jasonc
Member
I think that is some translation issue, but you could make that the case. im not greek nor Hebrew scholar so I don't know. I don't see that city as being literal.
Christian Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
-
Guest, Join Papa Zoom today for some uplifting biblical encouragement! --> Daily Verses
Should Christians rethink Hell?
- Thread starter TimothyW
- Start date
TimothyW
Member
Possibly. "The devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever." Revelation 20:10 It is possible that all of the lost will be tossed in there with them and tormented day and night forever and ever. The verse doesn't say that they will be, but I guess, maybe. Maybe not. Many other scriptures say that the lost will perish and be destroyed.
It is unlikely that this view is heretical, because that would make many parts of the Bible itself heretical, John 3:16 for instance, which specifically says that we will not perish if we believe. Also, if this view is heretical, then Jesus Christ's own words in Luke 13:3 would be heresy. "Unless you repent, you will likewise perish". Are you prepared to tell the Holy Son of God Almighty that He is a Heretic? I didn't think so.
Possibly, can you show scripture support for your contention? Where does the Bible say that Universalism is Heresy? On the other hand, where does the Bible say that the lost will enter heaven? I just included this in the OP because I know that there are Christians who hold this belief and I didn't want to exclude a possible view just because I don't agree with it.
I would advocate a return to Apostolic Christianity, ala Acts 17:11 "Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true." We should examine the scriptures to see if what is taught in the churches is true and we should not simply accept a teaching because it has been taught for a very long time, I'm thinking of the Eternal Torment View right now.
But the "literal' readers of Revelation do. They HAVE to, because they, themselves, have locked themselves into that little prison by declaring that the book is to be read (in its entirety), as LITERAL.
jasonc
Member
without derailing that into jewish thought since I like to connect old jewish sage teachings on gan eden to what we have. the jews still say after isreal and the whole creation is destroyed that in the spiritual earth in the spiritual realm man shall dwell with God in gan eden and eat from the fruit of the tree of life. I cant be coincidental that they say that and the bible has something similar. either we influenced them or that it was in someway what is to be. idk. the reason I don't take that city literally( while I do see gehenna as real) is that the idea of the sun and moon being destroyed is in contradiction to what Isiah says in his book on the moon and sun being before the lord forever.
TimothyW
Member
Sorry, I need to edit my post. The Bible clearly states that the wicked will be destroyed (Psalm 37:38) and will be no more (Psalm 37:10). The wicked will not enter heaven. (1 Corinthians 6:9) The wicked will not inherit eternal life (John 3:36) therefore they cannot possibly be tormented forever. (Logically, they would need to have eternal life in order to be tormented eternally)
chessman
Member
Here's some of what I thought about the debate:
At the 20 minute point in the podcast debate, the first Scripture is presented. It is Matt 25:46 to which Chris says; “What’s not in question [WRT this Scripture] is the duration of the punishment. Dr. Mohler and I agree with that. The question is, what is the nature of that punishment. … Dr. Mohler and a lot of traditionalists think that the nature of that punishment is torment. The biblical testimony is that the nature of that punishment is death.” Chris then points out that this verse itself shows that Eternal Life is only given to the saved, such that Jesus is rather obviously contrasting life to death. NOT life to torment. He then points out that other texts explicitly define the nature of the punishment to the lost as death (Rom 6:23) and destruction (2 Thess 1:9) to back-up his claim.
Dr. Mohler’s response is; “The normal Christian reading of that text and the context of the whole of Scripture has been that Eternal, if it simply means destruction, that doesn’t make much sense.”
Huh? Chris and Dr. Mohler are not disagreeing on what “eternal” means. Chris just said so. Nor does Chris make the case that “eternal” means death. Chris says the nature of the punishment is death, Albert says not it's a life of torment. They disagree on what the punishment means, not what eternal means, yet that seems to escape Dr. Mohler’s understanding. (He's not alone in that misunderstanding though).
Chris presents three Scriptures that support his case that the nature of the punishment is death and destruction (i.e. not an eternal life of torment). Fair enough. That’s a reasonable and good Theological debate tactic. Dr. Mohler’s response, on the other hand, is that “doesn’t make sense” given a “normal Christian reading of that text” and seems to imply that the “normal” meaning of “destruction” and “death” of (2 Thess 1:9 and Rom 6:23) is really torment, though it does say death and destruction.
Also, a continuing theme of Dr. Mohler’s debate tactic is presented throughout the debate; “normal/majority/hisotorical” Christians don’t think the punishment is death/destruction. They think the punishment is torment. Therefore, the “normal Christian” must be correct. Umm, that’s what is up for debate, right?
Plus, you guessed it, later on in the podcast (~ 32:36) Dr. Mohler then digresses back to presenting a strawman argument against so-called Condtionalism; that is conditionalists don’t think “eternal” means “eternal”. Which of course Chris just got through saying that there was no disagreement on the meaning of “eternal” within this text(s) between them. Dr. Mohler says; “It’s just not legitimate to claim that eternal in one phrase of one sentence means something different than the clear parallelism that the Christian church has understood Jesus to mean from the very beginning”.
Wow. He’s obviously not listening to the fact the Christ DOES NOT make an argument that eternal means one thing in the first ½ of the phrase and another thing in the 2nd ½ of the phrase. Plus, Chris has already quoted several Early Church Fathers that were conditionalists, so Dr. Mohler is just making a flat out incorrect claim that the Christian church has always understood the nature of the punishment as torment, rather than death/destruction. It’s just wrong and he should know that it’s wrong if he’s actually studied some of the ECF’s writings.
But in a respectful manner, Chris then corrects Dr. Mohler’s strawman; “That’s not may argument…” and encourages Dr. Mohler to then explain how the nature of the punishment really is a life of torment verses death/destruction. Dr. Mohler never does provide any Biblical support really. He simply repeats the claim; “That is not the way the church has rightly understood the text.” In other words, I’m right and you’re wrong because the majority of my church says so. Even claiming that Chris is “importing death and destruction there”. Again, Chris listed the Scriptures that directly tell us that the punishment is death/destruction/perishing and Dr. Mohler simply imports what he terms “the normal Christian church” as his 'evidence' that the punishment is an eternal life of torment.
Look, Dr. Mohler is the president of MY denomination's seminary. I've listened to and read so much of his work over decades and have an upmost respect for him personally, professionally and theologically. But He lost this debate, hands down because of his strawman argument and lack of any real exegetical supporting passages.
Justin asks Dr. Mohler what he thinks about the idea that immortality is conditional (i.e. only believers in Christ are gifted with immortality). Dr. Mohler’s response is not really a response to that question at all.
Dr. Mohler says; “I think one of the problems we have here is using the word immortality.” Excuse me, but the Bible does use the word immortality and says that only God possess immortality (1 Tim 6:16). He then goes on to imply that one of the things that it means to be “made in the image of God” is that we are made immortal. Hogwash! It’s an unbiblical notion that we are created as immortal creatures and that we simply cannot be destroyed (both body and soul) because God created us that way. Because God’s immortal, we are too? Hogwash.
It’s true God’s immortal. Just as it’s true that God is the ONLY one immortal. (Matt 10:28, 2 Tim 6:16, Rom 11:36, 1 Cor 12:6, 1 Cor 15:27, etc.) One of the reasons we know and believe God is immortal is that the Bible tells us God's immortal. Guess what? It also says God's the only one immortal. We can't just pick and choose texts we like.
These two points seem to at the center of this overall debate’s foundational issues. The “red meat”, so-to-speak is; 1) What, exactly, is the nature of the punishment of the lost depicted by Scripture and 2) Are humans created immortally or not.
Chris won the debate WRT 1) and Dr. Mohler cut off his own foot on 2) by not discussing the fact that the Bible does, most certainly, tell us that humans are NOT created as immortal creatures.
When asked by Justin what other texts might support punishment = and eternal life of torment, Dr. Mohler references 2 Thess 1’s use of “everlasting”. Which is again, not in debate. Yet astonishingly there we have directly in the Scripture the very nature of the punishment defined for us. It’s directly defined as destruction, not torment!
giving punishment to those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus, 9 who will pay the penalty of eternal destruction,
Amazingly he says; “If you are going to read that [Destruction] as just death and the removal of the gift of life, it seems to miss the point of the text which is something that is ongoing and experienced.”
Huh? Destruction really means something that is ongoing and experienced, on his view? Okay but how is that the “normal” reading of the text? And did you catch his use of “the gift of life” given to the wicked? I know he didn’t say the gift of Eternal Life or the gift of an immortal life, but I’m betting that’s exactly what he meant it.
Plus, there’s that underlying assumption of the gift of immortality at conception shining through.
And he makes this same claim with this text that he did with Matt 25. He keeps saying that there’s a "parallel" given in these two texts. Huh? I wouldn’t call it a parallel, I’d call it a contrast. Saved versus loss. Punishment versus gift. Life versus death. Destruction versus Eternal life. Etc. These passages are contrasting the treatment of the lost versus the saved, not paralleling their treatment. (unless of course you think the lost experience eternal torment as their punishment. I guess then you've got to read them as parallel versus contrasting.)
I’ll just stop there other than to say the discuss Luke 16 comes with mostly agreement between Al/Chris on what the text actually depicts (the intermediate state, not the final state). So it’s not really a fundamental teaching on the final state and/or the final punishment to begin with. (But it does use that word torment, though doesn’t it).
The Bible never speaks of the "second death" per Rev 2:11, 20:6, 14 and 21:8 (NASB), as life, or as inherited life. The only thing mentioned as being inherited as "life" refers strictly to eternal life, per Mt 19:29, Mk 10:17, Lu 10:225 and 18:18 (NASB).
No one has to "inherit" any kind of life to be cast into the lake of fire. We know that spiritual death refers to being separated from God. So all who will be cast into the lake of fire will experience eternal separation from God. That is the "second death". And it will be very conscious as well, for Rev 20:10 says that there will be "tormenting night and day forever and ever."
Nowhere in Scripture is there any mention that anyone will be destroyed in the lake of fire.
This view is refuted by both Rev 20:10, where those who will be cast into the lake of fire will be "tormented night and day forever and ever", plus Matt 25:46 which speaks of everlasting (forever) punishment.
It's real difficult to be punished forever is one doesn't exist. Don't you think?
From Strong's:
שמד shâmad shaw-mad'
A primitive root; to desolate:—destroy (-uction), bring tonought, overthrow, perish, pluck down, X utterly.
Nothing here about ceasing to exist. Those who are "overthrown" or "plucked down" have been "destroyed".
The context for "will not be" begins with "in a little while", written about 1,500 years ago. Kinda hard to defend the view that this verse refers to the future lake of fire. Don't you think?
The verse says nothing about entering heaven. It says "inherit", which is a totally different concept.
Right. So they will exist in the second death, or the lake of fire, where there will be "tormenting night and day forever and ever.
That is not logical at all. Death involves separation. James 2:26 defines physical death as a body without a soul, meaning that the soul left (departed from, or separated from) the body. In Spiritual death, the person is separated from God.
Those who don't understand this fact or reject it will be unable to comprehend how the Bible uses the word "death" in the sense of the second death, which is the lake of fire.
TimothyW
Member
Of course the Bible doesn't refer to the second DEATH as LIFE. The Bible also doesn't refer to UP as DOWN, or BLACK as WHITE.
No, we do NOT know that "spiritual death refers to being separated from God". Nowhere in Scripture is there any mention of "spiritual death refers to being separated from God".
You are simply wrong. There are many places in scripture where the Bible says that the wicked will be destroyed.
I can't even list them all here, there are so many. Try Matt 7:13, Matt 10:28, Matt 13:30, 1 Cor 3:17, Galations 6:8, 2 Thess 1:9, Hebrews 10:26-27, Hebrews 10:39, James 4:12, 2 Peter 2:1, 2 Peter 3:7, Jude 1:10, Rev 17:8, Rev 18:8, and this is not all of them.
Not at all. The punishment is eternal destruction. It's real difficult to exist forever after you have been destroyed, don't you think?
This definition is not convincing me that "shamad" does not mean "destroyed". You claim it doesn't mean ceasing to exist, but "bring to nought" is right in the definition you provided yourself. Destroy, bring to naught. You should read the definition you provide, because it proves my case, and destroys your case.
The Bible does that A LOT. You aren't one of those who believes that Jesus Christ has already returned, are you?
James 2:26 does NOT define physical death as a body without a soul. He just says that the body away from the spirit IS dead. This does not prove that death means separation. In fact, the Bible NEVER says that death means separation.
Why don't you give up this quest? You will not be able to convince me that the Bible says something that it doesn't say. But if you want to continue this quest, simply post the verse that says that the wicked will go to hell when they die where they will be tormented alive forever.
Well, at least that's a start. Is there any chance that you'll come to understand that spritual death refers to separation from God? Unless you do, there's really no point in further discussion.
OK, I see. No chance at all.
And NONE of them refer to the lake of fire.
Which of these mention eternity, or the lake of fire?
That's my point. How can punishment be considered to be "eternal" if one simply ceases to exist? That doesn't make sense.
If your view were correct, there really isn't any need for a Savior. Why? Because those who don't believe would simply cease to exist. How bad would that be? No punishment at all. Matt 25:46 says - “These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.” NASB
If one ceases to exist (destroyed), then there is no such thing as "eternal punishment" period. So, Matt 25:46 refutes your idea as much as Rev 20:10 and 20:15 do.
Not my problem.
Hardly. How does "bring to naught" mean cease to exist??? It doesn't, plain and simple.
Of course not.
Well, I'm sorry that it isn't obvious to you. But it actually does define physical death. The key in 2:26 is "dead". Which is "death". When the soul leaves the body, the body is dead. iow, death has occurred.
James said it, but you just aren't willing to accept it. Again, not my problem.
Quest?? lol. There is no quest. I just enjoy providing what Scripture does say.
Hell isn't the issue here, which seems to have confused you. The lake of fire is the issue, AFTER final judgment. Hell is where all souls went before Christ was resurrected, and all unbelievers continue to go, waiting for the GWT judgment.
It is clear that we've reached an impasse. You won't understand that "death" in the Bible can mean physical or spiritual, and you keep substituting "hell" for the lake of fire when you post verses that you think support your position.
All I can and have done is provide truth. It's up to each one to accept it, or not.
John made clear that once thrown into the lake of fire, the person will be "tormented night and day forever and ever". And he did not make any exception for those in Rev 20:15. So you have no point.
If one ceases to exist, there is NO WAY for them to be tormented forever and ever. You've never addressed this point.
I'm not interested in listening to podcasts or whatever. I know what Scripture says, and I've given it repeatedly.
The fact that the first 3 cast into the lake of fire will be "tormented night and day forever and ever" and John didn't give any disclaimers on all the rest from Rev 20:15 who will be cast into the lake of fire, means that everyone who will be cast into the lake of fire will be "tormented night and day forever and ever".
The ONLY way you'd have a point is IF John made a disclaimer about those in Rev 20:15 NOT being tormented night and day forever and ever. But he didn't do that. So there's NO REASON to assume that those in 20:15 will NOT be tormented night and day forever and ever.
TimothyW
Member
If the Bible tells me so.
Since it doesn't, I reject that based on a complete lack of evidence. It isn't that I don't understand it, it is that I completely reject it as a false doctrine.
I don't suppose you could provide decent evidence for the doctrine that "death does not mean death but rather a separation". Why don't you walk me through that logic, step by step?
TimothyW
Member
Too bad. I was interested in your opinion of it. That is the OP anyway.
(Then what ARE you doing here?)
Please define for me what "death" means to you.
Here's the facts: We know that God IS eternal life: 1 Jn 5:20. Therefore, His life cannot exist in the "second death". That would be a contradiction.
So, those who reside in the second death are SEPARATED from God, who cannot reside in the second death.
With me so far?
So, the lake of fire is a place that is SEPARATED from God. Those WITH eternal life will live with God because they have God's life, which is eternal.
James defined "death" this way: the body without the spirit is DEAD. Pretty simple. That's obviously physical death. When one dies physically, we say they have "departed", or have "passed away". These common terms obviously indicate that something has departed or passed from the body. That is physical death.
A question: did Jesus' physical death pay for our sins? yes or no.
Last edited:
tim-from-pa
Member
Chessman's analysis (post #26) is excellent. I confess, I only listened in to half of it, but I was seeing the same things that Chessman saw, and that Dr Mohler's argument was weak. As a matter of fact, I could sense some desperation. I wonder why there's this obsession to convince people of such a terrible, unimaginable punishment? But as Chris also pointed out -- - he wanted the facts, an objective view of the biblical source, not appealing to emotionalism (such as God would not make such a terrible place). I think that Christians should be gleeful that this unbiblical view of ECT is finally falling like a house of cards.
And as I said before -- the punishment is eternal death. The means to bring that death is a lake of fire (which I believe is the same fire used to destroy the earth in order to renovate the earth to make a new heaven and earth. From a pragmatic perspective, maybe a large asteroid hit??? But that's another topic.). This, then, is how (as the bible states) one's enemies will be "ashes under the feet".
Chessman's post is #26, the same Gemetria for יהוה . Can I even suggest maybe it's inspired?
And as I said before -- the punishment is eternal death. The means to bring that death is a lake of fire (which I believe is the same fire used to destroy the earth in order to renovate the earth to make a new heaven and earth. From a pragmatic perspective, maybe a large asteroid hit??? But that's another topic.). This, then, is how (as the bible states) one's enemies will be "ashes under the feet".
Chessman's post is #26, the same Gemetria for יהוה . Can I even suggest maybe it's inspired?
tim-from-pa
Member
Let's turn this around. Is Jesus still in hell? Because if ECT is the price for sin, then he must be there yet to pay it, otherwise you are yet in your sins. But if the penalty for sin is death, then he most definitely died and yes that paid the price.