Which view of hell do you hold to?

[Mercury]

Originally posted by shannonL:
I personally believe that the rich man and lazerus is a true story. It isn't introduced as a parable.

That's not quite true, because the way parables are introduced is not clear-cut. It is introduced in the same fashion 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.

Its the only story Jesus told involving the naming of a person.

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.

Whew, I'm feeing deja vu here!

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?

There's certainly some moderates. Please stay away with those matches.

What comes next for you folk. The denying of the resurrection of Christ?

No. I think my view of hell takes more of Scripture literally than the opposing views. I take Isaiah 66:24; Matthew 10:28; John 3:16; 1 Corinthians 1:18, 15:28; 2 Peter 2:12, 3:9; Jude 1:7 literally. The passages I don't take literally are mainly parables, visions, or other texts that are not written in a way similar to historical accounts or didactic teaching. Those who hold to the other views seem to take a different approach. They treat parables and visions literally and take historical accounts and didactic teaching figuratively. I think that approach is a far more slippery slope than mine.

Why would God send his only Son to die for lost souls if they weren't faced with such damnation?

They are faced with damnation. We disagree over what that damnation entails.

 

[icthus]

Mercury, I take it from your response, that you do not believe in the Biblical teaching of eternal torment for the wicked. It would appear that the mainstream, and greater majority of the Church through the centuries have been wrong in rejecting Annhilation as the final state for the unsaved?

Your reasoning is based on human logic and a few misunderstood verses from Scripture. If "Salvation" is meant to be an act of "saving" from something, then exactly what did Jesus come to save us from? As I have already said, the world has always been content in their idea of live and let live, for there is no price to pay for their sins. You have reduced all the warnings about the suffering of the wicked, to nothing but mere bluffs, and that by Jesus Himself. If, as you suppose, that there is no future punishment for the wicked, then I repeat, that there is simply no point in Christ comeing to save anyone. There is no point in us preaching the Gospel, and telling people to repent, or else... Or else what? You tell people in the street, that they are in danger of hell fire, as Jesus Himself did, and then explain to them that this means that they would cease to exist after they are dead. What "danger" is this? How is this a warning to them? They believe this any way, and are content with it. You can, as you yourself have shown above, make Scriptures say anything you wnat them to, you could twist their meanings, or you could simply ignore what they teach. But you fool no one except yourself. Hell is a real place of eternal torment, and whether you are the millions out there believe it or not, does not alter the fact that it is there.

 

[icthus]

Mercury, I take it from your response, that you do not believe in the Biblical teaching of eternal torment for the wicked. It would appear that the mainstream, and greater majority of the Church through the centuries have been wrong in rejecting Annhilation as the final state for the unsaved?

Your reasoning is based on human logic and a few misunderstood verses from Scripture. If "Salvation" is meant to be an act of "saving" from something, then exactly what did Jesus come to save us from? As I have already said, the world has always been content in their idea of live and let live, for there is no price to pay for their sins. You have reduced all the warnings about the suffering of the wicked, to nothing but mere bluffs, and that by Jesus Himself. If, as you suppose, that there is no future punishment for the wicked, then I repeat, that there is simply no point in Christ comeing to save anyone. There is no point in us preaching the Gospel, and telling people to repent, or else... Or else what? You tell people in the street, that they are in danger of hell fire, as Jesus Himself did, and then explain to them that this means that they would cease to exist after they are dead. What "danger" is this? How is this a warning to them? They believe this any way, and are content with it. You can, as you yourself have shown above, make Scriptures say anything you wnat them to, you could twist their meanings, or you could simply ignore what they teach. But you fool no one except yourself. Hell is a real place of eternal torment, and whether you are the millions out there believe it or not, does not alter the fact that it is there.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by icthus:
Mercury, I take it from your response, that you do not believe in the Biblical teaching of eternal torment for the wicked.

I do not believe the biblical teaching is of eternal torment for the wicked.

If "Salvation" is meant to be an act of "saving" from something, then exactly what did Jesus come to save us from?

</font>

• Punishment (Matthew 25:46; 2 Peter 2:4-9; Jude 1:7).</font>
• Hell (Matthew 5:29-30, 10:28, 23:15,33; Mark 9:42-48; Luke 12:5).</font>
• Perishing (Luke 13:1-5; John 3:16; John 10:28; 1 Corinthians 1:18; 2 Corinthians 2:15, 4:3; 2 Peter 3:9).</font>
• Utter darkness (Jude 1:12-13).</font>
• Destruction (Matthew 7:13; Luke 17:26-30; Romans 9:22-23; Philippians 1:28; 3:18-19; 2 Thessalonians 1:9; Hebrews 10:35-39; James 4:12; 2 Peter 2:12-13, 3:5-7; Jude 1:5).</font>

If, as you suppose, that there is no future punishment for the wicked, then I repeat, that there is simply no point in Christ comeing to save anyone.

I have said clearly and consistently that I believe there will be a future punishment for the wicked. I believe the end result of the punishment will be the destruction of the wicked. I have no idea what form and how severe the torment will be prior to that point. It could consist of literal fire and worms for all I know. God will do what is just.

You tell people in the street, that they are in danger of hell fire, as Jesus Himself did, and then explain to them that this means that they would cease to exist after they are dead. What "danger" is this? How is this a warning to them? They believe this any way, and are content with it.

I do believe they are in danger of hell fire, whether the fire is metaphorical or not. However, I think the end result of hell fire is destruction.

Do these people in the street believe they will someday stand before their Maker? Do they believe they will be judged? Do they believe they will be cast into hell for their unbelief? If not, then their beliefs are different than mine.

Also, I think you are forgetting an important component of the Gospel. The Good News is more than fire insurance. It is also the promise of an eternity with God! Even if there were no hell, I'd still find eternity with God infinitely more desirable than non-existence. In fact, even if I didn't know about heaven or hell, I hope I would still choose to love, trust and obey Jesus and not want to live life without him. But, of course, I believe in both heaven and hell.

You can, as you yourself have shown above, make Scriptures say anything you wnat them to, you could twist their meanings, or you could simply ignore what they teach.

An interesting reply. I would have found an attempt to address what Scripture says more compelling. Why is it that nobody in this thread who believes in eternal torment has even tried to explain the more troublesome verses for that view? I was quite open in addressing both verses that plainly support my view and verses that could be problematic to it. I think the discussion would be more fruitful if others did that too.

whether you are the millions out there believe it or not, does not alter the fact that it is there.

I do agree that what we believe does not alter what really is.

 

[Mercury]

Originally posted by icthus:
You tell people in the street, that they are in danger of hell fire, as Jesus Himself did

Just a sidenote, but Jesus told the religious leaders of the day that they were in danger of hell fire (Matthew 23), and he also warned of certain behaviours that could put one in danger of hell fire (Matthew 5; Mark 9). Jesus used different approaches when dealing with the average person in the street, or person at the well.

 

[shannonL]

I find by reading different posts on different forums on this board that some of the comparisons I have noticed are quite interesting.

Its pretty common to find those who believe in a literal 1000 year reign also believe in an eternal hell.

Just the same for many who are preterist or half preterists they seem to lean toward the annihilation view of hell. Also alot of those who fall into the Gen1-11 as symbolic could probably fall into that category.

If you want to do a poll and see for yourself.
I'm not a betting man but if I was I bet I'd find some solid percentages for my comparisons.

 

[GODzThunder]

I believe hell is hot, horrible, and has an honorable position waiting for you if you are not under the blood.

 

[Grasshopper]

Just the same for many who are preterist or half preterists they seem to lean toward the annihilation view of hell. Also alot of those who fall into the Gen1-11 as symbolic could probably fall into that category.

If you want to do a poll and see for yourself.
I'm not a betting man but if I was I bet I'd find some solid percentages for my comparisons.

Save your money, you are wrong.

I've read many partial and full-preterist authors and preachers. Those who hold to annihilation or symbolic Genesis is probably close to the same % of Dispies who hold those views. In fact I know of none that believe Genesis is symbolic. Of course you definition of "symbolic" is warped in my view.

 

[OCC]

"Of course you definition of "symbolic" is warped in my view." I just can't understand how if I said this it would be a problem. You guys can continue with the topic though.