Eternal hell with new creation?

[T. E. Smith]

The new creation theme in the Bible does not seem to go with the notion of an eternal hell. Isaiah 55 and Romans 8 teach God's renewal of the world into perfection. It is said that in the future, Christ will be "all in all." It does not seem to make sense for God's new creation, then, to have an eternal torture chamber in it. In the new creation, God returns the world to its state before sin. How can Hell be part of that intent? How can Christ be all in all, with unbelievers tortured forever?

 

[T. E. Smith]

Actually it’s not

Here are some unclear issues, there are many:

1. Inspiration: inerrancy v.s. infallibility
2. Providence: Calvinist v.s. Arminian
3. Foreknowledge: classical v.s. open
4. Genesis: young earth v.s. day-age v.s. restoration/gap v.s. literary framework
5. Divine image: substantival v.s. functional v.s. relational
6. Human constitution: dichotomist (body-soul) v.s. trichotomist (body-soul-spirit) v.s. monist (one)
7. Christology: classical paradox v.s. kenotic
8. Atonement: penal substitution v.s. christus victor v.s. moral government
9. Salvation: TULIP (Calvinist) v.s. Arminian
10. Sanctification: as a declaration by God v.s. holiness in Christ and in personal conduct v.s. resting-faith in sufficiency of Christ v.s. sanctification as perfect love
11. Eternal security: eternal v.s. conditional
12. Destiny of the unevangelized: restrictivist v.s. universal opportunity v.s. post-mortem evangelism v.s. inclusivism
13. Lord's Supper: spiritual presence v.s. memorial
14. Baptism: believers only v.s. covenantal infant
15. Charismatic gifts: Continuationist v.s. cessationist
16. Women in ministry: complementarian v.s. egalitarian
17. Millennium: premillennial v.s. postmillennial v.s. amillennial
18. Hell: classical v.s. annihilationist

Faithful Christians fall on any assortment of these issues. Studying the scriptures faithfully does not reveal it clearly.

 

[Free]

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

According to this verse how do you explain hell as being the lake of fire since it is cast into the lake of fire.

I have explained this clearly. “Hell” in that verse is Hades, which is why the better versions do not say hell in that verse. My argument has clearly been that the lake of fire is hell, being the final destination of the wicked, and Hades is Hades.

 

[Free]

"but it doesn't really matter." It does matter.

It doesn’t matter to my argument.

Why, because whatever you believe about God, is how you view His character. Example: You state that unbelievers upon death go to Hell. This is not according to (Rev. 20: 11-15) and prophecy is the more sure word of God. (2 Peter 1:19) So, initially one would be promoting an untruth.

Please read my arguments in full. There is a difference between Hades and hell which versions like the KJV fail to take into account and, therefore, confuse the issue. Unbelievers, it would seem, go to Hades. If one wants to makes the argument that it is (lower case) hell, that is fine, as long as it is realized that the final destination of the wicked is Hell proper. Really, we should keep the distinctions the Bible does so as to not cause confusion.

Secondly, ones concept of God's love would be lessened, because they would understand that God would have the wicked who have died as early as Gain, serving out their punitive judgement, when according to (Rev. 20:11-15) that portion of God's judgement is still more that a thousand years in the future.

I’m not clear as to what your argument is here.

What would you think of a judge who sentenced your child to serve a life sentence on their first appearance in court for the alleged crime? Certainly a just and Loving God would do no less.

Again, I’m not clear as to what your argument is here.

 

[for_his_glory]

Did you ever hear the quote Luther says when standing before authorities to give an answer or retract his publications? He said that unless he was convinced by scripture or sound reasoning, he would not retract. Sound reasoning was what Jesus gave as well as scripture. It is of great value as well.

There are logical arguments, but if not thought the whole way through to its logical conclusion then it leaves room to only speculations or man's traditional teachings. Jesus used sound reasoning many times like He did with the Pharisees when He healed the demon oppressed man who was blind and mute. The Pharisees said Jesus healed this man by the power of Beelzebub. They acknowledged that superhuman power was needed to expel Satan's demons that were in this man, but did not want the people believing in Jesus and said He was of Satan, Matthew 12:22-26.

It's the same logic without logical conclusion that man believes hell is a place of torment being the lake of fire, but we clearly read in Rev 20:11-15 that it is not, but that it is cast into the lake of fire.

 

[for_his_glory]

I have explained this clearly. “Hell” in that verse is Hades, which is why the better versions do not say hell in that verse. My argument has clearly been that the lake of fire is hell, being the final destination of the wicked, and Hades is Hades.

We will just have to respectfully disagree as I see Sheol, Hades and hell all being the same thing in how I understand the scriptures.

 

[T. E. Smith]

We will just have to respectfully disagree as I see Sheol, Hades and hell all being the same thing in how I understand the scriptures.

Then how is Death and Hades cast into the lake of fire? Why does the Tanakh say believers go to Sheol too?

 

[for_his_glory]

Then how is Death and Hades cast into the lake of fire? Why does the Tanakh say believers go to Sheol too?

I have been explaining the definition of the three words Hades, Sheol and hell as all three being the same thing only meaning the grave.

 

[Free]

We will just have to respectfully disagree as I see Sheol, Hades and hell all being the same thing in how I understand the scriptures.

Sheol and Hades, yes; hell, no. When the KJV translates three different words as “hell” and one of those places is the final destination of unbelievers, then more clarification is needed. If hell is the final destination of unbelievers and a place of eternal torment, then there is simply no way that one can say that Sheol, Hades, and hell are all the same. That would be to go against what Scripture states.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Here are some unclear issues, there are many:

1. Inspiration: inerrancy v.s. infallibility

What does the Bible itself say? None of the above, ergo, man doctrine.

1. Providence: Calvinist v.s. Arminian

Very much a man doctrine, anointed with a man’s name

1. Foreknowledge: classical v.s. open

God hides things from the wise and intelligent and reveals them to babes. This is one of those things.

1. Genesis: young earth v.s. day-age v.s. restoration/gap v.s. literary framework

Totally man. Bible never addresses the age of the earth

1. Divine image: substantival v.s. functional v.s. relational

Man originated thinking, but addressed in the Bible not in the specifics men insist they make up answers to.

1. Human constitution: dichotomist (body-soul) v.s. trichotomist (body-soul-spirit) v.s. monist (one)

Not a biblical concept. I think it’s Greek thinking.

1. Christology: classical paradox v.s. kenotic

Same, never discussed in the Bible

1. Atonement: penal substitution v.s. christus victor v.s. moral government

Same, not addressed in specifics

1. Salvation: TULIP (Calvinist) v.s. Arminian

TULIP totally man doctrine if not um…

1. Sanctification: as a declaration by God v.s. holiness in Christ and in personal conduct v.s. resting-faith in sufficiency of Christ v.s. sanctification as perfect love

Understanding of this is hidden to many for reasons to be explained elsewhere

1. Eternal security: eternal v.s. conditional

One of them totally man twisted. The bible is clear but one is very appealing to a wrong in man.

1. Destiny of the unevangelized: restrictivist v.s. universal opportunity v.s. post-mortem evangelism v.s. inclusivism

Whatever it is, all know it isn’t good

1. Lord's Supper: spiritual presence v.s. memorial
2. Baptism: believers only v.s. covenantal infant
3. Charismatic gifts: Continuationist v.s. cessationist
4. Women in ministry: complementarian v.s. egalitarian
5. Millennium: premillennial v.s. postmillennial v.s. amillennial
6. Hell: classical v.s. annihilationist

Most of these are modern theological developments and are disconnected from the scriptures

Faithful Christians fall on any assortment of these issues. Studying the scriptures faithfully does not reveal it clearly.

I don’t mean to get personal but being an atheist, you cannot possibly have the “right stuff” to be able to discern a faithful Christian from a faithful church member/attendee. There is a scripture where Jesus many will come to him who considered themselves faithful Christians and he will tell them to depart. (Maybe you don’t know it as Calvinist aren’t fond of that one.) They, many, thought they were faithful but, obviously, Jesus determines who was faithful to him or not.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I guess with all this parsing of the Greek words I picture some standing of the precipice of a red hot fiery burning place being welcomed by an inhabitant and told, “yup, this is hell, but you can call it Gehenna or Hades or Sheol. We don’t mind what you call it as long as you call it “home.”

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Full context can only come from the scriptures, not man's theology or a carnal logical understanding. This is why we ask members to support themselves with scripture for what they present so we can take what they give and study for ourselves by praying and asking the Holy Spirit to teach us. We also need to be opened for correction as we do err at times and the Holy Spirit will always work through others to correct us when need be.

2Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
2Timothy 2:16 But shun profane and vain babblings: for they will increase unto more ungodliness.

Sounds good but in practice the human heart is resistant to uncomfortable truth depending upon whether one has sought truth at all costs. Most simply what their chosen position confirmed which sets in a kind of blindness.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Same, never discussed in the Bible

What? Read Philippians 2. Filled with kenotic kabbalism.

Bible never addresses the age of the earth

Agreed, that is what the framework view says

I don’t mean to get personal but being an atheist, you cannot possibly have the “right stuff” to be able to discern a faithful Christian from a faithful church member/attendee. There is a scripture where Jesus many will come to him who considered themselves faithful Christians and he will tell them to depart. (Maybe you don’t know it as Calvinist aren’t fond of that one.) They, many, thought they were faithful but, obviously, Jesus determines who was faithful to him or not.

Was Calvin a faithful Christian? Augustine? Luther? Wesley? If so, then I am correct to say that faithful Christians disagree. Has nothing to do with my faith.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Okay Dorothy Mae let me respond to the rest of these.

What does the Bible itself say? None of the above, ergo, man doctrine.

A lot of Christians claim the Bible teaches inerrancy.

Very much a man doctrine, anointed with a man’s name

I'll grant that.

God hides things from the wise and intelligent and reveals them to babes. This is one of those things.

But that's not really an answer, and even if you did say it was fine to not know the answer, that still does not explain which is correct and explain why so many Christians disagree.

Man originated thinking, but addressed in the Bible not in the specifics men insist they make up answers to.

What the divine image means, is actually quite important, or at least I assume it is considering how often Christians talk about "people made in the image of God."

Not a biblical concept. I think it’s Greek thinking.

The divisions are Greek thinking, yes (though just because Greeks thought it doesn't mean it is wrong). So is monism correct then? (Monism was no Greek teaching, unless you count Lucretius, a naturalist who believed in a soul that cannot live apart from the body.)

Same, not addressed in specifics

True

TULIP totally man doctrine if not um…

So then Arminian is correct?

One of them totally man twisted. The bible is clear but one is very appealing to a wrong in man.

True, but still, Christians like Augustine held to it, and they were clearly faithful Christians.

Most of these are modern theological developments and are disconnected from the scriptures

Disagree on baptism. The church has almost always practiced infant baptism, though. Millenium and charismatic gifts has been a major debate since the beginning of the church though. (Premillenialism first won out, then with Augustine it changed to amillenialism which lasted until the Puritans, where there was a brief postmillenial revival, to be replaced with premill and amill again.)

 

[journeymanisnothing]

Belief in a place of never ending torment is unGodly. The term "forever" does mean "eternal", but it can also mean, "a persons entire earthly life, like it does here,

he shall serve him for ever. Exo.21:6

Unbelievers will be tormented by our Lords' presence as the all sins they committed during their time on earth are exposed before his judgement seat. Then they will be annihilated. Angels who sinned are no different.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Okay Dorothy Mae let me respond to the rest of these.


A lot of Christians claim the Bible teaches inerrancy.

I know, but we are talking about what the Bible actually says and if it is as confusing as claimed. What different people say disconnected from the writings play no role. Stick to the Bible.

I'll grant that.

But that's not really an answer, and even if you did say it was fine to not know the answer, that still does not explain which is correct and explain why so many Christians disagree.

Why Christians think differently from one another is a different subject. The writers of the Bible don’t. Which is really remarkable.

Mohammed disagreed with himself and this is openly acknowledged as it can hardly be denied. First this is right, the that is right…

What did I not answer?

What the divine image means, is actually quite important, or at least I assume it is considering how often Christians talk about "people made in the image of God."

No, we are not to make images divine or otherwise, material
or imaginary, as objects of worship.

The divisions are Greek thinking, yes (though just because Greeks thought it doesn't mean it is wrong). So is monism correct then? (Monism was no Greek teaching, unless you count Lucretius, a naturalist who believed in a soul that cannot live apart from the body.)

Well, he actually had no way of knowing this. What the soul does upon death of the body we do not know.

True

So then Arminian is correct?

True, but still, Christians like Augustine held to it, and they were clearly faithful Christians.

We don’t have enough information to judge that regarding Augustine. Don’t be fooled by history. There are people admired for their “christianity” of whom one can find pretty damning truth.

Disagree on baptism. The church has almost always practiced infant baptism, though. Millenium and charismatic gifts has been a major debate since the beginning of the church though. (Premillenialism first won out, then with Augustine it changed to amillenialism which lasted until the Puritans, where there was a brief postmillenial revival, to be replaced with premill and amill again.)

The early church only baptized adults for obvious reasons. Don’t know when infant baptism came in, maybe with christo-paganism with Constantine? There’s no infant baptized in bible. There was a theological change that resulted in this practice.

The pre and post millennium stuff is very recent. Turn of the last century or so. There was no debate during the first century.

You know T.E., if you want to know what the Bible says, it’s best to read it and not the commentaries. If that is your goal. Books on historical events helps in understanding prophesy though.

 

[T. E. Smith]

I know, but we are talking about what the Bible actually says and if it is as confusing as claimed. What different people say disconnected from the writings play no role. Stick to the Bible.

Why Christians think differently from one another is a different subject. The writers of the Bible don’t. Which is really remarkable.

Mohammed disagreed with himself and this is openly acknowledged as it can hardly be denied. First this is right, the that is right…

What did I not answer?

No, we are not to make images divine or otherwise, material
or imaginary, as objects of worship.

Well, he actually had no way of knowing this. What the soul does upon death of the body we do not know.

We don’t have enough information to judge that regarding Augustine. Don’t be fooled by history. There are people admired for their “christianity” of whom one can find pretty damning truth.

The early church only baptized adults for obvious reasons. Don’t know when infant baptism came in, maybe with christo-paganism with Constantine? There’s no infant baptized in bible. There was a theological change that resulted in this practice.

The pre and post millennium stuff is very recent. Turn of the last century or so. There was no debate during the first century.

You know T.E., if you want to know what the Bible says, it’s best to read it and not the commentaries. If that is your goal. Books on historical events helps in understanding prophesy though.

I don't think the biblical authors all agree. For example the Hebrews had a very different view of immortality than we see in the NT.
You are quite wrong on the millennium. Church history tells us that premillennialism was the position, until Augustine when amilleniaism became popular. Postmillennialism is much older than the last century. Like I said, Puritans. I don't know where you get that "only last century" idea from.
The earliest evidence we have of Christian baptism included infants. Constantine made paganism illegal.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

I don't think the biblical authors all agree. For example the Hebrews had a very different view of immortality than we see in the NT.

Like what?

You are quite wrong on the millennium. Church history tells us that premillennialism was the position, until Augustine when amilleniaism became popular.

References please? Certainly the first century had a view that wouldn’t fit into the category.

Postmillennialism is much older than the last century. Like I said, Puritans. I don't know where you get that "only last century" idea from.

Dispensationalism, the start of the Rapture idea.

The earliest evidence we have of Christian baptism included infants. Constantine made paganism illegal.

No he certainly didn’t. He allowed Christians to exist without death threats for a while. After a time he persecuted anyone not in his (catholic) church. He named himself Pontifex Maximus and head of the christian church same as he was head of the pagans. That was the title of the head of the pagans.

The earliest evidence we have of baptisms are all adults. It’s the NT.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Dorothy Mae Can't comment more at the moment as I am not on my computer but I'll PM you with sources when I can. For now:

References please? Certainly the first century had a view that wouldn’t fit into the category.

Look into Justin Martyr. NT wasn't even complete in the first century and we have no evidence of a Christian presence there until the third.

Dispensationalism, the start of the Rapture idea.

True. Very late idea not part of original premillenialism.

No he certainly didn’t. He allowed Christians to exist without death threats for a while. After a time he persecuted anyone not in his (catholic) church. He named himself Pontifex Maximus and head of the christian church same as he was head of the pagans. That was the title of the head of the pagans.

He did and I will find the source when I can

The earliest evidence we have of baptisms are all adults. It’s the NT.

And Acts constantly speaks of the household.

 

[Dorothy Mae]

Dorothy Mae Can't comment more at the moment as I am not on my computer but I'll PM you with sources when I can. For now:

Look into Justin Martyr. NT wasn't even complete in the first century and we have no evidence of a Christian presence there until the third.

What? The authors were dead by the of the first century so it was complete. By what are you measuring this? There was a christian presence in most of the known world by 70AD.

True. Very late idea not part of original premillenialism.

He did and I will find the source when I can

And Acts constantly speaks of the household.

What significance is “household?” Do you include infants? That is not legit. Means adults of age.

 

[for_his_glory]

Sounds good but in practice the human heart is resistant to uncomfortable truth depending upon whether one has sought truth at all costs. Most simply what their chosen position confirmed which sets in a kind of blindness.

One is only blind if they are seeking some kind of worldly knowledge through a carnal mind, which the carnal mind is enmity against God. Only the Holy Spirit can teach us all truths if we have Spiritual ears to hear what is being taught.

Life in the Spirit
Rom 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:2 For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
Rom 8:3 For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
Rom 8:4 That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
Rom 8:5 For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
Rom 8:6 For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Rom 8:7 Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
Rom 8:8 So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
Rom 8:9 But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.
Rom 8:10 And if Christ be in you, the body is dead because of sin; but the Spirit is life because of righteousness.
Rom 8:11 But if the Spirit of him that raised up Jesus from the dead dwell in you, he that raised up Christ from the dead shall also quicken your mortal bodies by his Spirit that dwelleth in you.