Which view of hell do you hold to?

Well said Marcia

 

AV

It seems the question is whether the rich man changed to have a longing in his heart for God. I don't see that.

 

You might add Isa. 66.22-24 to the mixture.

 

Yeah...wanting to warn his family is not the same as a changed heart toward God. I really don't see how one could think differently.

 

I also find it interesting he didn't say, "Have Lazarus go tell my brothers that God is a God of love and compassion." Instead, he asked that they be warned. Warned of what? Hell and suffering it would appear. I wonder if that should effect the way we witness to people today?

 

BTW: By pointing this out, I am in no way denying the awesome love of God, nor do I deny that God is Love, nor am I trying to destroy the love of God, nor am I saying we shouldn't show love and compassion to people. Whew! that was close!

 

The rich man didn't have to have a change of heart to warn his brothers. To me that just adds weight to the fact that hell was that horrible.
I personally believe that the rich man and lazerus is a true story. It isn't introduced as a parable. Its the only story Jesus told involving the naming of a person.

I find it interesting that some of the folk who are preterist are also annhilationalists and also some of those same folk don't believe Gen. 1-11 to be literal.Could there be some liberals in the woodpile? What comes next for you folk. The denying of the resurrection of Christ?

Hell is just as horrible as heaven is heavenly. Why would God send his only Son to die for lost souls if they weren't faced with such damnation?
annhilation minimizes the signifigance of salvation in my opinion.

BTW I think it pretty sorry to even list something Clarke Pinnock believes. How can a guy be so sure about the state of lost folk when according to his own "open theism" view God doesn't even know the future so I don't see how he can bring anything to the table concerning future things!

Some people who post here treat the Bible like it is a "doctrinal buffet" just pick what you want to believe is true and wrap the rest of it up in symbolism, allegory, metaphors..etc...and simply call it poetic. I know these exist in the Bible but you get my point.

I'm not implying this to anyone on this board but, there are alot of folk I believe, who don't believe hell is literal are going to give a first hand report about it when its all said and done.

 

I don't know about that. Believing in a literal hell or not is a litmus test for Christianity.

 

HOW do you split up quotes and insert your own words in between? I keep screwing this up? sorry.

And since I couldn't edit my post I will fix my error here. Whether one believes in a literal hell or not is NOT a litmus test for Christianity.

 

you can copy the part you want to quote, do
[ QUOTE ] then paste your quote then do [ /QUOTE ](without spaces)Then you can repeat this for as many quotes you want, with your text interspersed.

 

By the way, in my Harmony of the Gospels guess what is one of the very next occurances in the life of the Lord.

Well the raising of Lazurus of course

If that is the case and the lost Jews had heard Christ within hours or days talking about the rich man and Lazurus, then to see a guy named Lazurus come forth

Do you suppose there were any heart attacks?

Abraham was right also! "31 And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."

That would be the saddest part.

 

#1 Absolutely

 

You know what I wondered - why do modern Jews not believe in hell?

(By the way, I re-read my earlier comments and realized I sound like I don't believe in hell. I do. I believe in a literal hell. I just think that the prospect of separation from God is more frightening than the prospect of eternal burning. So I worry less about the lake of fire and more about being away from God.)

 

#1, but with the possibility of #2. Either way would be hell.

 

Sky

I don't think the concept of hell is as well developed in the Jewish scriptures (our Old Testament) as in the New Testament. Also, it seems most Jews today have a very liberal interpretion of their scriptures, so they wouldn't take it literally anyway. My two-cents.

 

Thank you, JD

 

Thanks Nate...hopefully I get it right sometime.

 

#1. I picture a 3' x 3' cube where you can't stand, sit or lie down, you can only crouch. You are alone, in solitary confinement (humans are social in nature, the opposite would be horrible). You are in extreme pain from the heat, and your muscles cry out for relief, but there is none. It is pitch black with the worst odors. All you hear is screaming, but you can't communicate with anyone. This is my visual of hell.

 

Parables aren't necessarily historical. It may even be a story that was told before Jesus' time but was given a new spin by him. There's lots of ways the story conflicts with other teachings about the afterlife, from the name of the place the righteous go to (Abraham's bosom), the visibility of the righteous dead from hell, and the communication between the righteous and wicked. I don't think the point of the story was to give us physical details about the afterlife.

From hell and its consequences. Disagreement about what those consequences entail, whether it's disagreement about the height or literalness of the flames or the ultimate result of them, does not change that fact.

If the soul of man is immortal, what was the purpose of the Tree of Life in Eden?

Anyway, the warnings aren't all spoken of in eternal future language. The punishment is eternal, but the suffering, pain, torment are not said to be eternal. As far as I'm aware, the only passage that might conflict with this is Revelation 14:10-11, depending on how you view the "smoke of their torment". Mark 9:43-48 references Isaiah 66:24 with imagery of the destruction of dead bodies. Jude 1:7 compares the fate of the wicked with how Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed. And, of course, there's all those verses that say that ultimately the wicked will perish, or be destroyed. John 3:16 is such a familiar verse, and yet many seem to have not absorbed what it literally says.

First, Paul does not talk about "if there is no Resurrection for those who are without Christ", but rather about "if there is no resurrection for those who have fallen asleep". Paul is not as specific as you want him to be. Second, I do believe all the dead will be raised, both the wicked and the righteous, so your problem does not apply to my view. My view is that eternal life is only given to the righteous, while the wicked, after judgement, will be punished and destroyed.

As I said in my first post, "About the only verse that gives me second thoughts about the eventual destruction of the wicked is Matthew 25:26 [sic]: 'Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life.' But even here, destruction is a punishment with eternal consequences: due to this punishment, the wicked will not exist for all of eternity."

That interpretation is inconsistent with the prophecy Mark is quoting from. If you read Isaiah 66:24, you will see that it is dead bodies that are being devoured by worms, not living bodies whose metaphorical "worm" is still alive. Also, if "their worm" in Isaiah 66:24 refers to their body, "their fire" must also refer to some part of them. In other words, this interpretation completely allegorizes not only the worms, but also the flames!

For further confirmation, just check the biblical usage of "worm". It usually refers to a destructive agent (Exodus 16:20,24, Deuteronomy 28:39; Job 7:5, 17:14, 19:26, 21:26, 24:20; Isaiah 14:11, 51:8; Jonah 4:7; Acts 12:23). When it is a euphemism for a human being, the person is equated with a worm, rather than saying the person has a worm (see Job 25:6; Psalm 22:6; Isaiah 41:14; Micah 7:17).

By the way, it was through studying Isaiah 66 and how it is used in Mark 9 that I was finally convinced that the eternal torment view of hell was wrong. That view just can't hold up to what the text literally says.

If that interpretation were correct, then Sodom and Gomorrah really didn't serve as a very good example, since none of Jude's readers would be able to see what he was talking about. If would be as circular as saying that the bliss my grandmother is currently experiencing in heaven serves as an example of eternal life. On the other hand, if Jude was referring to the historical destruction of these cities (a destruction with effects that carry into the present, since the cities were never rebuilt), then it would be a powerful example of what eternal fire is.

An interesting claim, since the only passage raised to support annihilationism in Scripture that you addressed was Jude 1:7. Instead, you focused on the rich man and Lazarus, details of John's vision in Revelation, Matthew 25:46, and a misinterpretation of Mark 9 that, if true, would turn the worms and flames of hell into mere euphemisms for human beings.