in Gehenna.

2 Peter 2:4 For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to pits of darkness, reserved for judgment

TARTARUS interestingly occurs in Enoch 20:2 as the place of punishment of fallen angels, while the Valley of Gehenna is used in Enoch's writings for unbelieving, apostate Jews. Now this is part of the Apocrypha, true. But Enoch was quoted several times in the NT, by our Lord Himself, and usually relating to angels, judgment, etc.. So IMO it is an excellent, reliable source for this particular topic,. though it is probably not actually inspired scripture. (Many say it is, since it was quoted by Jesus, Paul, Jude and Peter... they may be right.)

So we can see why Peter refers to Tartarus when speaking about angels in 2 Peter above. They are being held there, awaiting judgment.


Summary: GEHENNA is the name of a place near Jerusalem which symbolized in the Jewish mind (due to its history regarding burnt offerings of children to Molech) the place of eternal punishment. To Jews, the fire there would never go out. Now could this not represent a time which was a long age instead of eternity? I don't see why not. The Greek doesn't really help us there that much. I think we have to remember that God is using terms which will communicate accurately to people. The expression "hell" in English seems to communicate fairly well the idea behind GEHENNA to people today. In the past, though, I've said that "hell" will not actually be the place where people will be tormented for "eternity," as it will bethrown into the Lake of Fire. But actually it's Hades and death which will be thrown into the Lake of Fire (Revelation 20:14) at the end of the Millennium - after the rebellion. But that was probably from using a KJ Bible. Because the term translated "hell" there is HADES (the grave), not GEHENNA - the place of eternal torment. So The Lake of Fire is essentially the same as GEHENNA (GEHENNA represented that concept to the people in Israel), while Hades is essentially the same as the Hebrew SHEOL - the grave.

Unfortunately, sometimes some Bibles translate hO ADHS (Hades) as "hell." That is a mistake, IMO, since today we view hell as a place where people will be tormented by fire, not some holding place. Hades is only used 10 times in the NT, as you can see above - 7 of the 10 listed there. The KJV mistakenly translates Hades as "hell" in each case, and the NKJV corrects that, though it translates QANATOS ("death") as Hades improperly in 1 Corinthians 15:55.

The NLT translates Hades as "the place of the dead," an excellent way of handling it.

This does add an interesting aspect to the UR question... since death and Hades (the holding tank for those who had died) are thrown into the Lake of Fire... it is not GEHENNA ("hell") which is thrown there. Hence, if the duration of punishment of unbelievers is not eternal, then it could be said that neither is death eternally annihilated, nor is the grave annihilated permanently. IOW, if death and the grave are permanently done away with (annihilated) by tossing them into the LofF, then how can the unsaved emerge after a finite time, no matter how long? ...how can the burning in the LofF end, with Satan and the bad angels reconciled/redeemed, if death and the grave are brought back out? This would seem to at least hint that in the next age (after "eternity") that death may possibly rear its ugly head again. If one says that the grave is annihilated, then why would that not be true for unbelievers? I realize we're talking about people as compared to concepts, but the question must be asked.

Perhaps someone else can put a better twist on this. (I really am interested in how some of you URs out there may see this... not looking for an argument.) I'd have to say that this study has pushed me further toward the "eternal punishment" view.

FA

 

[Andre]

Hello Faith Alone (and others):

I agree with your thoughts about the possibility that "fire" can be seen to be serve a "purification" purpose and not a "destructive one". I presume the idea is that the fire does away with the sins and leaves the person unconsumed. However, there are still texts like John 15:6. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Here, it appears that it is the actual person who is acted on by fire.

I have barely skimmed your posts, but hope to give them a more serious read later.

All along, my chief "problem" with the doctrine of eternal torment has been the "moral argument", and not so much matters of detailed analysis of meanings of certain Greek and / or Hebrew words (not that such analysis is not important - it obviously is).

My general issue is this (and please refer to some of my previous posts in this thread if you wish): We cannot really have a working and useful concept of divine love if eternal punishment is true. And I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that our understanding of God's love has to be sensible to us precisely because we need to go forth in the world and act - otherwise our concept of love is really of no consequence.

The "traditional" Christian argument about this involves a claim that we fallen humans have a weak and impoverished vision of love - that God's version of love (which apparently supports eternal torment) is objectively "true" love. The argument goes that we cannot rely on our inate sensibilities to judge "what love is". Therefore, the fact that "eternal torment" causes a knot of dis-ease in the gut of all people (including those who believe in eternal torment), should be effectively ignored.

This argument has always struck me as a little simplistic. To me, it seems to overlook the need for the concept of love to have sensible, internally consistent content in order to be workable, in order to be usable in the world. And I would claim that practically no human can really reconcile the notion of eternal torment with some of the other aspects of the concept of love, both as revealed in the scriptures and as experienced in "real life". In other words, if we are deploy God's love in the world, it has to be sensible to us - it makes no sense to argue on the one hand that we fallen humans cannot "grasp" God's love and then on the other expect us to go forth into the world and act lovingly.

In the presence of such contradictions, I cannot see how a concept of love that allows for eternal torment can be made to "work" in the sense of providing a prescriptive model for human behaviour in the world - it is just too full of contradictions.

 

[standingfirminChrist]

God's love is so real that He gave His only Son to die on a cross, so that man who was dead in his sins, could escape eternal punishment.

I see a great depth of love shown there. More love than if man just ceased to exist altogether. If man just burned up, and was no more once put in hell, then that really would not be any punishment.

If man did burn up, he would have no memories, no feeling, no sight, no hearing, no taste. We know that in hell, all these will be present, for in the story of the rich man and Lazarus, the rich man was experiencing all of these; burning,and yet he was not burning up.

The opposite could be seen of Lazarus. Resting comfortably in Abraham's bosom.

Hell is eternal. It was created to be a place for the devil and his angels, not man. But man who rejects a home in heaven will have to live elsewhere. After judgment, man will be sent to the home he chose; hell. And yet, man will feel out of place there because it was not even prepared for him.

God said He was not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

Man will be a guest in that lake of fire for all eternity.

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Andre:
Hello Faith Alone (and others):

I agree with your thoughts about the possibility that "fire" can be seen to be serve a "purification" purpose and not a "destructive one". I presume the idea is that the fire does away with the sins and leaves the person unconsumed. However, there are still texts like John 15:6. "If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." Here, it appears that it is the actual person who is acted on by fire.

I have barely skimmed your posts, but hope to give them a more serious read later.

Andre,

I understand your concerns. Paul never used the expression GEHENNA. John never did either, but all of his writings were after 70AD - after the destruction of Jerusalem, after whiuch the fire of the Valley of Gehenna was probably allowed to go out. John used something which would communicate to mainly Gentiles, and not to Jews from Israel. hence he referred to "eternal condemnation" or the "Lake of Fire."

Paul referred to "eternal destruction" in 2 Thessalonians 1:7b-9.

OK,. fire is often used to refer to a purifying process in scripture. But it is also used to refer to destruction. The ground of the field in Hebrews 6 is not destroyed... it is purged. The ground should be prepared then for new crops. But Gehenna was a place for destroying your trash, not purifying it.

Now John 15:6 was used to teach His disciples to abide/remain in Him. That means to draw their resources for living and service from Christ. It is generally best to take illustrations to illustrate the main point only, and not draw other side conclusions.

Jesus was not telling His disciples to hang tight or he would cast them into hell. He was trying to motivate them to be fruitful. which can only happen as we abide in Him.

Originally posted by Andre:
All along, my chief "problem" with the doctrine of eternal torment has been the "moral argument", and not so much matters of detailed analysis of meanings of certain Greek and / or Hebrew words (not that such analysis is not important - it obviously is).

My general issue is this (and please refer to some of my previous posts in this thread if you wish): We cannot really have a working and useful concept of divine love if eternal punishment is true. And I cannot emphasize enough how important it is that our understanding of God's love has to be sensible to us precisely because we need to go forth in the world and act - otherwise our concept of love is really of no consequence.

The "traditional" Christian argument about this involves a claim that we fallen humans have a weak and impoverished vision of love - that God's version of love (which apparently supports eternal torment) is objectively "true" love. The argument goes that we cannot rely on our inate sensibilities to judge "what love is". Therefore, the fact that "eternal torment" causes a knot of dis-ease in the gut of all people (including those who believe in eternal torment), should be effectively ignored.

This argument has always struck me as a little simplistic. To me, it seems to overlook the need for the concept of love to have sensible, internally consistent content in order to be workable, in order to be usable in the world. And I would claim that practically no human can really reconcile the notion of eternal torment with some of the other aspects of the concept of love, both as revealed in the scriptures and as experienced in "real life". In other words, if we are deploy God's love in the world, it has to be sensible to us - it makes no sense to argue on the one hand that we fallen humans cannot "grasp" God's love and then on the other expect us to go forth into the world and act lovingly.

In the presence of such contradictions, I cannot see how a concept of love that allows for eternal torment can be made to "work" in the sense of providing a prescriptive model for human behaviour in the world - it is just too full of contradictions.

Andre,

I'm concerned about the moral argument, too. William Lane Craig presents a good logical argument about that here, where Craig debated Ray Bradley over universalism:

"Can a Loving God Send People to Hell?"

http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-bradley0.html

BTW, the biggest argument for a "hell" of limited duration is simply because people have not sinned infinitely. But Craig's argument (which I don't buy personally) is that people are still perpetually sinning in hell, since they are not redemmed and have not been given new bodies.

Craig says that God would let people out of hell if they would repent and believe in Him, but in fact they freely choose not to. hence, he cannot. So he says that "it's only contingently eternal. It goes on because those in hell choose it to go on." To refuse to trust in Christ's death, and to refuse to acknowledge your sin, is in itself sin. Hence, sin continues, he argues, forever. I don't know that I buy that, but I wonder if there is any other way to explain eternal punishment/death for what woud otherwise be finite sin.

Using Craig's "middle knowledge" approach to God's omniscience, Craig says that it was logically impossible for God to create a world in which all of us humans with "free will" would all follow Him. Hence, some sort of "hell" was required, since God is holy - is just.

Here's what he said about heaven:

Now, with respect to heaven, I would say two things. First of all, it may not be feasible for God to create a world which consists simply of heaven alone, in isolation from the world that leads up to heaven, where people freely choose to go there or not to go there. Secondly--this did not come out the debate--but I personally don't see any reason to affirm that people have free will to sin in heaven. I would be quite happy to say that people who have the beatific vision of Christ, who are in the very presence of Christ, are in a sense sealed in the decision they have made during the earthly life, and that they therefore no longer have freedom to sin. I don't have any problem with that. So I would be quite willing to say that in heaven, due to the immediacy of the presence of Christ, that the freedom to sin is removed.

Of course, form what I can see in Revelation, we will not be living in heaven, but on earth - eventually a new earth, but his point is still a good one.

Craig also brings up an important point about a world in which there was no moral accountability:

...In a world where there is no moral accountability, it ultimately doesn't matter how you live. What that means is that ultimately our moral choices have no significance. Acts of self-sacrifice, acts of compassion, are empty gestures. What do you say to the hedonist or the amoralist who says, "I may as well just live for pleasure and live as I please because there is no moral accountability!"? Richard Wurmbrandt, who was a pastor who was tortured for his faith in communist prisons, says that sometimes the torturers said, "There is no God. There is no afterlife. There is no hereafter. We can do what we wish." And they expressed it in terrible brutality inflicted on prisoners.{2} A world in which there is no moral accountability and our choices are devoid of moral significance is truly a horrible prospect.

Another good point.

He makes a point about parables and allegories that I made earlier:

(Referring to Luke 16 and the story about the rich man and Lazarus.)
We need to be very careful about trying to press the details of these parables to try to tease Christian doctrine out of them. The parables were primarily meant to teach one important truth, and it's not a legitimate interpretive principle to try to use the details of these to get Christian doctrine. Those details may just be incidental or colorful elements of the story. In this case the idea of the gulf between the two, simply means, I think, that the righteous in the afterlife are separated from the unrighteous in the afterlife, namely, that there is such a thing as a heaven and a hell, and I don't think there is any deeper significance to it than that.

But Craig's comment below is excellent, IMO, and he does a good job of trying to answer your question:

I think that the thought of these people going to hell and, as you say, being lost forever is repugnant to God. And you read the Scriptures, like the one I read, where God literally pleads with people. I mean, this is the God of the universe, begging people to repent and believe and not to die! ... The question is, then, why would God create such people, you ask? Why would He create a world like that?

What I'm suggesting is that it may not be feasible for God to create a world of free creatures in which there are no such people, given that He gives people free will. He doesn't create people in order that they would be damned. He creates them in order that they would be saved. And His desire and will in creating is to redeem a people, a multitude, for Himself. The Scripture says, from every tongue and tribe and people and nation, that they would know and experience the love and joy and fellowship of God forever. But unfortunately the only way in which God can do that is by creating a world in which people have the freedom to reject Him. And the cost of that is that some people freely condemn themselves to hell forever. But that is not the reason for which He created them. That's not His primary intention. It's kind of like the unfortunate concomitant. You're following me? It's kind of like the unfortunate consequence of a desire that is good, namely, to create people who would know Him and experience His love and fellowship forever.

another - somewhat a repeat, but good:

In my opening speech I argued that there is no incompatibility between God's being all-loving and some people separating themselves from God forever and being lost in hell. And I suggested that if you are going to show that those are incompatible you have to show these two assumptions to be necessarily true: (i) that if God is all-powerful, He can create a world in which everyone is freely saved. And I think it became very evident during the cross examination time that Dr. Bradley has not succeeded in showing that that proposition is true. He's clearly confused the notion of possible worlds and feasible worlds. Certainly it is logically possible for everyone to freely receive God's salvation and be saved. But so long as people are truly free, there is no guarantee that God can actualize or create such a world. So long as people are free, it may be that if God actualizes a world of free creatures, some of them would freely reject Him and be lost. I think that Dr. Bradley's failure to distinguish between what's feasible and what's logically possible invalidated his refutation of that point.

One last one. Here Craig says that the Lake of Fire is meant to illustrate a place where we will be eternally separated from God - which is what hell is all about. He says that the firey illustration is used because it makes the seriousness of it so clear - but it is a metaphor...

Now Dr. Bradley made a good deal of quoting the fiery images from the Bible, which are one image among many others, and these images are generally taken to be metaphors. I don't have to defend such ridiculous things as what "Father Furnace" had to say. These are metaphors for eternal separation from God. And it is interesting that Dr. Bradley misquoted II Thessalonians 1:9 a minute ago. He quit reading right in the middle of the verse. The verse goes on to say they shall suffer "exclusion from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might." And that's really the essence of what hell is. It is eternal separation from God. And that is awful! I don't want to minimize it. It is horrible. The metaphors of flames and weeping and gnashing of teeth are meant to convey what it's like for a person to be lost forever in a world just of his own, with his own selfish heart, his own selfish desires, and away from the source of all love, all goodness, all truth, and so forth. So it is terrible.

Hope it helps... I think Craig will give you something to think about.

FA

 

[Boanerges]

FA,

You have put up some interesting posts. In the end, my argument is based on the Hebrew in Daniel 12:2. I only ventured into Greek land because of accusations put forth by another member of the forum.

 

[Andre]

Hi Faith Alone:

I appreciate your posts. I find that your whole style of dealing with this issue is one that I can relate to.

I have read some stuff by Craig and I like him. I certainly think the following statement is very interesting: "it's not a legitimate interpretive principle to try to use the details of these (parables) to get Christian doctrine".

 

[Andre]

Hello Faith Alone (and others)

I quickly reread some of the Craig quotes. If I were forced to comment "off the top of my head" about the nature of one the points that he is making, I would say something like the following:

Even God cannot create a Universe that is logically incoherent - so even His freedom is limited. So the creation of an eternal hell (even the "lesser" version Craig describes, without all the fire) may be some kind of logically necessary consequence of the working out of other purposes of His (more easily seen by us as "loving"). On this view, the existence of an eternal hell was not really a "free choice" that God made. In a sense, God was constrained and had to create it in order to make a logically coherent world.

Does this at least capture the spirit of what you think Craig is saying?

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Andre:
Hi Faith Alone:

I appreciate your posts. I find that your whole style of dealing with this issue is one that I can relate to.

I have read some stuff by Craig and I like him. I certainly think the following statement is very interesting: "it's not a legitimate interpretive principle to try to use the details of these (parables) to get Christian doctrine".

Thank you.

I liked that statement also. It is a basic hermaneutical principle which gets violated all the time. BTW, Craig's idea of "middle knowledge" is very interesting. Essentially it allows for "free will" and "election" to both be true simultaneously and without conflict.

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Andre:
Hello Faith Alone (and others)

I quickly reread some of the Craig quotes. If I were forced to comment "off the top of my head" about the nature of one the points that he is making, I would say something like the following:

Even God cannot create a Universe that is logically incoherent - so even His freedom is limited. So the creation of an eternal hell (even the "lesser" version Craig describes, without all the fire) may be some kind of logically necessary consequence of the working out of other purposes of His (more easily seen by us as "loving"). On this view, the existence of an eternal hell was not really a "free choice" that God made. In a sense, God was constrained and had to create it in order to make a logically coherent world.

Does this at least capture the spirit of what you think Craig is saying?

Something like that. He's not the easiest read.

Craig sees God as not willing to create a world of people in which they could not willingly choose Him. Hence it was not possible to save all, since we could freely choose to reject Him, and He could not actualize a world in which we had a free will and yet we all trusted in Him.

Thx,

FA

 

[Faith alone]

Originally posted by Boanerges:
FA,

You have put up some interesting posts. In the end, my argument is based on the Hebrew in Daniel 12:2. I only ventured into Greek land because of accusations put forth by another member of the forum.

Boanerges,

I've always liked that text. I also like how Daniel tried to understand more of hisvision, and the angel told him to "go your way, Deniel." That thevison was shut up until the end times. Hence, I think it's all going to be much more clear once he returns. (duh)

FA

 

[BobRyan]

Originally posted by BobRyan:
[qb] Been there

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3603/2.html#000025

Done that

http://www.baptistboard.com/ubb/ultimatebb.php/topic/28/3603/2.html#000024

Originally posted by Boanerges:

But what about owlam Bob?

Oh I get it now. This is the part where I post - you don't read my post and then I summarize for you (an even shorter post with links back to the post you didn't read) after which you ask a question that is answered IN the post you wont read!!

See Jude 7 in the post referenced above.

Read.

In Christ,

Bob

 

[Claudia_T]

Ray Barrien,

You only are entitled to Eternal Life if you are saved and in Jesus Christ. The wicked do not get eternal life... whether in hell or heaven.

Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

Ray Barrien,

Think about what I said, the wicked do not receive the gift of Eternal Life.. They dont get to live forever and ever... even in "Hell".

Think about how Jesus died so that those who believe on Him would be free from death:

"Therefore doth My Father love Me because I lay down My life that I might take it again. No man taketh it from Me, but I lay it down of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of My Father." John 10:17, 18. "Whom [Christ] God hath raised up, having loosed the pains of death; because it was not possible that He should be holden of it." Acts. 2:24.

The wages of sin is DEATH... not eternal life in Hell:
"For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord." Rom. 6:23.


Why did God give His son to die? and who alone are benefited by His death?

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." "He that believeth not the Son shall not see [everlasting] life, but the wrath of God abideth or him." John 3:16, 36.

Did you notice, Ray that those who believe not Jesus would NOT SEE everlasting life?


With whom is the eternal life of the believer hid?
"For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God." Col. 3:3. "And this is the record, that God hath given to us eternal life, and this life is in His Son." 1 John 5:11.

ONLY those who are in Christ will receive immortality and this comes when the dead are raised at the second coming of Christ:

"Behold, I show you a mystery: we shall not all sleep, but we shall all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trump. For the trumpet shall sound, and the dead shall be raised incorruptible, and we shall be changed, For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality." 1 Cor. 15:51-53.

Is there any exemption from the first, or temporal, death?
"For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive." 1 Cor. 15:22.

Who have part in the first resurrection?
"And I saw the souls of them that were beheaded for the witness of Jesus, and for the word of God, and which had not worshiped the beast, ...and they lived and reigned with Christ a thousand years... This is the first resurrection. .On such the second death hath no power." Rev. 20:4-6.

Who have part in the second resurrection?
"But the rest of the dead [the wicked] lived not again until the thousand years were finished." "And fire came down from God out of heaven and devoured them." Rev. 20:5, 9 (Dan. 12:2) (Heb. 11:35).

What is the second, or eternal, death? and who suffer it?
"And death and hell [margin, the grave] were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire." Rev. 20:14, 15. "The lake which burneth with fire and brimstone... is the second death." Rev. 21:8. "He that overcometh shall not be hurt of the second death." Rev. 2:11. See Eze. 18:26.

What is then said of those who share the first resurrection, and so escape the second death?
"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. And He that sat upon the throne said, Behold, I make all things new." Rev. 21:4, 5.


Again you need to realize that it is called "The Second Death" because thats exactly what it is... DEATH. Not Eternal Life in Hell.


Mt:15:4: For God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.

Let him die 'THE DEATH'... that is what it is referring to.

Not only that but this is why Jesus said,

Mt:10:28: And fear not them which kill the body, but are not able to kill the soul: but rather fear him which is able to DESTROY both soul and body in hell.

Did you take notice that Jesus said we need to fear God who is able to DESTROY both body and soul in hell? No reason to fear that if God isnt going to do that to the wicked.


Claudia

 

[Melanie]

Interesting post Claudia T. If the person who dies in a state of sin (that is in grave offense to God) and is in Hell and that soul somehow is not eternal. why did Jesus come to Earth and die for us if not to save us from eternal damnation.

 

[Claudia_T]

Briony,

Well you see, here's the thing, the idea of Jesus saving us from "eternal damnation" is actually correct but look at this:

(this is talking about whats going to happen to the wicked)

2Thes:1:9: Who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord, and from the glory of his power

Do you notice the "everlasting punishment" or "eternal" punishment is the everlasting DESTRUCTION and not being able to ever be with the Lord eternally?

That is the everlasting effect or punishment of not accepting Jesus and His eternal life He came to offer.

So when the Bible does talk about everlasting punishment thats what it actually means. Kind of like when Jesus was suffering for our sins on the cross and when He was going through "the Second Death" for us(what sinners who dont accept Him are going to have to suffer) Jesus said "My God, My God, Why have you forsaken me?"

The real punishment is not only the physical suffering that is going to happen but the mental suffering of realizing we are apart from God FOREVER.

Also notice the Bible says EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION... not everlasting TORTURE.


If you look into the history of this whole thing, the Believers did not believe in people being tortured forever and ever, this teaching was brought in from the Roman Catholic Church, along with Purgatory and a few other false doctrines.

And they got it from the pagans. This entire thing is closely tied in to the false teaching that says that the dead do not really die but go straight to heaven or hell... as if we naturally at birth have immortality of the soul, which the Bible teaches that we do not.


Read this:

1 Thessalonians 4:16
13: But I would not have you to be ignorant, brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye sorrow not, even as others which have no hope.
14: For if we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so them also which sleep in Jesus will God bring with him.
15: For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.
16: For the Lord himself shall descend from heaven with a shout, with the voice of the archangel, and with the trump of God: and the dead in Christ shall rise first:
17: Then we which are alive and remain shall be caught up together with them in the clouds, to meet the Lord in the air: and so shall we ever be with the Lord.
18: Wherefore comfort one another with these words.

You see, people dont stop to think about this, if we die and go straight to heaven or hell because our souls are "immortal" (a pagan greek teaching)then WHY will Jesus come to raise His people from THE GRAVE and then from then on the Bible says they will ever be with the Lord?

Makes no sense, does God go to heaven and pull Christians who have "died and gone to heaven" OUT of heaven, stick them back into the grave and then Jesus comes and pulls them out of the grave again at the second coming to take them back to heaven again?

Do you see how ridiculous this teaching is?

It isnt biblical. It, along with the eternal torture idea came right out of paganism ...the idea of "something dualism" (Im sorry I cant remember the term right now but it has something to do with the soul being "immortal")

1Cor:15:53: For this corruptible must put on incorruption, and this mortal must put on immortality.

1Cor:15:54: So when this corruptible shall have put on incorruption, and this mortal shall have put on immortality, then shall be brought to pass the saying that is written, Death is swallowed up in victory.

1Tm:6:16: Who only hath immortality, dwelling in the light which no man can approach unto; whom no man hath seen, nor can see: to whom be honour and power everlasting. Amen.

See, we do not HAVE immortality of the soul UNTIL the second coming of Christ. The idea of the wicked burning forever and ever in Hell stems from this same idea of natural immortality of the soul... but the wicked do not have immortality at all, they do not have eternal life in any way...not in heaven OR in hell.

The Protestants in the "old days" never taught these things


The Great Controversy, page 549
Chapter Title: The First Great Deception
The theory of the immortality of the soul was one of those false doctrines that Rome, borrowing from paganism, incorporated into the religion of Christendom. Martin Luther classed it with the "monstrous fables that form part of the Roman dunghill of decretals."--E. Petavel, The Problem of Immortality, page 255. Commenting on the words of Solomon in Ecclesiastes, that the dead know not anything, the Reformer says: "Another place proving that the dead have no . . . feeling. There is, saith he, no duty, no science, no knowledge, no wisdom there. Solomon judgeth that the dead are asleep, and feel nothing at all. For the dead lie there, accounting neither days nor years, but when they are awaked, they shall seem to have slept scarce one minute."-- Martin Luther, Exposition of Solomon's Booke Called Ecclesiastes, page 152.

But instead, at Christian funerals, you hear these Preachers telling everyone how their "Aunt Nelly is smiling down upon us from Heaven" etc and so on...

It just is not true and that is why Jesus said:

Jn:14:2,3In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.

And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come again, and receive you unto myself; that where I am, there ye may be also.

Well if we are there in heaven right after we die then why is Jesus going to come again and receive us to Himself?

The two doctrines are intertwined... of "eternal torture in hell" and this false idea that the dead are in heaven or hell right now..


Claudia

 

[Claudia_T]

To anyone who wants to read this:

The thing that happened to Sodom and Gammorah is given as an example of what "eternal fire" means...

Jude chapter 1
4: For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation, ungodly men, turning the grace of our God into lasciviousness, and denying the only Lord God, and our Lord Jesus Christ.
5: I will therefore put you in remembrance, though ye once knew this, how that the Lord, having saved the people out of the land of Egypt, afterward destroyed them that believed not.
6: And the angels which kept not their first estate, but left their own habitation, he hath reserved in everlasting chains under darkness unto the judgment of the great day.
7: Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Well we know Sodom and Gammorah aren't still burning today, yet they "suffered the vengeance of eternal fire".

It is the effects of the punish "ment" that is eternal and not the punish "ing"

Claudia