Doctrine of Hell

[abelcainsbrother]

I realize a lot of you have your opinions about hell and that is fine but do not get angry at those who read the bible and see fire in hell forever and that those who go there will not only be separated from God forever but will burn too and the fire is not quenched Jesus said that,not me.Jesus taught about hell more than heaven and his words are true.

[Kurieuo]

I agree with Jesus' words.

[RickD]

Has anyone thought about the possibility that God didn't create hell?

If it is a place and real, God created and sustains it. As He is not going to let rebels into Heaven (which would thus bring earth to Heaven - and all the terrible carnage that would mean), IF they remain alive - and as long as they remain alive He must have a place for them. And His justice obviously requires that the guilty are punished. I would guess some think they are punished severely (dependent upon the sins of each) and THEN annihilated. But it is repeatedly referred to as a real place in Scripture. And our friend BW sure believes in it! Sounds a bit like Star Trek's holodeck - except designed for sinners as they redundantly relive their sins and their impact. And just because He sustains it, does not mean it must be in His presence.

Philip,

I'm thinking out loud again...I'm certainly not saying hell isn't real. I just don't think it's a place. A place is a particular position or point in space. Which means physical. I don't think hell is physical.

I'm thinking that God didn't create hell so much as He allowed for its possibility. Similarly, God didn't create sin in lucifer, so much as He allowed its possibility.

[Jac3510]

You agree with your interpretation of Jesus' words. [/deleted]

[Danieltwotwenty]

You agree with your interpretation of Jesus' words. [/deleted]

Are you mocking Bart?

[Jac3510]

Nah, I'm really not, D220. A little ribbing at neo-orthodoxy in general and the idea that keeps being thrown around here about not confusing our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. I don't know if K has used that line . . . I think he might have in his rather long thread on hermeneutics . . . and that's why I thought of it. Obviously, Bart is big on that whole idea. Above all, I'm just being silly (so the emoticon) at what could be taken to be a silly comment.

edit:

Ah, I found it. The line I was thinking of wasn't directed at me, but at Audie, although the idea is in the long hermeneutics thread, too. Anyway, you can find what I had in mind here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 93#p167493

[Philip]

Rick: Philip, I'm thinking out loud again...I'm certainly not saying hell isn't real. I just don't think it's a place. A place is a particular position or point in space. Which means physical. I don't think hell is physical.

Look, all of this arguing over what the reality of hell is, how long people will be there, whether at some point they are merely eliminated from existence - it's an interesting discussion. But it is whatever it is as well as what it will be - and that's whatever God has decided. And we know that God wants (yes, ALL) men to be with Him forever, but He obviously has made decisions, in conjunction with His will, as to exactly who will be with Him for eternity - and who will not. Those that will not receive punishment, as He is also a God of justice. He will be more than fair, whatever the punishment, it will also be just, if terrible. And He knows what is best and just. We've just have to trust Him on the particulars of hell. No passionate, emotional or dispassionate reactions to what we THINK hell entails will change the reality of what God has decided about it. But we know it ain't good! It's a fate to be avoided at all costs, and we can, IF.

Now, Rick IF Heaven will be a real and physical place - and Scripture gives us many reasons to believe this to be the case - then why would it not have a polar opposite that is also a very real space? Now, whatever body those in hell will have, it may or may not be physical - I would think it is. But the "hell" of hell may well mostly be what one has to eternally contemplate - what they have done (over and over, etc), and the knowledge that there is no love, beauty or hope, EVER, FOREVER, where they are trapped. There are only those like themselves, perhaps varying in their hate, bitterness, fear, anger, despair - and it's all of their own making. And those there are likely alone, in their own "spaces" (whatever that means). There are certainly a range of possibilities, none good. So whether it is physical or not, whether the pain the punishment they endure can be physically felt - I can't say. We certainly know there is a lot of figurative language in Scripture. Where was Lazrus tormentor? Was this a real place? Was this just parable - or more? Really, I'm agnostic on this issue, as the range of possibilities are beyond me. But I do believe that Heaven will be a physical place, the merging of the New Jerusalem/Heaven and the restored/purged earth. And so, when I get to Heaven, I think I'll see the Klown and not some invisible spirit with a football helmet on!

I sure don't think it's all gonna be like this:

[Danieltwotwenty]

Nah, I'm really not, D220. A little ribbing at neo-orthodoxy in general and the idea that keeps being thrown around here about not confusing our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. I don't know if K has used that line . . . I think he might have in his rather long thread on hermeneutics . . . and that's why I thought of it. Obviously, Bart is big on that whole idea. Above all, I'm just being silly (so the emoticon) at what could be taken to be a silly comment.

edit:

Ah, I found it. The line I was thinking of wasn't directed at me, but at Audie, although the idea is in the long hermeneutics thread, too. Anyway, you can find what I had in mind here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 93#p167493

I knew what you were referring to, I just didn't know if it was a wise thing to say given recent events.

Carry on............

[Jac3510]

I suspect you are right. The joke would have worked just as well with a [/neo-orthodox] tag, eh? Would change it now but posting from phone. Ah well.

[Kurieuo]

Nah, I'm really not, D220. A little ribbing at neo-orthodoxy in general and the idea that keeps being thrown around here about not confusing our interpretation of Scripture with Scripture itself. I don't know if K has used that line . . . I think he might have in his rather long thread on hermeneutics . . . and that's why I thought of it. Obviously, Bart is big on that whole idea. Above all, I'm just being silly (so the emoticon) at what could be taken to be a silly comment.

edit:

Ah, I found it. The line I was thinking of wasn't directed at me, but at Audie, although the idea is in the long hermeneutics thread, too. Anyway, you can find what I had in mind here: http://discussions.godandscience.org/vi ... 93#p167493

*Kurieuo Googles neo-orthodoxy*

[Silvertusk]

There are two factors for me here.

1) You can interpret Conditional Immortality (Annihilation) and eternal conscious torment both in the bible. You can apply words like eternal or everlasting in both instances - whether it be eternal in its duration or eternal in its consequences. So ACB please get off your high horse. Daniels is using God's word and his interpretation of it, so are you. Who is correct - who knows. Check this link out to see that other interpretations are valid as well. - http://www.biblicalperspectives.com/boo ... tion/6.htm

2) For me it comes down to God's nature of being all-loving. No matter how much I try (even though BW promised this might happen) I cannot reconcile a Loving God creating a place of eternal suffering. It is a contradiction and goes against the very nature of God. To be this is a no-brainer. Annihilation seems to be the most loving thing a God can do for those that refuse to follow him. I would also go one step further to state that the memory of them would cease to exist as well as otherwise how would we be happy in Heaven knowing that some of our friends and loved ones are suffering for all eternity.

Silvertusk.

The bible tells you and it is not hard to understand even if it makes you uncomfortable.Why not just read every bible scripture about hell instead of reading a link?God's word tells us about hell.I know the idea of hell is uncomfortable to a lot of people but we really only have God's word to go by. And God will wipe away every tear himself for those that go to heaven.Why does it seem like anybody can give their opinion about hell and we accept it,then get angry at somebody who just tells us what the bible says about hell? How would it effect your belief in God if those that choose to go to hell are forever tormented in the flames of hell? I think no matter what we think,we do not need to desire a watered down version of God's truth.Show me in the bible where it leads you to accept annihilation.

You don't get it do you. You are just stating what "YOU" think the bible tells us about Hell. But there is more than one interpretation. I have provided you with a link that states the case for Conditional Immortality - that uses scripture. You don't have to agree with it fine. But don't claim the monopoly on biblical interpretation. On another note - have you every considered why when it talks about eternal life in the bible it talks about it as a gift that you can get. So until you get it you do not have eternal life. Reread John 3:16.

[Kurieuo]

I suspect you are right. The joke would have worked just as well with a [/neo-orthodox] tag, eh? Would change it now but posting from phone. Ah well.

Well, I'd largely reject what I've read about neo-orthodoxy and fail to see what such has to do with my words here?

Re: neo-orthodoxy, really do think you're barking up a wrong tree even in relation to the other threads that you mentioned.
Also, in relation to Scripture and objective truth.

In myself, you couldn't get someone who more firmly believes in objective truth and Scripture.
The only way someone could consider my views on Scripture in neo-orthodox light, it would seem to me, is if they conflate "truth" with "knowledge".

I'm sure we'll get plenty of time to get into any similarities and clarifications.
Hoping I won't be up that tree very long once we do.

[B. W.]

Here are two quotes from Commentaries on Matthew 25:41 that speak on this topic. The Pulpit Commentary mentions this about Hell: however in these days of compromise we may seek to minimize or modify the attribute. That is true as this discussion shows...

Mat 25:41 "Then He will also say to those on the left hand, 'Depart from Me, you cursed, into the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels.. NKJV

Mat 25:41

Unto them on the left hand. The sentence on these is comprised in Mat 25:41-45. It is conveyed in terms parallel to that on the righteous; but how infinite the difference! Depart from me! Not "Come!" (Mat 25:34). What a world of misery is contained in this word, "Depart"! As the light of God’s countenance is happiness, so banishment from his presence is utter woe. What it implies we know not; we will not attempt to imagine. God preserve us from ever knowing! Ye cursed. He had called the righteous, "blessed of my Father;" he does not term these, "cursed of my Father," because God willeth not the death of a sinner. "Not he laid the curse upon them, but their own works" (St. Chrysostom, in loc.). It was no part of God’s design that any of his creatures should suffer this misery. "God made not death, neither hath he pleasure in the destruction of the living. For he created all things, that they might have their being …but ungodly men with their words and works called death unto them" (Wis. 1:13, etc.). Into everlasting fire (τοΜ πῦρ τοΜ αἰωμνιον, the fire which is even lasting). To the poignant regret for the loss of happiness and of the presence of God there is added physical anguish, expressed metaphorically by the term "fire."

This is called everlasting, and however in these days of compromise we may seek to minimize or modify the attribute, it was so understood by our Lord’s hearers (see below on Mat 25:46). Prepared for the devil and his angels. This region or sphere of torment was not, as the kingdom of the righteous, prepared for man originally; it was particularly designed (τοΜ ἡτοιμασμεμνον) for Satan and his myrmidons (see 2 Peter 2:4, 2 Peter 2:9), and will not be perfected till the last judgment (Rev 20:10). There is no hint of its being remedial or corrective; and what it is to the devil it must be to those who share it with him.

It is man’s own doing that he is unfit for the company of saints and angels, and, having made himself like unto the evil spirits by rebellion and hatred of good, he must consort with them and share their doom. It seems as though there were no proper place for man’s punishment; there is no book of death corresponding to the book of life (Rev 20:12, etc.); the wicked are in an anomalous state, and, shut out by their own action from their proper inheritance, fall into the society of demons. How to reconcile this destiny, which seems inconceivably terrible, with God’s mercy, love, and justice, has always proved a stumbling block to free thinkers. It is, indeed, a mystery which we cannot understand, and which Christ has purposely left unexplained. We can only bow the head and say, "Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right?"

Pulpit Commentary

Next the Popular Commentary on the New Testament states this:

Which is prepared; ‘from the foundation of the world’ is not added, but for the devil and his angels, prepared for him as a devil (his personal existence being evidently assumed). All these differences show that God is ever merciful, and that the punishment on those ‘accursed’ is a just one, that they go to torment prepared for the devil and his angels, because they have prepared themselves for it—That the word eternal means never-ending, scarcely admits of a doubt; it is used in Mat 25:46 of the life of the righteous (see below). The word fire may not be literal, but whatever the punishment previous to the general judgment, after that the bodies of the wicked, then raised, shall partake in it; and this is not obscurely hinted here.Pulpit Commentary

Popular Commentary on the New Testament

As for the current Hell's location, since it is for spiritual beings it is a logical conclusion that it exists in the realm of the spirit world. The future lake of fire then would logically exist in both spiritual and a new physical state too due to the nature of the second resurrection and and great white throne judgement.

Jesus did teach to avoid these places at all hazards no matter, 'in these days of compromise we may seek to minimize or modify the attribute, the nature, reality, and scope of hell.

In the OT shares a bit on this topic too...

1 Sam 2:6 NASB "The LORD kills and makes alive; He brings down to Sheol and raises up..."

Eze 26:20 NASB, "...then I will bring you down with those who go down to the pit, to the people of old, and I will make you dwell in the lower parts of the earth, like the ancient waste places, with those who go down to the pit, so that you will not be inhabited; but I will set glory in the land of the living.

Jesus said in:

Mat 12:40 NASB, ...for just as JONAH WAS THREE DAYS AND THREE NIGHTS IN THE BELLY OF THE SEA MONSTER, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth.

With Jesus it is clear on the matter of Hell with human beings it is all, 'in these days of compromise we may seek to minimize or modify the attribute,' of hell but no matter what, it is a real place and I agree with Jesus on this - avoid at all hazards!
-
-
-

[Storyteller]

I am new to all of this so I can`t yet back up anything I say with quotes from the Bible but am I right in thinking that God is all loving, all powerful, just and loving?

I think I remember reading somewhere that God will not rest until ALL of His children are with Him.

Hell, I believe is a place, a real place but I think there is and always will be hope. A chance to repent and accept God and to accept Jesus as our Saviour. I don`t think God, in His wisdom would incinerate anybody to Hell that didn`t want to be there. I think Hell is a place of your own choosing, if you reject God then you don`t live with God for eternity. You spend eternity without God, that`s Hell.

As for people who have not heard of Jesus then I`m pretty sure that God knows what is in their hearts and will judge accordingly.

[B. W.]

I suspect you are right. The joke would have worked just as well with a [/neo-orthodox] tag, eh? Would change it now but posting from phone. Ah well.

Well, I'd largely reject what I've read about neo-orthodoxy and fail to see what such has to do with my words here?

Re: neo-orthodoxy, really do think you're barking up a wrong tree even in relation to the other threads that you mentioned.
Also, in relation to Scripture and objective truth.

In myself, you couldn't get someone who more firmly believes in objective truth and Scripture.
The only way someone could consider my views on Scripture in neo-orthodox light, it would seem to me, is if they conflate "truth" with "knowledge".

I'm sure we'll get plenty of time to get into any similarities and clarifications.
Hoping I won't be up that tree very long once we do.

Kurieuo, we may need to open a new thread to discuss Neo-orthodoxy and Natural Theology or if so here there maybe a need to define these so folks understand these terms better. Both describe the how, the what to base/form Christian Doctrine on.

In Neo-orthodoxy the source of Christian doctrine and knowledge about God is based upon the revelation of God by God in various ways in the bible within the scope of John 16:13,14,15 and John 14:26.

Natural theology, the revelation of God comes through a mix of observation and human reason that is deistic in nature and not based solely upon supernatural revelation. Thomas Aquinas is in this camp.

So it would come down to which degree of deism Natural theologist are into. If they are extremist, or moderate in their Thomism, then they will not be open to actual reason other than their own. I discovered that such are indeed difficult to reason with because the love of natural logical (Aristotlian) borders upon idolism. if they are mild deist, they can be reasoned with and the conversations maybe lively and fruitful. If not, a snarky unchristian like behavior emerges...

You could say that Neo-orthodoxy is primarily focused upon supernatural revelation from God (in the bible) first and then on observation and human reason, and Natural theology, on the other had, primarily focused on human reason, observation, with just a smidgen of supernatural revelation tossed in to logically buttress human reason and observation.

with that... let the games begin...
-
-
-
Notes: Why I mentioned Deism and Natural Theology being from the same tree...see source below

Theological Studies

In its early days, Deism was not as skeptical about traditional Christian views of God as it would become later. In fact, early on it could be viewed as a revival of the natural theology of Thomas Aquinas in which nature teaches all people certain truths about God...

Theological Studies Website Link