LovethroughDove
Member
There have been people who have had NDE's and been to hell. They knew it was eternal hopelessness. This supports those of us who take the second death as eternal dying. No hope.
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!
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
-
Depending upon the Holy Spirit for all you do?
Read through the following study by Tenchi for more on this topic
https://christianforums.net/threads/without-the-holy-spirit-we-can-do-nothing.109419/
-
-
How are famous preachers sometimes effected by sin?
Join Sola Scriptura for a discussion on the subject
https://christianforums.net/threads/anointed-preaching-teaching.109331/#post-1912042
-
Should Christians rethink Hell?
- Thread starter TimothyW
- Start date
It is more than egos in my opinion. It is what the scriptures, rightly divided,says about the LoF.
Who would want to "soften" up the LoF? Jesus Christ or satan?
My post was not directed at you, Chessman .... just a general statement...
What makes it so important it seems to be ok to rude to others.. Not meant to be a snarky question.. I dont have a side and seems both sides believe they rightly divide scriptures.. and some on both sides get just plain ol rude..
IT wasn't hopeless them
TimothyW
Member
Yes sir!
TimothyW
Member
Checking the map once in a while would be a good thing, ma'am. We don't want to misread that. Jesus said the narrow road leads to life and the other road leads to destruction, it wouldn't be good to get them mixed up. (Or let someone tell us the wide road doesn't really lead to destruction, but eternal life in Hades instead!)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
TimothyW
Member
I've been to San Francisco, it's nice. I like the woods north of the bridge. But I've never seen New York.cute tim
The problem continues to be that your view is merely ceasing to exist. That is NOT eternal. Unless you believe that the destruction takes an eternity.
So, that begs the question. When, exactly does one cease to exist? Moment of physical death or sometime after?
Second, how long does this destruction take? Instantaneous, or over some period of time? If not instantaneous, then you need to show from Scripture just how long it takes.
btw, keep in mind that if it takes an eternity, then the suffering or punishment never ends.
Again, to be punished REQUIRES a consciousness of said punishment. One in a coma feels, experiences nothing at all.
Just the opposite. We need saving from an eternal punishment.
You'd have to be a Greek scholar in order to be able to say anyone "contradicts" Scriptures.
Matt 25:41 indicates that it has already been created. What evidence that it is someplace on earth? None.
In fact, we know that the present earth will "melt with fervent heat" (2 Pet 3:10,13), and be replaced by a new earth (Rev 21). So it CAN'T exist on this earth.
Please re-ask. I'm not about to wade through pages of posts trying to find it.
Because they will be.
I believe I did. If I earlier posted that they are different, I recant. They are the same place. So, where's the problem?
I understand Christ's death as separation from God, as noted by His statement on the cross: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" That is evidence that He was, while on the cross, separated from His Father. While God was judging the sins of the whole world on Christ.
And He would have been speaking way prematurely IF His physical death was involved, because of what He said: "it is finished". Perfect tense.
Would you agree to that being a conscious experience?
TimothyW
Member
Let me try again to see if I can help you understand.
It was said that the view that the ungodly are destroyed removes the need for salvation. Let's look at that. The ungodly are destroyed. Do they not need salvation? What will happen to them in our view if they are not saved? They will be destroyed. So they need salvation in order to not be destroyed.
Now you say my view aligns with the atheist. I don't see how. An atheist believes that there is NO God. I believe that there IS a God. That is the opposite. An atheist believes that nobody will receive eternal life. I believe that those who put their faith in God will receive eternal life. That is the opposite of what an atheist believes.
You mentioned John 3:36 as if it confirmed your view. If you read it, you will see that it confirms my view and proves that eternal conscious torment in hell is false. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. This is EXACTLY what I believe and what I have been saying. Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life. The others do not. Whoever rejects the Son shall not see life. They will not have eternal life. This is exactly what I have been saying. The wrath of God remains on them, they are destroyed by the wrath of God. They shall not see life, just as John 3:36 says.
You are in error that my view is contradictory to scripture.
Doulos Iesou
Member
I had a feeling there would be a post about this debate, so I came on just to check and was not disappointed.
I really appreciate Chessman's analysis in Post #26, though am sad to see there hasn't been as much discussion on the debate itself.
Since it doesn't seem that any ECTer watched the debate, I will play the devil's advocate for Chessman.
Dr. Mohler in appealing to tradition, was not saying, "this is what the Church has always believed and is therefore right," he clarified and stated that this raises the level of evidence necessary to change the overall position on the matter. That to claim that the majority if Christians and indeed theologians that have thought deeply on this subject is wrong, should require a vaster degree of proof. Therefore, when Dr. Mohler appealed to a traditional understanding, it wasn't in the way a Catholic does, but to say in effect that Chris' exegesis though admirable did not transcend the traditional interpretation of the text.
Dr. Mohler's insistence on the word "eternal," is based upon what he and others view as the straight-forward perspective on this word when used in reference to the final punishment. That when a person hears the word "eternal punishment," the automatic reaction would be to think of a person being perpetually punished forever in a conscious state.
In discussing the passage in 2 Thessalonians about eternal destruction, away from the presence of God, Dr. Mohler charged Chris of playing exegetical tricks with the language. That in disagreeing with the Greek scholars who translated the text, he again raised the bar for what would pass as a likely argument.
Dr. Mohler I think made his best argument in regards to Early Church Father's who believed in Conditionalism, that those quoted by Chris can merely be made to appear to support Conditionalism. That a robust and consistent presentation of Conditionalism cannot truly be found among the ECF's.
Chris Date referenced one Irenaeus quote about what seemed to denote the cessation of man's existence in the final punishment. Yet, other quotes from him can seem to denote a traditionalist view.
"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1).
"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming ... t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,' they will be damned forever" (Against Heresies, 4:28:2)
Other notes on the debate:
I was a bit disappointed in regards to the texts that they addressed, as I think Matthew 25:46 isn't the most interesting text to discuss on the matter. Revelations 20:10 came up in an email the next week, and this should have been discussed the same with Matthew 10:28, which was oddly quoted by Dr. Mohler who did not recognize the language of the text to be perhaps the strongest for Conditionalism.
I also think Chris Date overstated the popularity of Conditionalism throughout history, and reflected his own bias on the matter and Dr. Mohler had a fair assessment. That most laymen have not even heard of this doctrine, and that among scholarship and those more involved with apologetics and deeper theology (such as myself and others here) are more familiar with it and perhaps support it.
I really like Unbelievable the Podcast and recommend it to others, as Justin is THE BEST moderator and always keeps the discussions respectful and fair. This last week they had a debate on Mathematics and God with William Lane Craig and an Agnostic Philosophy Professor that was truly interesting.
I definitely think that Chris Date won, but I do think that they were talking past each other at various points and an objective viewing of the debate can be quite educational as to some of the key points of difference.
Note to the moderators:
I may from time to time post on this forum in particular, but will do so within the TOS as my access has not been revoked.
I really appreciate Chessman's analysis in Post #26, though am sad to see there hasn't been as much discussion on the debate itself.
Since it doesn't seem that any ECTer watched the debate, I will play the devil's advocate for Chessman.
Dr. Mohler in appealing to tradition, was not saying, "this is what the Church has always believed and is therefore right," he clarified and stated that this raises the level of evidence necessary to change the overall position on the matter. That to claim that the majority if Christians and indeed theologians that have thought deeply on this subject is wrong, should require a vaster degree of proof. Therefore, when Dr. Mohler appealed to a traditional understanding, it wasn't in the way a Catholic does, but to say in effect that Chris' exegesis though admirable did not transcend the traditional interpretation of the text.
Dr. Mohler's insistence on the word "eternal," is based upon what he and others view as the straight-forward perspective on this word when used in reference to the final punishment. That when a person hears the word "eternal punishment," the automatic reaction would be to think of a person being perpetually punished forever in a conscious state.
In discussing the passage in 2 Thessalonians about eternal destruction, away from the presence of God, Dr. Mohler charged Chris of playing exegetical tricks with the language. That in disagreeing with the Greek scholars who translated the text, he again raised the bar for what would pass as a likely argument.
Dr. Mohler I think made his best argument in regards to Early Church Father's who believed in Conditionalism, that those quoted by Chris can merely be made to appear to support Conditionalism. That a robust and consistent presentation of Conditionalism cannot truly be found among the ECF's.
Chris Date referenced one Irenaeus quote about what seemed to denote the cessation of man's existence in the final punishment. Yet, other quotes from him can seem to denote a traditionalist view.
"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and blasphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1).
"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming ... t is not merely temporal, but eternal. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,' they will be damned forever" (Against Heresies, 4:28:2)
Other notes on the debate:
I was a bit disappointed in regards to the texts that they addressed, as I think Matthew 25:46 isn't the most interesting text to discuss on the matter. Revelations 20:10 came up in an email the next week, and this should have been discussed the same with Matthew 10:28, which was oddly quoted by Dr. Mohler who did not recognize the language of the text to be perhaps the strongest for Conditionalism.
I also think Chris Date overstated the popularity of Conditionalism throughout history, and reflected his own bias on the matter and Dr. Mohler had a fair assessment. That most laymen have not even heard of this doctrine, and that among scholarship and those more involved with apologetics and deeper theology (such as myself and others here) are more familiar with it and perhaps support it.
I really like Unbelievable the Podcast and recommend it to others, as Justin is THE BEST moderator and always keeps the discussions respectful and fair. This last week they had a debate on Mathematics and God with William Lane Craig and an Agnostic Philosophy Professor that was truly interesting.
I definitely think that Chris Date won, but I do think that they were talking past each other at various points and an objective viewing of the debate can be quite educational as to some of the key points of difference.
Note to the moderators:
I may from time to time post on this forum in particular, but will do so within the TOS as my access has not been revoked.
Doulos Iesou
Member
Conditionalists are not a Monolithic movement, in that we do not all share the same opinions, and this in particular is an issue where there are differing perspectives.
Some look to the passage in Luke 16 and see that as an intermediate state of conscious punishment for the wicked, prior to their eventual destruction after the final judgment.
Others, look to the Old Testament and see that Sheol is a place of no activity, and no real consciousness, just a spiritual realm where all the dead would go prior to the Cross. Luke 16 would be an allegorical parable in this view. This also best reflects my perspective.
Some would then embrace Monism which denies the existence of a soul or Spirit, and thus denies any punishment in an intermediate state, and that Christian and unbeliever alike are not conscious until the final judgment when they are resurrected.
There might still be further nuances that others would like to cite, but this is a cursory perspective on some different views on the intermediate state.
Let me truy again to see if I can help you understand.
What is the problem of being destroyed, IF there will no consciousness afterward? Ceasing to exist removes any concept of punishment, not to mention eternal punishment, per Matt 25:46.
They deny any afterlife. In your view, for the unbeliever, there is NO afterlife. That is basically the same.
I never said your view was identical to the atheists. The problem is that in your view, unbeliever will have no afterlife, which is the view of atheists.
How can one be punished if they cease to exist?
No, it's really NOT. In order for God's wrath to "remain on him", one MUST be conscious and existing. If one ceases to exist, nothing can "remain on him". Why? Because he simply ain't there.
chessman
Member
I let that repeated ‘argument’ go until this ‘argument’ appeared yet again.
If your answer to your own question (which by the way isn’t the OP question) is the implied answer; Satan. Then for goodness sake, stop calling our view of what happens to the lost; “simply ceasing to exist”. We don’t say that, why should you?
That’s NOT our view! Stop, stop, stop already trying to convince us (or others) that it IS our view the lost simply cease to exist. How many times do you have to be told that it’s not our view for you to stop implying that it is?
Think about it. Does the fact that you guys keep making this argument (even though we’ve repeatedly told you it’s not our view) help your case or does it weaken your case? It weakens it, tremendously.
You couldn’t, not in a minute, or a million years or an eternity, convince me that there’s no weeping in Hell, just for one example. It’s just that simple.
The Destruction of the lost is NOT a lack of punishment. Agreed?
Guess what is in store for the lost? Here’s a list:
1. Weeping and Gnashing of unbeliever’s teeth (Matt 8:12, 13:42, 13:50, 22:13, 24:51, 25:30)
2. God’s wrath (Matt 3:7, Rev 14:10)
3. God’s fury (Heb 10:27)
4. God’s Anger (Rev 14:10)
5. God’s consuming fire (Matt 3:10-12, 7:19, 13:40, 17:15, 18:8, 25:41, Heb 10:27)
7. Eternal Punishment (Matt 25:46)
None of which even remotely sounds like “simply ceasing to exist”. To you guys or to us!
Oh, I almost forgot, #’s 8-10:
8. Destruction (2 Thess 1:9)
9. Perishing (John 3:16)
10. A Second Death (Rev 21:8, also see Matt 10:28)
TimothyW
Member
What is the problem with being destroyed, is that your question? I would think that would be self evident. The problem with being destroyed is that after you are destroyed, you have been destroyed. The great about NOT being destroyed is that you are not destroyed. I find it odd that a Christian who should be saying how good it is to have eternal life in Christ is instead saying that NOT having eternal life and being destroyed instead of receiving eternal life is not a problem at all.
Think about it, if you are destroyed do you get to have eternal life with Christ? No. That's a big problem.
Do you get to stop and smell the roses? No. That's a problem.
Do you get to do anything at all? No. That's a big problem.
Your statement that being destroyed is no problem at all is a non-starter. It doesn't prove that the ungodly are not destroyed, it doesn't refute the Bible which specifically says that the ungodly ARE destroyed and worst of all, it isn't even true. Being destroyed presents a HUGE problem for the person who has been destroyed. They have been destroyed! THAT'S a problem!
(regarding John 3:36, re-read it. It specifically says that whoever has the Son has eternal life and whoever rejects the Son does not have eternal life.)