Which view of hell do you hold to?

Is it better to have had a winning lottery ticket and lose it, or to have never had it?

My problem is not whether verses like this prove or disprove Hell and it length of duration, but whether or not the soul is immortal in and of itself. John says only God is immortal. Scripture indicates we recieve immortality through Christ. How and when does the lost man recieve immortality so that he can "burn forever"?

What did the Tree of Life provide, immortality of the physical or immortality of the soul?
If it gives immortality of the physical then Adam was not created physically to live forever. He could only attain it by eating of the Tree of Life.Therefore his physical death was not a result of the fall. If his physical death did not result from the fall, then what is "Adam's Death" referring to in I Cor 15? Spiritual?

If the Tree of Life provided immortality of the soul, and man does not have acess to it because in God's grace He took man out of the Garden so he would not eat of it. Then how does the lost man gain immortality of the soul?

 

A figurative view does not mean "no torment". For me it means something far worse than an eternal fire. The Bible describes flames of torment and outer darkness, which seem incompatible together. That's why I think they are figurative of some unimaginable torment.

 

You asked: "How is this a problem for regeneration first theology?"

Just commenting on: "If no one longs for God in this life without the Holy Spirit quickening him, I don't see them longing for God in the next."

 

Either #1 or #2. Not sure which.

I heard a fire chief being interviewed once. He said that most people don't realize that in the middle of a fire it's very dark, not bright. I thought that was interesting in light of Jesus' statements about "being cast into outer darkness."

Interesting that we have some annihilationists or potential annihilationists here who are Baptists.

 

Grasshopper

I thought mankind was made perfect (complete) with both a physical body and a spirit. Just as it wasn't just the physical part of Adam that fell, but the spirit as well, it isn't just the soul that burns in hell, the physical body is reunited with the soul and the whole man suffers.

Only God is immortal because only God is self-existent. God "holds the cosmos" together. Without God actively keeping us in existence, we wouldn't exist.

Scripture is pretty clear that the suffering is eternal.

 

Sorry exscentric, my mind must be in a fog this evening. I'm still...

 

JD,

You have a good point about Lazarus. He doesn't call out to God. However, if he doesn't have a "change of heart," why does he beg for someone to go and warn his brothers that the word of God is true?

 

The rich man was really, really, really, really, hot. He didn't want his family to suffer like he was suffering. That proves he loved his family, not that he loved God, or had a "change of heart".

 

What about a soul?
What then was the Tree of Life for?

What is the scriptual proof that the physical fell at the fall?

If only God is immortal then how does man gain immortality?

Then we are not immortal.

Scripture is clear that the result of the punishment is eternal.

 

I hold to physcial and spirit/soul existence. I do not separate soul/spirit. They are different words for the same thing.

You said:

"What is the scriptual proof that the physical fell at the fall?"

Romans chapters 1-8

We continue to exist as long as God wants us to exist. If He wants the damned to suffer forever, which is what scripture clearly states, then they will suffer forever.

You seem to look at immortality as a continued existence from a certain point in time forward. I see immortality as always existing; from eternity to eternity. It that sense, only God is immortal, because only God has always existed.

I don't see scripture supporting annihilationism.

 

With regard to the "tree of life", it seems if they had eaten of it, they wouldn't have died a physical death.

 

And Death and Hades, according to the verse before. I think there's something figurative there.

Anabaptist, in my case. I'm not sure if annihilationism is more common among Anabaptists than Baptists, though. I know most people in my church don't agree with it.

I'm a bit surprised by the lack of Scripture being presented by those who believe hell will be a place of eternal torment. I was expecting to learn something new in this thread, since this isn't a topic I've studied much, but the only references brought up have been to Revelation and the story of the rich man and Lazarus. It is interesting how these passages (of a vision and a parable) are taken at face value while clearer passages are ignored.

 

Perhaps I'll get more into this later, but the soul and spirit are separate.

Would Romans 7:9 be included?

Where does scripture clearly state those "suffer forever"?

Then what is Paul's immortality that is found in I Cor. 15?

What does "perish" mean? What does "destroy" mean?

Why would they need it if Adam was created to physically live forever? Are you now saying Adam wasn't created physically to live forever?

 

I would have a lot of questioning of the soul always being immortal so would lean to #3. I also wonder about consuming fire and the smoke rising for ever and evaporating into nothing like smoke does and the second death.

Also looked up annihilationism and see it surfaced in the 1660 confession of the General Baptists although frowned upon now.

 

I don't think the Luke 16 story of the rich man and Lazarus is a parable. It is not presented as a parable (as in "and he told them a parable") and Jesus gives the name of a person in the story, something not done in any other parable.

As far as the rich man not being able to see God, I heard or read that the phrase "the bosom of Abraham" was a euphemistic term for being with God. I have not researched it but thought I would throw it there.

 

As for the terms "destroy" and "perish" being used to support annihilationism, here's an article responding to annihilationism:

It's quite a good article. Pretty thorough.

 

From the same article, on the NT terms used to support annihilationism

 

That's not quite true, because the way parables are presented is not that clear-cut. It is presented in the same form as many other parables. For instance, Luke 16 contains two stories. The first begins "There was a rich man who had a manager" (Luke 16:1). The second begins "There was a rich man who was clothed in purple and fine linen" (Luke 16:19). The first story is obviously a parable. The second story is told in the same format. Neither story is clearly labelled as a parable.

I'm sure every parable of Jesus is unique in some way. I think the parable of the good Samaritan is the only one where the nationality of a character is given (I could be wrong on that, though). I don't see why naming one character in a story would make it more likely to be historical.

From the article you posted:

In this article, the author often presents a strong argument from the opposing position, and then knocks it down by moving to a slightly different issue. For instance, above the quoted portion here he gives an argument based on Matthew 10:28 ("And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather fear him who can destroy both soul and body in hell"). To answer it, he diverts to 1 Corinthians 1:18 and points out that this verse uses the present tense. The problem is that Matthew 10:28 does not use the present tense. He says that the verb "does not suggest that their _future_ state will be non-existence", but ignores that the passages commonly presented (Matthew 10:28, John 3:16) do speak of a future state.

He is a clever wordsmith, but I didn't see any good reasons to accept all his redefinitions of words.

 

I agree with you on this particular thing, TS. Will wonders never cease!

It is clear that the rich man in hell had changed by wanting to give that warning. It's a shame he realized too late what it was all about!