Hell, what is it?

[OzSpen]

You want a 9-line post broken into paragraphs, but in half your posts you expect people to go read your blog?

What's a paragraph in an English narrative?

A paragraph is a group of closely related sentences that develop a central idea. Adjective: paragraphic.

A paragraph conventionally begins on a new line, which is sometimes indented.

The paragraph has been variously defined as a "subdivision in a longer written passage," a "group of sentences (or sometimes just one sentence) about a specific topic," and a "grammatical unit typically consisting of multiple sentences that together express a complete thought."

The paragraph has also been characterized as "a mark of punctuation." In his book A Dash of Style (2006), Noah Lukeman describes the paragraph break as "one of the most crucial marks in the punctuation world" (Paragraph Definition and Examples).​

My asking you to write in smaller paragraphs has zero to do with my providing links to my blog. If you read my blogs you'll find I write in smaller paragraphs and not give a 9-liner as you did.

This is how I would divide your 9 lines into other paragraphs:

If one alternative is "eternal life in God's kingdom," it scarcely seems to me to make any difference whether the other option is (A) annihilation, (B) eternal separation from God, (C) fiery torment, or (D) annihilation after fiery torment.

It's difficult for me to believe that if one alternative is eternal life in God's kingdom, any nonbeliever would say "Well, hey, if the 'only' consequence of remaining in unbelief is A or B, I'm OK with that!"

Worrying about the precise nature of Hell almost sounds like we think we have to "sell" eternal life in God's kingdom by pushing the most hideous vision of Hell. Granted, a literal reading of Scripture would indeed suggest a pretty hideous vision.

My point about Hell being something worthy of the perfectly holy, just and loving Creator is really aimed at Christians who are troubled by the notion of eternal fiery torment.

My point is not "The perfectly holy, just and loving Creator would never subject anyone to eternal fiery torment" but rather "Even if Hell turns out to be exactly as the Bible describes, we will ultimately see that this is worthy of the perfectly just, holy and loving Creator even if it strikes us as overly harsh now."​

May you have a blessed day.
Oz

 

[Nathan]

Ever heard that human beings are made in the likeness or image of God (Gen 1:26-27)???

There is only one Person who is truly immortal – God Himself, as stated in 1 Tim. 6:15-16 (ESV), “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords, 16who alone has immortality, who dwells in unapproachable light, whom no one has ever seen or can see. To him be honor and eternal dominion.” Therefore, only God is immortal in the sense that He is the Owner and Originator of human life and he Himself has always existed.

Our immortality of the soul is in a derived sense and applies to all people, believers and unbelievers. Second Timothy 1:10 (ESV) speaks of God’s purpose and grace “which now has been manifested through the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”

I have found that many people (eg Jehovah’s Witnesses and Seventh Day Adventists) who object to the immortality of the soul are those who reject eternal punishment in hell for unbelievers. Let’s check out what the Bible says.

By immortality of the soul, I mean “the belief that human persons, at least in their spiritual dimension, consciously survive death and live on forever” (Geisler 1999:350). Or, for human beings, immortality means “deathlessness” (Hendriksen 1959:46).

C. S. Lewis wrote: “The earliest Christian documents give ascent to the belief that the supernatural or invisible part of man survives the death of the body” (1966:29).

Since the Bible teaches progressive revelation from the Old Testament (OT) to the New Testament (NT), we do not see a full expression of the immortality of the soul in the OT (from my article, Immortality of the Soul).

Oz

Works consulted
Norman L. Geisler 1999, Baker Encyclopedia of Christian Apologetics, Baker Books, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

William Hendriksen 1959, The Bible on the Life Hereafter, Baker Book House, Grand Rapids, Michigan.

C. S. Lewis 1966, Miracles, Macmillan Co., New York.

If mans soul was immortal, then it means it could never die or be destroyed.

I have always found that, in the Bible, anything to do with 'living on' dealt with those who are Gods - children of Israel/believers in Christ.

So if mans soul could never die or be destroyed, then there seems to be a lot of conflict in the Bible.

I do see how mans soul is not limited to life in the physical sense, as in, it does not 'die' when our physical body does. But in order for it to be immortal it would either have to be eternal or be given the ability to 'continue' on forever.

I don't see either option for the person who does not receive eternal life.

 

[OzSpen]

If mans soul was immortal, then it means it could never die or be destroyed.

I have always found that, in the Bible, anything to do with 'living on' dealt with those who are Gods - children of Israel/believers in Christ.

So if mans soul could never die or be destroyed, then there seems to be a lot of conflict in the Bible.

I do see how mans soul is not limited to life in the physical sense, as in, it does not 'die' when our physical body does. But in order for it to be immortal it would either have to be eternal or be given the ability to 'continue' on forever.

I don't see either option for the person who does not receive eternal life.

You blame conflict in the Bible if people's souls never die or are destroyed. Have you ever thought that the problem could be with your or my interpretations?

Take the Old Covenant example of the rich man and Lazarus after death (Luke 16:19-31). The rich man (unbeliever) was not zapped at death and annihilated. He was alive and not so well, being 'in Hades, being in torment'. He called for mercy from Father Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water, cool his tongue because 'I am in anguish in this flame' (Lk 16:23-24 ESV). The rich man after death was not destroyed. He was alive and in terrible anguish.

It's an Old Covenant example because it happened before Jesus' death and resurrection.

Lazarus the believer and poor man was in a mess in his life on earth but after death he was taken 'by the angels to Abraham's side' (Lk 16:22).

It doesn't matter whether we treat the Lazarus vs rich man story as telling a true story or a parable, the fact is that at physical death there was a continuation of life for both the believer and unbeliever, but they were in 2 different places.

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

So what are the eternal consequences for sin from your understanding of Scripture?

From my understanding....not fun. Probably more worse than what we read.

 

[Nathan]

You blame conflict in the Bible if people's souls never die or are destroyed. Have you ever thought that the problem could be with your or my interpretations?

Take the Old Covenant example of the rich man and Lazarus after death (Luke 16:19-31). The rich man (unbeliever) was not zapped at death and annihilated. He was alive and not so well, being 'in Hades, being in torment'. He called for mercy from Father Abraham to send Lazarus to dip his finger in water, cool his tongue because 'I am in anguish in this flame' (Lk 16:23-24 ESV). The rich man after death was not destroyed. He was alive and in terrible anguish.

It's an Old Covenant example because it happened before Jesus' death and resurrection.

Lazarus the believer and poor man was in a mess in his life on earth but after death he was taken 'by the angels to Abraham's side' (Lk 16:22).

It doesn't matter whether we treat the Lazarus vs rich man story as telling a true story or a parable, the fact is that at physical death there was a continuation of life for both the believer and unbeliever, but they were in 2 different places.

Oz

I wouldn't say I blame conflict, but I could see how you would say it that way. Like I said, I know the soul does not die with the body, but just because it does not do that - does not mean we should swing all the way over to saying it is immortal.

Why wouldn't we say that just as the body has a finite time period of life, that the soul does also? Can the soul not continue on into the judgement/reward stage - then be given eternal life or receive the just retribution of the things done?

To use a human example, when we judge a person based on what they have done wrong we set a punishment to the crime. But even that punishment has a beginning and end. Justice does not demand a greater punishment than the crime done.

 

[OzSpen]

From my understanding....not fun. Probably more worse than what we read.

Now give us the Scriptures to back up your claim.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now give us the Scriptures to back up your claim.

Do you disagree with his statement? Do you believe hell is not as bad as we are led to believe?

 

[OzSpen]

I wouldn't say I blame conflict, but I could see how you would say it that way. Like I said, I know the soul does not die with the body, but just because it does not do that - does not mean we should swing all the way over to saying it is immortal.

Why wouldn't we say that just as the body has a finite time period of life, that the soul does also? Can the soul not continue on into the judgement/reward stage - then be given eternal life or receive the just retribution of the things done?

To use a human example, when we judge a person based on what they have done wrong we set a punishment to the crime. But even that punishment has a beginning and end. Justice does not demand a greater punishment than the crime done.

I notice you give no Scripture to support your claims.

'They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might' (2 Thess 1:9 ESV). For how long is this 'eternal' punishment?

 

[OzSpen]

Do you disagree with his statement? Do you believe hell is not as bad as we are led to believe?

With those questions, you have committed a loaded question fallacy.

With this erroneous reasoning, your questions contain a presupposition that can be offensive or unjustified to me. It is a loaded question because it comes with a presumption of guilt on me, trying to trap me into answering your questions with answers that meant to hurt my teaching and reputation.

It is designed for me to give a yes or no answer.

I will not fall for this fallacy.

Oz

 

[civilwarbuff]

With those questions, you have committed a loaded question fallacy.

Oz

I don't care if I committed tax fraud......will you answer the questions?

 

[civilwarbuff]

We can't have a logical discussion when you use this logical fallacy because it uses fallacious reasoning.

I notice that you did not own up to your committing a loaded question fallacy.

Are you saying you don't care if you committed a logical fallacy in your response to me?

Oz

I asked you 2 questions, now will you answer them or not?

 

[Nathan]

I notice you give no Scripture to support your claims.

'They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might' (2 Thess 1:9 ESV). For how long is this 'eternal' punishment?

I am more laying things out than claiming really.

I would say eternal is never ending.

So when I go hunting, and kill a deer - does is suffer the pain of death eternally?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Not when you use the erroneous reasoning of a loaded question fallacy. We cannot have a logical discussion when you do this.

Fine, you won't answer the questions is all you had to say......geeeeeesh.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Now you also have committed a loaded question fallacy.

So, any question you don't want to answer is 'a loaded question fallacy'?......and that justifies not answering?
Personally I would love to get back on topic, so I am done here......

 

[OzSpen]

So, any question you don't want to answer is 'a loaded question fallacy'?......and that justifies not answering?
Personally I would love to get back on topic, so I am done here......

[edited]

Back to the topic:

Perhaps the most famous sermon ever preached on hell was by Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758). He delivered it to his own congregation at Northampton, Massachusetts with unknown impact, but when he preached it again in Enfield, Connecticut, 8 July 1741, that’s when he gained the nation’s attention. The impact has continued beyond the 18th century.

Part of this sermon reads:

The God that holds you over the pit of hell, much as one holds a spider, or some loathsome insect over the fire, abhors you, and is dreadfully provoked: his wrath towards you burns like fire; he looks upon you as worthy of nothing else, but to be cast into the fire; he is of purer eyes than to bear to have you in his sight; you are ten thousand times more abominable in his eyes, than the most hateful venomous serpent is in ours. You have offended him infinitely more than ever a stubborn rebel did his prince; and yet it is nothing but his hand that holds you from falling into the fire every moment. It is to be ascribed to nothing else, that you did not go to hell the last night; that you was suffered to awake again in this world, after you closed your eyes to sleep. And there is no other reason to be given, why you have not dropped into hell since you arose in the morning, but that God’s hand has held you up. There is no other reason to be given why you have not gone to hell, since you have sat here in the house of God, provoking his pure eyes by your sinful wicked manner of attending his solemn worship. Yea, there is nothing else that is to be given as a reason why you do not this very moment drop down into hell.

O sinner! Consider the fearful danger you are in: it is a great furnace of wrath, a wide and bottomless pit, full of the fire of wrath, that you are held over in the hand of that God, whose wrath is provoked and incensed as much against you, as against many of the damned in hell. You hang by a slender thread, with the flames of divine wrath flashing about it, and ready every moment to singe it, and burn it asunder; and you have no interest in any Mediator, and nothing to lay hold of to save yourself, nothing to keep off the flames of wrath, nothing of your own, nothing that you ever have done, nothing that you can do, to induce God to spare you one moment (Works of Jonathan Edwards, vol 2, ‘Sinners in the hands of an angry God’).​

I urge you to read the sermon in its entirety.

How did the listeners respond to such a sermon with hell portrayed as God’s wrath towards people burning like fire and people being cast into the fire of hell? It sure reads like a literal hell that is ‘full of the fire of wrath’ and of ‘flames of divine wrath’. This is one report of that sermon’s impact:

An eyewitness, Stephen Williams, wrote in his diary, “We went over to Enfield where we met dear Mr. Edwards of Northampton who preached a most awakening sermon from these words, Deuteronomy 32:35, and before the sermon was done there was a great moaning and crying went out through ye whole House…. ‘What shall I do to be saved,’ ‘Oh, I am going to Hell,’ ‘Oh, what shall I do for Christ,’ and so forth. So yet ye minister was obliged to desist, ye shrieks and cry were piercing and amazing” (in William P Farley, ‘Jonathan Edwards and the Great Awakening’).​

Edwards pursued this kind of emphasis in another sermon:

The body will be full of torment as full as it can hold, and every part of it shall be full of torment. They shall be in extreme pain, every joint of ’em, every nerve shall be full of inexpressible torment. They shall be tormented even to their fingers’ ends. The whole body shall be full of the wrath of God. Their hearts and bowels and their heads, their eyes and their tongues, their hands and their feet will be filled with the fierceness of God’s wrath. This is taught us in many Scriptures (in Gerstner 1980:56, n. 37).​

See another sermon by Edwards that also uses graphic imagery, ‘The portion of the wicked’, preached in 1735.

Oz

 

[Cygnus]

Now you also have committed a loaded question fallacy.

In my original post I used the word PROBABLY....in your haste to be right did you miss that?
I think the bible is explaining hell interms we understand...probably literal in a sense....but far worse than we can humanly imagine.
If I said heaven will probably be more joyous that we think.... would you have replied back with..."Now give us the Scriptures to back up your claim."

 

[Nathan]

That's an irrelevant thesis fallacy.

Bye,
Oz

According to who?

You leaving to go somewhere?

I thought it was a pretty simple question. I mean, I assume that the deer does not go on in eternal pain of death, but I could be wrong.

If God says the punishment they receive is eternal, wouldn't that mean it does not have an end?

Do you believe the soul will be eternally alive for punishment?

 

[civilwarbuff]

I have always viewed things in the sense that human language is completely unable to describe or explain spiritual aspects. Can the human language describe the horrors of hell any better than it can describe the ecstacies of heaven? I don't believe that is possible so we can only imagine those things; to simply depend on scripture to furnish those descriptions still leaves an inadequate vision.

Cygnus said: ↑
From my understanding....not fun. Probably more worse than what we read.
OzSpen said:
Now give us the Scriptures to back up your claim.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I don't care if I committed tax fraud......will you answer the questions?

I think Oz rightly expected some evidence for the position of the previous poster. But I had to laugh at your response.

 

[Papa Zoom]

I never read Sinners in the Hand of an Angry God but I don't think Hell is one bit like Edwards described it. We don't know the true nature of Hell but it won't be a place where fun is had. It won't be burning sulfur on your skin either. That's sadistic.

I prefer to think of is as Sinners in the hand of an all loving God of grace and mercy. Those that reject His grace will be in torment for their loss. Eternal separation from the Creator of the universe and the only true source of Love and relationship. That kind of hell will be worse than can be imagined.

I suppose I need verses for this but I don't have them. If enough objections arise I'll have to go digging. ;)