Matthew 10:28

[ewoksrule]

This is very interesting topic in light of the Christian blogosphere storm regarding Rob Bell and his latest book. He is being called a heretic (not new for him) and a Universalist because he brings up points similar to this one. That Hell might not be real like we think and Hell is empty because love wins and God is not a torturer.

We need the doctrine of eternal punishment.
What you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked.

This was the post that started the massive storm.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/justintaylor/2011/02/26/rob-bell-universalist/
and a great follow-up link
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/28/bell-brouhaha/
Excellent article on why we NEED God's wrath in Hell.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/26/to-hell-with-hell/

This is vital stuff guys, I highly recommend you read the above posts if you are interested in this topic!

 

[RyanB]

While I did not expect to get a very firm welcome on this topic, I have to say that this is the first post that made me, well, kind of angry to be honest. I hope that doesn't come through in this post.

I'm saying:

Hey, let's actually look at what the bible says rather than our own predispositions

You are saying:

We need the doctrine of eternal punishment.
What you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked.

We do not need the doctrine of eternal torture, what we need to do is study the bible and see what God has to say on the matter. Your response displays a giant brick wall of bias making you incapable of seeking what the bible actually says outside of your own predeterminations. I believe that theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked.

Now, if the bible supports eternal torment, then so be it. So far I haven't seen much evidence of that being brought forth.

As for this line:

What you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God.

As I read through my bible, I notice something that is true for all eternity:
1) When God finds things utterly destable, he destroys them
2) When God allows us to suffer, it's so that we can learn/come back to him/etc.

How exactly does my belief on hell contradict the way God has acted pretty consistently for all of time?

Edit to add: will be reading through linked articles and responding specifically to them at a later time.

 

[ewoksrule]

Sorry my first edit had quotes around

We need the doctrine of eternal punishment.
What you believe about heaven and hell says a lot about what you believe about God. That’s why theological error of this magnitude cannot go unchecked.

They are both quotes from the articles not me.

The theological error part was not directed towards you.

 

[RyanB]

Read the first two links on Rob Bell. I agree the guy is a loon, and a false teacher. Few things:

1) Saying everyone is saved is downright silly. Jesus said the path to destruction (note that's "destruction", not "suffering" folks ) was wide, and the path to life was small.
2) It is not a very good argument for us to base our view on hell (or any theological thing) on what we think or want.

On that second point - I should add I fall in to this camp a bit, except for the conclusion. I do not want people to suffer for eternity. I don't think anyone here does. I also do not think that is automatically consistent with God, for the reasons I posted above.

I should add - that's definitely not something to build an entire theological foundation on. We need to look at what the bible says. I guess I'll have to sit down and write up a large post along the lines of "what I feel the bible says that indicates destruction". Trying not to muddy the waters too much, I've been focusing on 1) what little the bible says for eternal torment and 2) what the bible says that people think is talking about hell, but is not

 

[Patriot]

No time to summarize everything mentioned at the following link. But it basically lines up with my beliefs.

http://carm.org/hell

 

[ewoksrule]

score with the CARM link! That site most always lines up with my beliefs.

 

[RyanB]

Thanks for clearing that up ewoks, so you can just consider my reply directed at the writer of the article.

Had a chance to read this one:

Excellent article on why we NEED God's wrath in Hell.
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2011/02/26/to-hell-with-hell/

Rather than debunk this point by point, I'll simply talk about the two general assumptions on this post, which are: 1) we need hell to threaten people with and 2) without suffering, there is no consequences and that just can't be because God is just!

No. No, we absolutely do not "need God’s wrath in order to grasp how wonderful heaven will be" or "to be motivated to care for our impoverished brothers and sisters". Is it hard for this guy to imagine that I might be motivated to encourage my friends to get saved simply because heven will be awesome, or because God is awesome? Or maybe I might be motivated to care for people, because I follow what Jesus does?

Hell could be nothing, and we still do not need it to further the gospel. The gospel message is to love God, not fear hell. That's not to say we shouldn't be fearful of the lord, but God created us to love him.

To say that ceasing to exist is not punishment, quite frankly, insults God. Let me try to put it into mathematical terms to better explain. Assume God is infinitely awesome. Ceasing to exist is zero. Hell is infinitely not awesome. The difference between zero and God is still infinite.

There is no reason God "needed" to create hell, and for a senior pastor here to say otherwise seems very odd in my opinion...as none of the points explained the "need".

I've glanced through the CARM link, nothing linked there I hadn't looked at before and I suppose I'll respond to each bullet, as soon as I string together a good post on what the bible says that would lead us to think something other than what we've all grown up thinking.

 

[Sassamo]

From what I've seen, at least within the NT are 4 different references: hades, gehenna, tartaroo, and lake of fire. Generally, where hades is used, it mostly seems to represent a temporal place of holding. The other 3 all seem to be a place the unsaved are cast into, and suffer. So as far as considering the eternal state, as we know that hades is cast into the lake of fire, I would only consider those scriptures which actually reference this place:

Matt 5:22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

Matt 5:29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matt 5:30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Matt 10:28And 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.

Matt 18:9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Matt 23:15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Matt 23:33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

Mark 9:43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Mark 9:47And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out: it is better for thee to enter into the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire:

Luke 12:5But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

James 3:6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

2 Pet 2: 4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell(Tartaroo), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Rev 14:11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Rev 19:3And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.

Rev 19:20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

Rev 20:10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

Rev 20:14And death and hell(hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Rev 20:15And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.


I've underlined those areas which give an indication to time length, and it seems pretty solid to me, not that I haven't wished to support annihalation, but this appears to be what the Bible says. To address 2 particular areas:

Matt 10:28 – 'destroy' - according to strongs, possible definitions:
1. to put out of the way entirely, abolosh, put an end to ruin
2. render useless
3. to kill
4. to declare that one must be put to death
5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
7. to lose
So, although it mainly means to completely annihalate, it could also have a meaning that leaves the item in exhistence.

Luke 12:5 - Doesn't make much sense for God to kill you then annihilate you.

Rev 20:14,21:8 – 'second death' – I don't know if I can support this biblically, but I look at it as first death = physical, second death = eternal separation from God.

Perhaps there's more evidence in the old testament, but there's only one word representing hell, so you'd have to look into the context to gather which use it implies. Anyway, this is just what I see, I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, as long as it was biblical.

 

[Lloren]

Without hell what did God save us from again? Not that we are saved only "from" hell for we are saved unto God Himself for His glory.

He wouldn't need to die for us. He could just snap His fingers and wisk us away if hell is a cosmic joke. Those who were swallowed up in the earth God opened for the Israelites in his anger (Num 26) would suddenly wake up one day to a "warm embrace".

The Father would say, "Just kidding! I wasn't mad. Get over here!" *bear hug*

Seriously? The sin of man wants to think that they can get away with DEFYING the Creator of the Universe. Maybe we have no idea how much we offend Him and it may be He is wholly just in destroying those who do not trust in His Only Son.

 

[RyanB]

Was wondering when Sassamo would finally show up. Will get to that post in a bit.

I really want to address one thing first because I have seen it in other posts (like the Why we "need" hell link). I presently don't even feel like it is very pointless to even look at the many scriptures quoted because here is what I see among the responses here: heavy bias.

So before moving on with this discussion, I would like to tackle one major issue I see:
We do not "need" hell.

If someone honestly reads the scripture and has a different (and majority) opinion than me, that's great and they are certainly as entitled to their beliefs as I am to mine. But to every single person on here who has indicated that we somehow "need" hell for God to be "just": this is completely unfounded, and reveals that they are completely biased and unable to fairly evaluate what the bible says on the hellfire.

I believe this is important, because how can I have a conversation with something about how the "second death" indicates, well, death when they feel there MUST be eternal torture for punishment. So, I will offer up these counter-arguments to what I have hard on here so far:

Without hell what did God save us from again? Not that we are saved only "from" hell for we are saved unto God Himself for His glory.

Who ever said there was no hell? The bible is clear that if your name is not in the lambs book of life, you will be thrown into the hellfire. My entire point of this thread is to point out that most of what we believe about what the hellfire is completely made up. I believe that when you are thrown in, you go poof.

Or are you implying that ceasing to exist isn't enough punishment? That God needs to torture them, because just destroying them is not enough, and that justice will only be served when people weep and gnash their teeth for eternity?

He wouldn't need to die for us. He could just snap His fingers and wisk us away if hell is a cosmic joke. Those who were swallowed up in the earth God opened for the Israelites in his anger (Num 26) would suddenly wake up one day to a "warm embrace".

This bit seems a bit bizarre to me. No one ever said that everyone would go to heaven. Let me again quote the verse I referenced to start this thread:
"Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell."

The Father would say, "Just kidding! I wasn't mad. Get over here!" *bear hug*

Again, see above. This isn't anything close to what I said; the Father will throw those not saved into the hellfire. How has this been missed?

Seriously? The sin of man wants to think that they can get away with DEFYING the Creator of the Universe.

You are a Christian and think that ceasing to exist instead of living forever fellowshipping with the Creator of the Universe is "getting away with it"?

Really?

Maybe we have no idea how much we offend Him and it may be He is wholly just in destroying those who do not trust in His Only Son.

My emphasis added. That's exactly what I believe - destroying. Think of hell as a soul furnace where you cease to exist when thrown in.




I'm not saying I believe there is "no hell" folks. The hellfire is a very real place, and we will clearly go there if we are not saved. What I am saying that the hellfire has very little biblical reference that would lead us to believe it's an eternal torture chamber.

 

[Lloren]

You are a Christian and think that ceasing to exist instead of living forever fellowshipping with the Creator of the Universe is "getting away with it"?

Yes it is getting away with it. That means we are putting a human "endpoint" to God's judgement. We say, "He only can go so far and then He's done and you're OK because you will no longer exist". It's limiting God and I don't necessarily agree with anything that puts God character in a box. And yes, I'm a Christian.

Thanks for clarifying your point on hell because it sounded like before you were saying "hell didn't exist". It seems like you are saying that hell is just annihilation and we can go down that path.

Really if you are going to ask for burden of scriptural proof for torture bring some proof for annihilation. Otherwise it's a false premise. I have the same response to people who ask "Prove God exists" and I'll ask "Prove He doesn't". Anyways ... funny you should ask about this as I was reading this passage the other day.

Isaiah 50: 10 Who among you fears the LORD
and obeys the word of his servant?
Let the one who walks in the dark,
who has no light,
trust in the name of the LORD
and rely on their God.
11 But now, all you who light fires
and provide yourselves with flaming torches,
go, walk in the light of your fires
and of the torches you have set ablaze.
This is what you shall receive from my hand:
You will lie down in torment.

So called "wise men" will walk by their own light (folly) and we see where this leads. Notice God is saying "Here is what I'm going to give you" from His very own hand. Not that they will lie down and disappear, but they will lie in torment.

Let's forward to the NT, I've already posted about the Rich Man in torment in Hades so we won't do that again, but I feel like this is a good picture of man's heart on torment and torture and contrast it with God's heart.

Matthew 16: 21 From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.
22 Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him. “Never, Lord!” he said. “This shall never happen to you!”

Man doesn't like the idea of torture or torment. Peter is revolting to the notion that Christ would suffer and die. Never! Here is Christ's response to Peter and really to anyone who throws off torture at the hand of God. Make no doubt. It was God Himself who put His Son to death on the cross. Yes, the only begotten Son of God was put to death by God for our salvation. Jesus's response to Peter.

23 Jesus turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to me; you do not have in mind the concerns of God, but merely human concerns.”

His last line was bolded for emphasis. The lie of the devil is that God doesn't want to punish anyone. The scriptures are all there in terms of God's punishment (see Sassamo's post too). So I'll pose it back in your court, "Where in the Bible does it support annihilation?"

 

[Patriot]

I'm waiting for you to address the CARM link before I add much else to this conversation. I'm hoping it doesn't get lost in the deluge of posts that people are putting up. In the meantime, I am reading responses. I thought it appropriate to point out that the argument below is a bit underhanded.

You are a Christian and think that ceasing to exist instead of living forever fellowshipping with the Creator of the Universe is "getting away with it"?

Really?

You are basically expressing incredulity at the prospect of a Christian holding this position. While I think that there are positions which would be appropriate to have this sort of response to (i.e. You claim to be a Christian and think that Jesus was an alien from the planet Mooboo?), this is not one of those cases. This kind of statement tends to call into question the "Christianity" of the target (i.e. personal attack or Ad Hominen) and leads to rather heated discussions.

A better approach would be to question why the person might believe why they do, or even to attack the argument itself without attacking the person presenting it. Just hoping this discussion remains civil. . .

 

[RyanB]

First, thank you Sassamo for quoting all these verses in one place. I value your interpration a lot and have, have responded to each and every one of these below. Many here will not read this entire, gigantic post, so I will sum it up for you.

Sassamo quoted twenty scriptures about hell. I responded. 19 of these scrpitures give absolutely no weight to the idea of eternal torment. 1 of them is a strong maybe. Details below.

Should also note: I still haven't gotten around to writing a post on what I believe supports annihilation in the bible. Will get around to that soon. My goal was to get the obvious stuff out of the way, and go from there. I do this because I believe that when people have their heads full of the idea that there is a strong, rock-solid case for eternal torment...they aren't even listening to me, and don't care what the bible actually says.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I've seen, at least within the NT are 4 different references: hades, gehenna, tartaroo, and lake of fire. Generally, where hades is used, it mostly seems to represent a temporal place of holding. The other 3 all seem to be a place the unsaved are cast into, and suffer. So as far as considering the eternal state, as we know that hades is cast into the lake of fire, I would only consider those scriptures which actually reference this place:

Please explain. Are you saying you consider Hades to be eternal, because it is cast into the hellfire? I know you had mentioned before that if people are in Hades and cast in, then there they are forever, whereas I believe that if the Hellfire destroys things, Hades being cast into the hellfire both literally and figuratively means that death is no more.

Matt 5:22But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

I'll talk a bit more on this one because this is the case for most verses about hell. There is nothing in this verse indicating eternal torture outside of our own bias.

For example: I say "in danger of the hell fire" means someone is in danger of being destroyed in the hell fire. Someone else might say it means "in danger of being tortured forever".

There is nothing here lending weight to the idea of eternal hell. We simply read it that way because of what we were told in church.

Matt 5:29And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Matt 5:30And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Matt 10:28And 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.

This verse seems pretty obvious which side of the argument it favors. Not only does it not mention torment, it mentions specific destruction.

Matt 18:9And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Matt 23:15Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye compass sea and land to make one proselyte, and when he is made, ye make him twofold more the child of hell than yourselves.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Matt 23:33Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?

"Damnation" means being cursed. No specific information here.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Mark 9:43And if thy hand offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter into life maimed, than having two hands to go into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

I noticed you underlined the last part, and I hear this a lot...so let me explain this for you. If I have an unquenchable fire, and throw in a piece of paper...that piece of paper will go poof and case to exist instantly. The fire is still there.

Does this mean the paper is burning forever? No, of course it does not. It means that the fire is unquenchable, it does not mean the fire cause anything put in to it to burn forever without burning. How could one possibly interpret this scripture to indicate eternity of burning?

It's not like I'm doing mental gymnastics here to try to twist what it says. I suppose it is possible to make the case that an unquenchable fire could possibly burn something for eternity; but that is simply not supported here. Does that make sense?

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Mark 9:45And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Luke 12:5But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Reading the entire thing shows very clearly what this means:

“I tell you, my friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body and after that can do no more. 5 But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. (luke 12:4-5)

Being "killed" is your body. This is presumably the first death. Revelation calls being thrown into fire "the second death". So verse 5 is simply saying that after your mortal body has been killed, God can cast you into the hellfire.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

James 3:6And the tongue is a fire, a world of iniquity: so is the tongue among our members, that it defileth the whole body, and setteth on fire the course of nature; and it is set on fire of hell.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

2 Pet 2: 4For if God spared not the angels that sinned, but cast them down to hell(Tartaroo), and delivered them into chains of darkness, to be reserved unto judgment;

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Rev 14:11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

As mentioned earlier in this thread - this verse has nothing at all to do with the hellfire. At least I certainly don't see it here. This verse is talking about the period during the plagues, before judgement. It is referring specifically to those who receive the mark of the beast, not all sinners.

Lastly, it says the smoke goes up forever and ever. This looks to indicate distance moreso than it does time. It says the smoke goes up forever....IE..."wow that's a freaking huge plume of smoke". I should add - I believe (can't remember where off the top of my head, sorry) that this description was also used to describe Sodom's destruction.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell.

Rev 19:3And again they said, Alleluia And her smoke rose up for ever and ever.

Same comment as above. Distance, not time.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell.

Rev 19:20And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived them that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image. These both were cast alive into a lake of fire burning with brimstone.

This appears like a good verse supporting eternal torment when used in conjunction with Rev 20:10, but isn't. It's simply not worded very well in English. This simply says the beast and false prophet were cast alive into the lake of burning sulphur. It does not refer to those who had received the mark of the beast, it says the prophet who had deceived them.

And the beast was taken, and with him the false prophet that wrought miracles before him, with which he deceived "them".

Who is "them"? Those that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.

It never says anything about those being decieved being cast into the lake. I'm not doing mental stretches here - it's simply confusing wording.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

Rev 20:10And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever.

This verse is referring to the beast, and the false prophet. Read it again.

I will add for clarity's sake, I believe this is the best verse in the bible supporting the idea of eternal torment. Why? Because it looks like we are getting thrown into the same place.

However, let me also encourage you to read through all of Rev 20. The devil is being thrown into the "lake of sulphur". We are being thrown into "the lake of fire". Is this a different place? Is it possible it is the same place and the devil will be tormented but we aren't? After all, there is no verse in the entire bible saying that we will be tormented forever and ever. The best we can do is imply it based on this verse and an assumption we suffer the same fate.

I would still say this verse leans towards the "eternal torment" side of the argument, but please bear all those things in mind. It is certainly not a smoking gun, especially in the face of the large amount of evidence pointing against it.

At some point, I'd like to do a very in-depth study on the words used and how they are meant in this single verse.

Rev 20:14And death and hell(hades) were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

Talked about about above a bit. When we die for the first time, we have no ties to our bodies. If we didn't die in an explosion, our body will still decay in time. Our bodies are gone. We "live" on because we have a soul. So what happens when our soul "dies"?

I'll talk more on the "seperation" idea of death, since you mentioned it below.

Rev 21:8But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell...just that you get thrown into the hell fire.

I've underlined those areas which give an indication to time length, and it seems pretty solid to me, not that I haven't wished to support annihalation, but this appears to be what the Bible says. To address 2 particular areas:

I have answered each and every one of these; looking forward to your thoughts.

Matt 10:28 – 'destroy' - according to strongs, possible definitions:
1. to put out of the way entirely, abolosh, put an end to ruin
2. render useless
3. to kill
4. to declare that one must be put to death
5. metaph. to devote or give over to eternal misery in hell
6. to perish, to be lost, ruined, destroyed
7. to lose
So, although it mainly means to completely annihalate, it could also have a meaning that leaves the item in exhistence.

I agree it could have an alternate meaning. However, when given no other context, why would we assume anything but a classical definition? Also, on the two definitions you listed:
#2 doesn't indicate eternal torment
#5 is circular. It's using itself as the definition.

Luke 12:5 - Doesn't make much sense for God to kill you then annihilate you.

Answered above.

Rev 20:14,21:8 – 'second death' – I don't know if I can support this biblically, but I look at it as first death = physical, second death = eternal separation from God.

You are correct, this is not supported biblically. I'm glad you brought this up! Actually, the idea that "death" means "seperation from God" is derived entirely from people trying to explain how you can "die" and be in hell for eternity.

The irony in this? This is completely backwards. Rather than say, let's interpret that verse based on what we think death means, we instead say...let's redefine death.

Let's also think about this logically for a moment. The gift of heaven is eternal life. Jesus says that ONLY those who are saved will receive the gift of eternal life.

So under this definition, those who don't get eternal life get eternal..."death", in which you happen to live eternally, just in a really crappy place.

I'm sorry, but saying "death" means seperation from God is not only not supported biblically (as you've already mentioned) - it makes no sense at all!

Perhaps there's more evidence in the old testament, but there's only one word representing hell, so you'd have to look into the context to gather which use it implies. Anyway, this is just what I see, I'd be happy to be convinced otherwise, as long as it was biblical.

Hope I've answered your new testament questions then.

 

[ewoksrule]

If someone honestly reads the scripture and has a different (and majority) opinion than me, that's great and they are certainly as entitled to their beliefs as I am to mine. But to every single person on here who has indicated that we somehow "need" hell for God to be "just": this is completely unfounded, and reveals that they are completely biased and unable to fairly evaluate what the bible says on the hellfire.[/B]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but that sounds extremely arrogant and rude. I have a lifetime of studying the bible and many years of bible college behind me. I did not wake up yesterday and read about hellfire for the first time. Having all this knowledge and holding the opinion that we need the doctrine of hell does not make me unable to fairly evaluate a Bible passage. Can you explain how it would? How does using previous time spent on this topic equals a bias that disqualifies me? You do not have the right to judge everyones view as unfounded just because they hold a position you do not agree with, that is ridiculous.

 

[RyanB]

I'm waiting for you to address the CARM link before I add much else to this conversation. I'm hoping it doesn't get lost in the deluge of posts that people are putting up.

Plan to, though it will probably be after I get a chance to write up some evidence supporting annihilation. However, please see the response to Sassamo's post in the meantime, as that included essentially every OT scripture referencing torment/etc.

In the meantime, I am reading responses. I thought it appropriate to point out that the argument below is a bit underhanded.

Originally Posted by RyanB
You are a Christian and think that ceasing to exist instead of living forever fellowshipping with the Creator of the Universe is "getting away with it"?

Really?

You are basically expressing incredulity at the prospect of a Christian holding this position. While I think that there are positions which would be appropriate to have this sort of response to (i.e. You claim to be a Christian and think that Jesus was an alien from the planet Mooboo?), this is not one of those cases. This kind of statement tends to call into question the "Christianity" of the target (i.e. personal attack or Ad Hominen) and leads to rather heated discussions.

A better approach would be to question why the person might believe why they do, or even to attack the argument itself without attacking the person presenting it. Just hoping this discussion remains civil. . .

Let me explain this a bit better, as I didn't mean anything un-civil by it. I specifically referred to having this position as a Christian for a reason.

Christians say they love Jesus. We have hope for eternity. We think God is awesome. We believe that eternity with God will be better than anything we could imagine to imagine.

If someone commits a crime and gets put in jail for 10 years, we see that time in jail as punishment. If they commit fraud and lose their house, we see that as punishment. Sometimes we can argue the punishment was not enough, or too much, but never does anyone say that these things are not punishment.

So yes, I will unabashedly admit that when someone who thinks that missing out on an eternity with God, which will be infinitely awesome forever and ever is "not punishment" and "getting away with it", I have only one response.

HUH?!?!?

It's not at all a personal attack. Anyway, rather than just take my interpretation, though, how about we take a look at a specific example in the bible. Moses was leading the Israelites to the promised land, and they did not have faith. Because of this, they spent an additional 40 years roaming the desert. Moses never made it. Many never made it there.

But in this example, they still got to go there, whereas if we are destroyed in hell, we will never see heaven.

So to LLoren (or anyone really) - Do you feel like the Israelites "weren't punished" or "got away with it"??? Are you calling God unjust?

 

[ewoksrule]

As mentioned earlier in this thread - this verse has nothing at all to do with the hellfire. At least I certainly don't see it here. This verse is talking about the period during the plagues, before judgement. It is referring specifically to those who receive the mark of the beast, not all sinners.

Lastly, it says the smoke goes up forever and ever. This looks to indicate distance moreso than it does time. It says the smoke goes up forever....IE..."wow that's a freaking huge plume of smoke". I should add - I believe (can't remember where off the top of my head, sorry) that this description was also used to describe Sodom's destruction.

Again, nothing here indicating what happens to you when you go to Hell.

I do not agree that it is distance. I believe it is referring to time.

here is a quote from CARM on this.
"
The Greek phrase "aionas ton aionon," which is translated "forever and ever," occurs 18 times in the Greek New Testament. In 17 of them, the phrase means without end, extending into infinity. In Rev. 19:3, the phrase is used to describe the destruction of the great whore of Babylon (Rev. 17:1,4) whose smoke ascends forever and ever. It too is eternal and it signifies the beginning of the eternal judgment that comes upon her.

Also worth examining is Rev. 14:11: "And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

The Greek in Rev. 14:11 is only slightly different. In the table above, "forever and ever" is translated from the Greek, "aionas ton aionon," which is literally "ages of the of ages." In Rev. 14:11, the Greek is "aionas aionon" which is literally, "ages of ages." In the latter, the single Greek word "of the" is missing. But it is not necessary and does not change the meaning of the text. Therefore, the scripture teaches the smoke of their torment goes up forever, without end.
"

 

[Lloren]

I do this because I believe that when people have their heads full of the idea that there is a strong, rock-solid case for eternal torment...they aren't even listening to me, and don't care what the bible actually says.

Kindly refrain from insinuations and accusations. Bias works both ways (yours being you believe X and others believe Y). I think we are all coming from a place of "we don't know, but the Bible is true". Everyone is coming from a different background and history. It absolutely doesn't mean people are not listening. Pull yourself (the ME AND YOU) out of this conversation and keep it on the Word.

 

[RyanB]

Maybe I am reading this wrong but that sounds extremely arrogant and rude. I have a lifetime of studying the bible and many years of bible college behind me. I did not wake up yesterday and read about hellfire for the first time. Having all this knowledge and holding the opinion that we need the doctrine of hell does not make me unable to fairly evaluate a Bible passage. Can you explain how it would? How does using previous time spent on this topic equals a bias that disqualifies me? You do not have the right to judge everyones view as unfounded just because they hold a position you do not agree with, that is ridiculous.

Let me try to explain this better. I am not saying that everybody who disagrees with me is biased. I am saying that everyone who feels that people MUST be turtured for justice to occur are indeed incapable of a discussion on the matter. "Must" = bias.

Think about it in the general sense:
IF you are predisposed feel that X needs to be true
THEN yes, you are completely uncapable of honestly studying X in the bible

This is not limited to studying hell. If someone reads the bible with the premise that "God made me gay, so it must be 100% ok no matter what", they will not learn what the bible actually says on homosexuality.

So just again to reiterate:
I am not saying that everyone who believes that hell is eternal torment or disagrees with me is biased

I am saying:
Anyone who feels justice can't be done without eternal torture is indeed biased when they read the bible looking for what it says on hell

I feel that is a very fair, and not at all arrogant, statement. Thoughts?

Edit to add: heading out for the day and doubt I'll be back at the computer soon. Wildfires in OK by the house. Ironic, no?

Edit 2 to add:
When I say bias in the above statment, I mean bias in discerning whether or not hell IS that eternal torment. Secondly, note that bias is not always a negative thing; it means they are predisposed. If someone is correct that we MUST be tortured eternally for justice to be served, then his bias in this matter might be considered "a good thing". If they are wrong, the bias is not. Does that make sense? K, really gone now.

 

[Sassamo]

Let me try to explain this better. I am not saying that everybody who disagrees with me is biased. I am saying that everyone who feels that people MUST be turtured for justice to occur are indeed incapable of a discussion on the matter. "Must" = bias.

"You must be born again to see the kingdom of God." That's not a bias, that's biblical truth. One may misunderstand the meaning of a scripture, and believe that misunderstanding to be true, that doesn't make them biased, just in error. It's true that people can and do use personal biases to interpret scripture at times, but it's also true that one can study the bible and make a firm belief of something being true and necessary. I would suggest finding out why they say "must", then determining if it's founded in scripture, or based on personal bias.

Please explain. Are you saying you consider Hades to be eternal, because it is cast into the hellfire? I know you had mentioned before that if people are in Hades and cast in, then there they are forever, whereas I believe that if the Hellfire destroys things, Hades being cast into the hellfire both literally and figuratively means that death is no more.

Death and Hades are not living souls, and therefore I consider them separate. Perhaps they are destroyed, while souls are maybe indestructible.

Isaiah 66:22For as the new heavens and the new earth, which I will make, shall remain before me, saith the LORD, so shall your seed and your name remain. 23And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the LORD. 24And they shall go forth, and look upon the carcases of the men that have transgressed against me: for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched; and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh.

Mark 9:44,46, and 48 Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.


Also, to clarify myself a bit, all my listed scriptures were not meant to show a time length, I was just establishing a difference between Hades and "Hell"(Gehenna, Tartaroo, Lake of Fire), and I think we are basically in agreeance with that.

Does this mean the paper is burning forever? No, of course it does not. It means that the fire is unquenchable, it does not mean the fire cause anything put in to it to burn forever without burning. How could one possibly interpret this scripture to indicate eternity of burning?

It's not like I'm doing mental gymnastics here to try to twist what it says. I suppose it is possible to make the case that an unquenchable fire could possibly burn something for eternity; but that is simply not supported here. Does that make sense?

The idea here is why would the fire itself be eternal if it was only needed for the few minutes it would take to burn everything up. Is that understanding written in black and white in the bible, no, but that's where one interprets what they believe the scripture to mean. I don't doubt we will see some of this interpreting of scripture into personal understanding with your post revealing why you beleive in annihilation. But then again, maybe your proof will be all black and white and I will be convinced otherwise.

Rev 14:10The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 11And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

As mentioned earlier in this thread - this verse has nothing at all to do with the hellfire. At least I certainly don't see it here. This verse is talking about the period during the plagues, before judgement. It is referring specifically to those who receive the mark of the beast, not all sinners.

I added Rev 14:10 to show context. This appears to be referring to a future event, not something currently occuring in the chronology of revelations at that point in scripture(if you believe revelations to be chronological, maybe another thread...).

Who is "them"? Those that had received the mark of the beast, and them that worshipped his image.

It never says anything about those being decieved being cast into the lake. I'm not doing mental stretches here - it's simply confusing wording.

Sure it does, just not in this scripture, which is describing an event that takes place at a different point in time.

However, let me also encourage you to read through all of Rev 20. The devil is being thrown into the "lake of sulphur". We are being thrown into "the lake of fire". Is this a different place? Is it possible it is the same place and the devil will be tormented but we aren't? After all, there is no verse in the entire bible saying that we will be tormented forever and ever. The best we can do is imply it based on this verse and an assumption we suffer the same fate.

No, the devil is not being thrown into the 'lake of sulpher", it the 'lake of fire and brimstone(sulfer). Merely enhancing the description of the lake of fire. Could they possibly be referring to 2 different places, I would suppose so, but personnaly, I would consider that assumption to be a bit of "mental gymnastics".

I agree it could have an alternate meaning. However, when given no other context, why would we assume anything but a classical definition?

The bible contains no contradictions, but it's full of "contradictions". It's easy enough to find supporting evidences for both sides of a belief. It's all a matter of weighing out the 2 sides, determining which one fits best with scripture while leaving the other points open for apologetics(explaining how it could not entirely refute the other view). I was merely posing the possibility that destruction could refer to something else.

You are correct, this is not supported biblically. I'm glad you brought this up! Actually, the idea that "death" means "seperation from God" is derived entirely from people trying to explain how you can "die" and be in hell for eternity.

Perhaps this aspect should be looked into a little deeper. Off the top of my head, I'm not sure of every reason why death could mean separation from God, but it's at least not only because of eternal suffering. For example, it's used to explain how God told Adam that he would surely die the day he ate of the tree of knowledge. As we know he didn't physically die, but was cast out of the garden. There may be other reasons, perhaps others will fill in some gaps here for me!

As a final note for this post, I'd like to say personnaly, that "eternal life" could likewise mean non-separation from God, not that our souls are mortal until we become saved. Though again, that's just conjecture, unless someone has some supporting evidences to this point of view as well.

 

[Patriot]

Anyway, rather than just take my interpretation, though, how about we take a look at a specific example in the bible. Moses was leading the Israelites to the promised land, and they did not have faith. Because of this, they spent an additional 40 years roaming the desert. Moses never made it. Many never made it there.

NONE of the people who rejected God were allowed to see the promised land. Numbers 14:20-23

But in this example, they still got to go there, whereas if we are destroyed in hell, we will never see heaven.

See above, they did not get to go there. Their children did.

So to LLoren (or anyone really) - Do you feel like the Israelites "weren't punished" or "got away with it"???

Not at all. Not sure where you are going with this. Not even sure how it applies. . .

Are you calling God unjust?

Strawman argument. No one in this thread has called God unjust as far as I have read. To put such words in their/our mouth is a bit presumptuous.