Should Christians rethink Hell?

[TimothyW]

I still can't spell it correctly without a spellchecker

Just use the word that the Bible uses, "destruction".

 

[FreeGrace]

That's fallacious, I don't have to be a Greek Scholar to make a point.

If you are contradicting Greek scholars, yes, you do.

Regarding aionios, I've already given you Scripture that refutes the definition of eternal.

Since I've provided the actual meaning range of the word, it should be obvious to you that you are misunderstanding the verses. One must start with the meanings of words, then apply them in each verse. Not the other way around.

When Jesus speaks of the destruction of the wicked it's in Gehenna, He doesn't speak of the Lake of Fire, that term is only in the book of Revelation. According to Jesus Gehenna is the place of fire, that is the aionios fire of Mat 25:46. Jerimiah said that Gehenna would be made holy to the Lord.

Since Matt 25:41 is about the "eternal fire", which is FOR the devil and his angels, and Rev 20:10 directly says where the devil will be cast, which is the lake of fire, they ARE the same place. No doubt about it.

That leaves us with two options as I see it, either aionios doesn't mean eternal, or there is a contradiction within the Scriptures.

So you discount what Greek sholars know sbout Greek words. Interesting. But there is no contradiction.

I think it's clear which is the case, especially since there are other passages of Scripture that speak of aionios as finite periods of time. Jude gives an example of aionios fire and that didn't burn for eternity.

That verse was about a specific place ON EARTH. The lake of fire isn't on earth. Because earth will be destroyed (Rev 21).

If you're going to hold to that, please explain then why Jesus says the wicked will be cast into Gehenna and John says they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. If these are two different places it creates a problem can you please address this?[/QUOTE]

 

[FreeGrace]

The doctrine of annihilation means that there is no need of salvation...
tob

I wish the non-ECTers would address this huge problem with their view. I've brought up this point repeatedly, and no one will address it.

 

[FreeGrace]

That isn't logical. A person needs salvation in order to receive eternal life. If a person is about to be destroyed, they most certainly need salvation, in order to NOT BE DESTROYED!

But we know that loss of eternal life results in eternal punishment. If one simply ceases to exist, there can be no concept of anything eternal. And they aren't destroyed in the way you think. They suffer eternal punishment. That demands the concept of ongoing punishment. Not just being vaporized, or whatever word you want to plug in.

 

[TimothyW]

I wish the non-ECTers would address this huge problem with their view. I've brought up this point repeatedly, and no one will address it.

What the???
How on earth does someone who is about to be totally destroyed NOT NEED salvation???
This is bizarre beyond belief!

 

[gr8grace3]

Apollumi, apoletai
ἵνα πᾶς ὁ πιστεύων εἰς αὐτὸν μὴ ἀπόληται ἀλλ’ ἔχῃ ζωὴν αἰώνιον.
"that all who believe in him will not perish but will have eternal life"

I don't see "cease to exist" or "annihilated" here.

If you look back at my posts, you will notice that I never use the word "annihilation" just to avoid this kind of confusion. Peter says that the ungodly will be destroyed. This doesn't mean that they will remain undestroyed in hell forever. I strongly disagree with you that the word apollumi is never used to describe total destruction. A person can't be "dissolved", that is why the word "luo" is not used to describe their destruction.

I actually said that I agree that apollumi means to destroy. It is never used in the sense that one is annihilated or one ceases to exist.

My car was utterly destroyed in a head on collision, but it still exists in a destroyed state.

 

[TimothyW]

But we know that loss of eternal life results in eternal punishment. If one simply ceases to exist, there can be no concept of anything eternal. And they aren't destroyed in the way you think. They suffer eternal punishment. That demands the concept of ongoing punishment. Not just being vaporized, or whatever word you want to plug in.

I use the word the Bible uses, destroyed. The punishment is destruction. It is eternal. Since they will have been destroyed, they will not continue to be alive in order to be eternally tormented. Eternal punishment does not demand ongoing punishment. You demand ongoing conscious punishment. The Bible says that the wages of sin is death. The Bible says that the destruction of Sodom is an example of the coming judgment.
It doesn't matter if the person who has been destroyed has no concept of anything eternal. Their destruction is still eternal whether they are aware of it or not.

 

[TimothyW]

I don't see "cease to exist" or "annihilated" here.




I actually said that I agree that apollumi means to destroy. It is never used in the sense that one is annihilated or one ceases to exist.

My car was utterly destroyed in a head on collision, but it still exists in a destroyed state.

Same tired arguments that have been refuted a thousand times before. Do you see perish in John 3:16? So why do you believe the ungodly will not perish?

 

[TimothyW]

My car was utterly destroyed in a head on collision, but it still exists in a destroyed state.

Were you destroyed in that head on collision?

 

[chessman]

I wish the non-ECTers would address this huge problem with their view. I've brought up this point repeatedly, and no one will address it.

I can only speak for myself but frankly I'm astonished that ECT'ers bring up Christ's payment for sin with this topic. I honestly have no idea how you think He has paid it, unless you think Christ is experiencing ECT now and forever.

If God's plan was/is to send Christ to the LoF forever, you'd have a point. As it is, your point seems like ____?

I don't even know what to call what your point seems like.

 

[TimothyW]

The doctrine of annihilation means that there is no need of salvation...
tob

The doctrine of ECT in hell means that there is no need of salvation...

 

[Butch5]

If you are contradicting Greek scholars, yes, you do.

When they contradict the Scriptures I will disagree with them. But that's not the point, I don't have to be a Greek scholar to make a point.

Since I've provided the actual meaning range of the word, it should be obvious to you that you are misunderstanding the verses. One must start with the meanings of words, then apply them in each verse. Not the other way around.

And Scripture has proven that meaning to be incorrect.

20 This is the offering of Aaron and of his sons, which they shall offer unto the LORD in the day when he is anointed; the tenth part of an ephah of fine flour for a meat offering perpetual, half of it in the morning, and half thereof at night.
21 In a pan it shall be made with oil; and when it is baken, thou shalt bring it in: and the baken pieces of the meat offering shalt thou offer for a sweet savour unto the LORD.
22 And the priest of his sons that is anointed in his stead shall offer it: it is a statute for ever unto the LORD; it shall be wholly burnt.
(Lev 6:20-22 KJV)

11 Therefore, if perfection were through the Levitical priesthood (for under it the people received the law), what further need was there that another priest should rise according to the order of Melchizedek, and not be called according to the order of Aaron?
12 For the priesthood being changed, of necessity there is also a change of the law. (Heb 7:11-12 NKJ)

Leviticus 22:6 uses the word "aionios" which the translators translate for ever, yet Paul said that priesthood was changed, thus it wasn't forever, therefore aionios doesn't mean forever

Since Matt 25:41 is about the "eternal fire", which is FOR the devil and his angels, and Rev 20:10 directly says where the devil will be cast, which is the lake of fire, they ARE the same place. No doubt about it.

The problem is that Jesus never mentioned the Lake of Fire, He said the wicked would be cast into Gehenna. So, according to what you've stated here the Lake of Fire and Gehenna must be the same place, if we believe there is no error in the Scriptures.

So you discount what Greek sholars know sbout Greek words. Interesting. But there is no contradiction.

When they disagree with Scripture I do. I realize that they are human and are not inspired, they approach the Scriptures with a theological bias just like everyone else does.

That verse was about a specific place ON EARTH. The lake of fire isn't on earth. Because earth will be destroyed (Rev 21).

The earth won't be destroyed, it will be renewed, restored.

19 "Repent therefore and be converted, that your sins may be blotted out, so that times of refreshing may come from the presence of the Lord,
20 "and that He may send Jesus Christ, who was preached to you before1,
21 "whom heaven must receive until the times of restoration of all things, which God has spoken by the mouth of all His holy prophets since the world began. (Act 3:19-21 NKJ)

What evidence do you have that the Lake of Fire isn't on earth?

You didn't answer my question, can you please address this?

If you're going to hold to that, please explain then why Jesus says the wicked will be cast into Gehenna and John says they will be cast into the Lake of Fire. If these are two different places it creates a problem can you please address this?

 

[Butch5]

I wish the non-ECTers would address this huge problem with their view. I've brought up this point repeatedly, and no one will address it.

What is this huge problem? Please point me to the post where you presented it.

 

[Rick W]

Enough is enough.
If this bickering does not stop then privileges to participate in this forum (Apologetics & Theology) will be revoked.
I will not lock this thread for the actions of a few.

Belittling or otherwise posting derogatory opinions toward other members is NOT evidence and will not be tolerated. I understand this is a hot-button issue but please check those tempers at the door.

 

[chessman]

Yes, it was "something else". It was spiritual death, not physical death. His spiritual death was separation from His Father.

I wish the non-ECTers would address this huge problem with their view. I've brought up this point repeatedly, and no one will address it.

Paul said:

1 Corinthians 15:3-4 (LEB) For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried, and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures,​

What Paul doesn't say, but would need to have said for your point to be valid:

For I passed on to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ was spiritually seperated from His Father died for our sins according to the scriptures, and that he was buried spiritually seperated from His Father forever in the Lake of Fire and that he was raised up on the third day according to the scriptures.

 

[reba]

The first time i saw the title of this thread i thought .. Why should a Christian rethink hell? i dont think about New York if i am going to San Francisco

 

[chessman]

This is the Bema seat of Christ. For believers only. The GWTJ is for unbelievers.​

I understand there is a judgment for all believers and one for all unbelievers.

That's my point. God finds it so, so important that ALL humans are judged by Christ. Not just a majority of them.

 

[chessman]

The first time i saw the title of this thread i thought .. Why should a Christian rethink hell? i dont think about New York if i am going to San Francisco

I'm personally appreciative that some Christians rethought salvation's requirements in the 1500's. It had become very confused and unBiblical.

Not that this thread's gonna reform anyone, obviously. Nor is it that important since Eternal Destruction is not applicable to us anyway. We believers will not even experience temporary destruction, much less eternal destruction

We're supposed to be critiquing a podcast/debate conducted by the president of the Southern Baptist Seminary and his opponent. Who evidently thought it important enough to produce and broadcast.

 

[reba]

This topic seems to bring out the hellish side Christians.. I do not understand why it does. . . I find that very sad... I get the instant ghrrrr when folks don't agree .. I am looking beyond that ... What is the Biblical reason to fight 'tooth and nail" about it... Hoping for sure it is more then egos..

 

[chessman]

This topic seems to bring out the hellish side Christians.. I do not understand why it does. . . I find that very sad... I get the instant ghrrrr when folks don't agree .. I am looking beyond that ... What is the Biblical reason to fight 'tooth and nail" about it... Hoping for sure it is more then egos..

All very good points. I agree.

I'm out of teeth and nails.