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?

 

[Hidden In Him]

The word translated hell in this passage is the word Hades. This is the only other passage that mentions burning in Hades.

Yes, but now you have two, and several others that associate Hades with torment. Not sure if dismissing them all in this context is doing scripture justice.

To answer your question, because it's a parable.

I anticipated this answer, but now my next question was this: Even if He was teaching a parable, in all His other parables Jesus did not present non-sensical analogies. Tares and wheat, sowers sowing in good soil, an unjust steward stealing money, virgins trimming lamps while waiting for the bridegroom, leaven placed within bread, nets cast into the sea to catch fish, etc. Then we get to this supposed parable and suddenly He has a dead man speaking, wanting God to talk to Abraham, and wanting his tongue to be cooled with water. When Jesus used parables, He took actual situations from real life and then ran parallels between them and the spiritual realities He wanted to teach on. To take a completely bizarre non-reality and use it to teach reality is again to run completely contrary to the established norms that Jesus continually engaged in.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Not at all. The position you hold presupposes that man lives on after death. This is not a Biblical teaching.

I know we won't be getting too far so I won't belabor the points, but in short, you are starting from a supposition as your foundation. Your foundation should be scripture itself (and not just the ones you favor), and your manipulation of the text in question is very poorly supported.

 

[Butch5]

Please consider this, Butch:

I address him as respectfully as I know how, as Christians should, but shouldn't it give you pause when your teachings on a very important Christian doctrine fall fully into alignment with those of a Satanist?

I don't know what you're referring to here. What I've stated is clearly found in Scripture. Can you show me a single passage of Scripture that teaches that man lives on after death? I know that's not possible. There is none. The most one can put forward is an inference. People will take passages they "think" will support this claim. However, when we look at these passages in context we find that they don't support the claim at all.

You're starting with a Greek presupposition that you have not established from Scripture. Can you establish from properly exegeted Scripture that man lives on after death? If that can't be done, which it can't, we are left with the idea that man is simply dead. That is what we actually find in Scripture. God told Adam if he ate from the tree of knowledge, he would die. Then He told he was dust and would return to dust. Solomon also said that man returns to dust. What about Daniel?

"At that time Michael shall stand up, The great prince who stands watch over the sons of your people; And there shall be a time of trouble, Such as never was since there was a nation, Even to that time. And at that time your people shall be delivered, Every one who is found written in the book.
2 And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, Some to everlasting life, Some to shame and everlasting contempt. (Dan. 12:1-2 NKJ)

In the Bible sleep is a metaphor for death. They're dead in the dust of the earth. There are a multitude of passages that speak to this subject. This is the Biblical doctrine. It is the idea that man has an immortal soul that is the unbiblical doctrine. Paul tells us plainly that the Father alone has immortality.

13 I urge you in the sight of God who gives life to all things, and before Christ Jesus who witnessed the good confession before Pontius Pilate,
14 that you keep this commandment without spot, blameless until our Lord Jesus Christ's appearing,
15 which He will manifest in His own time, He who is the blessed and only Potentate, the King of kings and Lord of lords,
16 who alone has immortality, dwelling in unapproachable light, whom no man has seen or can see, to whom be honor and everlasting power. Amen. (1 Tim. 6:13-16 NKJ)

Here Paul tells us that when Jesus comes He will reveal the one who "alone" has immortality. The one no man has seen or can see. That's the Father, and Paul says the He alone has immortality. That means that no one else does. Man cannot have an immortal soul if the Father alone has immortality. Given that, the only way for someone to live after death is if God gives them life. However, when we look at the Scriptures we see that the only ones who are promised eternal life are believers. There is nothing in Scripture promising enteral life to unbelievers.

Another question to ask is, if man did have an immortal soul, why would God offer eternal life? What point is there in offering eternal life to people who already have eternal life?

We could go on and on. John 3:16, the contrast John gives is perish or eternal life. What about Paul? In 1 Cor 15 he is speaking of Christians who have already died. He said,

12 Now if Christ is preached that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen.
14 And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty.
15 Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up-- if in fact the dead do not rise.
16 For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen.
17 And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins!
18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. (1 Cor. 15:12-18 NKJ)

Paul's argument here is that if there is no resurrection, those who had died in Christ had perished. Notice the past tense, they had already perished. The resurrection is the only hope he holds out for these dead Christians. If those Christians were alive somewhere then they hadn't perished and everything Paul said here would be wrong. This is all through the Bible. I think many miss it because they have presuppositions that man can live on apart from the body.

 

[Butch5]

Yes, but now you have two, and several others that associate Hades with torment. Not sure if dismissing them all in this context is doing scripture justice.


I anticipated this answer, but now my next question was this: Even if He was teaching a parable, in all His other parables Jesus did not present non-sensical analogies. Tares and wheat, sowers sowing in good soil, an unjust steward stealing money, virgins trimming lamps while waiting for the bridegroom, leaven placed within bread, nets cast into the sea to catch fish, etc. Then we get to this supposed parable and suddenly He has a dead man speaking, wanting God to talk to Abraham, and wanting his tongue to be cooled with water. When Jesus used parables, He took actual situations from real life and then ran parallels between them and the spiritual realities He wanted to teach on. To take a completely bizarre non-reality and use it to teach reality is again to run completely contrary to the established norms that Jesus continually engaged in.

Please explain to me the details of the parable. Im what other parable did Jesus tell us what the people were waring? Which other one did He give us with names? His parables aren't "spiritual realities" they're condemnations of Israel. The parable of the Vineyard is about Israel. The parable of the Wineskins, is about Israel. The Unfaithful Shepard is about Israel, Lazarus and the Rich Man is about Israel.

Also, we only know the parables by Jesus that were recorded. To say He only used a certain type of parable is fallacious. We don't know what else He said. We do know what John wrote though.

24 This is the disciple which testifieth of these things, and wrote these things: and we know that his testimony is true.
25 And there are also many other things which Jesus did, the which, if they should be written every one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that should be written. Amen.
(Jn. 21:24-1:1 KJV)

There could be hundreds of parables Jesus told that aren't recorded.

But, again, the position you hold isn't tenable. So, you're claiming my understanding of the passage is bazaar while holding one that is untannable. Have you ever seen dead people talking? I haven't. I've gone past many cemeteries and have never heard the dead speaking . So, what basis is there to accept your interpretation?

 

[Hidden In Him]

Please explain to me the details of the parable. Im what other parable did Jesus tell us what the people were waring? Which other one did He give us with names?

That's just it. It wasn't a parable.

I don't know what you're referring to here.

San Jose Pentecostal church conducts exorcism ritual on 3-year-old, leading to death

and the Priest in the exorcist! He needed to pray and fast more!

christianforums.net

This is the church T.E. Smith is a member of:

TST | Reproductive Rights Campaign

In accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), first trimester abortions are now legal for all individuals practicing the Satanic Temple’s religious abortion ritual.

announcement.thesatanictemple.com

 

[Butch5]

I know we won't be getting too far so I won't belabor the points, but in short, you are starting from a supposition as your foundation. Your foundation should be scripture itself (and not just the ones you favor), and your manipulation of the text in question is very poorly supported.

Really? I've asked repeatedly for you to establish your premise, presupposition, from Scripture. You've yet to do so. I've given you the word right from God.

17 And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;
18 Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;
19 In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return. (Gen. 3:17-19 KJV)

I've posted Daniel that says man sleep in the dust. Sleep being a metaphor for death.

18 I said in mine heart concerning the estate of the sons of men, that God might manifest them, and that they might see that they themselves are beasts.
19 For that which befalleth the sons of men befalleth beasts; even one thing befalleth them: as the one dieth, so dieth the other; yea, they have all one breath; so that a man hath no preeminence above a beast: for all is vanity.
20 All go unto one place; all are of the dust, and all turn to dust again.
21 Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Eccl. 3:18-21 KJV)

14 If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath;
15 All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust. (Job 34:14-15 KJV)

7 Thou knowest that I am not wicked; and there is none that can deliver out of thine hand.
8 Thine hands have made me and fashioned me together round about; yet thou dost destroy me.
9 Remember, I beseech thee, that thou hast made me as the clay; and wilt thou bring me into dust again? (Job 10:7-9 KJV)

Can you show me the passages that teach that man lives on after death? Even though Paul said that the Father alone has immortality

 

[Butch5]

That's just it. It wasn't a parable.

You say that but give no evidence to it back it up. I've shown clearly from Scripture that people don't live on after death. Since that's what Scripture teaches, the common view cannot be correct.

San Jose Pentecostal church conducts exorcism ritual on 3-year-old, leading to death

and the Priest in the exorcist! He needed to pray and fast more!

christianforums.net

This is the church T.E. Smith is a member of:

TST | Reproductive Rights Campaign

In accordance with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA), first trimester abortions are now legal for all individuals practicing the Satanic Temple’s religious abortion ritual.

announcement.thesatanictemple.com

Not sure what this has to do with the subject we're discussing. Whether or not an eternal hell is compatible with the new creation is not affected but what church or belief anyone has. As I said, a doctrine should stand or fall based on its merits, not the person making it. If Hitler said 2+2=4 should we argue that it doesn't because Hitler was an evil man? To dismiss an argument based on the person making it is fallacious. Hitler said he was a Christian. If he started arguing that Justification by Faith was a Scriptural doctrine would you argue that it's not, simply because He was evil?

 

[Hidden In Him]

You say that but give no evidence to it back it up.

You just provided the evidence yourself in the post I quoted.

Not sure what this has to do with the subject we're discussing.

My point was this: Shouldn't it concern one if their theology lines up with Satanist theology?

Really? I've asked repeatedly for you to establish your premise, presupposition, from Scripture. You've yet to do so.

Butch, if you are manipulating Luke 23:43 and Luke 19:16-31, what's to stop you from manipulating the rest of the Bible?

 

[Butch5]

You just provided the evidence yourself in the post I quoted.

Again, you give no evidence. There is none, I understand that. Why not just admit that?

My point was this: Shouldn't it concern one if their theology lines up with Satanist theology?

Maybe their theology lines up with Biblical theology in places. John called the Gnostics the spirit of antichrist. Some of their theology lined up with the Bible.

Shouldn't one be concerned if their theology lines up with that of a mass murderer? A man who committed genocide? Hitler held Christian beliefs. The point is, the truth isn't determined by who believes it. If this guy believes something it's true, but if that guy believes it it's false. That's about as fallacious as it gets. Truth gets determined by what and who is popular.

Butch, if you are manipulating Luke 23:43 and Luke 19:16-31, what's to stop you from manipulating the rest of the Bible?

I'm not manipulating the text. I think you know that. That's just a convenient way to dismiss the evidence that doesn't fit your position. That you've refused repeated requests to establish you premise speaks volumes.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Please consider this, Butch:

I address him as respectfully as I know how, as Christians should, but shouldn't it give you pause when your teachings on a very important Christian doctrine fall fully into alignment with those of a Satanist?

What you need to do is show that the relationship is relevant. Yes we have a common belief here - but so what? Why does that matter? What does that imply about Butch?

Butch and I agree that water is necessary for human survival. Does that mean that Butch's beliefs on drinking water fall fully into alignment with those of a Satanist? Well... I guess you could say that... but that doesn't matter. That's irrelevant.

Besides, your post is just a straight-up ad hominem fallacy.

 

[T. E. Smith]

Hitler held Christian beliefs.

In case anyone wants to try and deny this, he was in good standing with the Catholic church, and especially with the Pope, with whom he had good-natured conversation.

 

[Hidden In Him]

Again, you give no evidence. There is none I understand that. Why nit just admit that?

Oh come on, LoL. Why would I admit to something I'm 100% in disagreement with and feel is completely unsubstantiated?

It's just a friendly debate, Butch. Don't lose your composure.

Maybe their theology lines up with Biblical theology in places. John called the Gnostics the spirit of antichrist. Some of their theology lined up with the Bible.

I think one should be concerned if their theology lines up with Gnosticism as well. John was, and so was the Lord Jesus Christ.

I'm not manipulating the text. I think you know that. That's just a convenient way to dismiss the evidence that doesn't fit your position. That you've refused repeated requests to establish you premise speaks volumes.

Again, Butch, these are the comments of someone who is losing their composure a little. My intent was not to get all heated, simply to point out that there are serious problems with your position. But scripture says the word of truth is sown in peace by those making peace, so I think the proper course at this point is to bow out of the conversation for now.

Maybe we'll have opportunity to discuss things again sometime down the road.

God bless, and hope you have a great afternoon.
- H

 

[Hidden In Him]

Butch and I agree that water is necessary for human survival. Does that mean that Butch's beliefs on drinking water fall fully into alignment with those of a Satanist?

E.T. (I mean T.E., Lol), I understand your point, only I don't think it's very well made. The question regarding the health benefits of water isn't normally up for much debate is it?

Anyway, again, I should probably be heading out now, so I suppose I'll catch up with you later as well.
God bless, and have a good day.

 

[Butch5]

Oh come on, LoL. Why would I admit to something I'm 100% in disagreement with and feel is completely unsubstantiated?

I think your refusal to establish your premise is a tacit admission.

It's just a friendly debate, Butch. Don't lose your composure.

I'm not losing my composure. I don't get riled up by debates.

I think one should be concerned if their theology lines up with Gnosticism as well. John was, and so was the Lord Jesus Christ.

If That’s the case then you should be concerned that your belief that man lives on after death was a Gnostic belief. It was also a belief held in Greek Philosophy.

Again, Butch, these are the comments of someone who is losing their composure a little. My intent was not to get all heated, simply to point out that there are serious problems with your position. But scripture says the word of truth is sown in peace by those making peace, so I think the proper course at this point is to bow out of the conversation for now.

I'm not losing my composure. I can establish from Scripture everything I claim. You say there are problems with my position, yet I've given multiple passages of Scripture. You've not addressed them. You've not attempted to show how I may be misunderstanding them. You've simply dismissed them out of hand. Not sure how that is showing serious problems with my position. You simply stating I'm wrong doesn't make it so.

Maybe we'll have opportunity to discuss things again sometime down the road.

God bless, and hope you have a great afternoon.
- H

We have that opportunity now but you've chosen not to do so.

 

[Hidden In Him]

You've not addressed them. You've not attempted to show how I may be misunderstanding them. You've simply dismissed them out of hand.

Please understand, I didn't dismiss them out of hand. I simply didn't want to go down the list refuting every single word in every single sentence you wrote just to be argumentative. That strikes me as being overly contentious, so I prefer to focus on what I feel are the most important points of disagreement. Had I responded, your arguments are based on suppositions, but why go there? You didn't want my responses because you were listening, did you?

We have that opportunity now but you've chosen not to do so.

Again, I don't know that you were receiving what I was saying, so as per James 3 I thought maybe it was best to put things aside for now.

God bless,
- H

 

[Hopeful]

Sure. Look at John 3:16. Jesus came so that those who believe should not perish but have eternal life. He didn't say so they would not burn in hell forever, He said so they would not perish.

Look at Paul's word. The wages if sin is death but the gift of God is eternal life. The wages of sin is death, not eternal torment.

I feel the offensive humans will get just what the offending angels are due.
As Jude wrote..."Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." (Jude 1:13)

 

[Butch5]

Please understand, I didn't dismiss them out of hand. I simply didn't want to go down the list refuting every single word in every single sentence you wrote just to be argumentative. That strikes me as being overly contentious, so I prefer to focus on what I feel are the most important points of disagreement. Had I responded, your arguments are based on suppositions, but why go there? You didn't want my responses because you were listening, did you?

You didn't seem to have an issue going down the list of things you said were a problem with my position. You said I'm wrong, didn't explain how I was wrong, didn't address the passages of Scripture either. Am I just supposed to accept that I'm wrong simply because you say so? You give me a position that is untenable and I'm supposed to believe it? Again, is that just because you say so? I'm curious as to why you even addressed my post considering you weren't going to give any evidence to support the claim that I'm wrong.

You said you didn't want to go down the list refuting every word I said. I posted Scripture. Is that what you were going to refute?

Again, I don't know that you were receiving what I was saying, so as per James 3 I thought maybe it was best to put things aside for now.

God bless,
- H

What was there to receive? You just said I'm wrong. Again, you gave no evidence. You didn't engage with the passages of Scripture. So, what did you want me to receive? Just your opinion that I'm wrong?

 

[Butch5]

I feel the offensive humans will get just what the offending angels are due.
As Jude wrote..."Raging waves of the sea, foaming out their own shame; wandering stars, to whom is reserved the blackness of darkness for ever." (Jude 1:13)

Hi Hopeful,

There are plenty more passage I could give you. I would also point out that the phrase "for ever" that you quote from Jude is wrongly translated. The Greek word there is aion. It's properly translated age. The passage literally says, 'the blackness of darkness unto the age'. We know that aion doesn't mean forever because Jesus, Paul, and the rest of the apostles all speak of the end of the aion. So we know the aion ends. The problem is in the translation.

Matthew 24:3 (KJV 1900): 3 And as he sat upon the mount of Olives, the disciples came unto him privately, saying, Tell us, when shall these things be? and what shall be the sign of thy coming, and of the end of the world?

Matthew 13:49–50 (KJV 1900): 49 So shall it be at the end of the world: the angels shall come forth, and sever the wicked from among the just, 50 And shall cast them into the furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth.


Matthew 13:37–40 (KJV 1900): He that soweth the good seed is the Son of man; 38 The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one; 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world; and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world.

In these passages the word translated world is aion. It's the same word that is translated forever in Jude 1:13. As we can clearly see Jesus and the apostles all indicate that the aion will end. Thus, it cannot mean forever. Forever, by definition doesn't end.

Consider Paul's words.

Hebrews 9:24–26 (KJV 1900): For Christ is not entered into the holy places made with hands, which are the figures of the true; but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God for us: 25 Nor yet that he should offer himself often, as the high priest entereth into the holy place every year with blood of others; 26 For then must he often have suffered since the foundation of the world: but now once in the end of the world hath he appeared to put away sin by the sacrifice of himself.

Again, the word world is the Greek word aion. Here it is in the plural number, literally, ages. Again, this shows that it can't mean forever. We can't have forevers. There can't be more than one forever by definition. Yet Paul is talking about multiple ones.

 

[T. E. Smith]

aion

Translating aion as "forever" goes all the way back to the KJV. There is a reason I don't use the KJV - it has many intentional mistranslations. Sadly, many modern Bible translations rely on its tradition, and thus often mistranslate a text.

 

[Butch5]

Translating aion as "forever" goes all the way back to the KJV. There is a reason I don't use the KJV - it has many intentional mistranslations. Sadly, many modern Bible translations rely on its tradition, and thus often mistranslate a text.

The problem is that often theology drives the translation.