Bart,
Mark 9:47,48 again...
And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
Please explain what you see Jesus saying here and I'll get back to you.
Don
What Would You Have Asked Lazarus?
-
Canuckster1127
- Old School
- Posts: 5310
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 11:31 am
- Christian: Yes
- Sex: Male
- Creation Position: Theistic Evolution
- Location: Ottawa, ON Canada
Don,DonCameron wrote:Bart,
Mark 9:47,48 again...
And if your eye causes you to stumble, cast it out; it is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye, than having two eyes, to be cast into hell, where their worm does not die, and the fire is not quenched.
Please explain what you see Jesus saying here and I'll get back to you.
Don
Here's the expanded portion of Scripture where the pattern is repeated three times:
The portion of the passage "their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched" is a direct quote from Isaiah 66:24. If you're going to make a claim to the Old Testament in terms of understanding this passage it should be there, not Jeremiah.Mark 9:43-48 (New International Version)
New International Version (NIV)
Copyright © 1973, 1978, 1984 by International Bible Society
43If your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out. 45And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 47And if your eye causes you to sin, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
" 'their worm does not die,
and the fire is not quenched.'
Earlier in the Isaiah passage in verses 15 - 16 is this:
It's a prophetic passage in some ways, but it gives some context as this is the phrasing that Jesus uses in this passage.15 See, the LORD is coming with fire,
and his chariots are like a whirlwind;
he will bring down his anger with fury,
and his rebuke with flames of fire.
16 For with fire and with his sword
the LORD will execute judgment upon all men,
and many will be those slain by the LORD.
It certainly demolishes the argument you've based in Jeremiah don't you think? Is God being inconsistent?
I believe the passage is hyperbolic to some extent as I do not believe Jesus was advocating amputation or mutilation. The primary point of the passage is to demonstrate the seriousness of sin. The appeal to hell or gehenna in this instance is illustrative and corallary to the main point. It appears clear to me however that Christ presumes that judgement of God in this regard upon sin will be eternal and involve sufferring.
I'd be interested in your response if you would address whether you still believe the passage in Jeremiah to be applicable now and how you see the actual passage appealed to in terms of a direct quote from Isaiah to reflect upon your claim that God would not use fire in terms of judgement.
Thanks,
Bart
Dogmatism is the comfortable intellectual framework of self-righteousness. Self-righteousness is more decadent than the worst sexual sin. ~ Dan Allender
Hell: The Issue and the Rivals
By JP Moreland
Two New Testament passages provide the clearest definition of hell we have. Second Thessalonians 1:9 says, "And these [who do not know God or obey the gospel] will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (NASB).
The other passage, Matthew 25:41 and 46 states: "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels' … And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
From these (and other) verses we see that the essence of hell is the end of a road away from God, love, and anything of real value. It is banishment from the very presence of God and from the type of life we were made to live.
Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret and anguish. This intense pain is not actively produced by God; He is not a cosmic torturer. Undoubtedly, anguish and torment will exist in hell. And because we will have both body and soul in the resurrected state (see 1 Corinthians 15 for more details), the anguish experienced can be both mental and physical. But the pain suffered will be due to the shame and sorrow resulting from the punishment of final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, His kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place.
Hell is called a place of fire and darkness, but how could there be darkness if the fire is literal?
Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely metaphorical. If metaphors for hell are taken literally, contradictions result. Hell is called a place of fire and darkness, but how could there be darkness if the fire is literal? Hell is a bottomless pit and a dump. How can it be both?
In addition, Scripture calls God Himself a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29) and states that Christ and His angels will return surrounded "in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:7). But God is not a physical object as is fire (Now, sometimes, he manifests His presence through physical objects such as fire [Genesis 15:17], but we cannot conclude from this that He Himself is physical), and the flames surrounding the returning Christ are no more literal than is the sword coming out of His mouth (Revelation 1:16). Flames are used as symbols for divine judgment.
There are two main rivals to the traditional doctrine of hell. Each fails to be convincing.
A Second Chance After Death
The first alternative to the traditional view holds that, for the sake of justice, those who die will get a second chance to go to heaven; the most often form of this position is the doctrine of purgatory. The Bible, however, is very clear on this issue. For example, Hebrews 9:27 says, "t is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." But is this teaching really fair and just? Yes. At least two factors tell us why.
First, certain passages indicate that God gives people all the time they need to make a choice about eternity. Second Peter 3:9 teaches that God is postponing the return of Christ because he is "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." From this, we can infer that if all a person needed were more time to make a decision, God would see to it that she got the extra time instead of dying prematurely.
In other words, because God knows who will and will not be saved, and because He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), He will not cut short a life that He knows will turn to Him if given one more chance.
Second, people most likely do not have the ability to choose heaven after death. Character is shaped moment-by-moment in the thousands of little choices we make. Each day our character is increasingly formed, and in each choice we make we either move toward or away from God.
As our character grows, some choices become possible and others impossible. As we often observe, the longer one lives in opposition to God, the harder it is to choose to turn that around. If God permits a person to die and go to hell, it seems reasonable to think that God no longer believes that this person is savable. Only God could make that type of judgment, and we must trust His wisdom in doing so.
Why didn't God just create us in purgatory instead of dragging us uselessly through this life while the real work affecting the afterlife begins once we're dead?
Those who claim God has created purgatory as a place in which He continues to work on people to draw them to Himself forget two things.
First, purgatory seems to imply God was somehow lax and did not do all He could to save the person this side of death, but this view is morally and theologically repugnant.
Second, the doctrine of purgatory fails to acknowledge that the longer a person is away from God the harder it is for him to turn around. A choice of heaven would be more difficult after death, not easier. One's choice to live apart from God would be more settled in hell than it would have been on earth. Purgatory makes this life redundant. Why didn't God just create us in purgatory instead of dragging us uselessly through this life while the real work affecting the afterlife begins once we're dead?
Annihilationism
Recently, some have argued for conditional immortality for the unsaved on both scriptural and moral grounds. The argument from Scripture is as follows: In the Bible, hell is described as a place of fire and fire destroys whatever it burns. Therefore, those who are sent to hell will ultimately be destroyed. Morally, it is claimed that infinitely long punishing is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus, everlasting punishment through extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishing.
The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:41, 46). As for the literal rendering of hell, I have already noted above that this picture is most likely a metaphor for judgment (see Hebrews 12:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:7).
The severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it.
The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus, rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could quite appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation as becomes evident from the following consideration.
Regarding the end of life and active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), sanctity of life advocates eschew active euthanasia while quality of life advocates embrace it. The former reject it because on the sanctity of life view: one gets one's value not from the quality of one's life, but the sheer fact that one is created in God's image. The latter accept it because the value of human life accrues from the quality of life. Thus, the sanctity of life position has a higher, not a lower moral regard for the dignity of human life.
C O F F E E S H O P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your view of hell and why?
Join the discussion!
Now the traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity and quality of life ethical standpoints. After all, the only grounds God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not get saved and if God will not extinguish one made in His image, then God's only alternative is quarantine and that is what hell is. Thus, the traditional view, being a sanctity and not a quality of life position, is morally superior to annihilationism.
In conclusion, I find that the traditional view of hell most accurately reflects biblical, moral and logical considerations.
By JP Moreland
Two New Testament passages provide the clearest definition of hell we have. Second Thessalonians 1:9 says, "And these [who do not know God or obey the gospel] will pay the penalty of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power" (NASB).
The other passage, Matthew 25:41 and 46 states: "Then He will also say to those on His left, 'Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels' … And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life."
From these (and other) verses we see that the essence of hell is the end of a road away from God, love, and anything of real value. It is banishment from the very presence of God and from the type of life we were made to live.
Hell is also a place of shame, sorrow, regret and anguish. This intense pain is not actively produced by God; He is not a cosmic torturer. Undoubtedly, anguish and torment will exist in hell. And because we will have both body and soul in the resurrected state (see 1 Corinthians 15 for more details), the anguish experienced can be both mental and physical. But the pain suffered will be due to the shame and sorrow resulting from the punishment of final, ultimate, unending banishment from God, His kingdom, and the good life for which we were created in the first place.
Hell is called a place of fire and darkness, but how could there be darkness if the fire is literal?
Moreover, the flames in hell are most likely metaphorical. If metaphors for hell are taken literally, contradictions result. Hell is called a place of fire and darkness, but how could there be darkness if the fire is literal? Hell is a bottomless pit and a dump. How can it be both?
In addition, Scripture calls God Himself a consuming fire (Hebrews 12:29) and states that Christ and His angels will return surrounded "in flaming fire" (2 Thessalonians 1:7). But God is not a physical object as is fire (Now, sometimes, he manifests His presence through physical objects such as fire [Genesis 15:17], but we cannot conclude from this that He Himself is physical), and the flames surrounding the returning Christ are no more literal than is the sword coming out of His mouth (Revelation 1:16). Flames are used as symbols for divine judgment.
There are two main rivals to the traditional doctrine of hell. Each fails to be convincing.
A Second Chance After Death
The first alternative to the traditional view holds that, for the sake of justice, those who die will get a second chance to go to heaven; the most often form of this position is the doctrine of purgatory. The Bible, however, is very clear on this issue. For example, Hebrews 9:27 says, "t is appointed for men to die once and after this comes judgment." But is this teaching really fair and just? Yes. At least two factors tell us why.
First, certain passages indicate that God gives people all the time they need to make a choice about eternity. Second Peter 3:9 teaches that God is postponing the return of Christ because he is "not wishing for any to perish but for all to come to repentance." From this, we can infer that if all a person needed were more time to make a decision, God would see to it that she got the extra time instead of dying prematurely.
In other words, because God knows who will and will not be saved, and because He "desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth" (1 Timothy 2:4), He will not cut short a life that He knows will turn to Him if given one more chance.
Second, people most likely do not have the ability to choose heaven after death. Character is shaped moment-by-moment in the thousands of little choices we make. Each day our character is increasingly formed, and in each choice we make we either move toward or away from God.
As our character grows, some choices become possible and others impossible. As we often observe, the longer one lives in opposition to God, the harder it is to choose to turn that around. If God permits a person to die and go to hell, it seems reasonable to think that God no longer believes that this person is savable. Only God could make that type of judgment, and we must trust His wisdom in doing so.
Why didn't God just create us in purgatory instead of dragging us uselessly through this life while the real work affecting the afterlife begins once we're dead?
Those who claim God has created purgatory as a place in which He continues to work on people to draw them to Himself forget two things.
First, purgatory seems to imply God was somehow lax and did not do all He could to save the person this side of death, but this view is morally and theologically repugnant.
Second, the doctrine of purgatory fails to acknowledge that the longer a person is away from God the harder it is for him to turn around. A choice of heaven would be more difficult after death, not easier. One's choice to live apart from God would be more settled in hell than it would have been on earth. Purgatory makes this life redundant. Why didn't God just create us in purgatory instead of dragging us uselessly through this life while the real work affecting the afterlife begins once we're dead?
Annihilationism
Recently, some have argued for conditional immortality for the unsaved on both scriptural and moral grounds. The argument from Scripture is as follows: In the Bible, hell is described as a place of fire and fire destroys whatever it burns. Therefore, those who are sent to hell will ultimately be destroyed. Morally, it is claimed that infinitely long punishing is disproportionate to a finite life of sin. Thus, everlasting punishment through extinction is morally preferable to everlasting punishing.
The scriptural argument is weak. Clear texts whose explicit intent is to teach the extent of the afterlife overtly compare the everlasting conscious life of the saved and the unsaved (Daniel 12:2, Matthew 25:41, 46). As for the literal rendering of hell, I have already noted above that this picture is most likely a metaphor for judgment (see Hebrews 12:29, 2 Thessalonians 1:7).
The severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it.
The moral argument fails as well. For one thing, the severity of a crime is not a function of the time it takes to commit it. Thus, rejection of the mercy of an infinite God could quite appropriately warrant an unending, conscious separation from God. Further, everlasting hell is morally superior to annihilation as becomes evident from the following consideration.
Regarding the end of life and active euthanasia (the intentional killing of a patient), sanctity of life advocates eschew active euthanasia while quality of life advocates embrace it. The former reject it because on the sanctity of life view: one gets one's value not from the quality of one's life, but the sheer fact that one is created in God's image. The latter accept it because the value of human life accrues from the quality of life. Thus, the sanctity of life position has a higher, not a lower moral regard for the dignity of human life.
C O F F E E S H O P
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What's your view of hell and why?
Join the discussion!
Now the traditional and annihilationist views about hell are expressions, respectively, of the sanctity and quality of life ethical standpoints. After all, the only grounds God would have for annihilating someone would be the low quality of life in hell. If a person will not get saved and if God will not extinguish one made in His image, then God's only alternative is quarantine and that is what hell is. Thus, the traditional view, being a sanctity and not a quality of life position, is morally superior to annihilationism.
In conclusion, I find that the traditional view of hell most accurately reflects biblical, moral and logical considerations.
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi again B.W.
One of the things you asked was...
Where does one want to spend eternity? Heaven? Hell? Non-existence (everlasting death)?
So far I have not been able to find where the Bible ever mentions the alternatives of Heaven or Hell.
What I have found is are the alternatives of everlasting life or death.
For example Romans 6:23 where Paul stated that, "The wages of sin is death but the gift God gives is everlasting life."
For another example: John 3:16 where Jesus gave the alternatives as being everlasting life or perish. ("perish" means "To be destroyed; to pass away; to become nothing."
Where have you found that the alternatives are everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell?
Don
One of the things you asked was...
Where does one want to spend eternity? Heaven? Hell? Non-existence (everlasting death)?
So far I have not been able to find where the Bible ever mentions the alternatives of Heaven or Hell.
What I have found is are the alternatives of everlasting life or death.
For example Romans 6:23 where Paul stated that, "The wages of sin is death but the gift God gives is everlasting life."
For another example: John 3:16 where Jesus gave the alternatives as being everlasting life or perish. ("perish" means "To be destroyed; to pass away; to become nothing."
Where have you found that the alternatives are everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell?
Don
DonCameron wrote:Where have you found that the alternatives are everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell?
John 5:28-29 (NIV) wrote: 28"Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice 29and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
If the punishment is death, why make them rise? Why not just leave them be in their eternal punishment of death?
Luke 16:23-24 (NIV) wrote:23In hell,[a] where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
Torment, agony, burning tongue, hell. The alternative to everlasting life is eternal punishment.
Mathhew 13:40-42 (NIV) wrote: 40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
What will there be in the fiery furnace? No, not eternal death, but weeping and gnashing of the teeth. Permanent suffering, not permanent annihilation.
Snippets directly from the mouth of Jesus:
Jesus on hell wrote:
“everlasting punishment” (Mt. 25:46)
“everlasting fire” (Mt. 18:8 )
“the fire that will never be quenched” (Mk. 9:45)
“the worm that never dies” (Mk. 9:46).
The apostles agreed:
Apostles describing hell wrote:
“a flaming fire” (2 Th. 1:8 )
“everlasting chains” (Jude 6)
“eternal fire” (Jude 7)
“the blackness of darkness forever” (Jude 13)
“the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever” (Rev. 14:11, 19:3)
“the lake of fire and brimstone, in which the devil, the beast, and the false prophet 'shall be tormented day and night, forever and ever'” (Rev. 20:10)
But I'm sure you have an alternate explanation for all of the above, as well as for my repeated question to you (which you haven't answered yet) wrt varying degrees of punishment and how they pertain to annihilationism.
Some quotes, thoughts, and scriptural references taken from the following link on the subject:
http://www.reformed.com/pub/hell.htm
God bless,
Byblos.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
would you like the alternate explanations? ...if so, I can supply them. Wrt your two above questions have you considered that the annihilation need not be immediate? ...eventual annihilation allows for degrees of torment, and gives reason for the resurrection of the damned beyond enabling them to hear their sentence and realize their error.Byblos wrote:If the punishment is death, why make them rise? Why not just leave them be in their eternal punishment of death?
....But I'm sure you have an alternate explanation for all of the above, as well as for my repeated question to you (which you haven't answered yet) wrt varying degrees of punishment and how they pertain to annihilationism.
Ok, I'm open to an alternate explanation. Now show me where that's stated in scripture (that annihilation first is understood, then that it need not be immediate).ttoews wrote:would you like the alternate explanations? ...if so, I can supply them. Wrt your two above questions have you considered that the annihilation need not be immediate? ...eventual annihilation allows for degrees of torment, and gives reason for the resurrection of the damned beyond enabling them to hear their sentence and realize their error.Byblos wrote:If the punishment is death, why make them rise? Why not just leave them be in their eternal punishment of death?
....But I'm sure you have an alternate explanation for all of the above, as well as for my repeated question to you (which you haven't answered yet) wrt varying degrees of punishment and how they pertain to annihilationism.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.
it seems that you are asking for two things...an alternate explanation to the eternal torment proof texts and then a provision of the annihilationalism proof texts. Starting with the Rev passages re "smoke rising forever":Ok, I'm open to an alternate explanation....
Rev 14:9-11 reads :
9 And another angel, a third, followed them, saying with a loud voice, "If any one worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark on his forehead or on his hand, 10 he also shall drink the wine of God's wrath, poured unmixed into the cup of his anger, and he shall be tormented with fire and sulphur in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever; and they have no rest, day or night, these worshipers of the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name."
Now Rev 14:11 does not explicitly state that the wicked will be tormented forever and ever, but a traditionalist may infer that the wicked must be tormented forever and ever if "the smoke of their torment goes up for ever and ever." Is that inference in error?
I believe that the imagery of Rev 14:9-11 was borrowed from Isaiah 34:9-12 where it reads:
9 And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into brimstone; her land shall become burning pitch. 10 Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up for ever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it for ever and ever. 11 But the hawk and the porcupine shall possess it, the owl and the raven shall dwell in it. He shall stretch the line of confusion over it, and the plummet of chaos over its nobles. 12 They shall name it No Kingdom There, and all its princes shall be nothing
In Isaiah the topic is the desolation of Edom. It is not my understanding that the burning of Edom will go on forever and ever, yet the text states that the smoke will rise forever. As such, I do not believe that the expression "smoke goes up forever" necessarily means an eternal process....and wrt Edom I believe it indicates a complete and irreversible condition. I also believe that the same could be the case wrt Rev 14:11 where the smoke (an indication of total destruction wrt Sodom at Gen 19:28 ) indicates completed destruction and "rising forever" indicates irreversibility.
It should also be noted that there is also a problem with taking the events in the passage literally and then saying that the events describe the eternal fate of the wicked as eternal torment. The tormenting is said to occur "in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb." I understand the wicked will end up in hell, separated from God (2 Thes 1:9) and not tormented forever and ever in the Lord's presence. All in all I am not at all convinced that Rev 14:11 should be understood to be saying that those who followed the beast will be tormented forever.
Glenn Miller of Christian Think Tank gives his explanation of Revelation 14:9, and 20:7:
First Revelation 14.9f:
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
And the second is Revelation 20.7ff:
And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
For some twenty years, these were the proof-texts I used to demonstrate to others that hell consisted of eternal, conscious, active torment. Over the last two years, I have abandoned using these verses in any such way. The problems with (a) understanding them at all(!); and (b) developing a doctrine of hell from these two verses are insurmountable in my opinion, and I simply gave up using them for this.
Let me mention some of the difficulties for taking these verses in the traditional way.
First, the Rev 14 passage:
1) The torment is said to be in the presence of Jesus (not in hell, but actually in the heavenly throne room).
2) The torment is a 'city type' of torment (e.g., Sodom, Edom), NOT an individual type. See especially Rev 19.3, where this described Babylon.
3) The “eternal” aspect of this is said by traditionalists to reside in the “eternal smoke” image, but this image was used of VERY finite annihilations/judgments in the OT—events which were not even REMOTELY 'never-ending torment'
Compare specifically the OT origin of this image—Is 34 on the judgment on Edom:
”For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom.
And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat.
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
Edom's streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night and day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.
The desert owl and screech owl will possess it; the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation.
Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom, all her princes will vanish away.
Thorns will overrun her citadels, nettles and brambles her strongholds. She will become a haunt for jackals, a home for owls.
Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also repose, and find for themselves places of rest.
The owl will nest there and lay eggs, she will hatch them, and care for her young under the shadow of her wings; there also the falcons will gather, each with its mate.
Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.
He allots their portions; his hand distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there from generation to generation.”
Notice that the images are quite unlike our traditional views of hell. The entire land is said to be eternally on fire (including the water!), but a whole host of flora (thorns, nettles, brambles) and fauna (desert owl, screech owl, great owl, raven, jackals, hyenas, goats, falcons) find 'rest' there and grow families (presupposing a much wider range of wildlife and vegetation and water supply)…and the animals possess this place “forever” and “from generation to generation”. One of these images cannot be literal—either the fire one is figurative (probably of war, cf. Amos 2.1ff) or the animal one is figurative. And this matter is settled by the later prophecy of Jeremiah 49, building on the one in Isaiah. In this passage, the punishment on Edom is explicitly related to conquest and dispersion (by the Babylonians):
“Concerning Edom. Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Is there no longer any wisdom in Teman? Has good counsel been lost to the prudent? Has their wisdom decayed? 8 "Flee away, turn back, dwell in the depths, O inhabitants of Dedan, For I will bring the disaster of Esau upon him At the time I punish him. 9 "If grape gatherers came to you, Would they not leave gleanings? If thieves came by night, They would destroy only until they had enough. 10 "But I have stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places So that he will not be able to conceal himself; His offspring has been destroyed along with his relatives And his neighbors, and he is no more. 11 "Leave your orphans behind, I will keep them alive; And let your widows trust in Me."
For thus says the LORD, "Behold, those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it, and are you the one who will be completely acquitted? You will not be acquitted, but you will certainly drink it. 13 "For I have sworn by Myself," declares the LORD, "that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become perpetual ruins."
I have heard a message from the LORD, And an envoy is sent among the nations, saying, "Gather yourselves together and come against her, And rise up for battle!" 15 "For behold, I have made you small among the nations, Despised among men. 16 "As for the terror of you, The arrogance of your heart has deceived you, O you who live in the clefts of the rock, Who occupy the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as an eagle's, I will bring you down from there," declares the LORD.
"And Edom will become an object of horror; everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss at all its wounds. 18 "Like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah with its neighbors," says the LORD, "no one will live there, nor will a son of man reside in it. 19 "Behold, one will come up like a lion from the thickets of the Jordan against a perennially watered pasture; for in an instant I shall make him run away from it, and whoever is chosen I shall appoint over it. For who is like Me, and who will summon Me into court? And who then is the shepherd who can stand against Me?"
Therefore hear the plan of the LORD which He has planned against Edom, and His purposes which He has purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: surely they will drag them off, even the little ones of the flock; surely He will make their pasture desolate because of them. 21 The earth has quaked at the noise of their downfall. There is an outcry! The noise of it has been heard at the Red Sea. 22 Behold, He will mount up and swoop like an eagle, and spread out His wings against Bozrah; and the hearts of the mighty men of Edom in that day will be like the heart of a woman in labor.
Notice in the above passage that the items in bold related both to the 'wasteland' image of Isaiah AND to warfare, indicating the figurative nature of the 'fire' image. (Notice also, that there would be survivors in the orphans and widows, that God would care for.) Also, this judgment (esp. the “lion” image) is applied to Babylon in Jer 50.44, which referred to the military victory of the Medes/Persians over them.
And, just to make the point of discontinuity even MORE vivid: the passage in Jer 49.14 says that Edom's cities will be “everlasting” ruins (heb. Olam). But 'everlasting' doesn't mean a whole lot in this context, for Judah is said to be in “everlasting ruins” in Jeremiah 25.9 (as a result of the exile). The Psalmist in 74.3 prays to YHWH to look at His temple—an “everlasting ruin”—right before YHWH begins the rebuilding program, and in Is 58.12 the “everlasting ruins” of the nation are promised to be rebuilt by God. We know that "everlasting" is often used hyperbolically like this (indeed, George Foot Moore suggests that the 'eternal contempt' of Dan 12 might be hyperbolic, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol II. P. 297).
What this does to our 'smoke rises forever' image is drastically reduce its force—it is neither fire, smoke, nor forever…it IS judgment, to be sure, but to make this image into something not intended by the biblical authors is misguided.
First Revelation 14.9f:
A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God's fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.”
And the second is Revelation 20.7ff:
And when the thousand years are completed, Satan will be released from his prison, 8 and will come out to deceive the nations which are in the four corners of the earth, Gog and Magog, to gather them together for the war; the number of them is like the sand of the seashore. 9 And they came up on the broad plain of the earth and surrounded the camp of the saints and the beloved city, and fire came down from heaven and devoured them. 10 And the devil who deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are also; and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever. 11 And I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them. 12 And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds. 13 And the sea gave up the dead which were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead which were in them; and they were judged, every one of them according to their deeds. 14 And death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15 And if anyone's name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.
For some twenty years, these were the proof-texts I used to demonstrate to others that hell consisted of eternal, conscious, active torment. Over the last two years, I have abandoned using these verses in any such way. The problems with (a) understanding them at all(!); and (b) developing a doctrine of hell from these two verses are insurmountable in my opinion, and I simply gave up using them for this.
Let me mention some of the difficulties for taking these verses in the traditional way.
First, the Rev 14 passage:
1) The torment is said to be in the presence of Jesus (not in hell, but actually in the heavenly throne room).
2) The torment is a 'city type' of torment (e.g., Sodom, Edom), NOT an individual type. See especially Rev 19.3, where this described Babylon.
3) The “eternal” aspect of this is said by traditionalists to reside in the “eternal smoke” image, but this image was used of VERY finite annihilations/judgments in the OT—events which were not even REMOTELY 'never-ending torment'
Compare specifically the OT origin of this image—Is 34 on the judgment on Edom:
”For the LORD has a sacrifice in Bozrah and a great slaughter in Edom.
And the wild oxen will fall with them, the bull calves and the great bulls. Their land will be drenched with blood, and the dust will be soaked with fat.
For the LORD has a day of vengeance, a year of retribution, to uphold Zion's cause.
Edom's streams will be turned into pitch, her dust into burning sulfur; her land will become blazing pitch!
It will not be quenched night and day; its smoke will rise forever. From generation to generation it will lie desolate; no one will ever pass through it again.
The desert owl and screech owl will possess it; the great owl and the raven will nest there. God will stretch out over Edom the measuring line of chaos and the plumb line of desolation.
Her nobles will have nothing there to be called a kingdom, all her princes will vanish away.
Thorns will overrun her citadels, nettles and brambles her strongholds. She will become a haunt for jackals, a home for owls.
Desert creatures will meet with hyenas, and wild goats will bleat to each other; there the night creatures will also repose, and find for themselves places of rest.
The owl will nest there and lay eggs, she will hatch them, and care for her young under the shadow of her wings; there also the falcons will gather, each with its mate.
Look in the scroll of the LORD and read: None of these will be missing, not one will lack her mate. For it is his mouth that has given the order, and his Spirit will gather them together.
He allots their portions; his hand distributes them by measure. They will possess it forever and dwell there from generation to generation.”
Notice that the images are quite unlike our traditional views of hell. The entire land is said to be eternally on fire (including the water!), but a whole host of flora (thorns, nettles, brambles) and fauna (desert owl, screech owl, great owl, raven, jackals, hyenas, goats, falcons) find 'rest' there and grow families (presupposing a much wider range of wildlife and vegetation and water supply)…and the animals possess this place “forever” and “from generation to generation”. One of these images cannot be literal—either the fire one is figurative (probably of war, cf. Amos 2.1ff) or the animal one is figurative. And this matter is settled by the later prophecy of Jeremiah 49, building on the one in Isaiah. In this passage, the punishment on Edom is explicitly related to conquest and dispersion (by the Babylonians):
“Concerning Edom. Thus says the LORD of hosts, "Is there no longer any wisdom in Teman? Has good counsel been lost to the prudent? Has their wisdom decayed? 8 "Flee away, turn back, dwell in the depths, O inhabitants of Dedan, For I will bring the disaster of Esau upon him At the time I punish him. 9 "If grape gatherers came to you, Would they not leave gleanings? If thieves came by night, They would destroy only until they had enough. 10 "But I have stripped Esau bare, I have uncovered his hiding places So that he will not be able to conceal himself; His offspring has been destroyed along with his relatives And his neighbors, and he is no more. 11 "Leave your orphans behind, I will keep them alive; And let your widows trust in Me."
For thus says the LORD, "Behold, those who were not sentenced to drink the cup will certainly drink it, and are you the one who will be completely acquitted? You will not be acquitted, but you will certainly drink it. 13 "For I have sworn by Myself," declares the LORD, "that Bozrah will become an object of horror, a reproach, a ruin and a curse; and all its cities will become perpetual ruins."
I have heard a message from the LORD, And an envoy is sent among the nations, saying, "Gather yourselves together and come against her, And rise up for battle!" 15 "For behold, I have made you small among the nations, Despised among men. 16 "As for the terror of you, The arrogance of your heart has deceived you, O you who live in the clefts of the rock, Who occupy the height of the hill. Though you make your nest as high as an eagle's, I will bring you down from there," declares the LORD.
"And Edom will become an object of horror; everyone who passes by it will be horrified and will hiss at all its wounds. 18 "Like the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah with its neighbors," says the LORD, "no one will live there, nor will a son of man reside in it. 19 "Behold, one will come up like a lion from the thickets of the Jordan against a perennially watered pasture; for in an instant I shall make him run away from it, and whoever is chosen I shall appoint over it. For who is like Me, and who will summon Me into court? And who then is the shepherd who can stand against Me?"
Therefore hear the plan of the LORD which He has planned against Edom, and His purposes which He has purposed against the inhabitants of Teman: surely they will drag them off, even the little ones of the flock; surely He will make their pasture desolate because of them. 21 The earth has quaked at the noise of their downfall. There is an outcry! The noise of it has been heard at the Red Sea. 22 Behold, He will mount up and swoop like an eagle, and spread out His wings against Bozrah; and the hearts of the mighty men of Edom in that day will be like the heart of a woman in labor.
Notice in the above passage that the items in bold related both to the 'wasteland' image of Isaiah AND to warfare, indicating the figurative nature of the 'fire' image. (Notice also, that there would be survivors in the orphans and widows, that God would care for.) Also, this judgment (esp. the “lion” image) is applied to Babylon in Jer 50.44, which referred to the military victory of the Medes/Persians over them.
And, just to make the point of discontinuity even MORE vivid: the passage in Jer 49.14 says that Edom's cities will be “everlasting” ruins (heb. Olam). But 'everlasting' doesn't mean a whole lot in this context, for Judah is said to be in “everlasting ruins” in Jeremiah 25.9 (as a result of the exile). The Psalmist in 74.3 prays to YHWH to look at His temple—an “everlasting ruin”—right before YHWH begins the rebuilding program, and in Is 58.12 the “everlasting ruins” of the nation are promised to be rebuilt by God. We know that "everlasting" is often used hyperbolically like this (indeed, George Foot Moore suggests that the 'eternal contempt' of Dan 12 might be hyperbolic, Judaism in the First Centuries of the Christian Era, vol II. P. 297).
What this does to our 'smoke rises forever' image is drastically reduce its force—it is neither fire, smoke, nor forever…it IS judgment, to be sure, but to make this image into something not intended by the biblical authors is misguided.
-
Turgonian
- Senior Member
- Posts: 546
- Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 12:44 pm
- Christian: No
- Location: the Netherlands
Like Canuckster said, this refers to sacrificing innocent children, not flaming bad guys.DonCameron wrote:2) I know that the word that is translated as “hell” here is “Gehenna.” I learned that Gehenna was the name of Jerusalem's garbage dump and so the Jews knew he was talking about that dump.
In his day a fire was kept burning in it in order to consume whatever was thrown into it. This included dead animals, and dead humans who were considered so bad that they didn't deserve a normal burial in a memorial tomb. Worms could be seen crawling around the dump.
That dump was located in the same valley of the son of Hinnom that Jeremiah had commented on many years earlier when he explained how bad the Jews had deteriorated in their form of worship…
“(The Jews) have built the high places of Topheth, which is in the valley of the son of Hinnom, in order to burn their sons and their daughters in the fire, a thing that I had not commanded and that had not come up into my heart.”
My understanding is that the reason this valley was made into the city's dump was in order to make sure that the Jews would never be able to do such a horrible thing again in that place.
I have taken careful note of the fact that their burning of people in a fire was something 'that had not come up into his heart.' And so I now find it difficult to believe that since then He has changed his mind.
But JP Holding addresses the Gehenna issue:
Don, you asked whether I believed that the people of Hell would be only spiritually dead. I would say that, whereas the righteous will spend eternity rejoicing in God's presence, the wicked will spend eternity hating and fearing God's presence and trying to flee from Him. Remember what Augustine said? Our hearts are inquiet until they find rest in God. The wicked will never find rest.JP Holding wrote:A stronger argument notes that the bodies in question are said to be "carcasses" and therefore could not possibly be suffering. This is a valid point that should be considered seriously, for the word used here is clearly one used only of corpses (cf. 2 Kings 19:35//Is. 37:36). On the other hand, it is just as obvious that this verse does not support annihiliationism: In fact, if we note vv. 22-23, the indication is that just as the righteous continue to come for worship forever, so it is that they will continue to go forth and see these who are outside of the city. We are therefore faced with the paradox [Bern.FH, 171] of dead bodies that perpetually burn, with no indication of consciousness, but we are certainly not given any sense of annihilation. We are left only with 1) later interpretive methods which did use this verse to indicate eternal punishment, 2) the fact that Jesus applies the name "Gehenna" (the perpetually-burning garbage dump) to this place, and 3) this question: If eternal consciousness is not in view here, then why is there an option presented of entering hell with a whole body? If the person is not conscious, what is the point? I conclude that the data is marginally in favor of the interpretation of eternal punishment in Mark. And we may add that knowing hell as a place of shame confirms what this passage means, for to have a dead body exposed and not buried was a sign of great dishonor.
annihilationism reply: Here again, the source of the figure is the Old Testament. These words are obviously taken from Isaiah 66:24. In Isa. 66, the wicked are "consumed" (v. 17) in contrast to the righteous, who will live eternally (v. 22) in a new earth (v. 22) where ALL will worship God (v. 23 - compare Eph. 1:10, etc.). Finally, verse 24 uses the same figures used in Mark -- but note that the "undying worm," far from signifying ongoing existence, instead refers to "CARCASES" (also used by Isaiah in 34:3). Once again, the source of these figures used in the Gospels is the OT, and once again we see that ACCORDING TO THEIR ORIGINAL INSPIRED USAGE BY THE PROPHETS they signify NOT "perpetual torment" but rather DESTRUCTION -- real death, plain and simple.
I need only make the point here that if WK wishes to stress that Mark had to use Isaiah in exactly the same way as Isaiah did, then all typological prophecy is out the window. It was my acknowledgement above that Isaiah cannot be used by itself to support eternal, conscious torment. However, it is also clear that some later Jewish interpreters used this verse typologically in favor of eternal torment. The evidence of this verse being coupled with admonitions about the "whole body" (a point WK failed to address) leans slightly in favor of the traditional position.
That's not true. I addressed this in another thread. Unless you would argue that the 'lost sheep of Israel' (Matt. 10:6) were non-existent at the time, the Pharisees 'plotting to kill Jesus' (Matt. 12:14) wanted to rip Him apart on the atomic level, the ointment on Jesus's feet was vapourized ('Why this waste?', Matt. 26:8 -- same word), and the Son of Man came to save those who already died (Luke 19:10), 'perish' needs not mean 'to become nothing'.DonCameron wrote:For another example: John 3:16 where Jesus gave the alternatives as being everlasting life or perish. ("perish" means "To be destroyed; to pass away; to become nothing."
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
in context?....FFC wrote:Ttoews, how do you read Rev 20:10?
I don't have anything profound to offer wrt Rev 20:10....I am inclined to amillenialism and strongly disinclined to dispensationalism. As such, I do not take the time period (of 1000 years) that appears in verses 20: 3,4,5,6, and 7 literally. I look at verses 11-15 and note that I do not expect that heaven and earth actually flee from God (v.11) I don't believe that books will actually be employed in the judgement (v 12). I note that death and Hades (after they have been emptied) are thrown into the lake of fire. Death and Hades are not persons and so I don't believe that these two things are actually thrown into the lake of fire. I note death is to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26) and so I believe that Rev 20:14 speaks of the destruction of death and Hades. I further note that the destination of death, Hades and the wicked is the lake of fire which is called the second death (20:14 and 21:8 ). I believe that the fate of death and Hades in the lake of fire is destruction and wonder why I should believe that the wicked suffer a different fate (especially when John stresses that the lake of fire is the second death.)
No doubt the traditionalist would argue that I should understand "second death" to mean something other than death/cessation of existence and that based on Rev 20:10 that I should understand "second death" to mean endless torment. When I turn to Rev 20:10 I wonder first if the beast and false prophet are actually persons, or if like death and Hades, are the beast and false prophet impersonal things? I wonder why I should interpret "death" figuratively in verse 20:14 and 21:8 and interpret "tormented day and night - to the ages of the ages" literally (and not vice versa). I wonder why I would interpret the time period in 20:10 literally when I am interpreting the other time period mentioned in Chap 20 figuratively (each of the five times that it appears). All in all there are too many instances in Rev 20 where I favour the figurative interpretation for me to have any confidence that a literal interpretation of "tormented day and night - to the ages of the ages" is appropriate.
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Bylos,
I had mentioned that I have not been able to find where the Bible mentions the alternatives of everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. But that so far I only seen everlasting life or death. eg. Romans 6:23
I don' even recall where it just says "everlasting life in heaven." As I recall it only mentions "everlasting life" without specifically saying where it will take place.
You offered several Scriptures that you feel show where the Bible clearly states that the alternatives it offers are either everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell.
NOTE: As I explained in a previous letter, when I look a Bible verse I try to distinguish between (1) What the verse simply says (without interpretation), and (2) What I or someone else thinks it means (with interpretation). In the process of noticing what it does say I also try to notice what it doesn't say. I also try to make sure that how I interpret what the Bible says doesn't contradict what the Bible actually says.
For example, Romans 6:23 (listed above) reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life.”
What I see that verse saying (without trying to interpret it) is that the
alternative to everlasting life is death. I also notice that it doesn't say that the alternative to everlasting life in heaven is everlasting life in hell.
As far as where that “everlasting life” takes place and what that “death” entails would involve an interpretation. At this point I'm not going to try to interpret anything about this verse. I'll wait to see what else the Bible has to say about related subjects to help me when it comes to how I should interpret those things.
And so, what do the verses you ask me to look at actually say — without any interpretation by me or you?
John 5:28-29 (
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
I notice this verse says that the alternatives are life or condemnation. John did not mention what or where that condemnation takes place. I notice that it not only doesn't say that the alternative to life is everlasting life in hell, but it doesn't say anything about hell.
You asked...
If the punishment is death, why make them rise? Why not just leave them be in their eternal punishment of death?
I don't have an answer. But the lack of an answer does not change the fact that John did not say that the alternative to life is life in hell.
[b]Luke 16:23-24 [/b]
23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
You then explain...
Torment, agony, burning tongue, hell. The alternative to everlasting life is eternal punishment .
But there is no mention of everlasting life in either heaven or hell. And nothing is said here about "eternal punishment."
Note: The Greek word for "hell" in this case is "Hades." Bart acknowledged that Hades is not the place of everlasting punishment. And as I have mentioned, the last time hell (Hades) is mentioned in the Bible it is empty (Romans 20:13). And while empty will be thrown into "the second death."
Matthew 13:40-42
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I keep in mind that you are offering these Scriptures to show that the Bible states that the alternatives are either everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. But the above doesn't mention anything about everlasting life either in heaven or hell. And too, hell is not even mentioned.
You mentioned some things Jesus said about hell...
Jesus on hell wrote:
"everlasting punishment” (Mt. 25:46)
But Jesus didn't mention "hell" in this verse. The alternatives he mentioned were everlasting punishment and everlasting life.
The alternatives he mentioned are not everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. I also note that Jesus just said "everlasting life" without saying "in heaven."
You also offered...
“everlasting fire” (Mt. 18:8 )
But again, he didn't mention anything about "everlasting life" in either in either heaven or hell.
You also referred to where Jesus said...
“the fire that will never be quenched” (Mk. 9:45)
Here too, there is no mention of "everlasting life" in heaven or hell.
You also added his statement where he said...
“the worm that never dies” (Mk. 9:46). [/i]
But again, he didn't mention anything about everlasting life in heaven or hell. The only things that he said that would be alive were worms! He didn't say that people never die.
You also gave several verses about how the Apostles described hell. But none of them show the alternatives of everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell.
In conclusion: So far I have not see anyone on this forum acknowledge that they learned something they didn't already believe.
Those who believe in eternal conscious punishment have found enough Scriptures that keep them convinced that what they believe is true. But others, (like myself) who believe that it would be impossible for God and his Son to have anything to do with such a form of punishment, have found enough Scriptures that keep them convinced that whey they believe is true.
And so, what will it take to correct those who misunderstand what the "everlasting punishment" really is? According to what Paul explained to Timothy it will take Divine intervention. 2 Timothy 2:23-25
Although we need to try to present what we understand as mildly and gently as possible, it is up to God to "give repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of the truth (about everlasting punishment) and they may come back to their proper senses."
I have found that if I can keep Paul's advice in mind, it is not so frustrating when what I say doesn't seem to register with anyone.
And hopefully, if I'm the one who is mistaken, God may give that repentance that will lead me to the truth.
Don
I had mentioned that I have not been able to find where the Bible mentions the alternatives of everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. But that so far I only seen everlasting life or death. eg. Romans 6:23
I don' even recall where it just says "everlasting life in heaven." As I recall it only mentions "everlasting life" without specifically saying where it will take place.
You offered several Scriptures that you feel show where the Bible clearly states that the alternatives it offers are either everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell.
NOTE: As I explained in a previous letter, when I look a Bible verse I try to distinguish between (1) What the verse simply says (without interpretation), and (2) What I or someone else thinks it means (with interpretation). In the process of noticing what it does say I also try to notice what it doesn't say. I also try to make sure that how I interpret what the Bible says doesn't contradict what the Bible actually says.
For example, Romans 6:23 (listed above) reads, “For the wages sin pays is death, but the gift God gives is everlasting life.”
What I see that verse saying (without trying to interpret it) is that the
alternative to everlasting life is death. I also notice that it doesn't say that the alternative to everlasting life in heaven is everlasting life in hell.
As far as where that “everlasting life” takes place and what that “death” entails would involve an interpretation. At this point I'm not going to try to interpret anything about this verse. I'll wait to see what else the Bible has to say about related subjects to help me when it comes to how I should interpret those things.
And so, what do the verses you ask me to look at actually say — without any interpretation by me or you?
John 5:28-29 (
Do not be amazed at this, for a time is coming when all who are in their graves will hear his voice and come out—those who have done good will rise to live, and those who have done evil will rise to be condemned.
I notice this verse says that the alternatives are life or condemnation. John did not mention what or where that condemnation takes place. I notice that it not only doesn't say that the alternative to life is everlasting life in hell, but it doesn't say anything about hell.
You asked...
If the punishment is death, why make them rise? Why not just leave them be in their eternal punishment of death?
I don't have an answer. But the lack of an answer does not change the fact that John did not say that the alternative to life is life in hell.
[b]Luke 16:23-24 [/b]
23In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24So he called to him, 'Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.'
You then explain...
Torment, agony, burning tongue, hell. The alternative to everlasting life is eternal punishment .
But there is no mention of everlasting life in either heaven or hell. And nothing is said here about "eternal punishment."
Note: The Greek word for "hell" in this case is "Hades." Bart acknowledged that Hades is not the place of everlasting punishment. And as I have mentioned, the last time hell (Hades) is mentioned in the Bible it is empty (Romans 20:13). And while empty will be thrown into "the second death."
Matthew 13:40-42
40"As the weeds are pulled up and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of the age. 41The Son of Man will send out his angels, and they will weed out of his kingdom everything that causes sin and all who do evil. 42They will throw them into the fiery furnace, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.
I keep in mind that you are offering these Scriptures to show that the Bible states that the alternatives are either everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. But the above doesn't mention anything about everlasting life either in heaven or hell. And too, hell is not even mentioned.
You mentioned some things Jesus said about hell...
Jesus on hell wrote:
"everlasting punishment” (Mt. 25:46)
But Jesus didn't mention "hell" in this verse. The alternatives he mentioned were everlasting punishment and everlasting life.
The alternatives he mentioned are not everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell. I also note that Jesus just said "everlasting life" without saying "in heaven."
You also offered...
“everlasting fire” (Mt. 18:8 )
But again, he didn't mention anything about "everlasting life" in either in either heaven or hell.
You also referred to where Jesus said...
“the fire that will never be quenched” (Mk. 9:45)
Here too, there is no mention of "everlasting life" in heaven or hell.
You also added his statement where he said...
“the worm that never dies” (Mk. 9:46). [/i]
But again, he didn't mention anything about everlasting life in heaven or hell. The only things that he said that would be alive were worms! He didn't say that people never die.
You also gave several verses about how the Apostles described hell. But none of them show the alternatives of everlasting life in heaven or everlasting life in hell.
In conclusion: So far I have not see anyone on this forum acknowledge that they learned something they didn't already believe.
Those who believe in eternal conscious punishment have found enough Scriptures that keep them convinced that what they believe is true. But others, (like myself) who believe that it would be impossible for God and his Son to have anything to do with such a form of punishment, have found enough Scriptures that keep them convinced that whey they believe is true.
And so, what will it take to correct those who misunderstand what the "everlasting punishment" really is? According to what Paul explained to Timothy it will take Divine intervention. 2 Timothy 2:23-25
Although we need to try to present what we understand as mildly and gently as possible, it is up to God to "give repentance leading to an accurate knowledge of the truth (about everlasting punishment) and they may come back to their proper senses."
I have found that if I can keep Paul's advice in mind, it is not so frustrating when what I say doesn't seem to register with anyone.
And hopefully, if I'm the one who is mistaken, God may give that repentance that will lead me to the truth.
Don
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Hi ttoews,
You said...
I note that death and Hades (after they have been emptied) are thrown into the lake of fire. Death and Hades are not persons and so I don't believe that these two things are actually thrown into the lake of fire.
I note death is to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26) and so I believe that Rev 20:14 speaks of the destruction of death and Hades.
I further note that the destination of death, Hades and the wicked is the lake of fire which is called the second death (20:14 and 21:8 ). I believe that the fate of death and Hades in the lake of fire is destruction and wonder why I should believe that the wicked suffer a different fate (especially when John stresses that the lake of fire is the second death.)
Sounds right to me!
Don
You said...
I note that death and Hades (after they have been emptied) are thrown into the lake of fire. Death and Hades are not persons and so I don't believe that these two things are actually thrown into the lake of fire.
I note death is to be destroyed (1 Cor 15:26) and so I believe that Rev 20:14 speaks of the destruction of death and Hades.
I further note that the destination of death, Hades and the wicked is the lake of fire which is called the second death (20:14 and 21:8 ). I believe that the fate of death and Hades in the lake of fire is destruction and wonder why I should believe that the wicked suffer a different fate (especially when John stresses that the lake of fire is the second death.)
Sounds right to me!
Don
-
DonCameron
- Established Member
- Posts: 178
- Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2005 8:19 am
Turogonian,
I had said...
John 3:16 where Jesus gave the alternatives as being everlasting life or perish. ("perish" means "To be destroyed; to pass away; to become nothing."
Then you said...
That's not true.
What's not true? Isn't the above what Jesus said...
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that ev every putting faith in him might not perish but have everlasting life."
Or is that not what you were referring to?
Don
I had said...
John 3:16 where Jesus gave the alternatives as being everlasting life or perish. ("perish" means "To be destroyed; to pass away; to become nothing."
Then you said...
That's not true.
What's not true? Isn't the above what Jesus said...
"For God loved the world so much that he gave his only-begotten Son, in order that ev every putting faith in him might not perish but have everlasting life."
Or is that not what you were referring to?
Don