Menu

Question For Those Who Believe In Eternal Conscious Punishment

O
Oracio

Throughout my Christian walk I've always held firmly that the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment is an essential Christian belief, as essential as belief in the Trinity, the Deity of Christ, the virgin birth, the resurrection, etc.

However, recently I've become aware that there are and were certain highly esteemed leaders who do not or did not believe in eternal punishment. Some names are John Stott, FF Bruce, and David Servant.

Recently I was looking into C.S. Lewis' writings and found certain things I thought were of serious concern, one of which is his disbelief in eternal conscious punishment. He also held to inclusivism regarding other religions. But discussing C.S. Lewis and inclusivism would be another thread I suppose.

So my question basically is, do you believe the doctrine of eternal conscious punishment is essential to the Christian faith just like other essentials of the faith? And why or why not?

Sincerely,
Oracio

Edit: Later on in this thread I explain that upon further examination it is not that clear to me if C.S. Lewis believed in annihalationism. This is the link to that portion of this thread:
https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?mode=viewtopic&topic_id=52175&forum=36&start=130&viewmode=flat&order=0

O
Oracio

And just to clarify, I'm not trying to get into a heated debate here on this topic. I'm asking that question because I've been struggling with it, as far as whether or not we should consider it an essential. So I was just curious to see what others here believe regarding it.

And if you believe it is or isn't essential but don't feel you have a detailed answer as to why you believe that, feel free to just state your belief without giving a detailed explanation. You can state something as simple as, "because I believe the Bible clearly teaches it", or, "because I don't believe it is that clear-cut in Scripture".

F
flameoffire

I do believe in Eternal Conscious Punishment, but "essential to the Christian faith" is a difficult label to parse. I definitely view Annihilationism as "within the pale" of Christianity and Evangelicalism. I suppose I would say "conscious punishment" is an essential, in other words they must believe in Hell. I wouldn't be a regular part of an Annihilationist organization or assembly without direct divine mandate.

I don't post here often, and am probably the odd man out.

(Lewis's inclusivism is something of a speculation from what I understand. What he wrote in Narnia SEEMS to teach inclusivism, but it is fiction.)

H
Heydave

Depends on what you mean by essential. Essential to salvation? No.
Essentials for savation would be things like Jesus is the only way to eternal life, Accepting I am a sinner, etc. But you can have your theology wrong on eternal punishment and still be saved.

Everthing that the bible teaches as truth is 'essential' for us to agree with, because to do otherwise would be rejecting God's word. So the question should be, is this clearly taught in the bible. If so it is essential we believe it. I think it is and therefore it is essential for me to accept it and not try and reason it away.

N
narrowpath

Jesus talked a lot about Hell.

Only a conscious act of wilful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that hell is not eternal.

If hell is not eternal, salvation is no longer of ultimate importance,
sin is not so serious anymore, God's love no longer boundless and his wrath no longer that dreadful, the cross and resurrection no longer the ultimate redemptive act towards man and the rest of creation, but a mere "highlight" in Jesus life.
Evangelisation and discipleship is no longer a great commission but a mere noble act.

As Jesus is the word of God, any attempted alteration to the word of God challenges in fact God's character.


F
flameoffire

"Only a conscious act of willful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that hell is not eternal."

This would be an important point. Annihilationists believe "eternal destruction" and "eternal punishment" means a punishment that results in a destruction that can never be undone and lasts forever. One must make a judgment as to whether this interpretation is possible without "a conscious act of willful ignorance" or rebellion.

F
flameoffire

A couple more interesting points:

Annihilationists take the words "destruction" and "perish" literally. We believe they are used figuratively to describe eternal punishment, whereas Annihilationists believe Jesus was using the literal denotation of the word.

Annihilationists believe God is immortal and that no being can be immortal apart from Him. Union with God is, in fact, what gives us immortality and separation from God means losing one's immortality. Therefore someone who is not in union with God cannot exist forever.


It is vital to understand a belief and its interpretation of Scripture before denouncing it as heretical or unchristian.

Eternal relationship with God, who is love, is certainly an inconceivably awesome motivation for the cross, evangelism and discipleship. It would be evil to keep that from someone whether punishment was eternal or not.

A
ADisciple

Narrowpath said: "Only a conscious act of wilful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that hell is not eternal."

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev. 20:14).

F
flameoffire

Excellent point, ADisciple.

S
Sidewalk

No man in his right mind puts 3 rounds into a six-shot revolver, spins it, and pulls the trigger pointing at his head.

Those who carefully parse scripture looking for reasons to declare that eternal punishment is really only temporary or non-existant have joined forces with a long line of men whose first love is their title of Pharisee.

Perhaps our limited understanding of the justice and ways of God have failed to see some simple truth that disarms the threat of eternal... how was that, "eternal conscious punishment?"

But at best you have only a 50% chance. It seems to me men angry at God for a thousand reasons always miss the simplest truth that God is bending over backwards to save them from a destination He knows they will not like, from which there is no escape.

Whatever Hell is, people put themselves there, and will undoubtably know too late that they have made a terrible decision. Their knees will bow to One Whose love they spurned and mocked. It will be to no avail.

T
TMK

Hi Oracio---

You know where I stand on this issue as I seem to be the lone dissenter on this topic.

It is my sincere belief that the scriptural support of hell being a place of eternal punishment is actually WEAKER than the case for annihilation or universal reconciliation. The reason it SEEMS in evangelical circles that there is such strong support for eternal torment is because of presuppositions imported into the various texts and the fact that we have been conditioned as this being the only viable alternative.

There is a new book out by Steve Gregg titled Everything You Wanted to Know about Hell that lays out the biblical case for each of the 3 primary views and the strengths and weaknesses of each. He reaches no conclusion in the book. He actually didnt like that title but the publisher chose it. He wrote a similar book a few years back called Revelation: 4 Views.

I have previously indicated that hell MIGHT be a place of eternal conscious torment. But I am far less convinced of this than I used to be.

S
sermonindex

I think what is most essential is the understanding of the extreme horror of being forsaken by God.

O
Oracio

Thanks for the replies everyone.

Heydave wrote:

Depends on what you mean by essential. Essential to salvation? No.
Essentials for savation would be things like Jesus is the only way to eternal life, Accepting I am a sinner, etc. But you can have your theology wrong on eternal punishment and still be saved.

Everthing that the bible teaches as truth is 'essential' for us to agree with, because to do otherwise would be rejecting God's word. So the question should be, is this clearly taught in the bible. If so it is essential we believe it. I think it is and therefore it is essential for me to accept it and not try and reason it away.

Good points. I guess what I meant was two-fold. First, I was asking if it is essential to salvation once someone sees it taught clearly in Scripture. For example, let's say someone says they just recently became born again. And let's say they believe Jesus is the Son of God but they don't realize yet that He is also God in the flesh. But eventually they will see it clearly in the Bible. For them to deny it once they see it, their salvation would be in question, right?

Secondly, I was asking if it is essential to fellowship or ministry together. For example, we know that we cannot fellowship with JWs or Mormons because they deny certain key doctrines we deem to be essential to fellowship or ministry together.

G
ginnyrose

Yes, I believe hell is eternal, not that is what I want to believe but because I understand the WORD to teach it. I think if we understand it to be eternal - where the worm dieth not and the fire is not quenched - we can perhaps understand a tad bit why Jesus was willing to suffer so terribly in order to save people from that awful place.

I have come to the conclusion that people who choose to go there have earned that reward. People choose to disobey God, they choose to rebel, so if folks do that - spitting at God in his face - why should he not let them have hell?

I have also concluded God works hard to convict folks, to save them from hell and if they spurn it, they deserve what they get. Hard saying when it involves your loved ones, I know.

Perhaps it may be easier to understand hell if we look at wickedness and holiness from God's perspective - doing so will cause us to understand the justice of God, I think.

My understanding.

EDITED

S
Sidewalk

Hell is the best a loving God can do for those who do not want Him.

S
savannah


Such comments must be addressed from the bottom up!

Reason being,simply stated,"My[Ginnyrose]understanding" can only be arrived at, and one can only come to such conclusions,not by the wisdom which is from above,but from that which is beneath.

I say so,so sternly,due to the diabolical nature of what is clearly being implied. Such could not be much more antithetical to God's Gospel of Grace,in so few words.

The poster states, "Perhaps it may be easier to understand hell if we look at wickedness and holiness from God's perspective - doing so will cause us to understand the justice of God, I think."

Think upon these things:

Romans 3:9-28 What, then? are we better? not at all! for we did before charge both Jews and Greeks with being all under sin, according as it hath been written--`There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who is understanding, there is none who is seeking after God. All did go out of the way, together they became unprofitable, there is none doing good, there is not even one.
"THEIR THROATS RESEMBLE AN OPENED GRAVE; WITH THEIR TONGUES THEY HAVE BEEN TALKING DECEITFULLY." "THE VENOM OF VIPERS LIES HIDDEN BEHIND THEIR LIPS."
"THEIR MOUTHS ARE FULL OF CURSING AND BITTERNESS."
"THEIR FEET MOVE SWIFTLY TO SHED BLOOD.
RUIN AND MISERY MARK THEIR PATH;
AND THE WAY TO PEACE THEY HAVE NOT KNOWN."
"THERE IS NO FEAR OF GOD BEFORE THEIR EYES."
But it cannot be denied that all that the Law says is addressed to those who are living under the Law, in order that every mouth may be stopped, and that the whole world may await sentence from God. For on the ground of obedience to Law no man living will be declared righteous before Him. Law simply brings a sure knowledge of sin.

And now apart from law hath the righteousness of God been manifested, testified to by the law and the prophets,
and the righteousness of God is through the faith of Jesus Christ to all, and upon all those believing, --for there is no difference, for all did sin, and are come short of the glory of God being declared righteous freely by His grace through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus,
whom God did set forth a mercy seat, through the faith in his blood, for the shewing forth of His righteousness, because of the passing over of the bygone sins in the forbearance of God for the shewing forth of His righteousness in the present time, for His being righteous, and declaring him righteous who is of the faith of Jesus.

Where then is the boasting? it was excluded; by what law? of works? no, but by a law of faith: therefore do we reckon a man to be declared righteous by faith, apart from works of law.

Meditate on His Word which is His Wisdom from above...God's perspective is revealed to us by His Word and Spirit!

The poster says,"I have also concluded God works hard to convict folks, to save them from hell and if they spurn it, they deserve what they get. Hard saying when it involves your loved ones, I know."

Jeremiah 32:26,27 Then came the word of the LORD to Jeremiah, saying, Behold, I am the LORD, the God of all flesh: is there any thing too hard for me?

Ah Lord GOD! behold, thou hast made the heaven and the earth by thy great power and out-stretched arm, and there is nothing too hard for thee. Jeremiah 32:17

And do not think to say within yourselves, We have a father, Abraham. For I say to you that God is able to raise up children to Abraham from these stones. Matthew 3:9

Titus 3:3-7 For we ourselves also were sometimes foolish, disobedient, deceived, serving divers lusts and pleasures, living in malice and envy, hateful, and hating one another. But when the kindness and love of God our Savior towards man appeared, Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Spirit; Which he shed on us abundantly, through Jesus Christ our Savior; That being justified by his grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life.

YOU & I deserve Hell...

But God, who is rich in mercy, for his great love with which he loved us, Even when we were dead in sins, hath made us alive together with Christ, (by grace ye are saved;) And hath raised us up together, and made us sit together in heavenly places, in Christ Jesus: That in the ages to come he might show the exceeding riches of his grace in his kindness towards us, through Christ Jesus.
For by grace are ye saved, through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not by works, lest any man should boast.Ephesians 2:4-9

Be not such an one...

Which say, Stand by thyself, come not near to me; for I am holier than thou. These are a smoke in my nose, a fire that burneth all the day. Isaiah 65:5

"Hypocrites disdainfully and fiercely repel faithful advisers, because they either make false claims to holiness, or, on account of pride, do not suffer themselves to be reproved; for hypocrisy is never free from supercilious disdain and haughtiness. Let us not wonder, therefore, that those who are infected by this vice swell with insolent pretensions, and boast of their virtue and holiness, and value themselves more highly than all others; for Satan has blinded them to make an idle and ostentatious boast of what they call their devotions, and to despise the word of God."

The poster says,"I have come to the conclusion that people who choose to go there have earned that reward. People choose to disobey God, they choose to rebel, so if folks do that - spitting at God in his face - why should he not let them have hell?

When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished: and he bowed his head, and expired. John 19:30

Tetelestai - It is finished
to end, that is, complete, execute, conclude, discharge (a debt): - accomplish, make an end, expire, fill up, finish, go over, pay, perform.

It is finished, that is, the work of man's redemption and salvation is now completed, at least the hardest part of the undertaking is over; a full satisfaction is made to the justice of God, a fatal blow given to the power of Satan, a fountain of grace opened that shall ever flow, a foundation of peace and happiness laid that shall never fail. Christ had now gone through with his work, and finished it, John 17:4. For, as for God, his work is perfect; when I begin, saith he, I will also make an end. And, as in the purchase, so in the application of the redemption, he that has begun a good work will perform it; the mystery of God shall be finished. Matthew Henry

What reward have YOU earned?
Why should He not let You have Hell?

T
TMK

Hi Savannah-

The construct of your post makes it difficult, at least for me, to determine what point you are trying to make.

It would be helpful, at least to me, if you would simply state what you are trying to say plainly. Based on what you posted, I can't tell if I agree of disagree.

D
dolfan

When we read 2 Thess. 1:9, if someone can definitively explain when "everlasting" ends, I will consider whether the Bible teaches annihilation. But, taking the plain text speaking for itself, I am going to stay with everlasting means everlasting.

Rev. 14:10-11 speaks of humans, not only Satan and fallen angels, as being tormented forever.

Matthew 25:46 speaks of eternal punishment, not temporary or somewhere-ending punishment.

Many other references leave no room to entertain any other understanding, and I truly do not see any other way. If people who find annihilation in the Bible are convinced, I agree to disagree and pray that your eyes and mine are enlightened to the truth. It matters.

If I am a sinner who believes along the way that sin is serious and that God has to judge sin righteously, I am probably going to assign to him somewhere along the way an attribute of "let it slide" if I accept annihilationism. I am probably going to calculate in favor of continuing in my sin. After all, if Hell is annihilation, I can safely say "to hell with it". The only thing for me to fear is the temporary judgment of God. I just don't see that in Scripture. I do see, though, where superimposing over the clear text a gloss of God's love outweighing eternal punishment and torment in spite of the text can give a person a false sense of hope in just being made non-existent.

It also invites the inevitable comparison of Christianity to Hinduism and its journey to nothingness as the GOAL. If I am skeptical of Christianity and a defender explains God's judgment of my unrepentant wickedness as annihilation, I am going to start quickly wondering if the gospel is just a power play and if the Hindus are really onto something since Christianity's selling point is to leverage Hinduism's reward as a punishment. If I can do whatever pleases me and then just go, eventually, into nothingness I will probably politely shake my head at the Cross and say "no, thanks."

So, yes, it matters. Is it an essential? In my view, yes.

M
MaryJane

Greetings

I do believe the WORD clearly teaches that hell is eternal.
I have no doubts in my heart or mind that this is what JESUS taught and so as with all things HE said and taught I believe it is important.

A quote from another thread: A wise man once said, "The sign on the doorpost of Hell reads this way: ‘Those who enter this door leave all hope behind.’” There is no hope once we enter those gates. Hebrews 10:31 says, not without reason, that it is a fearful thing to fall into the hands of the living God, a terrible and hideous thing to fall into His hands. There isn’t any nightmare you could have that would come close to the terror of living in Hell for one minute, let alone eternity.


God bless
maryjane

L
Lordoitagain


by narrowpath on 2014/4/21 17:24:33

Jesus talked a lot about Hell.

Only a conscious act of wilful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that hell is not eternal.

If hell is not eternal, salvation is no longer of ultimate importance,
sin is not so serious anymore, God's love no longer boundless and his wrath no longer that dreadful, the cross and resurrection no longer the ultimate redemptive act towards man and the rest of creation, but a mere "highlight" in Jesus life.
Evangelisation and discipleship is no longer a great commission but a mere noble act.

As Jesus is the word of God, any attempted alteration to the word of God challenges in fact God's character.

THANKS for posting this very well-worded reality, Narrowpath.

For the sake of this discussion, for every place where Narrowpath uses the word "hell", you could insert the words "Eternal Conscious Punishment" or "Conscious Punishment" and it would still be everlastingly true!

***************************************
Jesus talked a lot about Eternal Conscious Punishment.

Only a conscious act of wilful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that Conscious Punishment is not eternal.

If Conscious Punishment is not eternal, salvation is no longer of ultimate importance,
sin is not so serious anymore, God's love no longer boundless and his wrath no longer that dreadful, the cross and resurrection no longer the ultimate redemptive act towards man and the rest of creation, but a mere "highlight" in Jesus life.
Evangelisation and discipleship is no longer a great commission but a mere noble act.

As Jesus is the word of God, any attempted alteration to the word of God challenges in fact God's character.
******************************************

Really ... what is the point of all of our sermons, discussions and efforts if we are going to reject this clearly taught concept in God's Word?

"is essential to the Christian faith just like other essentials of the faith?"

It depends on what your definition of "the Christian faith" is. Within the definition of "the Christian faith" there are now homosexual churches, nude churches, and a host of other variations of what is accepted as "the Christian faith"

Mat 24:3 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?
Mat 24:4 And Jesus answered and said unto them, Take heed that no man deceive you.
Mat 24:5 For many shall come in my name, saying, I am Christ; and shall deceive many.

These last day deceivers will be saying that Jesus is the Christ ... yet be altering The Word of God (Jesus).

L
Lordoitagain

by ADisciple on 2014/4/21 18:12:05

Narrowpath said: "Only a conscious act of wilful ignorance towards scripture can lead to the view that hell is not eternal."

"And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death" (Rev. 20:14).

A puddle of eternal torment is cast into a lake of eternal torment where there is more room for more torment.

This in no way hints of and end of the place of eternal torment called hell ... just a relocation.

Where the first death put sinners in hell (Luke 16), the second death transfers all of hell to the lake of fire.

1Co 15:32 If after the manner of men I have fought with beasts at Ephesus, what advantageth it me, if the dead rise not? let us eat and drink; for to morrow we die.

T
TMK

Quote: "When we read 2 Thess. 1:9, if someone can definitively explain when "everlasting" ends, I will consider whether the Bible teaches annihilation. But, taking the plain text speaking for itself, I am going to stay with everlasting means everlasting."

Yes-- but what does everlasting DESTRUCTION mean? That is what the verse says.

If a person is annihilated(destroyed) it will last forever. There's no coming back.

Some of you are arguing that presenting anything other than eternal torture to unbelievers makes it less likely they will repent. My response is that if they are repenting out of mere self-interest then the repentance never took place. The basis of repentance is that the supreme ruler of the universe(Jesus) commands it. It is for HIS sake that man must repent, not their own. Avoiding punishment is only a secondary benefit.

By the way, the other two views both include torment and punishment. The only issue is whether it lasts forever and ever. After all, a million years of torture would be no picnic.

T
TMK

Quote: "This in no way hints of and end of the place of eternal torment called hell ... just a relocation.

Where the first death put sinners in hell (Luke 16), the second death transfers all of hell to the lake of fire."

Talk about jumping out of the frying pan and into the fire....

I guess hell isn't eternal enough. It has to be tossed into the LOF to make it super hot and super eternal.

All of this seems to be such a moot point to me because believers are not going into any hell of any kind. And we shouldn't be evangelizing using scare tactics because any "conversion" using this tactic is going to be false or very suspect at minimum.

H
havok20x

Oracio,

"we know that we cannot fellowship with JWs or Mormons because they deny certain key doctrines we deem to be essential to fellowship or ministry together."

We cannot fellowship with them because they are unbelievers and cults. There is no regeneration, no quickened spirit, and especially no belief in Jesus Christ and His Gospel.

When we are talking about fellowship with one another, we are talking about people who are born again, in whom the Spirit of the living God resides. The only time we break fellowship with a believer is because of unrepentant sin in their lives and only after much edification and correction.

Matthew 18 shows how this is to be done.

I do not believe it can be done via internet forum, but in the local church.

Now, does questionable doctrine count as unrepentant sin? I really think only if it causes sin. Denying the deity of Jesus Christ will result in all kinds of immorality and the preaching of some foreign, unsaving "gospel." The denial of justification by faith will breed works-based righteousness and utterly destroy the effectiveness of the atoning work of Jesus Christ. However, saying that heaven doesn't really have streets made of gold, but that it is just symbolic of the glory of the place would not cause any sort of sin.

A denial of an eternal conscious hell, depending on whether or not you take it as far as Rob Bell did, will breed a de facto denial of the necessity of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice, which in turn breeds all manner of "allowable" sins, turning the grace of God into an excuse for all kinds of immorality. Then, the only motivation for acting righteously will be nothing more than that which the culture has established. BAM. No you have liberal-emergent theology which turns into liberal-emergent living.

L
Lordoitagain

by TMK on 2014/4/22 11:10:40

Quote: "When we read 2 Thess. 1:9, if someone can definitively explain when "everlasting" ends, I will consider whether the Bible teaches annihilation. But, taking the plain text speaking for itself, I am going to stay with everlasting means everlasting."

Yes-- but what does everlasting DESTRUCTION mean? That is what the verse says.

All you have to do is look up the definition:

G3639
ὄλεθρος
olethros
ol'-eth-ros
From ὄλλυμι ollumi a primary word (to destroy; a prolonged form); ruin, that is, death, punishment: - destruction.

2Ts 1:9 WhoG3748 shall be punishedG5099 G1349 with everlastingG166 destructionG3639 fromG575 the presenceG4383 of theG3588 Lord,G2962 andG2532 fromG575 theG3588 gloryG1391 of hisG846 power;G2479


What would "a prolonged form" mean?

And that coupled with the word everlasting:

G166
αἰώνιος
aiōnios
ahee-o'-nee-os
From G165; perpetual (also used of past time, or past and future as well): - eternal, for ever, everlasting, world (began).


EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION = PERPETUAL RUIN

Regardless of your personal doubts of the motives in conversions of people who were given the truth regarding eternal punishment when evangelized, the FRUIT of such conversions by the thousands and millions throughout Christian history knocks your petty argument down to insanity.

T
TMK

Quote: "A denial of an eternal conscious hell, depending on whether or not you take it as far as Rob Bell did, will breed a de facto denial of the necessity of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice..."

But neither proponents of conditional immortality(annihilation) nor universal reconciliation denies the necessity of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice.

Your statement is a straw man that has been used over and over again in this forum. The ONLY WAY to the Father is through Jesus Christ.

Of course there may be ultra liberal types like Unitarians that say there's no hell and everybody's going straight to heaven but that is not what we are talking about here-- at least that is not what I am talking about.

O
Oracio

By havok20x

A denial of an eternal conscious hell, depending on whether or not you take it as far as Rob Bell did, will breed a de facto denial of the necessity of Jesus Christ and His sacrifice, which in turn breeds all manner of "allowable" sins, turning the grace of God into an excuse for all kinds of immorality. Then, the only motivation for acting righteously will be nothing more than that which the culture has established. BAM. No you have liberal-emergent theology which turns into liberal-emergent living.

I think you hit on something very important regarding Christ’s sacrifice and the holiness of God. Others who have posted have also made really good points on the danger of devaluing the sacrifice of Christ. This thing of devaluing the holiness of God could also be a serious danger. It would seem to me that if we believe in anything less than an eternal conscious punishment for unrepentant sinners, we may make God out to be less holy, less concerned with sin than He actually is. We may end up believing in a different god and different Jesus altogether, one we are more comfortable with, one we can snuggle up and cuddle with.

If hell torments were to last a million years, would Christ have to go through all He went through, from leaving His glorious throne and becoming a man to the horrific agony of gethsemane, and finally hanging on the cross and experiencing the ultimate wrath and curse of God for our sins?

T
TMK

Quote: "EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION = PERPETUAL RUIN"

Indeed. If anything is perpetual ruin, annihilation is. And "ainios" does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that.

L
Lordoitagain

by TMK on 2014/4/22 12:34:36

Quote: "EVERLASTING DESTRUCTION = PERPETUAL RUIN"

Indeed. If anything is perpetual ruin, annihilation is. And "ainios" does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that.

TMK, do you lift yourself and your scholarly knowledge of the definitions of terms above all of the translators of the Bible?

You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?

In the KJV, this is how the term αἰώνιος
aiōnios was translated:

G166
αἰώνιος
aiōnios
Total KJV Occurrences: 71
eternal, 42
Mat_19:16, Mat_25:46, Mar_3:29, Mar_10:17, Mar_10:30, Luk_10:25, Luk_18:18, Joh_3:15, Joh_4:36, Joh_5:39, Joh_6:54, Joh_6:68, Joh_10:28, Joh_12:25, Joh_17:2-3 (2), Act_13:48, Rom_2:7, Rom_5:21, Rom_6:23, 2Co_4:17-18 (2), 2Co_5:1, 1Ti_6:12, 1Ti_6:19, 2Ti_2:10, Tit_1:2, Tit_3:7, Heb_5:9, Heb_6:2, Heb_9:12, Heb_9:14-15 (2), 1Pe_5:10, 1Jo_1:2, 1Jo_2:25, 1Jo_3:15, 1Jo_5:11, 1Jo_5:13, 1Jo_5:20, Jud_1:7, Jud_1:21
everlasting, 25
Mat_18:8, Mat_19:29, Mat_25:41, Mat_25:46, Luk_16:9, Luk_18:30, Joh_3:16, Joh_3:36, Joh_4:14, Joh_5:24, Joh_6:27, Joh_6:40, Joh_6:47, Joh_12:50, Act_13:46, Rom_6:22, Rom_16:26, Gal_6:8, 2Th_1:9, 2Th_2:16, 1Ti_6:16 (2), Heb_13:20, 2Pe_1:11, Rev_14:6
world, 3
Rom_16:25, 2Ti_1:9, Tit_1:2
ever, 1
Phm_1:15

I don't know if such word studies have been done on other translations, but this evidence from the KJV is quite convincing for the definition of the term aiōnios.

Annihilation may be perpetual ruin, but eternal torment is also perpetual ruin.

Annihilation is not found in the scriptures. Eternal torment is:

Rev 14:11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

D
dolfan

TMK, I understand. And please know I mean no animus.

Frankly I am a bit surprised that this is even an issue. But, I am not that smart, so finding out that something is an issue with folks is par for the course.

I can see your point except passages like Matthew 25:41 speak of everlasting fire, v. 46 says everlasting punishment. Whatever destruction is, it is hot and everlasting and unending loss.

It cannot be annihilation, the turning of someone into nothing. If it is, the evidence for it will have to be brought from outside the text of Scripture.

The idea of a one time destruction that turns someone into nothing yet is a continuing destruction is linguistically absurd. Not saying YOU, my brother, are absurd. I am only saying that if there is nothing more to destroy, once the destruction into nothingness has occurred, destruction itself must cease. If it ceases, it is hardly everlasting. If it doesn't cease, it is a portrait of the holy judge pouring punishment on a nullity. That just fails in every aspect to withstand the scriptures. Annihilation is not scripturally possible if we take the text as presented.

Now, I see where another suggests that punishment could be for a million years. This is misleading. First, it suffers from the very problem annihilation suffers--lack of biblical support. Second, it is simply an invented substitute from the thin blue sky and purely conjectural. Third, it actually substitutes a question (how long will punishment last?) where the bible declares the truth (everlasting, eternal punishment, destruction in and of fire). That is subtlety of the very kind that false teachers have used and even the Adversary employed ("has God really said not to eat of this tree?"). Again, I do NOT mean to accuse anyone of false teaching here, but I do want to identify this tactic as being one where endless questions are engendered where truth has been clearly spoken in the Word. The tactic itself is the danger, if not the teaching. Antennas should go straight up when this kind of reasoning is engaged. If annihilation IS true, we need not resort to this method of reasoning to establish it. It ought to be clear enough in the text itself.

H
havok20x

"Your statement is a straw man that has been used over and over again in this forum. The ONLY WAY to the Father is through Jesus Christ."

TMK,

Doctrine is not just some creed we say. True Doctrine, as described by the Bible, is to be passionately and vigorously applied to our lives. That's why Paul exhorted Timothy to be careful about doctrine. We, in the power of the Holy Spirit, must allow the truth to take us to its truest end--the glory of God. Anything else regarding doctrine is just knowledge that puffs up.

Also, I don't come in here with all sorts of hebrew and greek words and select a single synonymn that seems to agree with what I already think, etc, etc, etc. Many correct doctrines have been obtained that way, but also many destructive doctrines have as well. We need 2 things to understand doctrine as described in the scriptures: The Holy Spirit (by Whom we are regenerated) and the Scriptures themselves.

If I have to go all of the internet and read 10,000 books and listen to men who claim to know the "secrets" to the original biblical languages in order to extrapolate all manner of excuses for the twisting or out and out rejection of what the Scriptures plainly say, then I am deceived. I dont' care what doctrine you come up with. I don't care if you arrive at justification by faith through that method--you have circumvented both things we need to discern what the scriptures mean--the Holy Spirit and the plain reading of scripture.

Those poor brothers in North Korea or the Maldives or other places (most of whom dont' have the resources that we have) will just not be able to be as enlightened as us--a people who can go grab a lexicon and make the Bible say whatever we already think.

I am not against studing the Bible and using those resources. I am against the rejection of the plain reading of scripture and replacing it with those methods. That is why I am so careful with commentaries. I read them, but if they are not advocating a plain understanding of the Scriptures, I will not heed, even if what they say seems right to me. I especially am leery of phrases akin to, "What Paul really meant was..." or "The actual greek/hebrew word really means..." or "In that particular culture...", etc. Anything that makes me look outside the scriptures to come up with doctrine is faulty, even if the doctrine is correct.

That is all I will say about this subject.

T
TMK

Dolfan--

I appreciate your post and tone.

If someone is annihilated, is not that annihilation everlasting?

The contrast is clear-- be in the Lords presence forever or be wiped out forever. Personally I would choose the former.

When I said a million years I was not saying that the Bible says this. Proponents of universal reconciliation believe that punishment in hell is finite depending on what each person merits until they repent. Some people are more stubborn than others.

My biggest problem with eternal torment is that I just don't see how Jesus wins in that scenario. Scripture says he made a spectacle of satan at the cross. How can this be true if satan wins practically all of the human souls ever created?

Now I realize this is something of a "gut" argument but not entirely because the overriding theme of scripture is that Jesus wins and all things are reconciled in Him.

O
Oracio

Jesus said, "And do not fear those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. But rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell.”-Matt.10:28(NKJV)

Thought I’d share some of Matthew Henry’s comments on that verse here:

"Note, First, Hell is the destruction both of soul and body; not of the being of either, but the well””being of both; it is the ruin of the whole man; if the soul be lost, the body is lost too. They sinned together; the body was the soul's tempter to sin, and its tool in sin, and they must eternally suffer together. Secondly, This destruction comes from the power of God: he is able to destroy; it is a destruction from his glorious power (2 Th. 1:9); he will in it make his power known; not only his authority to sentence, but his ability to execute the sentence, Rom. 9:22. Thirdly, God is therefore to be feared, even by the best saints in this world. Knowing the terrors of the Lord, we persuade men to stand in awe of him. If according to his fear so is his wrath, then according to his wrath so should his fear be, especially because none knows the power of his anger, Ps. 90:11. When Adam, in innocency, was awed by a threatening, let none of Christ's disciples think that they need not the restraint of a holy fear. Happy is the man that fears always. The God of Abraham, who was then dead, is called the Fear of Isaac, who was yet alive, Gen. 31:42, 53. Fourthly, The fear of God, and of his power reigning in the soul, will be a sovereign antidote against the fear of man. It is better to fall under the frowns of all the world, than under God's frowns, and therefore, as it is most right in itself, so it is most safe for us, to obey God rather than men, Acts 4:19.”

Would temporary torment followed by annihilation or final reconciliation be a real cause for the fear of God? Let’s say an unconverted person were to be approached by someone on the streets, and that someone warned them about God’s judgment after death(as we see examples of such warnings all through the Bible). And let’s say that the unconverted person was told that hell is temporary and that it’s followed by annihilation or final reconciliation. Do we really think that such kind of warning would merit any kind of real fear of God’s judgment? Couldn't the unbeliever’s logical response be, "Well, I guess it’s not really that serious. I could do as I please because in the end I will only suffer for a certain period of time and then cease to exist(sort of like sleeping), or finally be reconciled to God. No real danger after all.”

If Universal Reconciliation were true, wouldn't that mean that the sinner would at least be partially paying for his/her sins in a temporary hell and that Christ would be paying for the rest of the penalty? I hope we can see how blasphemous such an idea is. Jesus paid it all, all to Him I owe. If we say it is only a corrective temporal judgment I think we are hard-pressed to prove it from Scripture, since Judgment Day is not taught as a corrective Judgment but a final one. Universal Reconciliation is probably even more an affront to the cross than Annihilationism.

T
TMK

Quote: "You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?"

I have no idea why they mistranslated this word (actually I do have some idea).

"Aion" means "age" (like the English word eon) and "ios" means "pertaining to". It doesn't have to mean forever nor does it have to mean temporary. If they had just translated the word as "age-lasting" it would have been a truer translation.

T
TMK

Quote: "You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?"

I have no idea why they mistranslated this word (actually I do have some idea).

"Aion" means "age" (like the English word eon) and "ios" means "pertaining to". It doesn't have to mean forever nor does it have to mean temporary. If they had just translated the word as "age-lasting" it would have been a truer translation.

L
Lordoitagain



by TMK on 2014/4/22 14:41:48

Quote: "You say "does not have to mean eternal or everlasting although it can mean that." Why would it get translated that way 67 of the 71 times that it was translated in the KJV?"

I have no idea why they mistranslated this word (actually I do have some idea).

"Aion" means "age" (like the English word eon) and "ios" means "pertaining to". It doesn't have to mean forever nor does it have to mean temporary. If they had just translated the word as "age-lasting" it would have been a truer translation.

You've answered my question clearly: "TMK, do you lift yourself and your scholarly knowledge of the definitions of terms above all of the translators of the Bible?"

You can read at this site about the 15 men who worked on the translation of the New Testament: http://www.jesus-is-savior.com/Bible/The%20King%20James%20Bible/Translators/translators.htm

400 years ago, their scholarly studies were much closer to the era of NT Greek than yours.

TMK, have you even learned another language? Better yet, do you have a degree in Biblical Greek?

Or, are you trying to live out Proverbs 26:16 "The sluggard is wiser in his own conceit than seven men that can render a reason."?

I doubt seriously that your study works have come close to the many studious labors of even one of those 15 scholars much less the combined efforts of all of them who translated the same way 67 times.

I hope that no one on this forum would be swayed by such blatantly arrogant redefinitions - or rather clear rejections of obvious definitions. As a bilingual translator, knowing what goes into the labor of translating, I find your arrogance quite ridiculous.

D
dolfan

TMK,

I also see that aeon/aion/eon is the original for everlasting in 2 Th. 1:9, 10. If this means a definite time period, then everlasting reward is also limited in time and is not eternal. Whenever aion is used with regard to afterlife consequences of reward, the use is always and only eternal of duration. The most succinct statement where this occurs, or maybe the most succinct, is Matt. 25:41-46.

What textual evidence suggests that aion in v. 46 means periodic duration and not everlasting duration as to life? If there is no such evidence as to v. 46, where is the evidence that in v. 41it means periodic duration and not everlasting duration as to fire/punishment?

Or, is there simply no evidence in Mt. 25:41-46 that aion means less than everlasting duration? If that evidence of an alternate meaning from everlasting is missing from this passage, where do we affirmatively find that evidence in the other passages on this topic that use aion?

I submit that aion means everlasting in duration as to both life and as to punishment throughout all its appearances on this topic.

O
Oracio

by TMK,

Proponents of universal reconciliation believe that punishment in hell is finite depending on what each person merits until they repent. Some people are more stubborn than others.

So again, the person in this case pays a temporal penalty in hell? And after they pay that penalty themselves(rather than Christ paying the sin-debt in full on the cross) they are welcomed into heaven? Isn't that an affront to the ultimate sacrifice of our Lord?

F
flameoffire

It is easy to demonize something that you do not understand. I am not convinced that those posting here have honestly looked at the annihilationist interpretation of Scripture. TMK is not necessarily presenting it well or thoroughly. I could attempt to play devil's advocate in order to explain annihilationism, but I am not interested in doing so in such a vitriolic environment. Oracio opened up the topic with an honest question and there are better places to research this topic and read the debates.

Some of what has been posted here seems arrogant. There does not seem to be any attempt to understand what Scriptural support there may be for other positions or investigation of what the Bible says. There seems to be an eagerness to judge the motivation behind these views rather than ascertaining the Scriptural integrity of the views themselves.

Perhaps if an articulate and knowledgeable annihilationist were to enter the discussion this thread may become informative; however, because of the tone I doubt one would be encouraged to do so.

I disagree with annihilationism; however, it is wrong to judge all who hold this view as idolaters, etc.

Reading what John Stott (whose sermons are hosted on this site) wrote on the subject may be illuminating.

D
dolfan

TMK,

NOT trying to pile drive in you. But, I did want to address your fair question.

You asked me

If someone is annihilated, is not that annihilation everlasting?

Well, no. Nothing does not endure. Nothing is .... nothing. It is a non-state. It does not last or not last. To propose that annihilation is everlasting does not admit of true nothingness. It is a linguistic trick, unintentional perhaps, but one that lets us say one thing (nothingness) while truly being the opposite (somethingness). If it is something, then it is not annihilated.

F
flameoffire

From J.I. Packer:

All who settle for warning people to avoid hell can walk in fellowship in their ministry, and legitimately claim to be evangelicals. When John Stott urges that "the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment,” he asks too much, for the biblical foundations of this view prove on inspection, as we have seen, to be inadequate. But it would be wrong for differences of opinion on this matter to lead to breaches of fellowship, though it would be a very happy thing for the Christian world if the differences could be resolved.

T
twayneb

I realize that the doctrine of everlasting punishment is one which many hold very close as has been evidenced by some of the very strong statements that have been made. But it is by no means a universal doctrine held by all Christians. Many of the early pentecostals believed in destruction of the wicked rather than eternal punishment. Parham and the Apostolic Faith movement (not the oneness group, but the trinitarians) taught destruction of the wicked as strongly as others teach everlasting punishment.

The statements that destruction of the wicked (or annihilation) somehow cheapens the sacrifice of Christ is, to me, an argument that is only important depending on the opinion of the person holding the opinion. That is, we have no scriptural support for the idea that this doctrine devalues what Christ has done. The idea that this doctrine somehow leads to licentiousness or causes men to reject Christ does not speak to the question of whether the doctrine is Biblical or not. If the only thing that is keeping you from sinning is the fear of eternal torment, I believe I could call into question your relationship with the Lord.

The real issue is what the scriptures say, and I find just as much scriptural support for destruction of the wicked as I do for eternal torment, and these verses have, in my opinion, just a much strength.

TMK said that 2 Thess. 1:9 did not necessarily speak to everlasting punishment, but could just as easily speak to destruction of the wicked. I have to agree, not because of the translation of the term everlasting, but because of the translation of the term destruction. We might also consider the scripture found in Matt. 10:28. We are told not to fear him who can kill only the body, but to fear Him who is able to destroy both the body and soul in hell. As well, we might look at the term perish in John 3:15. This term is most often used of destruction or death. So the contrast Jesus makes is the contrast between having everlasting life, or being destroyed (perishing).

There are other verses, all of which have similar arguments that can be used to support the doctrine of destruction of the wicked. I personally believe that the wicked will be destroyed, so I guess that makes me an annihilationist. However, I can see why those who believe in eternal punishment see it the way they do, and I don't think it an essential doctrine. It should not be a point of contention. I had wavered back and forth on the issue before I settled. It is, to me, that kind of an issue.

T
TMK

Hi dolfan---

I guess what I meant was that when something is annihilated that is its state forever.

Thank you flameoffire for your comments. I will be the first to admit that I am a poor supporter of the alternative views primarily because I do not really hold a firm view. But I have read enough of what the main proponents of the other views say and their support for same to know that their views are being misrepresented here and that they have responses to all these objections.

This is why I have asked persons here to read major works on these views like Edward Fudge etc. I referenced Greg Boyd's essay on annihilationism and was ridiculed for pointing to essentially a heretic for a theological viewpoint.

There is no doubts that to truly understand what the alternate views actually teach will take a lot of time and most will not commit the time. I could probably do a better job of arguing the other views but quite frankly I don't have that much free time either to write long scholarly posts.

But I do appreciate your post. I am definitely in the minority here which is fine but all I have been trying to do is to try to get people to stop misrepresenting the other viewpoints.

K
KingJimmy

I believe in an eternal consciousness of literal flames because I believe in the bodily resurrection of all the dead. Jesus said both body and soul will be tossed into hell. I believe those in hell will sadly be tormented forever, as their resurrected bodies will be fashioned and designed to burn forever, even as our resurrected bodies will be designed to live forever in bliss. Our bodies will not die, and neither will theirs. Death will be swallowed up forever when we are all again made to live.

K
KingJimmy

One preacher said it well, the resurrection is both a threat and a promise. It's a glorious promise to all that believe. But for those who do not, it is a threat of unparalleled everlasting torment.

S
sermonindex

Hell and Gehenna

Hades and Sheol


The first distinction we need to make is one between Hell and Hades.

Hell and Gehenna: Greek γέεννα & Hebrew גַּיְא and הִנֹּם

The greek word here (γέεννα) is simply a greek form of two Hebrew words. In the Hebrew these two words גַּיְא and הִנֹּם are translated Ge-Hinnom. It is from these Hebrew words גַּיְא (Ravine) הִנֹּם (Hinnom) that the greek place name of Gehenna is derived. When used in the greek form Gehenna is translated Hell and when used in the Hebrew form it means the Ravine or Valley of Hinnom.

Hades and Sheol: Greek ᾅδης & Hebrew שְׁאוֹל

The greek word Hades (ᾅδης) may be called a corresponding word. This is different from words which are derived. The greek word for Hell (γέεννα) is derived from two Hebrew words (גַּיְא and הִנֹּם) whereas the greek word Hades (ᾅδης) corresponds to the Hebrew word Sheol שְׁאוֹל.

Corresponding Words & Derived Words

What this means is that when the Lord Jesus uses the word Hell (γέεννα) He is in fact using a word which the Hebrews would not have used other than in the sense of describing one of the two valleys or ravines which are adjacent to Jerusalem itself. In other words the English word Hell (or to be more accurate the Latin word Gehenna or the Greek word Geenna) would have been seen by the Hebrew and the greek as pointing to the Ravine or the Valley of Hinnom. It would not have automatically carried the same weight of meaning which the Lord Himself attributed to that word. This weight can be seen in the instances where the Lord uses this word Hell (γέεννα) in the Scriptures. There are just twelve instances and eleven of them are used by the Lord Himself. I will list them at the end.

A derived word therefore may be described as a word taken from another common expression or meaning, but which may or may not carry the same meaning as the point of derivation. In this instance the point of derivation is a Ravine or Valley just outside Jerusalem which the Hebrews called Ge-Hinnom.

When the Lord uses the word Hades He is using a word which both the Hebrews and the Greeks understood in their own languages and which share the same meaning but form two distinct linguistic traditions and origins. Another way of saying this would be to say that the Greek word Hades and the Hebrew word Sheol were both the same in broad meaning. A Hebrew would understand that Sheol meant the place of the dead and a Greek would have understood the same thing when using the word Hades. The one is an Old Testament revelation of Sheol and the other is an ancient Greek understanding of the place of the dead. Given that the Hebrew word Sheol comes first we could say that Sheol is to the Hebrew what Hades is to the Greek.

Some instances and uses of the words:


Hell: Greek γέεννα & Hebrew גַּיְא and הִנֹּם

γέεννα (Hell)

enough to go into the fiery hell\tMt 5:22
whole body to be thrown into hell\tMt 5:29
for your whole body to go into hell\tMt 5:30
destroy both soul and body in hell\tMt 10:28
eyes and be cast into the fiery hell.\tMt 18:9
as much a son of hell as yourselves\tMt 23:15
you escape the sentence of hell?\tMt 23:33
your two hands, to go into hell,\tMk 9:43
your two feet, to be cast into hell,\tMk 9:45
two eyes, to be cast into hell,\t Mk 9:47
has authority to cast into hell;\tLk 12:5
our life, and is set on fire by hell.\tJas 3:6

but cast them into hell and committed\t2Pe 2:4

I have separated 2 Peter 2:4 from this list because in this verse the word Hell is not the greek word γέεννα (Hell). The greek word in 2 Peter 2:4 is ταρταρωσας which is essentially very different in its origins to the word γέεννα. It is this usage of ταρταρωσας by Peter which some scholars and commentators have latched onto in order to make an argument for claiming that the concept of Hell (as corresponding to an eternal place of torment and separation from God), is both false and pagan. This is confusing because the word ταρταρωσας does appear in classical literature in the form of ταρταροω in Homer (7th or 8th Century BC) and Pindar (6th Century BC).

It is a description of how the greeks understood the underworld in the context of the god’s awaiting punishment for their sins. As a matter of reality Peter must be using this word precisely to communicate that very meaning. In doing so he effectively proves that the greeks had developed a proper sense of what happens to evil spirits. In the case of Peter he is making reference to disobedient angels. In the case of Homer and Pindar (as with all later Greek and Roman writers as well) it is a reference to those whom they called gods. Just as the Scripture refers to angels as Sons of God, so we know that the fallen angels are the gods of the ancient world. The chief point to note is that this place which is called Tartaros is said to be in the abyss and it is said to be blackest darkness. It is characteristically very different from the Hell which burns with fire in the New Testament.


Hades and Sheol: Greek ᾅδης & Hebrew שְׁאוֹל


You will descend to Hades;\t Mt 11:23
gates of Hades will not overpower it Mt 16:18
You will be brought down to Hades!\t Lk 10:15
"In Hades he lifted up his eyes,\t Lk 16:23
will not abandon my soul to Hades,\t Ac 2:27
He was neither abandoned to Hades Ac 2:31
I have the keys of death and of Hades. Rv 1:18
and Hades was following with him.\t Rv 6:8
and death and Hades gave up the dead\tRv 20:13
Then death and Hades were thrown into\tRv 20:14

The following points really get to the root of this issue of what Hell means as opposed to Hades.

In the above passages all bar the last three references are either spoken by the Lord Himself or are directly referring to the Lord Himself in the passage. In Luke 16:23 we see that Hades is a divided place at the time of writing with one part being a fiery torment and the other a rest. This is typically what the Old Testament is speaking of when Sheol is made reference to. Given that these words are spoken by the Lord Himself we can hardly say that He didn’t know what He was talking about. In looking at the use of the word Sheol which corresponds to the greek word Hades we find a verse in Job 26:6, where we read "Naked is Sheol before Him, And Abaddon has no covering.” This verse also tells us that there is a place called Abaddon. Job 31:12 speaks about being consumed to Abaddon and Proverbs 27:20 speaks "Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied”

In these verses the word Sheol is שְׁאוֹל which corresponds to the Greek word ᾅδης (Hades). Abaddon however is a place as well, and broadly corresponds to Tartaros in the Greek.


before Him, And Abaddon has no covering Jb 26:6
"Abaddon and Death say,\t Jb 28:22
would be fire that consumes to Abaddon,\t Jb 31:12
the grave, Your faithfulness in Abaddon?\t Ps 88:11
and Abaddon lie open before the Lord,\t Pr 15:11
Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied,\t Pr 27:20
his name in Hebrew is Abaddon,\t Rv 9:11


Finally here is a list of the instances in which the word Sheol is used in the Old Testament.


I will go down to Sheol in mourning\t Gn 37:35
gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow.”\t Gn 42:38
my gray hair down to Sheol in sorrow.’ Gn 44:29
our father down to Sheol in sorrow.\t Gn 44:31
and they descend alive into Sheol,\t Nu 16:30
to them went down alive to Sheol;\t Nu 16:33
And burns to the lowest part of Sheol, Dt 32:22
He brings down to Sheol and raises up. 1Sa 2:6
The cords of Sheol surrounded me;\t 2Sa 22:6
gray hair go down to Sheol in peace. 1Ki 2:6\t
gray hair down to Sheol with blood.”\t 1Ki 2:9
goes down to Sheol does not come up. Jb 7:9\t
Deeper than Sheol, what can you know? Jb 11:8\t
"Oh that You would hide me in Sheol, Jb 14:13
"If I look for Sheol as my home, I\t Jb 17:13
"Will it go down with me to Sheol?\t Jb 17:16
And suddenly they go down to Sheol. Jb 21:13
So does Sheol those who have sinned. Jb 24:19
"Naked is Sheol before Him,\t Jb 26:6
his life from passing over into Sheol.\t Jb 33:18
In Sheol who will give You thanks?\t Ps 6:5\t
The wicked will return to Sheol,\t Ps 9:17
will not abandon my soul to Sheol;\t Ps 16:10
The cords of Sheol surrounded me;\t Ps 18:5
have brought up my soul from Sheol; Ps 30:3
to shame, let them be silent in Sheol. Ps 31:17
As sheep they are appointed for Sheol; Ps 49:14
form shall be for Sheol to consume So Ps 49:14
my soul from the power of Sheol,\t Ps 49:15
Let them go down alive to Sheol,\t Ps 55:15
my soul from the depths of Sheol.\t Ps 86:13
And my life has drawn near to Sheol.\tPs 88:3
deliver his soul from the power of Sheol?\tPs 89:48
And the terrors of Sheol came upon me;\tPs 116:3
If I make my bed in Sheol,\t Ps 139:8
been scattered at the mouth of Sheol.\tPs 141:7
Let us swallow them alive like Sheol,\t Pr 1:12
to death, Her steps take hold of Sheol.\tPr 5:5\t
Her house is the way to Sheol,\t Pr 7:27
her guests are in the depths of Sheol.\tPr 9:18
Sheol and Abaddon lie open before the\tPr 15:11
he may keep away from Sheol below.\tPr 15:24
rod And rescue his soul from Sheol.\t Pr 23:14
Sheol and Abaddon are never satisfied,\tPr 27:20
Sheol, and the barren womb, Earth that\tPr 30:16
wisdom in Sheol where you are going.\tEc 9:10
death, Jealousy is as severe as Sheol; \tSS 8:6
Therefore Sheol has enlarged its throat\tIs 5:14
it deep as Sheol or high as heaven.”\t Is 7:11\t
"Sheol from beneath is excited over\t Is 14:9
harps Have been brought down to Sheol;\tIs 14:11
you will be thrust down to Sheol,\t Is 14:15
And with Sheol we have made a pact.\tIs 28:15
your pact with Sheol will not stand;\t Is 28:18
life I am to enter the gates of Sheol; Is 38:10
"For Sheol cannot thank You, Death\t Is 38:18
And made them go down to Sheol.\t Is 57:9
On the day when it went down to Sheol\tEzk 31:15
when I made it go down to Sheol\t Ezk 31:16
"They also went down with it to Sheol\tEzk 31:17
his helpers from the midst of Sheol,\t Ezk 32:21
to Sheol with their weapons of war and\tEzk 32:27
ransom them from the power of Sheol?\tHos 13:14
O Sheol, where is your sting?\t Hos 13:14
"Though they dig into Sheol,\t Am 9:2
I cried for help from the depth of Sheol;\tJon 2:2
He enlarges his appetite like Sheol,\t Hab 2:5


The simple reality in all of this is that before we can properly make sense of terms such as aeon and age we have to know the place to which the term is being applied. If we cannot accept this then no doubt we will believe whatever we believe without reference to the original language in which these things are written. On the other hand TMK you are getting such a hammering because you are using a bit of Greek that on the basis of this post I ought to be stoned to death.

Just for information the Greek and Hebrew used in this post is not the Lexical value but the exact word used in the Manuscripts themselves. I have used the Textus Receptus 1550 by Stephens as well as cross referenced in the Novum Testamentum Graece by Tischendorf. The Hebrew is from the Biblia Hebraica Stuttgartensia and the Lexham Hebrew-English Interlinear, as well as other Textual Sources.

D
dolfan

TMK,

Gotcha. But, something cannot be in a state of annihilation. Once annihilated, it no longer is.

In 2 Th. 1, the duration quality is not as to the punishment, but as to the verb suffer. Or do you disagree?

O
Oracio

If belief in the Trinity, the deity of Christ, and the resurrection of Christ are all essential to salvation and fellowship, and belief in eternal conscious torment isn't, why is that? What constitutes essential Christian doctrine and what is the basis for determining what is essential to salvation and fellowship and what is not?

Is it because the traditional view of hell is not as clearly taught in Scripture as the other truths?

I know this can be tough for us to consider, because then you can start thinking about "non-essentials" and why they are deemed to be non-essential to salvation or fellowship.

O
Oracio

I remember hearing Hank Hanegraaff on the radio(the Bible answer-man) always say that essential Christian doctrine is what separates the kingdom of God from the kingdom of the cults.

He would say that one reason essentials could not be compromised was because the apostles and martyrs throughout history have spilled their blood on account of these essential truths. Not saying I fully agree with that as a fully valid reason but do think it's interesting to say the least.

T
twayneb

I think I pretty much agree with hank on this one. The virgin birth is essential as the incarnation of God in human flesh is necessary for atonement. Salvation by grace through faith is essential as we cannot cannot through works save ourselves. These are undisputed doctrines that are the foundation stones of scripture and of the faith. I cannot be wrong about these things and be a Christian.


Although I believe in the destruction of the wicked, I could be wrong about that doctrine. But my error would not mean that I am lost or that I cannot be in unity and fellowship with the body of Christ. This is a little bit like the rapture question. Some see their eschatological views as so critical as to warrant even strife with those who do not hold the same view. And while important to study and discuss, the issue is not one of essential doctrine, but rather of peripheral doctrine.

T
TMK

Funny you mention Hank H. I just heard him the other day defending the traditional view of hell when a caller inquired about universal reconciliation (sadly Hank misrepresented UR by stating that that view means no hell).

But Hank also is at least a partial preterist, which many people on this forum would feel is quite unorthodox. So Hank, who many people trust (I do for the most part) can hold a view that is quite contrary to the great majority of evangelicals but he is not branded a heretic.

Other believers who posit possible alternatives to the traditional view of hell and are able to support these views very well with scripture are branded as heretical and dangerous.

How can this be? How can Hank be so right on so many issues but so wrong on preterism? (of course I do not think he is wrong at all).

I would also ask one thing of those who hold to the traditional view of hell as conscious unending torture: Please don't sound so darn happy about it. Some of you seem almost gleeful about it and take joy in the fact that the vast majority of humans created by God will be tortured in agony forever and ever because after all they asked for it and are getting what they deserve. If true this is the tragedy of the ages and not a mere doctrinal point.

I am posting below a comment that I read on another forum several years ago. I have posted it here before but it's time to post it again:

"Besides, most Christians nowadays don't believe in the Hell of eternal conscious torment. Not really. This is clearly evidenced by the way they live and the priorities they set in their lives. If one is truly convinced that, for most people, a short span on earth is followed by an eternity of misery, then surely one would spend every waking hour, every penny and every ounce of energy trying to save people from it. I think most Christians who claim to believe in the traditional concept of Hell suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance which forces them to tune out and turn away from any lingering thoughts on the fate of most of their fellow humans; the people they rub shoulders with and work with and live with. Those who are unable to compartmentalize the doctrine of Hell become wild-eyed street preachers or suffer nervous breakdowns."


M
MaryJane

TMK wrote:I would also ask one thing of those who hold to the traditional view of hell as conscious unending torture: Please don't sound so darn happy about it. Some of you seem almost gleeful about it and take joy in the fact that the vast majority of humans created by God will be tortured in agony forever and ever because after all they asked for it and are getting what they deserve. If true this is the tragedy of the ages and not a mere doctrinal point.
______________

Could you please post and show us where anyone has said they were gleeful about the lost suffering in hell. I feel this is a very unfair attack on those who hold an opposing view from your own. I do not believe anyone is gleeful with the idea that people will go to hell. People in our own families will suffer for their rebellion and rejection of JESUS. I know there are many here who pray for the lost to see their need for JESUS. I know there are those who spend hours in prayer to the point of shedding tears for lost family, friends, and coworkers.

Just because someone says that hell is eternal does not mean they are gleeful that people will suffer. JESUS suffered and died, HE gave HIS life so none would have to suffer the darkness of hell but for those who reject HIM they will have no excuse. The BIBLE tells us in Romans 1:20 "For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse."

GOD is not some horrible monster just randomly sending people to hell, HE has provided a way to those who will accept it but for those who reject it they will suffer for their sins. This does not bring any true CHRISTIAN joy, it brings tears to our eyes and breaks our hearts and that is why we need to pray, for hearts to be soften, for ears to hear, and eyes to see. We need to pray that those who are lost will repent, turn from their sin and come to JESUS before it is to late. There is no joy in loosing someone you care about and knowing they have rejected CHRIST...

mj

T
TMK

MJ-

I didn't say that people are happy about it- I said that some SEEM to be happy about it. Of course no one is going to come out and say that they are glad people are spending eternity in hell and I don't believe that the posters here are truly happy about it(although in fact I have actually heard Christians say this). It is more of a tone or a way of posting. It is hard to explain exactly but perhaps it is because of a zeal in defending a particular view.

If that version of hell is true, and it may be, I don't WANT it to be true. I hope it not true. The sense I get from some is that they hope it IS true. It is possible to believe something in your gut but still hope it is not true. When my mom used to tell me that I was going to get it when my dad got home, I knew it was true but I hoped it would all be forgotten by the time he got home.

Of course I too have loved ones who are not regenerated. I hope there is hope for them even after this life. But I still pray for their conversion now. Now is the time for salvation.

M
MaryJane

by TMK on 2014/4/23 3:23:51
MJ-
I didn't say that people are happy about it- I said that some SEEM to be happy about it. Of course no one is going to come out and say that they are glad people are spending eternity in hell and I don't believe that the posters here are truly happy about it(although in fact I have actually heard Christians say this). It is more of a tone or a way of posting. It is hard to explain exactly but perhaps it is because of a zeal in defending a particular view.
________________________

Greetings TMK:

In this form of communication it is very easy to "misunderstanding" another persons meaning.Perhaps we both have done that with peoples posts...

You say that its a "tone" or a way of posting, perhaps it would be best to just ask the person their meaning before making request as you did here: "I would also ask one thing of those who hold to the traditional view of hell as conscious unending torture: Please don't sound so darn happy about it. Some of you seem almost gleeful about it and take joy in the fact that the vast majority of humans created by God will be tortured in agony forever and ever because after all they asked for it and are getting what they deserve. If true this is the tragedy of the ages and not a mere doctrinal point."

You also stated you felt this way because: "It is hard to explain exactly but perhaps it is because of a zeal in defending a particular view."

My reply:You have defended "your" view with zeal on a number of threads so why would it be wrong for those who believe the BIBLE teaches eternal hell to do the same thing?

You shared:If that version of hell is true, and it may be, I don't WANT it to be true. I hope it not true. The sense I get from some is that they hope it IS true. It is possible to believe something in your gut but still hope it is not true. When my mom used to tell me that I was going to get it when my dad got home, I knew it was true but I hoped it would all be forgotten by the time he got home.

My reply: respectfully all I can say to this is GOD is GOD and HIS ways are just. I do not understand all of HIS ways but my faith and trust in HIM does not wavier. My dad died a few years back still professing to the RCC faith. With his last breath I am told he spent time confessing to a priest and praying Catholic prayers. Now I can ponder and get tied up in knots about where my dad is right now or by faith I can trust and know that where ever he is, is exactly where he should be because GOD is just. I leave my dad to the LORD and do not concern myself because it is beyond my control. To some that may sound mean or uncaring, but for me its about faith. Faith to know all GOD'S WORDS are true. We are called to love GOD above all else, we are called to submit to HIM no matter what. It doesn't matter what you or I want, its about walking by faith and believing HIM because of who HE is and knowing HIS ways are just.

You wrote:Of course I too have loved ones who are not regenerated. I hope there is hope for them even after this life. But I still pray for their conversion now. Now is the time for salvation.

My reply: I found this last part confusing so I am asking. You said you hope for them even after this life? then you say now is the time for salvation? how can there be any hope once people have passed from this life... here and now is the time to follow, submit, and obey the LORD. Once a person passes rejecting JESUS what hope can be left for them???

God bless
maryjane


L
Lysa

TMK wrote 2014/4/22 20:44:
"Besides, most Christians nowadays don't believe in the Hell of eternal conscious torment. Not really. This is clearly evidenced by the way they live and the priorities they set in their lives. If one is truly convinced that, for most people, a short span on earth is followed by an eternity of misery, then surely one would spend every waking hour, every penny and every ounce of energy trying to save people from it. I think most Christians who claim to believe in the traditional concept of Hell suffer from a form of cognitive dissonance which forces them to tune out and turn away from any lingering thoughts on the fate of most of their fellow humans; the people they rub shoulders with and work with and live with. Those who are unable to compartmentalize the doctrine of Hell become wild-eyed street preachers or suffer nervous breakdowns."

My mentor in the faith always said, "I don’t preach about hell because I’m not going there but I will tell you about the wonders of Christ.” So this is where my perspective (right or wrong), comes from. I’d like to say that even the Scriptures do NOT show that Jesus spent "every waking hour, every penny and every ounce of energy trying to save people from it.” Yes, He was & is the Christ but He also knew those who were His (& still does) but He didn’t get all "wild-eyed” trying to save every person He came into contact with. It’s propaganda like this that Satan is wearing out the saints and boy, is it working! Perhaps I read it wrong and if I did, I apologize but to me this quote produces human effort (The Law).

I’m going to go to the spiritual side of things with this next paragraph but I was converted IN MY SEAT (no altar call), in the back row with a hangover on the one Sunday a year that I visited church (Easter) and I can tell you that it wasn’t because of any eloquent words of the pastor, it was because the pastor lived a life where when he walked in the church the Spirit of God was with him! What a life! I have seen this with my own eyes and know it to be true!

The Apostle Paul said in 1 Cor 1.1-5: "And I, brethren, when I came to you, came not with excellency of speech or of wisdom, declaring unto you the testimony of God. For I determined not to know anything among you, save Jesus Christ, and him crucified. And I was with you in weakness, and in fear, and in much trembling. And my speech and my preaching was not with enticing words of man's wisdom, BUT IN DEMONSTRATION OF THE SPIRIT AND OF POWER: That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.” Sadly, the people in American churches today and the last few years have been and ARE cheated when they can’t go to church and experience what Paul is talking about in 1 Cor 1.1-5.

Back to hell… just spending every waking hour, every penny, & every ounce of energy trying to save people from hell is absolutely no guarantee that people will realize the realities of hell and want to miss it. Fire and brimstone preaching didn’t convert me one iota but a face-to-face encounter with the God of the universe sitting in that seat is what converted me.

Just my humble two cent (long) opinion that may or may not be relevant!

God bless,
Lisa

T
TMK

Quote:
"You wrote:Of course I too have loved ones who are not regenerated. I hope there is hope for them even after this life. But I still pray for their conversion now. Now is the time for salvation.

My reply: I found this last part confusing so I am asking. You said you hope for them even after this life? then you say now is the time for salvation? how can there be any hope once people have passed from this life... here and now is the time to follow, submit, and obey the LORD. Once a person passes rejecting JESUS what hope can be left for them??? "
-----------------

One of the alternative views of hell, Universal Reconciliation, teaches that those not saved in this life will be consigned into a real hell with real torment but that this punishment is remedial, as all of God's chastisements are remedial, with the purpose of bringing persons in hell to repentance. Thus a proponent of UR would say that physical death is not the cut off point because all things are possible with God.

Annihilation simply means that after the proper amount of punishment in hell as determined by God, they will be snuffed out of existence.

I HOPE one of these options is true as compared to the traditional view of never ending torture. There is solid biblical support for all 3 views.

However I still believe that now is the time to repent and believe because Jesus commands it. The sooner a person submits to His rule, the better.

T
TMK

Hi Lysa--

I see where you are coming from in regard to that quote and I agree it is over the top. However you must admit that we do place the idea of a hell of eternal torment somewhere on the back burner. I don't think the average Christian thinks about it very much because of the implications of doing so.

M
MaryJane

Lisa wrote: Back to hell… just spending every waking hour, every penny, & every ounce of energy trying to save people from hell is absolutely no guarantee that people will realize the realities of hell and want to miss it. Fire and brimstone preaching didn’t convert me one iota but a face-to-face encounter with the God of the universe sitting in that seat is what converted me.

Just my humble two cent (long) opinion that may or may not be relevant!

____________________________


Greetings Lisa

I understand your heart and I do think it important to teach on the love of CHRIST as well, but JESUS spoke of hell and talked of the very real consequence of this horrible place. I am not saying we should beat anyone over the head with teaching only on hell, but it should never be neglected either. For me, having been raised a Roman Catholic, I did not come to see my need for JESUS until I realized how lost and deceived I was. Once FATHER opened my eyes and showed me my sinful state, and that there was nothing I, in self could do about it, then the horrors of hell became all to real to me. I repented of my sin and began to really see and understand that JESUS was my all and everything. Hell was a place that I deserve and I could do nothing to avoid it and yet because of HIS infinite mercy, love, and grace, I am saved and will spend eternity with HIM. I praise GOD for this good news and for the JESUS!!!

I realize each of us has their own testimony and I appreciate you sharing your heart with us in this.

God bless
maryjane

M
MaryJane

by TMK on 2014/4/23 6:58:01
One of the alternative views of hell, Universal Reconciliation, teaches that those not saved in this life will be consigned into a real hell with real torment but that this punishment is remedial, as all of God's chastisements are remedial, with the purpose of bringing persons in hell to repentance. Thus a proponent of UR would say that physical death is not the cut off point because all things are possible with God.

Annihilation simply means that after the proper amount of punishment in hell as determined by God, they will be snuffed out of existence.

I HOPE one of these options is true as compared to the traditional view of never ending torture. There is solid biblical support for all 3 views.

However I still believe that now is the time to repent and believe because Jesus commands it. The sooner a person submits to His rule, the better.

_____________________________


Greetings TMK

I have read this teaching on Universal Reconciliation, and can find no BIBLICAL support for it or the other mentioned. UR is actually very close to the RCC teaching on purgatory(another false teaching I find no BIBLICAL support for)

Thank you for answering my question. I think we have come to an end of the discussion on this topic so I will leave this thread.

God bless
maryjane

S
sermonindex

We all know that any belief in Eternal Conscious Punishment will never make you holy, make you a new creation, give you a clean heart, give you peace, make you righteous, or even make you closer to God. True Christianity is about Christ living with in us. HE alone is our life.

P
PaulWest

you must admit that we do place the idea of a hell of eternal torment somewhere on the back burner. I don't think the average Christian thinks about it very much because of the implications of doing so.

I think this is a very fair proposition. I, for one, must admit that even thinking about hell is very wearisome. The prospect of an eternally-cognitive state of torment in flames trumps all efforts of human reasonsing. As a Norwegian friend of mine once said, "A God who throws people in a lake of fire to scream for all eternity is beyond psychotic."

I admit it is burdensome to accept this. But I also admit it is equally burdensome to accept God's merciful acquittal of the sinner for all eternity via annihilation. Both prospects put me in an intellectual quandary. And that is the problem. Pondering these things within the confines of human rationale is like a chimpanzee trying to grasp the laws of quantum physics. It is very daunting! I despise the doctrine of eternal suffering. It numbs me. To die on earth is one thing - to never witness the touch, hear the voice, see the smile or share in the laughter of a dear loved one is profoundly disturbing. But beyond this, to even entertain the thought that this same person will be for all eternity writhing and screaming in merciless agony...is simply unthinkable. Who can dwell upon it? You will go crazy. Which is why many of us - and I include myself - have willfully desensitized ourselves from dwelling long upon the subject.

I know all about the act of desensitization due to my job as a funeral director. It just comes with the territory. I've had to embalm hundreds and hundreds of people over the years - kids, babies. The first couple dozen can be tough on you emotionally; after a point, however, it just becomes a service you are performing for the family. You disattach yourself from the emotional aspect of it, and that's the only way you can go on. Otherwise you'll suffer from depression and your own life will begin to fall apart.

Now, against the dictates of how I think a loving God should rule His own universe, I believe the unredeemed will suffer endlessly in a lake of fire and brimstone. Please don't ask me if I agree with this form of execution, because I do not. If I were the Hanging Judge on the Last Round-up, I would most likely pronounce a different type of sentencing and give all the convicted criminals a lethal injection and send them into endless soul-sleep. That would be the most humane way to wrap it all up, you would think. But then I didn't give my eternally-begotten Son, through whom all the stars and galaxies were created, to come to this evil, thankless planet and give His blood for the ransom of Satan's puppets. I don't think I would have done that either, just to be fair. So, God has made two key decisions which I can't seem to level with if I honestly explore my own heart. And honestly, the latter decision of giving His Son to the undeserved is to me more incomprehensible than the former decision governing the mode of punishment for the deserved. But most people who object to sinners in eternal hell don't seem to have the same objection to God giving His eternal Son to save sinners from it.

I don't fully understand the depth of these things, because they are spiritual in foundation. The more in-depth intricacies of the crucifixion and hell are still well beyond my grasp, and God knows that we can only go so deep in our meditation before we go over our heads in utter amazement. Some men have grasped more and have written down their thoughts in the form of devotions - men like Oswald Chambers, G. Campbell Morgan, as well as some of the old Puritans and Scottish Divines. I sense a soldarity when I read their works, because I have understood and avered to the same, though to a much lesser degree of profundity.

I guess what I am trying to say with all this is that I understand your objections concerning the traditional doctine of hell. I, like you, think it is hideously unthinkable. But so is the crucifixion to me, on the other end of the spectrum. Such transcendental and mortally-incomprehensible love must share a seesaw of an equally-incomprehensible notion of implacable justice. And the classical doctrine of hell as I see it, and to which I believe the Holy Spirit attests in scripture, somehow levels this beam through God's unsearchable wisdom.

Brother Paul

T
TMK

Wonderful thoughts Paul.

One of my best friends has your vocation so I can relate to what you are saying about that.

D
dolfan

Beautifully put, Paul.

L
Lysa

TMK wrote:
I see where you are coming from in regard to that quote and I agree it is over the top. However you must admit that we do place the idea of a hell of eternal torment somewhere on the back burner..

First, I thought you didn’t believe in the idea of eternal torment?

Second, obviously, you haven’t been to a Baptist church in the last 20 years (friendly grin!) and please know that I can only speak of the southern white Baptist churches that I’ve been in!! It seems that that’s ALL they preach on and is not on their back burner ”“ repentance in order to miss eternal torment.

TMK wrote:
I don't think the average Christian thinks about it very much because of the implications of doing so.

Well, there are different implications for people who believe differently. For Christians who believe they are forever saved from the time they initially got saved, hell is no longer a danger to them… correct? That is close to 100 million members throughout 211 denominations that no longer think hell pertains to them!! Just saying.

Well this is all I have time for! More later when I get home from work and in from planting!

God bless,
Lisa

G
ginnyrose

Well said, Paul. You said it better then I did: emotionally it is the most difficult thing to believe, but this does not excuse us from believing it. What it should do instead is feed our passion for the lost around us.

God bless.

ginnyrose

O
Oracio

Thanks everyone for participating in this discussion and for your patience. I know it can get wearisome to dwell much on this topic.

brother Paul wrote

I don't understand the depth of these things, because they are spiritual in foundation. The more in-depth intricacies of the crucifixion and hell are still well beyond my grasp, and God knows that we can only go so deep in our meditation before we go over our heads in utter amazement.

Along those lines, the thought came to mind, could it be that some of these "essentials" are just things the Spirit of God just reveals to us in His Word and helps us to receive as true? For example, the Spirit of God has revealed the true Messiah to us; flesh and blood has not revealed Jesus to us. The same would go for the atonement and salvation by grace through faith and other essentials.

However, I'm not 100 percent sure at this point if that applies to the doctrine of eternal torment. I will continue to pray about it. But I'll have to admit that at this point I would not fellowship closely with someone who denies this doctrine which I believe is clearly taught in Scripture; just like I wouldn't fellowship closely with someone who holds to Oneness Pentecostalism(I've had bad experiences in thinking I could fellowship closely with them).

If I met someone in person who holds to all other essentials but also holds to Annihalationism or UR, I would try to reason with them respectfully from Scripture and pray for them.

P
PaulWest

However, I'm not 100 percent sure at this point if that applies to the doctrine of eternal torment. I will continue to pray about it. But I'll have to admit that at this point I would not fellowship closely with someone who denies this doctrine which I believe is clearly taught in Scripture; just like I wouldn't fellowship closely with someone who holds to Oneness Pentecostalism(I've had bad experiences in thinking I could fellowship closely with them).

What I mean by not understanding is really comprehending the magnitude of the implication - not doubting the doctrine. Tremendous difference! Although I don't understand how it can be (based upon the acceptance of its justification), I nonetheless believe its truth is predicated upon the Holy Spirit's exposure in God's Word. I distrust my own carnal judgement in spiritual matters, for it is proven to be faulty and prone to emotional rationale. I am willing to admit this!

That said, I think I can "fellowship" with someone who is still struggling with this, for I can understand their apathy. I will have certain reservations on how they understand other parts of the Word, but I don't think I will break fellowship purely on this - any more than I will break it on the doctrine of election to salvation. There is a reason they cannot fully accept it, and perhaps one day they shall. I'm much more concerned with legalism, with hypocricy, with fakeness, with pharaseeism! I tend to think you can be in conflict over annihilation versus eternal torment and still be a genuine believer, though I am also prone to believe this is an issue the Holy Spirit eventually will resolve within a person of post-conversion. As to when this persuasion is effectuated can be a matter of discussion.

O
Oracio

Another thing I will say is that in me there is both an easiness of acceptance of this doctrine and an uneasiness simultaneously.

Having had an encounter with the awesome holiness of God and having become deeply acquainted with my utter sinfulness before Him in and of myself, I can't say I would disagree with Him casting me into hell for eternity on account of my sins. I believe I rightfully deserve that, in light of my utter wickedness before Him and His awesome majesty and holiness. As I look back to the time I got saved, I remember this encounter vividly as if it were yesterday. I knew God had been so merciful and patient with me and had put up with my sin for so long. And I knew that He was a holy God who could not tolerate sin and that my sin highly offended Him. I knew I deserved to be cast into hell forever for my utter wickedness and rebellion against Him. But then I also knew He was extending boundless grace and mercy to me through His Son Jesus Christ. What then could I do but to humble myself in deep repentance and cry out to Him for this mercy He was offering me.

On the other hand, it is sad for me to think of others who will be lost in hell forever with no chance of escape. I do not want that for anyone and if I dwell on that thought for enough time it terrifies me and causes me to weep. I believe it is good for us to think about it sometimes because it puts an urgency in us about getting the gospel out while there is still time. Jude 1:22-23 says, "And on some have compassion, making a distinction; but others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire, hating even the garment defiled by the flesh."

O
Oracio

Thanks for that clarification brother Paul. I see where you are coming from. Good points.

L
Lordoitagain

Brother Paul, I appreciate your well thought out contribution to this discussion.

This discussion makes me think of a situation that my pastor told me about when I was young. He had a friend who had served in the military overseas. His friend observed the devotion of the Muslims that he lived around for a long time. His friend became convinced that they were on their way to heaven. They sincerely followed a code of conduct that put many "Christians” to shame. They prayed sincerely and many of them lived with high morals.

My pastor told of having a long conversation with him, and reasoning with him with the scriptures. He just could not fathom the idea that these great sincere people would burn in hell for eternity. After my pastor took him through the Bible clearly demonstrating that there is no way that they could go to heaven in that condition, he finally accepted the truth. Shortly afterward, God called him to be a missionary to those very people who were so sincerely devoted to their Muslim faith.

Sometimes it is necessary to ponder these unthinkable realities in order to become more devoted to our call as watchmen on the wall that God has given to each of us.

M
MaryJane

Greetings

Thank you to both Paul and Lordoitagain for your thoughtful posts. I believe there are many who struggle with the heartbreak and sorrow of seeing those lost continue to reject JESUS knowing what lies ahead for them. I agree it is necessary to ponder these things from time to time, I know in my own life it has cause me to go to GOD in prayer for the lost.

God bless
maryjane

T
TMK

Lysa wrote:

"First, I thought you didn’t believe in the idea of eternal torment?"

Let's say I am agnostic on this issue. I don't disbelieve it because it might be true. And I feel the same about the other two views.

The other two views and in particular Conditional Immortality has such good scriptural support that I would never insist that people who hold that view are wrong because they very well might be right. To suggest that such people simply are misguided or not enlightened by the HS like those who disagree with them doesn't sit right with me.

I am agnostic about several theological points, including eschatology, Calvinism v Arminianism, how much charismaticness is too much and the age of the earth and whether the flood was global or local. I have leanings on these topics but would not fight to the death over any of them because in my view they are non-essentials.

L
Lordoitagain


Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God
Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758)
Enfield, Connecticut
July 8, 1741

Their foot shall slide in due time. Deuteronomy 32:35

In this verse is threatened the vengeance of God on the wicked unbelieving Israelites, who were God's visible people, and who lived under the means of grace; but who, notwithstanding all God's wonderful works towards them, remained (as vers 28.) void of counsel, having no understanding in them. Under all the cultivations of heaven, they brought forth bitter and poisonous fruit; as in the two verses next preceding the text. -- The expression I have chosen for my text, their foot shall slide in due time, seems to imply the following things, relating to the punishment and destruction to which these wicked Israelites were exposed.

That they were always exposed to destruction; as one that stands or walks in slippery places is always exposed to fall. This is implied in the manner of their destruction coming upon them, being represented by their foot sliding. The same is expressed, Psalm 73:18. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction."

It implies, that they were always exposed to sudden unexpected destruction. As he that walks in slippery places is every moment liable to fall, he cannot foresee one moment whether he shall stand or fall the next; and when he does fall, he falls at once without warning: Which is also expressed in Psalm 73:18,19. "Surely thou didst set them in slippery places; thou castedst them down into destruction: How are they brought into desolation as in a moment!"

Another thing implied is, that they are liable to fall of themselves, without being thrown down by the hand of another; as he that stands or walks on slippery ground needs nothing but his own weight to throw him down.

That the reason why they are not fallen already and do not fall now is only that God's appointed time is not come. For it is said, that when that due time, or appointed time comes, their foot shall slide. Then they shall be left to fall, as they are inclined by their own weight. God will not hold them up in these slippery places any longer, but will let them go; and then, at that very instant, they shall fall into destruction; as he that stands on such slippery declining ground, on the edge of a pit, he cannot stand alone, when he is let go he immediately falls and is lost.

The observation from the words that I would now insist upon is this. -- "There is nothing that keeps wicked men at any one moment out of hell, but the mere pleasure of God." -- By the mere pleasure of God, I mean his sovereign pleasure, his arbitrary will, restrained by no obligation, hindered by no manner of difficulty, any more than if nothing else but God's mere will had in the least degree, or in any respect whatsoever, any hand in the preservation of wicked men one moment. -- The truth of this observation may appear by the following consideration.

There is no want of power in God to cast wicked men into hell at any moment. Men's hands cannot be strong when God rises up. The strongest have no power to resist him, nor can any deliver out of his hands. -- He is not only able to cast wicked men into hell, but he can most easily do it. Sometimes an earthly prince meets with a great deal of difficulty to subdue a rebel, who has found means to fortify himself, and has made himself strong by the numbers of his followers. But it is not so with God. There is no fortress that is any defence from the power of God. Though hand join in hand, and vast multitudes of God's enemies combine and associate themselves, they are easily broken in pieces. They are as great heaps of light chaff before the whirlwind; or large quantities of dry stubble before devouring flames. We find it easy to tread on and crush a worm that we see crawling on the earth; so it is easy for us to cut or singe a slender thread that any thing hangs by: thus easy is it for God, when he pleases, to cast his enemies down to hell. What are we, that we should think to stand before him, at whose rebuke the earth trembles, and before whom the rocks are thrown down?

They deserve to be cast into hell; so that divine justice never stands in the way, it makes no objection against God's using his power at any moment to destroy them. Yea, on the contrary, justice calls aloud for an infinite punishment of their sins. Divine justice says of the tree that brings forth such grapes of Sodom, "Cut it down, why cumbereth it the ground?" Luke 13:7. The sword of divine justice is every moment brandished over their heads, and it is nothing but the hand of arbitrary mercy, and God's mere will, that holds it back.

They are already under a sentence of condemnation to hell. They do not only justly deserve to be cast down thither, but the sentence of the law of God, that eternal and immutable rule of righteousness that God has fixed between him and mankind, is gone out against them, and stands against them; so that they are bound over already to hell. John 3:18. "He that believeth not is condemned already." So that every unconverted man properly belongs to hell; that is his place; from thence he is, John 8:23. "Ye are from beneath:" And thither he is bound; it is the place that justice, and God's word, and the sentence of his unchangeable law assign to him.

They are now the objects of that very same anger and wrath of God, that is expressed in the torments of hell. And the reason why they do not go down to hell at each moment, is not because God, in whose power they are, is not then very angry with them; as he is with many miserable creatures now tormented in hell, who there feel and bear the fierceness of his wrath. Yea, God is a great deal more angry with great numbers that are now on earth: yea, doubtless, with many that are now in this congregation, who it may be are at ease, than he is with many of those who are now in the flames of hell.

So that it is not because God is unmindful of their wickedness, and does not resent it, that he does not let loose his hand and cut them off. God is not altogether such an one as themselves, though they may imagine him to be so. The wrath of God burns against them, their damnation does not slumber; the pit is prepared, the fire is made ready, the furnace is now hot, ready to receive them; the flames do now rage and glow. The glittering sword is whet, and held over them, and the pit hath opened its mouth under them.

The devil stands ready to fall upon them, and seize them as his own, at what moment God shall permit him. They belong to him; he has their souls in his possession, and under his dominion. The scripture represents them as his goods, Luke 11:21. The devils watch them; they are ever by them at their right hand; they stand waiting for them, like greedy hungry lions that see their prey, and expect to have it, but are for the present kept back. If God should withdraw his hand, by which they are restrained, they would in one moment fly upon their poor souls. The old serpent is gaping for them; hell opens its mouth wide to receive them; and if God should permit it, they would be hastily swallowed up and lost.

There are in the souls of wicked men those hellish principles reigning, that would presently kindle and flame out into hell fire, if it were not for God's restraints. There is laid in the very nature of carnal men, a foundation for the torments of hell. There are those corrupt principles, in reigning power in them, and in full possession of them, that are seeds of hell fire. These principles are active and powerful, exceeding violent in their nature, and if it were not for the restraining hand of God upon them, they would soon break out, they would flame out after the same manner as the same corruptions, the same enmity does in the hearts of damned souls, and would beget the same torments as they do in them. The souls of the wicked are in scripture compared to the troubled sea, Isa. 57:20. For the present, God restrains their wickedness by his mighty power, as he does the raging waves of the troubled sea, saying, "Hitherto shalt thou come, but no further;" but if God should withdraw that restraining power, it would soon carry all before it. Sin is the ruin and misery of the soul; it is destructive in its nature; and if God should leave it without restraint, there would need nothing else to make the soul perfectly miserable. The corruption of the heart of man is immoderate and boundless in its fury; and while wicked men live here, it is like fire pent up by God's restraints, whereas if it were let loose, it would set on fire the course of nature; and as the heart is now a sink of sin, so if sin was not restrained, it would immediately turn the soul into fiery oven, or a furnace of fire and brimstone.

It is no security to wicked men for one moment, that there are no visible means of death at hand. It is no security to a natural man, that he is now in health, and that he does not see which way he should now immediately go out of the world by any accident, and that there is no visible danger in any respect in his circumstances. The manifold and continual experience of the world in all ages, shows this is no evidence, that a man is not on the very brink of eternity, and that the next step will not be into another world. The unseen, unthought-of ways and means of persons going suddenly out of the world are innumerable and inconceivable. Unconverted men walk over the pit of hell on a rotten covering, and there are innumerable places in this covering so weak that they will not bear their weight, and these places are not seen. The arrows of death fly unseen at noon-day; the sharpest sight cannot discern them. God has so many different unsearchable ways of taking wicked men out of the world and sending them to hell, that there is nothing to make it appear, that God had need to be at the expense of a miracle, or go out of the ordinary course of his providence, to destroy any wicked man, at any moment. All the means that there are of sinners going out of the world, are so in God's hands, and so universally and absolutely subject to his power and determination, that it does not depend at all the less on the mere will of God, whether sinners shall at any moment go to hell, than if means were never made use of, or at all concerned in the case.

Natural men's prudence and care to preserve their own lives, or the care of others to preserve them, do not secure them a moment. To this, divine providence and universal experience do also bear testimony. There is this clear evidence that men's own wisdom is no security to them from death; that if it were otherwise we should see some difference between the wise and politic men of the world, and others, with regard to their liableness to early and unexpected death: but how is it in fact? Eccles. 2:16. "How dieth the wise man? even as the fool."

All wicked men's pains and contrivance which they use to escape hell, while they continue to reject Christ, and so remain wicked men, do not secure them from hell one moment. Almost every natural man that hears of hell, flatters himself that he shall escape it; he depends upon himself for his own security; he flatters himself in what he has done, in what he is now doing, or what he intends to do. Every one lays out matters in his own mind how he shall avoid damnation, and flatters himself that he contrives well for himself, and that his schemes will not fail. They hear indeed that there are but few saved, and that the greater part of men that have died heretofore are gone to hell; but each one imagines that he lays out matters better for his own escape than others have done. He does not intend to come to that place of torment; he says within himself, that he intends to take effectual care, and to order matters so for himself as not to fail.

But the foolish children of men miserably delude themselves in their own schemes, and in confidence in their own strength and wisdom; they trust to nothing but a shadow. The greater part of those who heretofore have lived under the same means of grace, and are now dead, are undoubtedly gone to hell; and it was not because they were not as wise as those who are now alive: it was not because they did not lay out matters as well for themselves to secure their own escape. If we could speak with them, and inquire of them, one by one, whether they expected, when alive, and when they used to hear about hell, ever to be the subjects of misery: we doubtless, should hear one and another reply, "No, I never intended to come here: I had laid out matters otherwise in my mind; I thought I should contrive well for myself -- I thought my scheme good. I intended to take effectual care; but it came upon me unexpected; I did not look for it at that time, and in that manner; it came as a thief -- Death outwitted me: God's wrath was too quick for me. Oh, my cursed foolishness! I was flattering myself, and pleasing myself with vain dreams of what I would do hereafter; and when I was saying, Peace and safety, then sudden destruction came upon me."

God has laid himself under no obligation, by any promise to keep any natural man out of hell one moment. God certainly has made no promises either of eternal life, or of any deliverance or preservation from eternal death, but what are contained in the covenant of grace, the promises that are given in Christ, in whom all the promises are yea and amen. But surely they have no interest in the promises of the covenant of grace who are not the children of the covenant, who do not believe in any of the promises, and have no interest in the Mediator of the covenant.

So that, whatever some have imagined and pretended about promises made to natural men's earnest seeking and knocking, it is plain and manifest, that whatever pains a natural man takes in religion, whatever prayers he makes, till he believes in Christ, God is under no manner of obligation to keep him a moment from eternal destruction.

So that, thus it is that natural men are held in the hand of God, over the pit of hell; they have deserved the fiery pit, and are already sentenced to it; and God is dreadfully provoked, his anger is as great towards them as to those that are actually suffering the executions of the fierceness of his wrath in hell, and they have done nothing in the least to appease or abate that anger, neither is God in the least bound by any promise to hold them up one moment; the devil is waiting for them, hell is gaping for them, the flames gather and flash about them, and would fain lay hold on them, and swallow them up; the fire pent up in their own hearts is struggling to break out: and they have no interest in any Mediator, there are no means within reach that can be any security to them. In short, they have no refuge, nothing to take hold of; all that preserves them every moment is the mere arbitrary will, and uncovenanted, unobliged forbearance of an incensed God.
Application

The use of this awful subject may be for awakening unconverted persons in this congregation. This that you have heard is the case of every one of you that are out of Christ. -- That world of misery, that lake of burning brimstone, is extended abroad under you. There is the dreadful pit of the glowing flames of the wrath of God; there is hell's wide gaping mouth open; and you have nothing to stand upon, nor any thing to take hold of; there is nothing between you and hell but the air; it is only the power and mere pleasure of God that holds you up.

You probably are not sensible of this; you find you are kept out of hell, but do not see the hand of God in it; but look at other things, as the good state of your bodily constitution, your care of your own life, and the means you use for your own preservation. But indeed these things are nothing; if God should withdraw his hand, they would avail no more to keep you from falling, than the thin air to hold up a person that is suspended in it.

Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider's web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God's enemies. God's creatures are good, and were made for men to serve God with, and do not willingly subserve to any other purpose, and groan when they are abused to purposes so directly contrary to their nature and end. And the world would spew you out, were it not for the sovereign hand of him who hath subjected it in hope. There are the black clouds of God's wrath now hanging directly over your heads, full of the dreadful storm, and big with thunder; and were it not for the restraining hand of God, it would immediately burst forth upon you. The sovereign pleasure of God, for the present, stays his rough wind; otherwise it would come with fury, and your destruction would come like a whirlwind, and you would be like the chaff on the summer threshing floor.

The wrath of God is like great waters that are dammed for the present; they increase more and more, and rise higher and higher, till an outlet is given; and the longer the stream is stopped, the more rapid and mighty is its course, when once it is let loose. It is true, that judgment against your evil works has not been executed hitherto; the floods of God's vengeance have been withheld; but your guilt in the mean time is constantly increasing, and you are every day treasuring up more wrath; the waters are constantly rising, and waxing more and more mighty; and there is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, that holds the waters back, that are unwilling to be stopped, and press hard to go forward. If God should only withdraw his hand from the flood-gate, it would immediately fly open, and the fiery floods of the fierceness and wrath of God, would rush forth with inconceivable fury, and would come upon you with omnipotent power; and if your strength were ten thousand times greater than it is, yea, ten thousand times greater than the strength of the stoutest, sturdiest devil in hell, it would be nothing to withstand or endure it.

The bow of God's wrath is bent, and the arrow made ready on the string, and justice bends the arrow at your heart, and strains the bow, and it is nothing but the mere pleasure of God, and that of an angry God, without any promise or obligation at all, that keeps the arrow one moment from being made drunk with your blood. Thus all you that never passed under a great change of heart, by the mighty power of the Spirit of God upon your souls; all you that were never born again, and made new creatures, and raised from being dead in sin, to a state of new, and before altogether unexperienced light and life, are in the hands of an angry God. However you may have reformed your life in many things, and may have had religious affections, and may keep up a form of religion in your families and closets, and in the house of God, it is nothing but his mere pleasure that keeps you from being this moment swallowed up in everlasting destruction. However unconvinced you may now be of the truth of what you hear, by and by you will be fully convinced of it. Those that are gone from being in the like circumstances with you, see that it was so with them; for destruction came suddenly upon most of them; when they expected nothing of it, and while they were saying, Peace and safety: now they see, that those things on which they depended for peace and safety, were nothing but thin air and empty shadows.

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. -- And consider here more particularly,

Whose wrath it is: it is the wrath of the infinite God. If it were only the wrath of man, though it were of the most potent prince, it would be comparatively little to be regarded. The wrath of kings is very much dreaded, especially of absolute monarchs, who have the possessions and lives of their subjects wholly in their power, to be disposed of at their mere will. Prov. 20:2. "The fear of a king is as the roaring of a lion: Whoso provoketh him to anger, sinneth against his own soul." The subject that very much enrages an arbitrary prince, is liable to suffer the most extreme torments that human art can invent, or human power can inflict. But the greatest earthly potentates in their greatest majesty and strength, and when clothed in their greatest terrors, are but feeble, despicable worms of the dust, in comparison of the great and almighty Creator and King of heaven and earth. It is but little that they can do, when most enraged, and when they have exerted the utmost of their fury. All the kings of the earth, before God, are as grasshoppers; they are nothing, and less than nothing: both their love and their hatred is to be despised. The wrath of the great King of kings, is as much more terrible than theirs, as his majesty is greater. Luke 12:4,5. "And I say unto you, my friends, Be not afraid of them that kill the body, and after that, have no more that they can do. But I will forewarn you whom you shall fear: fear him, which after he hath killed, hath power to cast into hell: yea, I say unto you, Fear him."

It is the fierceness of his wrath that you are exposed to. We often read of the fury of God; as in Isa. 59:18. "According to their deeds, accordingly he will repay fury to his adversaries." So Isa. 66:15. "For behold, the Lord will come with fire, and with his chariots like a whirlwind, to render his anger with fury, and his rebuke with flames of fire." And in many other places. So, Rev. 19:15, we read of "the wine press of the fierceness and wrath of Almighty God." The words are exceeding terrible. If it had only been said, "the wrath of God," the words would have implied that which is infinitely dreadful: but it is "the fierceness and wrath of God." The fury of God! the fierceness of Jehovah! Oh, how dreadful that must be! Who can utter or conceive what such expressions carry in them! But it is also "the fierceness and wrath of almighty God." As though there would be a very great manifestation of his almighty power in what the fierceness of his wrath should inflict, as though omnipotence should be as it were enraged, and exerted, as men are wont to exert their strength in the fierceness of their wrath. Oh! then, what will be the consequence! What will become of the poor worms that shall suffer it! Whose hands can be strong? And whose heart can endure? To what a dreadful, inexpressible, inconceivable depth of misery must the poor creature be sunk who shall be the subject of this!

Consider this, you that are here present, that yet remain in an unregenerate state. That God will execute the fierceness of his anger, implies, that he will inflict wrath without any pity. When God beholds the ineffable extremity of your case, and sees your torment to be so vastly disproportioned to your strength, and sees how your poor soul is crushed, and sinks down, as it were, into an infinite gloom; he will have no compassion upon you, he will not forbear the executions of his wrath, or in the least lighten his hand; there shall be no moderation or mercy, nor will God then at all stay his rough wind; he will have no regard to your welfare, nor be at all careful lest you should suffer too much in any other sense, than only that you shall not suffer beyond what strict justice requires. Nothing shall be withheld, because it is so hard for you to bear. Ezek. 8:18. "Therefore will I also deal in fury: mine eye shall not spare, neither will I have pity; and though they cry in mine ears with a loud voice, yet I will not hear them." Now God stands ready to pity you; this is a day of mercy; you may cry now with some encouragement of obtaining mercy. But when once the day of mercy is past, your most lamentable and dolorous cries and shrieks will be in vain; you will be wholly lost and thrown away of God, as to any regard to your welfare. God will have no other use to put you to, but to suffer misery; you shall be continued in being to no other end; for you will be a vessel of wrath fitted to destruction; and there will be no other use of this vessel, but to be filled full of wrath. God will be so far from pitying you when you cry to him, that it is said he will only "laugh and mock," Prov. 1:25,26, etc.

How awful are those words, Isa. 63:3, which are the words of the great God. "I will tread them in mine anger, and will trample them in my fury, and their blood shall be sprinkled upon my garments, and I will stain all my raiment." It is perhaps impossible to conceive of words that carry in them greater manifestations of these three things, viz. contempt, and hatred, and fierceness of indignation. If you cry to God to pity you, he will be so far from pitying you in your doleful case, or showing you the least regard or favour, that instead of that, he will only tread you under foot. And though he will know that you cannot bear the weight of omnipotence treading upon you, yet he will not regard that, but he will crush you under his feet without mercy; he will crush out your blood, and make it fly, and it shall be sprinkled on his garments, so as to stain all his raiment. He will not only hate you, but he will have you in the utmost contempt: no place shall be thought fit for you, but under his feet to be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

The misery you are exposed to is that which God will inflict to that end, that he might show what that wrath of Jehovah is. God hath had it on his heart to show to angels and men, both how excellent his love is, and also how terrible his wrath is. Sometimes earthly kings have a mind to show how terrible their wrath is, by the extreme punishments they would execute on those that would provoke them. Nebuchadnezzar, that mighty and haughty monarch of the Chaldean empire, was willing to show his wrath when enraged with Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego; and accordingly gave orders that the burning fiery furnace should be heated seven times hotter than it was before; doubtless, it was raised to the utmost degree of fierceness that human art could raise it. But the great God is also willing to show his wrath, and magnify his awful majesty and mighty power in the extreme sufferings of his enemies. Rom. 9:22. "What if God, willing to show his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much long-suffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction?" And seeing this is his design, and what he has determined, even to show how terrible the unrestrained wrath, the fury and fierceness of Jehovah is, he will do it to effect. There will be something accomplished and brought to pass that will be dreadful with a witness. When the great and angry God hath risen up and executed his awful vengeance on the poor sinner, and the wretch is actually suffering the infinite weight and power of his indignation, then will God call upon the whole universe to behold that awful majesty and mighty power that is to be seen in it. Isa. 33:12-14. "And the people shall be as the burnings of lime, as thorns cut up shall they be burnt in the fire. Hear ye that are far off, what I have done; and ye that are near, acknowledge my might. The sinners in Zion are afraid; fearfulness hath surprised the hypocrites," etc.

Thus it will be with you that are in an unconverted state, if you continue in it; the infinite might, and majesty, and terribleness of the omnipotent God shall be magnified upon you, in the ineffable strength of your torments. You shall be tormented in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb; and when you shall be in this state of suffering, the glorious inhabitants of heaven shall go forth and look on the awful spectacle, that they may see what the wrath and fierceness of the Almighty is; and when they have seen it, they will fall down and adore that great power and majesty. Isa. 66:23,24. "And it shall come to pass, that from one new moon to another, and from one sabbath to another, shall all flesh come to worship before me, saith the Lord. And they shall go forth and look upon the carcasses of the men that have transgressed against me; for their worm shall not die, neither shall their fire be quenched, and they shall be an abhorring unto all flesh."

It is everlasting wrath. It would be dreadful to suffer this fierceness and wrath of Almighty God one moment; but you must suffer it to all eternity. There will be no end to this exquisite horrible misery. When you look forward, you shall see a long for ever, a boundless duration before you, which will swallow up your thoughts, and amaze your soul; and you will absolutely despair of ever having any deliverance, any end, any mitigation, any rest at all. You will know certainly that you must wear out long ages, millions of millions of ages, in wrestling and conflicting with this almighty merciless vengeance; and then when you have so done, when so many ages have actually been spent by you in this manner, you will know that all is but a point to what remains. So that your punishment will indeed be infinite. Oh, who can express what the state of a soul in such circumstances is! All that we can possibly say about it, gives but a very feeble, faint representation of it; it is inexpressible and inconceivable: For "who knows the power of God's anger?"

How dreadful is the state of those that are daily and hourly in the danger of this great wrath and infinite misery! But this is the dismal case of every soul in this congregation that has not been born again, however moral and strict, sober and religious, they may otherwise be. Oh that you would consider it, whether you be young or old! There is reason to think, that there are many in this congregation now hearing this discourse, that will actually be the subjects of this very misery to all eternity. We know not who they are, or in what seats they sit, or what thoughts they now have. It may be they are now at ease, and hear all these things without much disturbance, and are now flattering themselves that they are not the persons, promising themselves that they shall escape. If we knew that there was one person, and but one, in the whole congregation, that was to be the subject of this misery, what an awful thing would it be to think of! If we knew who it was, what an awful sight would it be to see such a person! How might all the rest of the congregation lift up a lamentable and bitter cry over him! But, alas! instead of one, how many is it likely will remember this discourse in hell? And it would be a wonder, if some that are now present should not be in hell in a very short time, even before this year is out. And it would be no wonder if some persons, that now sit here, in some seats of this meeting-house, in health, quiet and secure, should be there before tomorrow morning. Those of you that finally continue in a natural condition, that shall keep out of hell longest will be there in a little time! your damnation does not slumber; it will come swiftly, and, in all probability, very suddenly upon many of you. You have reason to wonder that you are not already in hell. It is doubtless the case of some whom you have seen and known, that never deserved hell more than you, and that heretofore appeared as likely to have been now alive as you. Their case is past all hope; they are crying in extreme misery and perfect despair; but here you are in the land of the living and in the house of God, and have an opportunity to obtain salvation. What would not those poor damned hopeless souls give for one day's opportunity such as you now enjoy!

And now you have an extraordinary opportunity, a day wherein Christ has thrown the door of mercy wide open, and stands in calling and crying with a loud voice to poor sinners; a day wherein many are flocking to him, and pressing into the kingdom of God. Many are daily coming from the east, west, north and south; many that were very lately in the same miserable condition that you are in, are now in a happy state, with their hearts filled with love to him who has loved them, and washed them from their sins in his own blood, and rejoicing in hope of the glory of God. How awful is it to be left behind at such a day! To see so many others feasting, while you are pining and perishing! To see so many rejoicing and singing for joy of heart, while you have cause to mourn for sorrow of heart, and howl for vexation of spirit! How can you rest one moment in such a condition? Are not your souls as precious as the souls of the people at Suffield, where they are flocking from day to day to Christ?

Are there not many here who have lived long in the world, and are not to this day born again? and so are aliens from the commonwealth of Israel, and have done nothing ever since they have lived, but treasure up wrath against the day of wrath? Oh, sirs, your case, in an especial manner, is extremely dangerous. Your guilt and hardness of heart is extremely great. Do you not see how generality persons of your years are passed over and left, in the present remarkable and wonderful dispensation of God's mercy? You had need to consider yourselves, and awake thoroughly out of sleep. You cannot bear the fierceness and wrath of the infinite God. -- And you, young men, and young women, will you neglect this precious season which you now enjoy, when so many others of your age are renouncing all youthful vanities, and flocking to Christ? You especially have now an extraordinary opportunity; but if you neglect it, it will soon be with you as with those persons who spent all the precious days of youth in sin, and are now come to such a dreadful pass in blindness and hardness. -- And you, children, who are unconverted, do not you know that you are going down to hell, to bear the dreadful wrath of that God, who is now angry with you every day and every night? Will you be content to be the children of the devil, when so many other children in the land are converted, and are become the holy and happy children of the King of kings?

And let every one that is yet out of Christ, and hanging over the pit of hell, whether they be old men and women, or middle aged, or young people, or little children, now hearken to the loud calls of God's word and providence. This acceptable year of the Lord, a day of such great favour to some, will doubtless be a day of as remarkable vengeance to others. Men's hearts harden, and their guilt increases apace at such a day as this, if they neglect their souls; and never was there so great danger of such persons being given up to hardness of heart and blindness of mind. God seems now to be hastily gathering in his elect in all parts of the land; and probably the greater part of adult persons that ever shall be saved, will be brought in now in a little time, and that it will be as it was on the great out-pouring of the Spirit upon the Jews in the apostles' days; the election will obtain, and the rest will be blinded. If this should be the case with you, you will eternally curse this day, and will curse the day that ever you was born, to see such a season of the pouring out of God's Spirit, and will wish that you had died and gone to hell before you had seen it. Now undoubtedly it is, as it was in the days of John the Baptist, the axe is in an extraordinary manner laid at the root of the trees, that every tree which brings not forth good fruit, may be hewn down and cast into the fire.

Therefore, let every one that is out of Christ, now awake and fly from the wrath to come. The wrath of Almighty God is now undoubtedly hanging over a great part of this congregation. Let every one fly out of Sodom: "Haste and escape for your lives, look not behind you, escape to the mountain, lest you be consumed."

L
Lordoitagain

When the Holy Ghost puts His stamp of approval on the preaching of "Eternal Conscious Punishment" in such a magnitude of drawing SO MANY souls to Him through such preaching, then I cannot even entertain doubting the truth of such teaching!


http://mygodmorning.weebly.com/1/post/2014/02/history-of-revival.html


THE CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY:
The American Colonies were in disarray. There was no central government to bind them or unify them. War with the Indians produced all sorts of wicked passions and moral decline. Drunkenness, swearing, immorality, and every form of vice grew as never before in their history.

THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH:
The "Halfway Covenant" of 1662 had opened the way for unsaved people to become members of local churches, and soon unsaved preachers were allowed into the pulpits across the colonies. Secret apostasies and open sins corrupted and weakened the churches.

"Religion lay as it were dying, and ready to expire its last breath of life in this part of the visible church. Our church is generally dead and lifeless. Our people are careless, carnal, and insecure." ”” Samuel Blair

The church was filled with compromise, contention, and corruption. It seemed to be a hopeless situation.

REVIVAL COMES:
In Northampton, Massachusetts, the young people were addicted to "night walking," drinking alcohol, and conducting lewd practices among different and same sex individuals for the greater part of the evening to early morning hours. There were no restrictions or safeguards set in place to protect the younger generation. After widespread wickedness, two popular young people suddenly died in the spring of 1734. This brought a sobering effect on the entire town and people began to ask questions about eternity and other spiritual matters. God's judgment had come to get the people's attention. Jonathan Edwards began to preach the Gospel deliberately and powerfully in a series entitled, "Justification by Faith Alone." In December of 1734, six young people were gloriously saved. One of those saved was a young woman who was known as a flirtatious and promiscuous woman. Her life was so radically changed that it became the talk of the town and the news of this evident act of God's grace spread like wildfire. In the next six months 300 of the 1,000 town residents were saved. That is more than 25% of the town's population. Revival had come!

SINNERS IN THE HANDS OF AN ANGRY GOD:
On July 8, 1741, in Enfield, Connecticut, Edwards preached his famous sermon "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God." His message emphasized the reality of Hell and the severity of God's judgment upon those who remain in their sin and constant defiance toward Him. As Edwards preached, he was interrupted many times before finishing by people moaning and crying out, "What shall I do to be saved?" Others gripped the pews with such fervor for fear of the ground beneath them opening up allowing them to plunge to the depths of hell. God used Jonathan Edwards in a great and powerful way as he traveled from church to church and town to town preaching the Word of God.

REVIVAL RESULTS:

In New England alone 10% of the total population of 300,000 were added to churches between 1740 and 1742.
Total people saved reached a staggering 50,000.

O
Oracio

Amen Lordoitagain!

T
TMK

Of course not all revivals started with hell and brimstone preaching. The early church that changed the world, for example.

If it was Jonathan Edwards words that sparked the revival then we should be able to go out on street corners in a city and read the sermon and thereby bring a city to its knees. The HS sparks revival and He can use what means He wishes.

L
Lordoitagain

The fact that the Holy Spirit used that type of preaching should be an indicator to anyone who really cares about what God thinks that He approves of that kind of preaching.

This is just ONE of hundreds of examples where the Holy Spirit used this kind of preaching to draw men to God. If such messages were lies because of errors in understanding of the Bible, God the Holy Spirit would not use lies to set men free. Only the Truth can do that!

O
Oracio

Len Ravenhill said it well in saying "there's nothing this generation needs more than a baptism of old fashioned hell fire preaching, I'm sure of that."

It seems many have gotten used to the feminine type of Jesus which is preached all across the west. We hear it in the pulpits as well as in much of contemporary Christian music.

Thought this clip of Voddie Baucham would be appropriate here:

edit: I changed the link to the link to another clip of the same short portion of the same sermon, a clip which doesn't have distracting music in the background as the first one did:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_dyjSKVjXJM

T
TMK

From Jonathan Edwards secretary:

Memorandum to: Jonathan Edwards
Re: "Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God"

You received a call from the Spanish Inquisition today(I certainly didn't expect them!). They want their doctrine back. They feel that they have the rights to the "God the Torturer" motif, being the inventors of same and therefore have the exclusive rights to control its use in sermons etc. Just between us, they seem to be jealous that the Protestant movement can reap the same benefits that they got out of the doctrine, which was created specifically for the purpose of keeping "protesters" and "dissidents" loyal to the Roman Catholic communion. They claim it is unethical for you to take their innovation and to put it to a use contrary to its intended purpose. You will be hearing from their attorneys.

T
TrueWitness

I think that good gospel preaching should touch on our desperate situation because of our sin debt to God AND also relay the message of God's love offer of salvation through Jesus to all who will repent and believe. I don't think it is absolutely necessary to bring up hell or heaven but there's nothing wrong with it if it is done in the right spirit. If someone is going to preach on hell fire and damnation I think they should do so with meekness and preferably with tears streaming down their face. Angry yelling about you're going to hell sinner may be true but can be done in the wrong spirit. Again, let the minister of the gospel tell the truth about eternal consequences in a pleading manner pointing out that it is not God's will that any should perish but that all should come to repentance. Plenty of false conversions come about because of over emphasizing escaping hell and/or going to heaven by coming to Jesus. That should not be the main thrust of the appeal. That sort of preaching just motivates people to come forward and pray the sinner's prayer to save their own skin. I'm not saying that touching on the topic of heaven or hell is wrong in itself but should not be over emphasized.

I was particularly appalled by that clip of the minister who characterized those preaching Jesus as pleading and yearning for lost souls to come to Him as promoting a "sissified Jesus".

O
Oracio

Thanks for your input TrueWitness. I found it interesting that you were appalled by that clip. I'd be curious to know if others were also appalled, besides TMK or others who don't believe in eternal punishment ;), as I'm sure they'd be appalled by it. I know of many believers who have been encouraged by that clip because they know full well that the gospel message has been so watered down and has made our Lord seem needy to many.

T
TMK

I wasn't appalled by the clip at all- in fact I agreed with it for the most part.

I don't like the way Jesus is portrayed by the Osteens of the world.

In fact I have stated here on this forum numerous times and perhaps even in this thread (can't remember now) that the basis of our repentance is not in response to a pleading begging Jesus but rather because He is the Supreme Emperor of the Universe and He commands that all men repent for HIS sake, not ours.

I don't disagree with pointed preaching. My problem with Edward's sermon, however, is deeper.

Edwards seems extremely reluctant to even mention God's love. Many times in the sermon He refers to the fact that God holds sinners in his hands, preventing them from experiencing wrath for the time being... but Edwards never really comments on WHY God does this. Actually, that's not quite correct. He repeatedly says it's due solely to God's 'pleasure' or 'arbitrary will.' Well... give me something more Mr. Edwards! WHY does God experience pleasure at keeping wicked people alive? Could it be because He loves them? Is it legitimate to call someone's will completely arbitrary? Doesn't something have to motivate a will to do something? What 'will' is it? I'd think it'd have to be a loving motivation. A will to save. But Edwards repeatedly avoids this (and I do mean REPEATEDLY). He seems strangely opposed to reflecting on God's goodness in the sermon.

The sermon seems to ignore, in large part, the greatest revelation of God's character (Jesus Christ) and the greatest statement describing God's character (God is love). A few times, Edwards comments that God is 'dreadfully provoked' whereas 1 Cor. 13 says that love is not provoked. He says that once a sinner dies God's love for them is no more and only His wrath remains, whereas 1 Cor. 13 says love perseveres and never fails. Worse still, he says that God is willing and wanting to show His wrath on His enemies, whereas Jesus said to love our enemies. Almost every single biblical reference that Edwards uses is from the sometimes shadowy revelation of the Old Testament.

Edwards speaks of hell as eternal torment / everlasting misery, but about half the passages he cites lend themselves more to the idea of extinction. He simply doesn't comment on such issues.

Edwards makes an appeal for the congregation to wake up and, with a sense of urgency, come to God. But one wonders what motivation (other than flat out fear) would cause someone to come to a God who is so incredibly angry and hateful toward them until they do so? Wasn't it while we were sinners that God lovingly sent His son to die for us? Shouldn't the love of God be our primary motivation? At the very least, it should be the motivation that remains.

S
sermonindex

Edwards seems extremely reluctant to even mention God's love. Many times in the sermon He refers to the fact that God holds sinners in his hands, preventing them from experiencing wrath for the time being... but Edwards never really comments on WHY God does this. Actually, that's not quite correct. He repeatedly says it's due solely to God's 'pleasure' or 'arbitrary will.' Well... give me something more Mr. Edwards! WHY does God experience pleasure at keeping wicked people alive? Could it be because He loves them? Is it legitimate to call someone's will completely arbitrary? Doesn't something have to motivate a will to do something? What 'will' is it? I'd think it'd have to be a loving motivation. A will to save. But Edwards repeatedly avoids this (and I do mean REPEATEDLY). He seems strangely opposed to reflecting on God's goodness in the sermon.

I have to say TMK that I am surprised in your persistence regarding this question of the consequence of refusing to turn to God and accept Christ as Lord and Saviour. We are none of us speaking to those who are in unbelief, yet we still cannot comprehend the simplest thing sometimes.

Your comments about Edwards for example reflect a determined refusal to see the context in which these things were said by Edwards.

THE CONDITION OF THE COUNTRY:
The American Colonies were in disarray. There was no central government to bind them or unify them. War with the Indians produced all sorts of wicked passions and moral decline. Drunkenness, swearing, immorality, and every form of vice grew as never before in their history.

The writer then goes on to link this to the:

THE CONDITION OF THE CHURCH:
The "Halfway Covenant" of 1662 had opened the way for unsaved people to become members of local churches, and soon unsaved preachers were allowed into the pulpits across the colonies. Secret apostasies and open sins corrupted and weakened the churches.

Do you see the dates here TMK. This is not a few decades ago, but it represents second generation Colonists. The church was ineffectual in large part in the days of Edwards (70 years later) because heresy and apostasy were permitted by an act of governance. I read this comment on line:

The Half-Way Covenant was a form of partial church membership created by New England Puritans in 1662. It was promoted in particular by the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, who felt that the people of the English colonies were drifting away from their original religious purpose. First-generation settlers were beginning to die out, while their children and grandchildren often expressed less religious piety, and more desire for material wealth.

So here we have the two things which make ruin of a nation and ruin of the church. These are apostasy giving rise to increased heresy and a desire for material wealth over and above a desire to know and please God.

Here is a link which I would encourage you to read TMK:

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=5228&forum=36&9

The thing which I would encourage you to take from this OP is the claims of the poster taco who openly declares himself a Universalist and at the same time claims that Robert Wurtz II (Moderator) is being unpleasant with him because he (Robert) finally gets down to stating things plainly.

This is what I have found repeatedly with those who bandy heresy, whether they can draw the stomach to say it plainly, or else simply play with the fires of Hell and set snares for others feet, they all make the same assertion. It is this "Do not be mean to me". Heretics always respond to kindness and make a point of thanking others for it. They are serpents in the way and their end will be destruction.

TMK you have repeatedly claimed to be agnostic regarding the heresy of Universalism and yet you resist all attempts to show you something of the truth and even mock the truth as you did with Edwards Sermon which was given at a time of unimaginable conditions where people were loosing their eternal place with God and Christ. You play with it as though it were somehow a toy. It is rank heresy and it is damnable heresy.

In a recent recommendation you made to a website, which others warned you was a dangerous place to be reading, I showed you clearly what the effect and true meaning of that site was from the material on that site itself. You chose to ignore what I posted.

The reality is that Universalism is becoming the number one heresy which is going to damn countless souls to everlasting destruction in a day when men are increasingly wicked and inclined to open rebellion against God. It is not a thing to play with in words or thoughts. It ought to be repented off and it ought to produce the same inclination which all godly men have when a sudden and severe temptation presents itself. Flee from it with your skirts cast aside.

T
TMK

Thank goodness the Inquisition is not still going on. I'd be toast--or iron maidened. Yikes.

I will try not to get drawn into these discussions any more. I am finally getting it through my thick skull that it is not worth it.

O
Oracio

TMK, my sincere apologies for wrongly assuming you'd be appalled by that clip.

L
Lordoitagain

TMK,

When Jesus was being used of the Holy Spirit to heal people and cast out devils, religious people of His day mocked the power of the Holy Spirit calling it the power of the devil. Jesus made these eternally profound statements:

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come.

When God the Holy Spirit chooses to use a mere mortal human being such as Jonathan Edwards filling him with His power to persuade thousands to turn to God and devote their lives to Him transforming lives, neighborhoods, and entire cities, and even changing the course of a nation, it is not a light thing. It is an act of God. It is through the power of the Holy Spirit. If his message was indeed inspired by the Holy Spirit of God, then you are doing a very risky thing.

To commit a sin that God has already clearly stated that He will not forgive … OH MY GOD! There is no mercy or grace for such a sin. I sincerely hope that you have not already crossed that line.

T
TMK

Thank you for your concern. But I have not blasphemed the Holy Spirit. What I said was "The HS sparks revival and He can use what means He wishes." If that is blasphemy a lot of us might be in trouble.

I am not attributing the works of the HS to satan. What I said or at least implied was that the HS used mr Edwards words to spark a revival. The words of the sermon alone without the HS amount to drivel.

O
Oracio

TMK writes

A few times, Edwards comments that God is 'dreadfully provoked' whereas 1 Cor. 13 says that love is not provoked.

This is an example of interpreting a certain verse without considering the whole counsel of God's Word.

There are many many references to God being provoked to wrath both in the old and new testaments.

These are just a few of many:

"Alas, sinful nation, A people laden with iniquity, A brood of evildoers, Children who are corrupters! They have forsaken the Lord, They have provoked to anger The Holy One of Israel, They have turned away backward."-Isa 1:4

"Why have they provoked Me to anger With their carved images-- With foreign idols?"-Jer.8:19b

"because the children of Israel and the children of Judah have done only evil before Me from their youth. For the children of Israel have provoked Me only to anger with the work of their hands,' says the Lord."-Jer.32:30

"He who believes in the Son has everlasting life; and he who does not believe the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."-John 3:36

"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness"-Rom.1:18

"Beloved, do not avenge yourselves, but rather give place to wrath; for it is written, "Vengeance is Mine, I will repay," says the Lord."-Rom.12:19

"So I swore in My wrath, 'They shall not enter My rest.' "-Heb.3:11

1Cor.13:5 does not contradict nor do away with God's wrath toward sin and sinners. As humans, it is not our place to execute the wrath of God against sin and sinners. He says that that kind of vengeance belongs to Himself. We are to display patience with all people. Yet even then sometimes we are called to give a loving rebuke and show righteous indignation, for love does not rejoice in evil but in the truth.

As humans we are called to love the sinner but hate the sin. Not so with God, for He both hates the sin and the sinner and will cast the sinner into eternal damnation if he/she dies in his sin. Yet at the same time He also loves the sinner and desires all men to be saved and come to the knowledge of the truth. It is a love/hate relationship until the sinner either repents and experiences the saving grace of God or dies in his sin and ends up in hell where the love and grace of God will forever be removed from his life.

Worse still, he says that God is willing and wanting to show His wrath on His enemies, whereas Jesus said to love our enemies.
Again, right there is revealed a lack of making a needful distinction between God's command to love our enemies on the one hand, and on the other hand God's prerogative to punish evildoers. The reasoning seems to be like this; if we are to love our enemies and desire the best for them, God is also bound to love them and desire the best for them. Therefore, if we do not desire for them to spend an eternity in hell, God also should not desire that or execute that kind of punishment.

Can you see how that line of reasoning tries to bring God down to our level and make Him a mere man?

S
sermonindex

TMK,

Just to say that I have been reading this thread and I am with you on a great deal of what you say. Thanks for bringing up these things and showing a willingness to wrestle honestly with the questions.

I personally lean more towards the Conditionalist view (a slightly more robust version of Annilihationism). I am willing to listen to listen to sound cases (both biblically and rationally) for eternal punishment and I admit that it could be true. However, calling me a heretic or simply telling me off for raising such questions (which reeks of an attitude of toxic religious fundamentalism) does not exactly incline me to consider it.

As for Edwards, it is not so much that sermon that I have issues with, but that kind of preaching COMBINED with abhorrent and unbiblical teaching of preparationism which he also promoted. However, that is probably a topic for another thread.........

S
sermonindex

Thank goodness the Inquisition is not still going on. I'd be toast--or iron maidened. Yikes.

Yes indeed TMK thank God. Otherwise I would have to torture you into repentance. (Only kidding).

Here is a good link which I think is balanced and very intelligent in its presentation. It is by Art Katz.

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/articles/index.php?view=article&aid=23532

I have been thinking about the relevance of believers asking one another such a question as the one which informs this OP. Of course I realise that there are brethren who believe that even born again men and women can go to Hell, and if Hell, then eternal torment. I wonder how much this teaching informs the original question. It seems to me regardless of what you believe of those who do believe and are truly converted, we have to remember that there are those who come among us who are not truly converted and for whatever reason they remain unconverted as well. This is a real problem. How would such men and women go on in unbelief if we were to preach eternal consequences to unbelief and made the emphasis sin? Not simply the sin of unbelief, but all sin and all sinning! Would those who are not converted even respond to such preaching? I have to believe that they would in fact respond because such a message really does make the individual give real thought to their lives and especially their secret lives.

For those who are converted such a message could not cause offence if they are walking in the Spirit and confessing their own sins daily. It is only those who have set aside such an attitude of daily repentance and daily walking in the Spirit, that such a message is offensive. This is perhaps because when we do not take account of the need to walk in the light, as Christ is in the light, we are bound to want to justify our own fleshy lives and insist we are true believers regardless of our conduct. To do that we will lay hold of anything which gives us hope. Universalism is that false hope. In the end how will we make a separation between those who come among us and who have not yet been converted and those who are converted but walk in their natural minds. The consequence will be that one day the Lord Himself will make a separation and we will comprehend that we have contributed to another's eternal destruction. Such a thing must in that hour be truly unbearable to the soul.

There will be a thousand years to give this matter thought. It is no wonder that in the end with a New Heavens and a New Earth the Father will wipe away every tear. It is a true saying that each man and each woman must make their confession unto Christ in their own lives and receive the true knowledge of His suffering, death and resurrection. The only true revelation which leads to eternal life is that Christ suffered and died for sin. That He shed His own blood for the remission of sins. And that He is Lord. If that is the sum of what we have then we have life if we have truly believed. In this instance we ought to recognise that this is no more than all men must have to be saved. If we go beyond this little faith and speak of those things which are beyond our faith and calling we will cause others to stumble and they may even perish because we have spoken foolishly believing that in our liberty we can do as we please. We cannot do as we please, say what we please and believe what we please. We ought not to confuse the power to do as we please with the just right to do as we please.

S
sermonindex

However, calling me a heretic or simply telling me off for raising such questions (which reeks of an attitude of toxic religious fundamentalism) does not exactly incline me to consider it. Butters

If there were any toxic religious fundamentalism Butters in your vicinity you would not have the freedom to say such things. Don't confuse truth with poison it is a serious error.

S
sermonindex

When Jesus was being used of the Holy Spirit to heal people and cast out devils, religious people of His day mocked the power of the Holy Spirit calling it the power of the devil. Jesus made these eternally profound statements:

Mat 12:31 Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men.
Mat 12:32 And whosoever speaketh a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him: but whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world(aion), neither in the world(aion) to come.

I added the greek word for "world", "aion" or "age". Its the root word for "aionion" which is tranlsated into "eternal". =)

S
sermonindex

I added the greek word for "world", "aion" or "age". Its the root word for "anion" which is translated into "eternal"

Although many believers associate the teachings and ministry of J N Darby with dispensationalism and on that basis reject much of his ministry, I have found that the one thing which dispensationalism does is to draw a necessary and beneficial distinction which lends itself to understanding these two Greek words which you have posted.

The distinction can be made precisely into these two words and their meanings.

1. aion (αἰών, 165), "an age, era” (to be connected with aei, "ever,” rather than with ao, "to breathe”), signifies a period of indefinite duration, or time viewed in relation to what takes place in the period.

The force attaching to the word is not so much that of the actual length of a period, but that of a period marked by spiritual or moral characteristics. This is illustrated in the use of the adjective [see Note (1) below] in the phrase "life eternal,” in John 17:3, in respect of the increasing knowledge of God.
The phrases containing this word should not be rendered literally, but consistently with its sense of indefinite duration. Thus eis ton aiona does not mean "unto the age” but "for ever” (see, e.g., Heb. 5:6). The Greeks contrasted that which came to an end with that which was expressed by this phrase, which shows that they conceived of it as expressing interminable duration.

The word occurs most frequently in the Gospel of John, the Hebrews and Revelation. It is sometimes wrongly rendered "world.” See COURSE, ETERNAL, WORLD. It is a characteristic word of John’s gospel.

Vine, W. E., Unger, M. F., & White, W., Jr. (1996). Vine’s Complete Expository Dictionary of Old and New Testament Words

One thing which has helped me to understand this term aion has been to realise that underlying its usage there is an implication, not so much as to the length of the period which is present in aion, but rather the condition which qualifies the age itself. This is where dispensationalism and the idea of dispensationalism helps. This is why we speak of the kingdom age. It is measured by one thousand years (whether we believe it or not) but the thing which makes the kingdom age is not the measure of time but the fact that its characteristic is that Christ is reigning with a rod of iron from Jerusalem over all the nations. Yet the one thousand years is an age (aion). One might say that the whole world is an age in the sense that the underlying characteristic of the world itself is that Satan is the ruler thereof. When he ceases to be the ruler of this present world (kosmos) then this present age (aion) comes to an end. In the case of the world we do not have a measure of time to speak of, but we can still speak of this present age (aion).

"Jesus said, "Truly I say to you, there is no one who has left house or brothers or sisters or mother or father or children or farms, for My sake and for the gospel’s sake, but that he will receive a hundred times as much now in the present age (αἰῶνι, aion) houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children and farms, along with persecutions; and in the age (αἰῶνι, aioni) to come, eternal life. "But many who are first will be last, and the last, first.”” (Mark 10:29”“31, NASB95)

Regardless as to which of the cognate words, as well as the root, used in Scripture, αἰὼν, αἰῶνα, αἰῶνας, αἰῶνι, αἰῶνος, αἰῶνός, αἰώνων, αἰῶσιν the underlying definition of the implicit measure of time, or else no measure whatsoever (eternal) the qualifying meaning is not the word but the spiritual and moral condition which prevails.

If seen in this way it becomes very easy to realise that where unbelief is the spiritual and moral condition of a man at death, then his unbelief must either prevail for eternity or else God must give men second chances after death itself. If the place where unbelievers are to spend eternity is other than in the presence of the Father and the Lamb, then the qualifying condition of unbelief makes certain the measure of that separation. Unbelief itself is the thing which separated men from God for eternity. In short the lake of fire is the eternal place of unbelievers.

T
TMK

Andrew-

thanks for the Art Katz article. I don't think I have read that one before.

I agree with him that there is a lack of the fear of God in the churches today. The strange thing is that-- in the true church at least-- feat of eternal judgment should not be what is producing the fear of God.

So how is the fear of God restored in the churches today?

I am reminded of a conversation in Narnia:

"Is””is he a man?” asked Lucy.

"Aslan a man!” said Mr. Beaver sternly. "Certainly not. I tell you he is the King of the wood and the son of the Great Emperor-Beyond-the-Sea. Don’t you know who is the King of Beasts? Aslan is a lion””the Lion, the great Lion.”

"Ooh!” said Susan, "I’d thought he was a man. Is he””quite safe? I shall feel rather nervous about meeting a lion.”

"That you will, dearie, and no mistake,” said Mrs. Beaver, "if there’s anyone who can appear before Aslan without their knees knocking, they’re either braver than most or else just silly.”

"Then he isn’t safe?” said Lucy.

"Safe?” said Mr. Beaver. "Don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good. He’s the King, I tell you.” -excerpted from The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe

S
sermonindex

I agree with him that there is a lack of the fear of God in the churches today. The strange thing is that-- in the true church at least-- fear of eternal judgment should not be what is producing the fear of God.

So how is the fear of God restored in the churches today? TMK

""Now, Israel, what does the LORD your God require from you, but to fear the LORD your God, to walk in all His ways and love Him, and to serve the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul,” (Deuteronomy 10:12, NASB95)

The fear of the Lord and the love of God are not contradictory things. In this sense fear means proper respect and awe, derived from a true knowledge of Who God is. The love which we have for God will be similarly proportionate to an understanding or revelation of what the Father has done in sending His beloved Son to die for us. I have always found it difficult to understand how anyone can be converted to Christ and at the same time have no fear of God. Similarly I have always found it difficult to understand how a true convert could not be broken in an understanding of the Father's great love for us. These two things are not contradictions of one another but flow from one another in a true and proper revelation of the Father. If we understood the Father we would understand Christ fully as well.

As for the preaching of punishment, whether eternal or temporal there may be no choice in this day and age than to preach the fearful and terrible reality of eternal destruction and its true meaning. As I said before there are wheat and tares growing in the same field. Within that field (world) there are always true believers and these true believers represent the kingdom of heaven here and now. Yet their coming together represents Christ Himself as His body, which is the true church, This church may not be always visible in the way we might think, yet if we truly love one another then this reality of the body of Christ, the true church, will become visible. The true unity is rather an inward one and this unity is only comprehended by those who are its members and living stones. This is because oneness is Christ Himself and ours also because we have received His life.

The power of the kingdom and the influence of the kingdom is over the whole earth. Yet the whole earth is not yet subject to this power of Christ. It seems to me therefore that if we are to produce the fear of God in others to a good effect we must set aside the sensibilities of those who have believed for the sake of those who believe not. In this process there will be a reasonable balance between the fear of God and the love of the Lord for those who do believe, and a righteous fear of God, for those who are yet in unbelief. The church as we know it is more than likely a mixture of unbelief and belief. Only the Lord can make that separation and He has said that He will do just that thing by His holy angels at the end of this age. It is because I believe the Scriptures to be wholly reliable and true that I can say these things. We have the Word and we have life, how can we not comprehend the times we live in? This is the end of days. We cannot produce the good effect we desire by remaining in the midst of harlotry and apostasies. Our forefathers in the faith made the separation for us and paid for it with their lives. In them we have our example.

For the past 500 years or so we have had a reality with regard to this business of separating ourselves from the apostate church. So great is the problem of men and women refusing to countenance a true obedience to Christ that in the end men and women who did desire to be obedient had no choice but to separate themselves from the outward edifice of the church and lay hold of their like minded brethren in order to comprehend Christ Himself as the true head of the Church. How can we comprehend the true body if we do not comprehend the true Head?

One time I lived in a very old farmhouse in Babworth, in Lincolnshire. There was a tunnel leading from the cellar of the house down to the local church of All Saints. I used to look at the entrance of this tunnel and ask myself why I was living in a house with a tunnel into the first Church in England to separate from the apostate church. This is the place where the congregation became Separatist on 11 July 1586. From this one act of separation many more men and women separated themselves unto Christ and this in the end led to persecution and suffering for those who knew that they had to make this sacrifice. Some years later a number from this congregation (William Brewster and William Bradford) then began meeting in Scrooby. From Scrooby there were meeting in Gainsborough Old Hall under the leadership of John Smythe, and so the move of God to separate unto Himself a righteous and obedient few progressed. In the end it spread to the Americas. Yet within one generation this move of God was already compromised. Today we have to ask ourselves whether we can go on in this compromise or whether we must once again separate ourselves. If we do separate we will be better placed to preach Christ to the apostate church and in that perhaps many will come to the true knowledge of the love and the fear of God and Christ. In such a circumstance there will be no benefit to preaching foolishly. It will be necessary to preach the true and terrible fear of the Lord to those who will have proven by all visible and determined means that they love this world and the things in it.

In such a reality what need then for concern about how to produce the righteous fear of the Lord. It will be a simple matter of telling men the truth.

S
sermonindex

For the time is coming when [people] will not tolerate (endure) sound and wholesome instruction, but, having ears itching [for something pleasing and gratifying], they will gather to themselves one teacher after another to a considerable number, chosen to satisfy their own liking and to foster the errors they hold, And will turn aside from hearing the truth and wander off into myths and man-made fictions. (2 Timothy 4:3, 4 AMP)

Those who deny the infallibly of the Holy Scriptures regarding the clear doctrine of eternal damnation for unbelievers are heretics for they "give attention to man made myths".

Let's stop pussy footing around this issue. Good solid believers are asked to leave this forum for comparatively minor infractions while threads like this that cast doubt and sow heresy into the minds of the young and weak are allowed to continue!

Rob Bell was used by the devil to deceive perhaps thousands and even millions! How many more will be lost because of the wishy washy approach to heresy that this forum is allowing?

Andrew I want to single you out (though there are many more who have posted here that stand with you) and thank you for your clear and concise calling forth of this as heresy! Yet the reply to your sound instruction was a mocking reference to the inquisition! This shows very clearly where the heart is at!!!

Denying the Truth (let's stop playing games for that is what some are doing on this forum by continuously bringing up this heresy) only succeeds in sowing doubt in believers and furthers the spread of heresy.

Little do they know how satan is using them.

"Oh but I don't really believe it, I just am considering all possibilities". That's just like the devil when he said, "has God really said?. To be clear, to deny sound doctrine and to promote the false doctrine of universalism and annihilation on this forum is in fact ACTIVELY spreading heresy on this forum...but in the same subtle way that satan deceived Eve in the garden.

Therefore it is my contention that there are people who have crept into this forum to spread heresy and I am convinced that some weak believers or even non-believers have already read these things and are already beginning to doubt the Truth! May God forgive us for allowing this to happen and for not taking a firmer stance!

If this applies to you, rather than be offended by what I am writing, why don't you see this as The Lord reaching out to admonish you to repent? For that is what you need to do...repent and fully surrender your heart to the Lord.

Below is an except from a piece Charlie Martin wrote:

The Bible speaks of only two destinies for mankind - Eternal Life or Eternal Punishment (Condemnation, Damnation). Christianity seems to have drifted away from the 'hell fire & brimstone' preaching that was prevalent for a long time. While it is much better to focus on God's Love; His sense of Justice, and man's reprobation, should not be overlooked, or swept under the rug. Mankind needs to know that these are its only true destinies; yet, we find many of today's Christian Preachers & Teachers failing to address the issue of Eternal Punishment. We even have whole segments of supposedly Christian Denominations, Churches, now teaching that there is no such thing as Eternal Damnation (Condemnation). Their reasoning is that since "God is love" (1 John 4:16) He could not possibly sentence someone to be punished for eternity. It is no mystery that these groups are becoming extremely popular. Their message is pleasing to hear. Just imagine, "No matter what, everyone is going to Heaven."

Regardless of the beliefs of some, the Bible clearly teaches Eternal Punishment (Condemnation - Damnation).

"The Son of Man shall send out His angels, and they shall gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who do iniquity, and shall cast them into a furnace of fire. There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth."
(Mat 13:41-42)

"So it shall be at the end of the world. The angels shall come out and separate the wicked from among the just, and shall cast them into the furnace of fire. There shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth." (Mat 13:49-50)

"Then he will say to those on his left, 'Away from me, you that are under God's curse! Away to the eternal fire which has been prepared for the Devil and his angels!" "These, then, will be sent off to eternal punishment, but the righteous will go to eternal life." (Mat 25:41 & 46)

"And if your foot offends you, cut it off. It is better for you to enter into life lame than to have two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched where their worm (conscience) dies not, and the fire is not quenched." (Mark 9:45-46)

"And in hell he lifted up his eyes, being in torments, and saw Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me and send Lazarus so that he may dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, for I am tormented in this flame." (Luke 16:23-24)

"He who believes on Him is not condemned, but he who does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only-begotten Son of God. And this is the condemnation, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the Light, because their deeds were evil." (John 3:18-19)

" - in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God and who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ, who shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, ...." (2Th 1:8-9)

"And a third angel followed them, saying with a great voice, If anyone worships the beast and its image, and receives a mark in his forehead or in his hand, he also will drink of the wine of the anger of God, having been mixed undiluted in the cup of His wrath. And he will be tormented by fire and brimstone before the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever. And they have no rest day or night, those who worship the beast and its image, and whoever receives the mark of its name." (Rev 14:9-11)

"And if anyone was not found having been written in the Book of Life, he was cast into the Lake of Fire." (Rev 20:15)

"But the fearful, and the unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and sorcerers, and idolaters, and all liars, will have their part in the Lake burning with fire and brimstone, which is the second death." (Rev 21:8)

It is abundantly clear that the Bible in addition to teaching, God is Love, also teaches Eternal Damnation (Punishment Condemnation) for the unbeliever.

"False prophets appeared in the past among the people, and in the same way false teachers will appear among you. They will bring in destructive, untrue doctrines, ..." (2 Peter 2:1)

O
Oracio

by amrkelly

It seems to me regardless of what you believe of those who do believe and are truly converted, we have to remember that there are those who come among us who are not truly converted and for whatever reason they remain unconverted as well. This is a real problem. How would such men and women go on in unbelief if we were to preach eternal consequences to unbelief and made the emphasis sin? Not simply the sin of unbelief, but all sin and all sinning! Would those who are not converted even respond to such preaching? I have to believe that they would in fact respond because such a message really does make the individual give real thought to their lives and especially their secret lives.

For those who are converted such a message could not cause offence if they are walking in the Spirit and confessing their own sins daily. It is only those who have set aside such an attitude of daily repentance and daily walking in the Spirit, that such a message is offensive. This is perhaps because when we do not take account of the need to walk in the light, as Christ is in the light, we are bound to want to justify our own fleshy lives and insist we are true believers regardless of our conduct. To do that we will lay hold of anything which gives us hope. Universalism is that false hope.


I've been thinking the same thing. Someone else pointed out how heresy breeds immorality. And you point out how immorality breeds heresy. I've found it interesting to note how some professing Christians get so offended by messages against sin which others are exhorted, encouraged and edified by.

by awakened

Let's stop pussy footing around this issue. Good solid believers are asked to leave this forum for comparatively minor infractions while threads like this that cast doubt and sow heresy into the minds of the young and weak are allowed to continue!

Brother, I hope you can understand why I felt led to open up this thread to begin with. Like you, I've noticed an increasing tolerance for heresy among Christians, and yes, I've called universalism and annihalationism rank heresy in other threads. I've just been a bit more patient here on this thread.
I opened up the thread because I was getting a bit confused on whether or not we could welcome a person who denies eternal hell. Again, the confusion was because I noticed certain "evangelical leaders" being widely accepted as sound teachers of the faith. C.S. Lewis is a prime example. As I began to read some of his writings I thought, "this is rank heresy, how could this be accepted among Christians as good teaching?" Could it be because these indeed are the days of great apostasy and many are being deceived, even God's elect to a certain extent?

edit: to clarify, I meant God's elect could be deceived into tolerating certain heresies.

G
ginnyrose

One thing about hell is that when people speak of it they always refer to it as place that is burning with fire and brimstone. One aspect that is rarely spoken of is that it is a dark place where there is no light. Now think about that...

Have you ever given it any serious thought what existance would be like with no light at all? None whatsoever? Think about all the pleasures we have because of light. THINK.

Ever consider the beauty of color all because of light? Do you ever delight in observing color in nature? like Birds - their coloring, the mix on the same body, God's creativity in full display on this creature? Ever see an indigo bunting whose feathers are black but because of diffraction of light through its feathers will be a rich hue of blue! Ever see that? Look around - at the flowers, the trees -look at their color! Or, the sunset, the sunrises. Do you appreciate the colors displayed there? Is this not a beautiful manifestation of the Light that comes from a divine presense and work?

Now, think: in hell there will be absolutely none of this. NONE. All black, all dark - would that not alone drive a mind who was used to seeing all this beauty crazy? I think so.

Hell is much more then fire and brimstone - it is the total absense of God and all that he is and has done. Too many people do not consider that aspect of it all - somehow they seem to feel like his presence will be lurking on the fringes somewhere.

My inspiration this morning as I observe the rose-breated grosbecks, goldfinches, mourning doves, tufted titmice, black-capped chickadees, finches feeding on my birdseed I put out for them...:-) Not first time I thought about it but seeing these beautiful creatures made by God always reminds me of this reality.

ginnyrose

H
havok20x

Oracio,

Here is what Jesus said to the Church in Pergamos:

"And to the angel of the church in Pergamos write,

‘These things says He who has the sharp two-edged sword: "I know your works, and where you dwell, where Satan’s throne is. And you hold fast to My name, and did not deny My faith even in the days in which Antipas was My faithful martyr, who was killed among you, where Satan dwells. But I have a few things against you, because you have there those who hold the doctrine of Balaam, who taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality. Thus you also have those who hold the doctrine of the Nicolaitans, which thing I hate. Repent, or else I will come to you quickly and will fight against them with the sword of My mouth.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes I will give some of the hidden manna to eat. And I will give him a white stone, and on the stone a new name written which no one knows except him who receives it.”’


And to Sardis:

"And to the angel of the church in Sardis write,

‘These things says He who has the seven Spirits of God and the seven stars: "I know your works, that you have a name that you are alive, but you are dead. Be watchful, and strengthen the things which remain, that are ready to die, for I have not found your works perfect before God. Remember therefore how you have received and heard; hold fast and repent. Therefore if you will not watch, I will come upon you as a thief, and you will not know what hour I will come upon you. You have a few names even in Sardis who have not defiled their garments; and they shall walk with Me in white, for they are worthy. He who overcomes shall be clothed in white garments, and I will not blot out his name from the Book of Life; but I will confess his name before My Father and before His angels.

"He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.”’

There are some things that are opinion, things which we must not debate over. Doctrine--real doctrine, per the scriptures, is not one of those things.

I am not talking about doctrinalizing every idea, but facts as presented in Scripture are not up for debate. We can say, "I don't know" but whenever we don't know, we should not engage in debates about the subject. Defending every position is dangerous. Instead, we should seek the Lord and search the Scriptures and see what they say. It may take months, but it is worth it. I did not come to believe how I believe overnight. I read and read and read the SCRIPTURES until the truth was made clear.

O
Oracio

Thanks havok20x.

If I've learned anything from this thread it's the need to discern and establish what is essential Christian doctrine; what are non-negotiables; what we cannot or should not allow or tolerate in our midst. I see this need all the more in these dark times with so much deception running rampant among Christians and churches.

I think that believers who are fond of and are part of house churches need to be extra careful here. I've seen UR being espoused, tolerated and prevalent within much of the evangelical house church movement. I believe the emergent church movement has had a huge impact on the evangelical house church movement sadly to say. I've seen some supposed sound leaders of the HC movement tolerate or entertain emergent leaders and their heresy.

May we be found watchful and faithful, counted among those who do not water down or compromise the faith once for all delivered to the saints.

G
ginnyrose

Oracio, What is meant by "UR"? You are?

O
Oracio

Hey sister ginnyrose, sorry for not clarifying that. UR stands for Universal Reconciliation, the belief that hell is temporal, like a sort of purgatory, and that in the end every single person who ever lived will be saved. They say that those who die in their sins will have another chance in hell to repent and trust Christ and will eventually do so.

S
sermonindex

Brother, I hope you can understand why I felt led to open up this thread to begin with. Like you, I've noticed an increasing tolerance for heresy among Christians, and yes, I've called universalism and annihalationism rank heresy in other threads. I've just been a bit more patient here on this thread.
I opened up the thread because I was getting a bit confused on whether or not we could welcome a person who denies eternal hell. Again, the confusion was because I noticed certain "evangelical leaders" being widely accepted as sound teachers of the faith. C.S. Lewis is a prime example. As I began to read some of his writings I thought, "this is rank heresy, how could this be accepted among Christians as good teaching?" Could it be because these indeed are the days of great apostasy and many are being deceived, even God's elect to a certain extent? Oracio

Can I say something here. I personally do not think that TMK is a heretic. Of course I do not know him personally but I don't think he is in any way false. As a matter of fact, nearly two years ago I posted an article on Universalism and TMK asked me whether I had posted it as a statement or did I actually want a response. You can read the comments here:

https://www.sermonindex.net/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=45436&forum=36&0

So from that time I have read his posts with a mind to understanding why he had a difficulty in this area. In this particular OP, TMK has been honest. So when I said, "I am surprised that you are persisting etc" I was in fact referring to his comment two years ago that Greg had asked him not to discuss this doctrine. I hid this fact for TMK's sake by setting my question in the context of what was said in this OP. The simple truth is that Greg does watch out for these things as do the other moderators and so I am confident that had TMK crossed a line here he would have been shut down. I didn't directly call TMK a heretic. I came as close as one could, because I knew that he was really seeking to get an answer. Had someone given him an answer which fitted his present mind fully, he would have crossed a line in that hour. That is the nature and danger of discussing these things. What we really ought to do is pray and read the Word.

Can I say something else as well.

Over thirty years I have met very few believers who have stated that the vast majority of humanity will perish and suffer eternal torment. In the last two years I have seen this stated as a fact a number of times here on SI by some posters. I think that this is the source of the provocation in this OP as far as TMK is concerned, and I have to be honest and say that it provokes me as well. And yet that is not the question of this OP. It sounds as though it ought to be the question, but it is a different question. Lies always come as snares. They never set men free. One lie begets another until we have a whole raft of reasons not to believe the very thing which is central to the heresy of Universalism itself and then leads to the very thing we say we wish to avoid. Namely men and women end up believing that they will be eternally saved no matter what they have come to believe. Universalism is not a heresy which is concerned precisely with the sum of those who go to Hell. That is the snare. To the natural mind it seems to be compassionate to question such a claim that the overwhelming majority of humanity is eternally lost. The most oft Scripture which is quoted to "prove" this idea is Matthew 7:13-14.

Universalism is concerned with removing eternal judgement, itself with a view to removing the Scriptures. Remove eternal judgement and you have a basis for removing all other obstacles to claiming that Hell is no place at all. In the end you end up believing that Hell is just a dump outside of Jerusalem called Ge-Hinnom.

Even those who are not given to silly conjectures when asked this question tend to acknowledge the centrality of the eternal aspect of the lake of fire or Hell, but guard their minds regarding the question of numbers. That is my own position. In taking that position I am already moving towards a path which Satan will inform from the air and which then gives grounds to ask about eternity itself, claiming that separation from God is after all a temporal thing. Most people I have asked or talked with on this subject tend to have a way of recognising that God is both Just, Righteous and Good, and so they leave those things which belong to God, with God. Then they press on to make disciples of men. The only people who I have met who had a clear and unchangeable conviction of the reality of Hell and eternal separation from God have either been severely unbalanced, or else they are men who have a true balance and seek for the lost with as much love for men as they have passion when speaking about the realities of Hell. This is why some men and women, when they read or hear those who do have a clear conviction and understanding of Hell and eternal judgement, accuse them of taking delight in these things. Once opened this particular box of worms will be difficult to close again.

That is why I say this subject is like a harlot who comes suddenly upon you and kisses you and you are taken. If you are not walking in the light of Christ's own obedience, this subject will be as a snare and a net. What you believe or doubt in private is sometimes best left in private. You will not be corrupted by your own thoughts. We are not speaking about a mental illness. We are speaking about that which is real according to God Himself. It is when our thoughts come out of the mouth that we are corrupted in our own hearing. At the point that you ask the question (the answer to which question can only belong to God) then you are set to stumble because very quickly you will find that you are making yourself to be god and then go on to question eternal judgement? If we can say that 97.5% of all humanity is lost to eternal fire, then we will more than likely either reject God Himself, or we will question the duration of that fire which awaits those who reject Christ.

If the question is asked of you then do as Joseph did when Potiphar's wife offered her body to him. He had his answers at the ready. It amounted to saying no more than "my master has trusted me with all of his possessions yet I will not presume to be as though I am my master and take his wife also". We ought not to presume to be as Christ Himself and pronounce the meaning of eternity beyond what is written. Nevertheless I fully expect that brethren will go on to make that very claim which so often causes others to stumble. It is the claim that the vast and overwhelming number of humanity will suffer eternal irreconcilable destruction away from the presence of God in personal conscious torment. When we say such things what do we truly expect will be the response of other men? Do we see that even in my saying this there lays the very evidence of the beginnings of rebellion by this man? In my own experience there are few brethren who are willing to show proper compassion and even less who practise it without becoming an heretic. Why don't we leave that which belongs to God with God and do what we have been called to do and obey Christ Who alone is the Lord of both the living and the dead?


T
TMK

You are right .... I did agree not to post on this topic. I think in the heat of the moment I forgot what I promised.

If Greg wants to delete my posts he has my blessing.

For you regulars here if you see me post on this topic please hold me accountable and tell me to stop.

Thanks, Todd

F
flameoffire

Establishing what is Essential Christian Doctrine is difficult.

Are the classic creeds enough?

I think I draw boundaries based on what is biblically defensible. Annihilationism is wrong, but biblically defensible. Universal Reconciliation is not biblically defensible, and while I believe a Christian may have questions or dabble in such a doctrine, to adamantly hold and teach Universal Reconciliation would make someone a false teacher.


I believe Annihilationism is a permissible view for Christians, while Universal Reconciliation is not.

D
dolfan

Flameoffire

I find this question of annihilation as defensible very curious. I'll not nit pick and do not want to draw out a crossing of one another. But I am truly curious. What is the affirmative evidence from Scripture that the lost will be annihilated at any point?

If the answer lies in "eternal destruction" or "everlasting destruction" phrasing, please explain how that something that is made nothing (which is what annihilate means) continues to be nothing once it is made nothing.

That is not as silly as it seems. Because nothingness is not a state of being. It is a state of not being. Once it is nothing, it is no longer subject to any description, let alone everlasting or eternal.

Just as you cannot divide by zero, you cannot "be" zero. Destruction, then, is either itself everlasting OR these biblical descriptions don't mean what they say they mean. Something can be destroyed forever, but it cannot be nothing ever.

H
havok20x

So, here we go again--

In regards to ANY doctrine, including this one. If there are doubts, we need to begin to search the Scriptures. Because there IS A TRUTH. Something is most definitely right about hell, about heaven, about eternal life, etc.

I mean, let's just debate the deity of Jesus. I could flood this forum with scriptures that would SEEM to call into question the deity of Jesus. But what have we learned? It is the WHOLE COUNSEL of Scriptures that we must view in order to bat down those kind of arguements.

I could also take greek or hebrew words, pick an english synonym that does not fit the context and destoy just about any correct doctrine or affirm just about any heresy. I mean, it is just ridiculous what you can do when you say, "Everything is debateable" or "No translation is reliable" or "Scholars got x or y wrong."

As Christians, we should be advocating the plain reading and understanding of scriptures. Not this synonymn-witchcraft that just throws everything into doubt.

Now, I am not talking about hyperliteralism here, but if I were to walk outside at 2 A.M. in the morning and say, "It sure is dark outside", I don't mean anything other than what I said. I am not making some profoundly metaphorical statement about the morality of the world outside Christianity. I am just saying it is dark. Studying Greek and Hebrew does have its place, but unless you are fluent, you have no business just picking synonyms that fit your theology.

Lastly, I have said it before and I will say it again:

Doctrine is not just some patchwork of scriptures that you quilt together in order to get what you want. It is an exegetical reading of the Scriptures and letting the Scriptures speak for and interpret itself.

F
flameoffire

Dolfan

There are bits and pieces of defense for annihilationism throughout this thread, but you can find all kinds of articles throughout the web that do a better job. I'm not going to attempt a defense here. I simply thought it might be helpful to state how boundaries are sometimes established when it comes to theological positions.

"Because nothingness is not a state of being. It is a state of not being. Once it is nothing, it is no longer subject to any description, let alone everlasting or eternal."

I have never heard this argument anywhere, and it seems to disregard certain dynamics within language. Barring all descriptors from something because it no longer exists is not a rule in language. My lunch no longer exists but I can still call it delicious. I can say it's "gone forever," and everyone knows what I mean. It may sound odd but "my lunch is eternally gone" is not a nonsensical argument. In addition the Bible's language does not fit an exact philosophical system of language. It contains art, poetry, and style while being completely true and inspired.

Linguistically "eternal destruction" can mean that something is destroyed without any chance of coming back. In other words, the word "eternal" speaks of finality. This gets even more complex when we consider the issue of time and eternity.

2 Peter 3:7 says that the earth will be subject to the same destruction as the ungodly. Will the physical earth burn forever and not be consumed? Under your definitions it will burn forever with the lost, which seems implausible to me.

F
flameoffire

havok20x

I agree with the spirit of what you said. The struggle is that we all bring baggage to the text. I agree we must look at the whole counsel of Scriptures.

We are discussing boundaries. How wrong can a view be before we must break fellowship over it? None of us is perfect. How much error is acceptable? How far before something becomes not just error but false teaching?

I believe annihilationism is within a certain boundary. Many others do not. I'm trying to explain briefly why I view it within that boundary.

O
Oracio

flamofire, thanks for sharing your thoughts on that. After much prayerful consideration on this issue, and as you can tell from my most recent posts here, we'll have to agree to disagree.

Throughout my time of walking with the Lord (only about 15 yrs), I’ve enjoyed fellowship with and ministered alongside believers from many different denominational backgrounds or theological leanings on non-essentials. I've seen professing Christians make shipwreck of their faith through various types of heresies. It is in recent times that I've become aware of the wide tolerance for annihilationism and universalism among respected evangelicals. I must say I didn't think I'd be confronted with what I believe to be such compromise regarding the doctrine of hell. I always thought it was obvious to true believers that annihalationism was only accepted or tolerated by cults such as Jehovah's Witnesses. Guess I was wrong sadly to say.

Regarding TMK, with all due respect I honestly do not believe he has been sincere in searching for God's truth on this issue for whatever reason.

F
flameoffire

Oracio,

I appreciate your stance.

Have you settled on an explicit standard for what are and are not essentials?

F
flameoffire

I also wonder, does this mean you consider annihilationism heretical? Would you consider C.S. Lewis and John Stott and others who hold this view believers?

If not, how does your position impact your fellowship and practice?

I am genuinely interested, but it is not necessarily my business. Feel free to not answer.

T
TMK

I just wanted to say a couple of things.

1) I have led many bible studies/ classes and I have never taught or even hinted at anything other than the traditional view. I would not tell my grown children any alternate view. This has been a personal quest. My wife strongly disagrees with me as do my best friends.

2) Oracio-- I have looked into this matter for several years. That is exactly why I am where I am.

3) it is not necessarily true that true and devout study of the Word will always lead to one truth. Just consider the divide over Calvinism, eschatology, gifts of the Spirit. It is not fair to say that those who disagree with me have not properly studied the scripture or sought for truth.

4) I have discussed this matter here because I have always thought this was a place to discuss theology but I am finally realizing that this forum has a different purpose which is awesome.

5) since I have indicated that I am not supposed to discuss this topic I would appreciate it if from this point forward no further posts in this thread would be directed to me personally. Thanks!!

S
sermonindex

I think Universal Reconciliation is false for this reason: if there are first and second deaths (for humans) what do these deaths represent?

I think the best argument for this is that the first death is physical, while the second death is spiritual/soulish. From that premise, if the second death is spiritual death, how can person come out of it?

Thus annihilation could be thought of as the "end" of the road for spiritual death. The devil, we know, will suffer "into the ages of the ages" a so-called spiritual death. Will he come out of that into life again (UR?)? I don't think so. Will he eventually be annihilated?

O
Oracio

You got it TMK.

flameoffire, will have to answer at a later time unfortunately. God bless.

S
sermonindex

I also wonder, does this mean you consider annihilationism heretical? Would you consider C.S. Lewis and John Stott and others who hold this view believers?ӬӬIf not, how does your position impact your fellowship and practice?ӬӬI am genuinely interested, but it is not necessarily my business. Feel free to not answer.


In the 1988 British publication of David L. Edwards and John Stott: Evangelical essentials: a liberal-evangelical dialogue in the chapter dealing with Judgement & Hell Stott makes the following statements to Edwards.

"I want to repudiate with all the vehemence of which I am capable the glibness, what almost appears to be the glee, the Schadenfreunde, with which some Evangelicals speak about hell. It is a horrible sickness of mind or spirit.”

The strength of this comment cannot be overstated.

The noun Schadenfreunde means to take pleasure from another persons suffering. In short Stott is accusing some Evangelicals of taking personal pleasure in the belief of the eternal conscious suffering of others. It is no more than what I said in my last post, as forming the basis for an offence. Here Stott describes that offence in terms which are unmistakable and clear. Is it true? Or is it a lie? The answer to that will make for whether the offence is just or whether it is misguided. In the same way it must be asked, does the offence come from comprehending that some "Evangelicals” have taken such a personal pleasure in the thought of future personal unremitting suffering of men and women, or is it an offence that the claim insisted upon is true?

Speaking to Edwards Stott says:


"You raise two main questions in relation to hell. The first concerns what is meant by it, and the second who may be condemned to go there. We both agree that the imagery which Jesus and his apostles used (the lake of fire, the outer darkness, the second death) is not meant to be interpreted literally.”

It isn’t necessary to go any further into what Stott believed and why he believed it to have our answer as to whether this is a false presentation. If what Stott says here is true then Satan has nothing to fear even though he has personally led the whole of humanity into sin and death and has been the direct cause of unimaginable suffering of both men and angels for ages upon ages.

But just in case there is any doubt Stott follows by saying:

"But does the Book of Revelation not say that in the lake of fire ‘they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever’? Yes, that sentence occurs, but only once (20:10), where it refers not only to the devil, but to ‘the beast and the false prophet’, just as the noun for ‘torment’ had been used of ‘the harlot Babylon’ (Rev 18:7,10,15), though without the addition of the words ‘for ever and ever’. The beast, the false prophet and the harlot, however, are not individual people but symbols of the world in its varied hostility to God. In the nature of the case they cannot experience pain. Nor can ‘Death and Hades’, which follow them into the lake of fire (20:13). In the vivid imagery of his vision John evidently saw the dragon, the monster, the harlot, death and hades being thrown into the lake of fire. But the most natural way to understand the reality behind the imagery is that ultimately all enmity and resistance to God will be destroyed. So both the language of destruction and the imagery of fire seem to point to annihilation.”

Stott cleverly chooses to disregard the question of who Satan is, but infers by the statement, "Ultimately all enmity and resistance to God will be destroyed”, that Satan will also be annihilated.

It may be reasonable to ask the question whether it is necessary to believe in a personal Man of Sin (The Beast) or a personal False Prophet (He who incites his worship) or a real physical lake of fire and so on, but at what point will you finish making ruin of the Scriptures and turning everything into mere imagery? If these things which Stott claims are all true then there is no New Heavens and no New Earth because it is in the New Heavens and the New earth that we can find the lake of fire. Then there is no New Jerusalem, not Throne of the Father and the Lamb. So where will we stop in such a circumstance of making eternal truth a matter of mere words?

Was John Stott a heretic? He was a heretic and his influence on British Evangelicalism was significant. Would I fellowship with him before his death. Not a chance would I have done. I would have rebuked him openly. His views have contributed to apostasy in my own nation significantly.

Stott concludes

"I am hesitant to have written these things, partly because I have a great respect for longstanding tradition which claims to be a true interpretation of Scripture, and do not lightly set it aside, and partly because the unity of the world-wide Evangelical constituency has always meant much to me. But the issue is too important to suppress, and I am grateful to you for challenging me to declare my present mind. I do not dogmatise about the position to which I have come. I hold it tentatively. But I do plead for frank dialogue among Evangelicals on the basis of Scripture. I also believe that the ultimate annihilation of the wicked should at least be accepted as a legitimate, biblically founded alternative to their eternal conscious torment.”

S
sermonindex

her·e·sy [her-uh-see]
"opinion or doctrine at variance with the orthodox or accepted doctrine, especially of a church or religious system."

Denial of the deity of Christ is heresy as is also the denial of the "orthodox and accepted doctrine" of eternal damnation.

To think that even 10 years ago this heresy would have hardly been breathed by a christian, and now we have scores of books and hordes being deceived is testament to the fact that we are living in the very last days of which Paul described in 2 Tim 4:3.

Ocacio, I understand why you started this thread and I completely agree with your stand on this and thank you for making that very clear. At the same time this is a forum for the promotion of Christ centered and biblical revival and a place where we can find kindred spirits to encourage each other as we pursue Christ. Thats why I think it is very wrong to allow people to infiltrate and/or "play with" heresy on this forum. This is not the place to allow weak minded people to casually air their musings!!!

I tell you, it wont be long before the mainstream church will accept this heresy, closely followed by the acceptance that a person can be a Christian and a homosexual at the same time. Give it another few years after that and we will have the mainstream even questioning the deity of Christ...mark my words, we are on a slippery slope saints!!!

One last thing and I am surprised that NOBODY has commented on the fact that David Servant believes this heresy??? David Servant, oh my goodness this is a shock to me as I took him to be a brother who was very sound in his doctrine and has even been invited as a speaker to SI conferences. Again, I was speechless when I found this out. If David Servant can succumb to this heresy then I am very concerned for myself and for the body of Christ as a whole!!!

S
sermonindex

It may be reasonable to ask the question whether it is necessary to believe in a personal Man of Sin (The Beast) or a personal False Prophet (He who incites his worship) or a real physical lake of fire and so on, but at what point will you finish making ruin of the Scriptures and turning everything into mere imagery? If these things which Stott claims are all true then there is no New Heavens and no New Earth because it is in the New Heavens and the New earth that we can find the lake of fire. Then there is no New Jerusalem, not Throne of the Father and the Lamb. So where will we stop in such a circumstance of making eternal truth a matter of mere words? amrkelly


"But my acceptance of Adam and Eve as historical is not incompatible with my belief that several forms of pre-Adamic ‘hominid’ may have existed for thousands of years previously. These hominids began to advance culturally. They made their cave drawings and buried their dead. It is conceivable that God created Adam out of one of them. You may call them homo erectus. I think you may even call some of them homo sapiens, for these are arbitrary scientific names. But Adam was the first homo divinus, if I may coin a phrase, the first man to whom may be given the Biblical designation ‘made in the image of God’. Precisely what the divine likeness was, which was stamped upon him, we do not know, for Scripture nowhere tells us. But Scripture seems to suggest that it includes rational, moral, social, and spiritual faculties which make man unlike all other creatures and like God the creator, and on account of which he was given ‘dominion’ over the lower creation.”

- John Stott, Understanding the Bible, Expanded Edition, 56)

"Now no shrub of the field was yet in the earth, and no plant of the field had yet sprouted, for the LORD God had not sent rain upon the earth, and there was no man to cultivate the ground. But a mist used to rise from the earth and water the whole surface of the ground. Then the LORD God formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.” (Genesis 2:5”“7, NASB95)

F
flameoffire

I know very little about Stott. I know that his sermons (and David Servant's) are hosted here and that the moderators encourage respect for the ministries they choose for the site. I asked because I was curious about how participants here were processing the disagreement over this issue.

Heresy is a charged term and usually involves breaking fellowship and removing oneself from receiving from an individual or ministry. That is what I was really asking Oracio.

I recognize that this is a theological discussion and is probably out of place on this forum.

I regret my engagement. It has been a distraction from what is most important.

S
sermonindex

Heresy is a charged term and usually involves breaking fellowship and removing oneself from receiving from an individual or ministry. That is what I was really asking Oracio.

I recognize that this is a theological discussion and is probably out of place on this forum.

I regret my engagement. It has been a distraction from what is most important.

I have no idea what a theological discussion is. Similarly I don't know whether it is out of place or not. Also I am disinclined to mince my words or make allusions with words in order to attract an interest or create an effect. If any of those things are problematic I will leave the very instant I am asked to leave without any rancour. As for the use of the word heresy it is a simple thing to explain. Whatever stands in clear contradiction to the revealed word of God and by that contradiction causes or else leads men astray, or else separates those same men from the truth of scripture into error, is heresy.

O
Oracio

by flameofire

Have you settled on an explicit standard for what are and are not essentials?

Good question. First, I believe the traditional historic belief on hell is clearly and plainly taught in Scripture. Secondly, it is clear that the traditional view has been received by the Body of Christ throughout the centuries. And thirdly, there are serious practical consequences for entertaining views that contradict the traditional view. It really is a serious issue.

So I believe annihalationism is outside of biblical historic Christian orthodoxy.

I would also respectfully ask you the same question here. Have you settled on a certain standard for determining essential doctrine?

I also wonder, does this mean you consider annihilationism heretical? Would you consider C.S. Lewis and John Stott and others who hold this view believers?

If not, how does your position impact your fellowship and practice?

I am genuinely interested, but it is not necessarily my business. Feel free to not answer.


Yes, I consider annihalationism to be blatantly heretical. Regarding C.S. Lewis and John Stott, after taking a closer look into their writings I am puzzled as to why they have been hailed as heroes of the faith by so many evangelicals. As to whether or not they were true believers I can't say for sure but I could not extend them the right hand of fellowship.

As far as how it impacts my fellowship and practice, I'm not currently in a real situation where I have to deal with this but I believe it's important to be prepared nonetheless. I also wanted to get clear on this because I have supported David Servant's ministry to orphans in the past and used to consider him a solid leader.

F
flameoffire

Thank you. I was curious.

"I would also respectfully ask you the same question here."

I weigh a number of things when considering fellowship and receiving from a person or ministry, not doctrine alone. Jesus didn't necessarily say "you will know them by their doctrine," but by their fruit (Matt 7:16). Paul is clear that we must abominate any false or "other" gospel (Gal 1:8). John is clear that anyone who does not continue in the doctrine of Christ does not have God (2 John 2:19).

The following are easy essentials:

Deity of Christ, atonement, resurrection, salvation by grace through faith, inspiration of Scripture, monotheism, EDIT Trinity

There are sundry other essentials.

Even what is and isn't sin. I fellowship with some who have no issues of conscience regarding certain entertainment that violates my conscience. While I disagree with them, I don't break fellowship with them. Specks and logs.

Those who don't believe sexual immorality is a sin must be run from.

Fruit is important. You can be squeaky clean in your doctrine but have a dreadful ministry that wrecks havoc on those around you.

As I wrote previously, view of Scripture is important when it comes to theological positions that do not impact practice. I tend to not abominate biblically defensible positions.

D
dolfan

http://wesley.nnu.edu/sermons-essays-books/the-immortality-of-the-soul/chapter-3-section-iii/

Look at paragraph 3 of Wesley's view of annihilation. His other arguments are strong that oppose the idea, but in my mind--and this is precisely what my earlier point was regarding the logical impossibility of everlasting non-being which the annihilation position necessarily embraces-- this is the sine qua non of the annihilationist view. It is simply not possible.

If annihilation is true, then the implications for the eternity of matter and the non existence of God are very real. It is the view that nothing is actually something that makes arguments like those of Richard Dawkins grow legs. Yet that is exactly what annihilation proposes....that something can be nothing, everlastingly.

S
sermonindex

If annihilation is true, then the implications for the eternity of matter and the non existence of God are very real.

This is exactly why this teaching is so dangerous! The scriptures are absolutely clear about the doctrine of eternal damnation. If we deny the clear and undeniable truth about this doctrine then we may as well open the door and question every single other doctrine as we'll about God, Christ and salvation.

I also think it would be very healthy for the moderator/s to make a statement about David Servant at some point to give us all some guidance on this matter. Are these charges true? Is this a big deal or is this a minor issue? What can or can not be said on this forum or discussed about his teachings regarding this topic.

S
sermonindex

weren't these topics debated/discussed among the church fathers?

O
Oracio

I also think it would be very healthy for the moderator/s to make a statement about David Servant at some point to give us all some guidance on this matter. Are these charges true? Is this a big deal or is this a minor issue? What can or can not be said on this forum or discussed about his teachings regarding this topic.

Brother, these charges are definitely true sadly to say. These are links to his teaching on the subject. I am posting these links so that it may not be assumed these are false charges or that it is unclear what David Servant believes. Despite the cunning arguments I trust God to keep His sheep here from being deceived:

http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/the-hell-debate-annihilationism

http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/the-hell-debate-annihilationism-part-2

http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/the-hell-debate-annihilationism-part-3

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shabpst-07I

S
sermonindex

the video

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shabpst-07I

sound arguments in my opinion.

edit: my thoughts: Translations are off.

...there's no one-for-one word-for-word greek-to-english. we make due with what we've got.

S
sermonindex

If annihilation is true, then the implications for the eternity of matter and the non existence of God are very real.

Annihilation after death was first formally developed in the philosophy of Epicurus 341”“270 BC. Epicurus was an atomist, which means that he conceived of life and creation as a physical or particle reality. His philosophy eventually led him to believe that he could prove that there was no physical punishment after death. In short if life itself was simply a particle reality, then the scattering of those particles (death and decay) would prove to be an end of reality. This concept directly led to what today we call annihilation.

Both James I Packer and John Stott used the term psycho-physical when they speak of human life. It means literally soul body. In short at the heart of the term, is a scientific material paradigm which historically gave rise to modern atheism. The broad spectrum of application, of atomistic materialism, includes a naturalistic account of evolution, from the formation of the world to the emergence of human societies.

James I Packer and John Stott go back a long way and share a common significant historical link in the history of the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Communion. Stott wrote a book entitled Godly Ambition in 1955 which marked a significant point of recognition in his ministry and led him to become (even at that time) a key player in the growth of the Evangelical wing of the Anglican Church. Stott had considerable success in winning students to an Evangelical Faith, so much so that it is now recognised that this period of growth in the student population to which Stott ministered, outstripped all previous periods of time as far back as George Whitfield in the 18th century.

Stott was singularly committed to the idea of revival in the context of the whole nation and not simply the context of the Evangelical Community. In an odd way he was helped in this reputation for being a sound evangelical when he became involved in the ministry of Billy Graham during his 1966 crusade. It was after this crusade that the then Arch Bishop of Canterbury Michael Ramsey went as far as to accuse the new powerful evangelical wing of the church of heresy. He had as the Arch Bishop of York accuses Stott himself directly of being a fundamentalist. Both of these things served Stott well because although they were somewhat unpleasant accusations (being false) they gave both Stott and Packer an opportunity to publicly air their commitment to the Evangelical Faith in the Times newspaper, as well as throughout the Anglican Communion of believers.

It was in this context of success and growing confidence that Stott was invited to chair the Evangelical Alliance's National Assembly of 1966. At this national assembly Martyn Lloyd-Jones was a speaker and he preached on the need for a new independent evangelical body free from denominationalism. His argument was that all true evangelical christians have only one true head, which is Christ Himself. He called the Anglican Church an apostate church and had many of the attendants sitting on the edge of their seats with obvious excitement and anticipation as to the implications of what he was saying. Stott was profoundly affected by this call to separation from the apostate church by Lloyd-Jones, so much so, that he felt it necessary to publicly rebuke Lloyd-Jones in the conference itself, and by that means put that call down.

This is the point in time when Stott made a public choice to reject separatism, from what Lloyd-Jones rightly called, an apostate church. Stott pressed for the continued development of the evangelical wing of the Anglican Church in Community and not separate to Community. At this time Lloyd-Jones was preaching to over three thousand five hundred believers every Sunday on the reality that the only true unity in the church is Christ Himself.

If you read Stott's books and especially his later books and publications it is possible to see the reality of Epicurean thinking in his rationale, even to the point of expressing the very same evolutionist philosophy. Some may feel that my making these points here is reflective of a critical spirit. I can say quiet openly and with a good conscience that it is not so. I was raised an Anglican from the age of three years old. I was confirmed and attended an Anglican School until I was eleven years, and was in all respects throughly immersed in High Anglican Traditions. I learned Latin and sang all the treble solo parts in the Mass and the Liturgy. In my flesh I would easily be an Anglican priest and instinctively love the whole orthodoxy of the Anglican Church Communion. I have nothing whatsoever in me that is against John Stott or his belief that separation is wrong. That is, save for the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

Few people realise just how apostate the Anglican Church really is. It has always been steeped in various philosophical and mystical orthodoxies of the Eastern as well as Western Catholic Churches. It never really did leave Rome fully, save for in a legal sense and it has always trained its priests in classical philosophy alongside traditional Theology. If you want to get an idea of just how sophisticated Anglicanism is in dealing with very important issues you need look no further than Stott's paper on Same-Sex Partnerships. I have read this paper and it is a truly complicated and oft philosophical a mix of truth, legal prose, and cultural sensibility. Stott exercises an ability which few people really grasp about the British institution. Namely a profound ability to speak into a situation with a view of establishing a hidden principle and yet not causing offence or giving the game away. It is generally known as diplomacy. Thankfully I do not have it. As a matter of reality its roots lie in the English Public School education system, of which Stott was a born member, and extends to every part of education and purpose of education as directed by the British establishment. It is the study of the Classics and the study of precise use of language. If you do read the following link you will see what I mean. Nowhere does Stott call homosexual conduct by its proper name. See his treatment on the men of Gibeah in Judges chapter nineteen.

http://www.ccel.us/samesex.toc.html

As far as I am concerned the purpose in writing these things is to say plainly that if we compromise for long enough we will in the end fall into serious error. That is what happened to John Stott. The question is not is this man a brother, because he was a true believer of that I have no doubt. The question is why did he resist Martyn Lloyd-Jones back in 1966 when he had those young men on the edge of their seats with anticipation as they heard that Christ was their true head and not the apostate church of England.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9-YeAO09hAA

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bwvPeD-PglY

S
sermonindex

only one thing applies to me, only one point of contention, so i want to ask about that. (ie- i believe a literal Genesis account: no evolution and God made woman for man.)

Have you read the Dialogue with Trypho (Justin Martyr)? I'm interested in knowing what you think about Chapter 5. I am really interested in your thoughts, you are a well-learned man. thanks



CHAPTER V -- THE SOUL IS NOT IN ITS OWN NATURE IMMORTAL.

"'These philosophers know nothing, then, about these things; for they cannot tell what a soul is.'

"'It does not appear so.'

"'Nor ought it to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten.'

"'It is both unbegotten and immortal, according to some who are styled Platonists.'

"'Do you say that the world is also unbegotten?'

"'Some say so. I do not, however, agree with them.'

"'You are right; for what reason has one for supposing that a body so solid, possessing resistance, composite, changeable, decaying, and renewed every day, has not arisen from some cause? But if the world is begotten, souls also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence, for they were made on account of men and other living creatures, if you will say that they have been begotten wholly apart, and not along with their respective bodies.' "'This seems to be correct.'

"'They are not, then, immortal?'

"'No; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten.'

"'But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.'

"'Is what you say, then, of a like nature with that which Plato in Timoeus hints about the world, when he says that it is indeed subject to decay, inasmuch as it has been created, but that it will neither be dissolved nor meet with the fate of death on account of the will of God? Does it seem to you the very same can be said of the soul, and generally of all things? For those things which exist after God, or shall at any time exist, these have the nature of decay, and are such as may be blotted out and cease to exist; for God alone is unbegotten and incorruptible, and therefore He is God, but all other things after Him are created and corruptible. For this reason souls both die and are punished: since, if they were unbegotten, they would neither sin, nor be filled with folly, nor be cowardly, and again ferocious; nor would they willingly transform into swine, and serpents, and dogs and it would not indeed be just to compel them, if they be unbegotten. For that which is unbegotten is similar to, equal to, and the same with that which is unbegotten; and neither in power nor in honour should the one be preferred to the other, and hence there are not many things which are unbegotten: for if there were some difference between them, you would not discover the cause of the difference, though you searched for it; but after letting the mind ever wander to infinity, you would at length, wearied out, take your stand on one Unbegotten, and say that this is the Cause of all. Did such escape the observation of Plato and Pythagoras, those wise men,' I said, 'who have been as a wall and fortress of philosophy to us?'

S
sermonindex

I also think it would be very healthy for the moderator/s to make a statement about David Servant at some point to give us all some guidance on this matter. Are these charges true? Is this a big deal or is this a minor issue? What can or can not be said on this forum or discussed about his teachings regarding this topic.

We do not agree with David Servant on his teachings on this topic. Also I feel it is ok for brethren especially leaders to wrestle with this doctrine, but to teach publically on the road in the journey to really grasp the eternal nature of hell is not wise. I feel David Servant has done that in his teachings where he is still is on a journey with this topic and open to brethren discussing it with him.

SermonIndex stands for the biblical and early church view of the eternal nature of hell and that there will be torment. I do believe there will be varying degrees as in heaven there will be different levels of rewards.

This is a healthy discussion and needed, there are some leaders who are writing books and really casting much doubt on this clear biblical doctrine and reality.

O
Oracio

Amen brother Greg, appreciate your reply.

Despite Annihalationism and Universal Reconciliation being called out as heresies and some of us expressing strong feelings at times, I think overall this discussion thread has kept pretty civil and am thankful for that.

S
sermonindex

Thank you brother Greg for clarifying your position. Also thank you Oracio for the links to the teachings. I read the teachings and frankly I am appalled.

David Servant has a moral objection to God tormenting humans for eternity. And from this he has to conclude that God cannot do this and so he must simply make them go "poof", no more human!

The problem with his approach is that he is basing everything on eternal torture. The question is not this however, but eternal damnation. To be damned is not about torture but about being sent to another place away from Gods glory. This is hell. Humans will live eternally because they are made in the image of God, who is eternal. They are spirit and spirit cannot be destroyed.

David Servant needs to put his human feelings aside and simply accept what the bible teaches...that eternal humans will exist eternally after they die.

Just leave it at that, don't try to figure out the exact details of what happens to them in either place, that is not so clear. But what is clear is that NO-ONE will be annihilated...all will live for eternity, some to everlasting life and some to everlasting death.

I don't have to understand something to know that it is true (eg. electricity) and so it is with Gods dealings with man. He said it and that settles it. I have said it before but those who meddle in these things will find that they are opening a very dangerous door to doctrines of demons. The next issue they will question after this will be the issue of homosexuality actually being sin and whether or not homosexuals will go to heaven. Its coming folks...don't be deceived, just take God at His word and you will not be swayed from the truth!!!

"Then He will also say to those on His left, ‘Depart from Me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and his angels."

"Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."

"And many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt."

"This is the second death, the lake of fire. 15And if anyone’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire."

"But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.”

O
Oracio

Regarding C.S. Lewis, in the OP I wrote that he believed in annihalationism. However, upon further examination it is not that clear to me whether or not he actually believed that. It is clear that he believed in purgatory and prayer for the dead. These are some clear quotes from him on that:

Purgatory
"I believe in Purgatory… The right view returns magnificently in New-man’s Dream. There if I remember rightly, the saved soul, at the very foot of the throne, begs to be taken away and cleansed. It cannot bear for a moment longer ‘with its darkness to affront that light’ . . . Our souls demand Purgatory, don’t they? (Letters to Malcolm)

Prayer for the dead
"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden.’ (Letters to Malcolm)

These are some quotes that had me thinking he rejects eternal torment:

"And every state of mind, left to itself, every shutting up of the creature within the dungeon of its own mind is, in the end, Hell.” (The Great Divorce)

"We know much more about heaven than hell, for heaven is the home of humanity and therefore contains all that is implied in a glorified human life: but hell was not made for men. It is in no sense parallel to heaven: it is "the darkness outside,” the outer rim where being fades away into nonentity."”“ The Problem of Pain

It gets confusing because he does seem to believe in some sort of hell, as he states in this famous quote:

"There is no doctrine which I would more willingly remove from Christianity than the doctrine of hell, if it lay in my power. But it has the full support of Scripture and, especially, of our Lord’s own words; it has always been held by the Christian Church, and it has the support of reason.”-The Problem of Pain

These are other quotes where you can see other serious theological errors:

The Atonement
"According to that theory God wanted to punish men for having deserted and joined the Great Rebel, but Christ volunteered to be punished instead, and so God let us off. Now I admit that even this theory does not seem to me quite so immoral and so silly as it used to; but that is not the point I want to make. What I came to see later on was that neither this theory nor any other is Christianity.” ”” Mere Christianity

"The one most people have heard is the one I mentioned before ”“ the one about our being let off because Christ had volunteered to bear a punishment instead of us. Now on the face of it that is a very silly theory. If God was prepared to let us off, why on earth did He not do so? And what possible point could there be in punishing an innocent person instead?”-Mere Christianity

Regarding Scripture
"I have the deepest respect for Pagan myths, still more for myths in the Holy Scriptures.” (The Problem of Pain)

"The earliest stratum of the Old Testament contains many truths in a form which I take to be legendary, or even mythical””hanging in the clouds, but gradually the truth condenses, becomes more and more historical. From things like Noah’s Ark or the sun standing still upon Ajalon, you come down to the court memoirs of King David. Finally you reach the New Testament and history reigns supreme, and the Truth is incarnate."-Is Theology Poetry?, in The Weight of Glory and Other Essays, (New York: Harper Collins, 2001), 129)

"The point is that the whole Book of Jonah has to me the air of being a moral romance, a quite different kind of thing from, say, the account of King David or the New Testament narratives, not pegged, like them, into any historical situation. In what sense does the Bible "present” the Jonah story "as historical”? Of course it doesn’t say, "This is fiction,” but then neither does our Lord say that the Unjust Judge, Good Samaritan, or Prodigal Son are fiction (I would put Esther in the same category as Jonah for the same reason)."-Letter to Corbin

Inclusivism
"But the truth is God has not told us what His arrangements about the other people who do not accept the full Christian doctrine about Christ but who are so strongly attracted by Him that they are His in a much deeper sense than they themselves understand. There are people in other religions who are being led by God’s secret influence to concentrate on those parts of their religion which are in agreement with Christianity, and who thus belong to Christ without knowing it. For example a Buddhist of good will may be led to concentrate more and more on the Buddhist teaching about mercy and to leave in the background (though he might still say he believed) the Buddhist teaching on certain points. Many of the good Pagans long before Christ’s birth may have been in this position.”-Mere Christianity

The Catholic Mass
"What happens in the Lord’s Supper is a mystery, and so the Roman Catholic conception of the bread and wine becoming the actual body and blood of Christ might be just as valid as the Protestant view of the Lord’s Supper as a memorial.” (Letters to Malcom)

Evolution
"If by saying that man rose from brutality you mean simply that man is physically descended from animals, I have no objections…. For long centuries God perfected the animal form which was to become the vehicle of humanity and the image of Himself. He gave it hands whose thumbs could be applied to each of its fingers, and jaws and teeth and the throat capable of articulation, and a brain sufficiently complex to execute all material motions whereby rational thought is incarnated. The creature may have existed for ages in this state before it became man…. We do not know how many of these creatures God made, nor how long they continued in the Paradisal state."(Problem of Pain)

S
sermonindex

Noah this is a somewhat lengthy reply because it is not possible to separate chapter five out from its context and still make sense of it. Therefore I have included comments from the preceding four chapter as well. I have an idea as to why you have asked me what I think this chapter five means and so I have sought to answer your enquiry with that in mind. This does not mean that I have in anyway twisted the meaning, as I would have made the precise same response had I done it for my own sake.

Sorry about the length of this post, but there is no simple response that I am capable of.

_______________________________________

First dialogue is between Trypho and Justin Martyr Chapter I

Trypho having established why he has accosted Justin is challenged with the question "And in what," said I, "would you be profited by philosophy so much as by your own lawgiver and the prophets?”

Trypho answers "Why not?” "Do not the philosophers turn every discourse on God? and do not questions continually arise to them about His unity and providence? Is not this truly the duty of philosophy, to investigate the Deity?”

We then come to chapter II and here Justin explains his journey into philosophy to Trypho and describes the various schools of philosophy which he sought to engage in. In the end he settles for the Platonic school of thinking. The whole of chapter II is taken up with this conversation and ends with Justin explaining how quickly he advanced in Platonic thinking and how much he was benefitted by it to the point that he acknowledges that he became somewhat vain and thought he had arrived at some great wisdom.

Chapter III begins with Justin explaining how in this frame of mind he took himself to a remote place to be alone and ponder what he had learned from the hand of the Platonists. It is at this point that he becomes aware that he is being followed by an elderly man who though this doesn’t concern him, he feels it is important to him. In the end this man, whom Justine addresses as ‘father” begins a conversation. At this point whilst Justin is still talking to Trypho in the first person, he is narrating a conversation with the elderly man, which lead to his conversion. The chapter which you posted is wholly taken from that conversation between Justin and the old man. It is not at this point a conversation between Justin and Trypho.

____________________________________

Begin:

And when I turned round to him, having halted, I fixed my eyes rather keenly on him.
"And he said, ‘Do you know me?’
"I replied in the negative.
" ‘Why, then,’ said he to me, ‘do you so look at me?’
" ‘I am astonished,’ I said, ‘because you have chanced to be in my company in the same place; for I had not expected to see any man here.’
"And he says to me, ‘I am concerned about some of my household. These are gone away from me; and therefore have I come to make personal search for them, if, perhaps, they shall make their appearance somewhere.


The Old Man
" ‘How then,’ he said, ‘should the philosophers judge correctly about God, or speak any truth, when they have no knowledge of Him, having neither seen Him at any time, nor heard Him?’

Justin
" ‘But, father,’ said I, ‘the Deity cannot be seen merely by the eyes, as other living beings can, but is discernible to the mind alone, as Plato says; and I believe him.


" ‘Is there then,’ says he, ‘such and so great power in our mind? Or can a man not perceive by sense sooner? Will the mind of man see God at any time, if it is uninstructed by the Holy Spirit?’
" ‘Plato indeed says,’ replied I, ‘that the mind’s eye is of such a nature, and has been given for this end, that we may see that very Being when the mind is pure itself, who is the cause of all discerned by the mind, having no colour, no form, no greatness””nothing, indeed, which the bodily eye looks upon; but It is something of this sort, he goes on to say, that is beyond all essence, unutterable and inexplicable, but alone honourable and good, coming suddenly into souls well-dispositioned, on account of their affinity to and desire of seeing Him.’
" ‘What affinity, then,’ replied he, ‘is there between us and God? Is the soul also divine and immortal, and a part of that very regal mind? And even as that sees God, so also is it attainable by us to conceive of the Deity in our mind, and thence to become happy?’


It is at this point that the critical issue is being addressed. This has to do with the nature of the soul itself. What is it? Of what substance is it. Can the soul itself beget another soul? Or does the soul derive from the material body itself. At what point does the soul come into existence. Can the soul transmigrate? This whole discourse is intended to establish a proper understanding of the soul. Not only its existence as a reality, but its intrinsic link to the body. The terms used are Begotten, Unbegotten and Immortal.

There follows a simple discourse in which Justin is challenged with regard to his understanding, that as long as a soul is pure in mind, seeking God and desirous to know God, then it will know God. So Justin is asked the question as to whether animals see God? What about the goat for example? Does the goat harm anyone? Justin has to acknowledge that the goat has a soul and a body and does no harm to anyone.

Justin is then told that if the goat or an animal has a body, does not sin, and therefore in all respects qualifies to see God, then the goat will see God by the same reason that a man (soul) will see God. To this Justin has to argue that the Goat cannot see God because goats have a physical body which is an obstacle to them.

What follows is a remarkable statement and is the key to the whole of understanding Chapter V which you have asked about.

"He [the old man] rejoined, ‘If these animals could assume speech, be well assured that they would with greater reason ridicule our body”

(The term ridicule here is not a sense of mocking, rather it is a sense of bringing into question)

This may seem like jesting or humour on the part of the old man, but in fact it is a direct reference to sin, and an allusion as to why the body itself suffers decay and death. The point, is that a Goat does not have a sinful nature. The Goat is subject to futility, whereas the body is in sin and death. The Goat does not sin, as Justin clearly realised, yet the Goat dies. Why? The man on the other hand does sin yet may see God if he truly desires to see God.

What is happening here is that a separation is being made in which Justin is being brought slowly to a place where he recognises that whilst philosophy can make some sense of the soul it cannot properly explain it nor can philosophy explain death. It can only experience it in the body and reason its existence with the mind. The overwhelming idea is one of how the soul itself is limited by virtue of the body itself, and at the same time the body is limited as well as evidenced by death and decay because of sin.

It is at this point that the final separation is made in Justin’s understanding. It is between Platonic philosophy and Truth:

Next Justine says if we are speaking about men and not animals then it is possible for the soul to see God. Justin is sort of getting a little bit frustrated and so he tries to side step the obvious problem of the previous part of the conversation and pretends it didn’t happen.

" ‘So long as it is in the form of a man, it is possible for it,’ I continue, ‘to attain to this by means of the mind; but especially when it has been set free from the body, and being apart by itself, it gets possession of that which it was won't continually and wholly to love.’
" ‘Does it remember this, then [the sight of God], when it is again in the man?’
" ‘It does not appear to me so,’ I said.
" ‘What, then, is the advantage to those who have seen [God]? or what has he who has seen more than he who has not seen, unless he remember this fact, that he has seen?’
" ‘I cannot tell,’ I answered.
" ‘And what do those suffer who are judged to be unworthy of this spectacle?’ said he.
" ‘They are imprisoned in the bodies of certain wild beasts, and this is their punishment.’
" ‘Do they know, then, that it is for this reason they are in such forms, and that they have committed some sin?’
" ‘I do not think so.’
" ‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’
" ‘No indeed.’
" ‘Therefore souls neither see God nor transmigrate into other bodies; for they would know that so they are punished, and they would be afraid to commit even the most trivial sin afterwards. But that they can perceive that God exists, and that righteousness and piety are honourable, I also quite agree with you,’ said he.

" ‘You are right,’ I replied.


Here is the critical point of meaning:

Justine is being shown that philosophising about God is complete vanity if that philosophy is not accompanied by experience. Justin is told in so many words ‘well if you have been so good as to desire to see God and even long for it, and have migrated your soul through death (reincarnation) and have seen God then how come you cannot remember it?” This is an establishing of a central point of truth. "It is given to men to die once, then cometh judgement”. To philosophise in this life about that which is in truth, completely false, is useless. Then we see the straight point of this discourse between Justin and the old man.

The Old Man
" ‘These philosophers know nothing, then, about these things; for they cannot tell what a soul is.’

Justin
" ‘It does not appear so.’

Translation
" ‘Nor ought it to be called immortal; for if it is immortal, it is plainly unbegotten.’

Manuscript
(Οὐδὲ μὴν ἀθάνατον χρὴ λέγειν αὐτήν· ὅτι εἰ ἀθάνατός ἐστι, καὶ ἀγέννητος δηλαδή)

Semantic
Neither ought it to be said that the soul cannot die, because if it cannot die then the soul clearly exists without having gone through the process of being born.

" ‘It is both unbegotten and immortal, according to some who are styled Platonists.’ [Ἀγέννητος δὲ καὶ ἀθάνατός ἐστι κατά τινας λεγομένους Πλατωνικούς]


Justin is still hanging onto his philosophy and so the old man says:

Translation
" ‘Do you say that the world is also unbegotten?’

Manuscript
Ἢ καὶ τὸν κόσμον σὺ ἀγέννητον λέγεις”

Semantic
Are you saying that the world (cosmos) is its own original cause? (Self Creating or Evolving)

Response
" ‘Some say so. I do not, however, agree with them.[Εἰσὶν οἱ λέγοντες, οὐ μέντοι γε αὐτοῖς συγκατατίθεμαι ἐγώ]


At this point the old man speaks about the world (cosmos) as a ‘solid body’ and by illusion the physical body itself as attending to the soul. This distinction attends broadly to two greek ideas.

The first is that of the material atomists who believed that the world is a reality of compacted as well as spacious atoms. It is not of itself a living thing in its core structure. The body (sarx) was viewed in the same way essentially as atomic. The other view is that life was brought out of water, even as the earth itself is covered with water and the very body of the soul (sarx) is water (The earth is renewed every day). This the old man says is the proof that the earth was created and does not self exist as though it were the source of its own existence. Creation is the proof of causality and causality is God Himself. The old man is saying that if the world (cosmos) is begotten (created by the will of God γεγονέναι) then the soul with its physical body (sarx) must for the very same qualitative reasons of "a body so solid, possessing resistance, composite, changeable, decaying, and renewed every day", must also be begotten (created by the will of God). Finally the old man points to the fact that the soul itself may be viewed as having a point of origin. That point is conception. Once the soul is born then it is a life which, though it is corruptible by sin, it is sustained by God Himself. So therefore whilst the soul is immortal, it is not immortal by its own nature.


‘You are right; for what reason has one for supposing that a body so solid, possessing resistance, composite, changeable, decaying, and renewed every day, has not arisen from some cause? But if the world is begotten, souls also are necessarily begotten; and perhaps at one time they were not in existence, for they were made on account of men and other living creatures, if you will say that they have been begotten wholly apart, and not along with their respective bodies.’ [Ὀρθῶς ποιῶν. Τίνα γὰρ λόγον ἔχει, σῶμα3 οὕτω στερεὸν, καὶ ἀντιτυπίαν ἔχον, καὶ σύνθετον, καὶ ἀλλοιούμενον καὶ φθίνον καὶ γινόμενον ἑκάστης ἡμέρας, μὴ ἀπʼ ἀρχῆς τινὸς ἡγεῖσθαι γεγονέναι; Εἰ δʼ ὁ κόσμος γεννητός, ἀνάγκη καὶ τὰς ψυχὰς γεγονέναι, καὶ οὐκ εἶναί ποι τάχα·4 διὰ γὰρ τοὺς ἀνθρώπους ἐγένοντο καὶ τὰ ἄλλα ζῶα, εἰ ὅλως κατʼ ἰδίαν καὶ μὴ μετὰ τῶν ἰδίων σωμάτων φήσεις αὐτὰς γεγονέναι’]


We have to remember at this point where this all began. The old man was teaching Justin that sin is punishable and this punishment could have no meaning if it was not conscious punishment.

" ‘Then these reap no advantage from their punishment, as it seems: moreover, I would say that they are not punished unless they are conscious of the punishment.’

Now in finality the old man brings Justin to the full substance of both conscious punishment and the meaning of the immortality of the soul itself.

Justin on the Soul
" ‘They are not, then, immortal?’ [Οὐκ ἄρα ἀθάνατοι]

The Old Man
" ‘No; since the world has appeared to us to be begotten.’ [Οὔκ, ἐπειδὴ καὶ ὁ κόσμος γεννητὸς ἡμῖν ἐφάνη]


Continued Qualified Argument of the Old Man regarding how the soul can die and live for ever!

The Old Man
" ‘But I do not say, indeed, that all souls die; for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil. What then? The souls of the pious remain in a better place, while those of the unjust and wicked are in a worse, waiting for the time of judgment. Thus some which have appeared worthy of God never die; but others are punished so long as God wills them to exist and to be punished.’ [Ἀλλὰ μὴν οὐδὲ ἀποθνήσκειν φημὶ πάσας τὰς ψυχὰς5 ἐγώ· ἕρμαιον γὰρ ἦν ὡς ἀληθῶς τοῖς κακοῖς. Ἀλλὰ τί; Τὰς μὲν τῶν εὐσεβῶν6 ἐν κρείττονί ποι χώρῳ μένειν, τὰς δὲ ἀδίκους καὶ πονηρὰς ἐν χείρονι, τὸν τῆς κρίσεως ἐκδεχομένας χρόνον τότε. Οὕτως αἱ μέν, ἄξιαι τοῦ Θεοῦ φανεῖσαι, οὐκ ἀποθνήσκουσιν ἔτι· αἱ δὲ κολάζονται, ἔστʼ ἂν αὐτὰς καὶ εἶναι καὶ κολάζεσθαι ὁ Θεὸς θέλῃ]


The first thing to note here is that the old man is very careful to say that, ‘all souls do not die’. Of itself this saying alone would give an apostate a basis for saying, ‘some souls do die’, and by that intend to mean annihilation of the soul. It is precisely at this point that we have to be very clear indeed.

"Martha said to Him, "I know that he will rise again in the resurrection on the last day.” Jesus said to her, "I am the resurrection and the life; he who believes in Me will live even if he dies, and everyone who lives and believes in Me will never die. Do you believe this?” She said to Him, "Yes, Lord; I have believed that You are the Christ, the Son of God, even He who comes into the world.”” (John 11:24”“27, NASB95)

λεγει αυτω μαρθα οιδα οτι αναστησεται εν τη αναστασει εν τη εσχατη ημερα ειπεν αυτη ο ιησους εγω ειμι η αναστασις και η ζωη ο πιστευων εις εμε καν αποθανη ζησεται και πας ο ζων και πιστευων εις εμε ου μη αποθανη εις τον αιωνα πιστευεις τουτο λεγει αυτω ναι κυριε εγω πεπιστευκα οτι συ ει ο χριστος ο υιος του θεου ο εις τον κοσμον ερχομενος Textus Receptus John 11:24”“27


When the old man says, ‘for that were truly a piece of good fortune to the evil’ he is in effect saying if every soul of man who sinned died, and remained dead, then evil (the evil one) would be the winner. In Christ even a dead man is alive if he believes into Christ who was raised from the dead. The soul is not immortal. It is a corruptible thing. The body in which the soul presently dwells is itself corrupt. The whole of this discourse between Justine and the old man has to do with this reality. It is a reality check and a discourse in the fact that the wicked are punished and the righteous are in a better place. The soul is not annihilated.


The rest of this portion is self explanatory and clearly shows that when a man dies physically he goes to one of two places. The pious man (the believer) goes to a ‘better place’ than the ‘wicked’ man who goes to a ‘worse’ place. This place is the greek Hades. It is the place where men and women await judgement. There is no specific reference to Geenna (Hell). There is only the wait for judgement in Hades.


I think the rest of that chapter Noah is pretty self explanatory as well.

The thing to keep in mind is that the weight of this section of the discourse between Justin and Trypho is actually a discourse between Justin and the old man. In the end the old man finally stops Justin asking anymore questions and presenting any more speculations and tells him plainly that even when the philosophers have some understanding their understanding is corrupt and that the only word which can be trusted is the word of the prophets of God, including Moses. Justin takes this to heart and is converted to the true faith in Christ Jesus.

One of the great dangers with all things philosophical is that we cannot put our trust in them. Even with pious men seeking to please God, as they comprehend these things, their words are utterly useless and cannot lead to eternal life. It is a great mistake to seek for understanding through philosophy. Yet many believers do just that. In the case of Justin the whole point of this discourse is to prove that point. It is not primarily to prove eternal punishment. Though it does prove that very thing.

I hope this answers you question in some way.

H
havok20x

"First, I believe the traditional historic belief on hell is clearly and plainly taught in Scripture."

One of the things that I noticed among Christians is that they don't even know what a historic view of hell is. Dante's Inferno is (unknown to them) more often referenced in regards to what hell is like than the bible. That is where we get the idea of demons with pitchforks tormenting people. And satan ruling in hell. When I read it in school I couldn't believe just how much hell theology came from that book. It is hard to say that we need to agree on essentials when many don't know what those essentials even are.

S
sermonindex

"Of course I pray for the dead. The action is so spontaneous, so all but inevitable, that only the most compulsive theological case against it would deter men. And I hardly know how the rest of my prayers would survive if those for the dead were forbidden.’ (Letters to Malcolm)

It is no wonder that C.S. Lewis is the most quoted person for Mormons outside of Joseph Smith himself.

S
sermonindex

i don't see any biblical example of praying for the dead

M
MrBillPro

What I really would like to know is, why does the Lord only use people that are popular, to get the message out. I would just one time like to hear someone on here say, I was at my favorite breakfast place the other morning drinking coffee and chatting with this person, and he prophesied something to me. I sure hope God never says something to me and instructs me to tell the world, no one would even believe me, especially Christians, why? because no one knows me. I thought God said, my Holy Spirit, poured out amongst My followers, in all of My Christian Churches, is there different powers in the Holy Spirit, or are we all filled equally with the same Holy Spirit? I mean the Holy Spirit is not like an earthly IQ or something like that is it?

H
havok20x

Paul washer touched on that mrbillpri in the 10 indictments sermon: "I have the greatest fear that the local church is despised"

M
MrBillPro

Havok.....Listening now thanks!

T
TMK

I am not posting to support any alternate view so everybody relax..

Oratio-

I have a quick question for you regarding your CS Lewis quotes.

Do you have any idea whether they are taken out of context or not? I have not read Letters to Malcolm-- I did read The Great Divorce several years back but I can't recall much about it.

I think the context of his statements is EXTREMELY important for the following reason:

He wrote an awesome book called "The Screwtape Letters." The entire book is a series of "letters" written from a "Demon supervisor" to an underling demon. The letters tell the underling how to go about properly shipwrecking the faith of a new believer Christ. It is an extremely insightful work in regard to human nature and realistically portrays just exactly how demons likely work against Christians.

My point is this: the entire book is written from the standpoint of a demonic figure. If someone quoted CS Lewis from this work, it would look like CS Lewis is interested in ruining the faith of believers.

I have too much respect for this man to simply let all these quotes go unchallenged (my tagline below is one of my favorite quotes from him). Unfortunately I do not have the time (now) to read these works to determine the context.

I just think we have to be exceedingly careful in impugning the character of a man who has meant so much to Christianity and even the mainline leaders in evangelical Christianity, especially because it seems that the sole reason in doing so is because he MAY have expressed a belief in something other than a traditional view of the fate of the wicked.

O
Oracio

TMK, fair question. I was very careful in my research regarding those quotes. I know he has written a lot of fictional books like the one you mentioned. The quotes I posted are all from his non-fictional writings. I mentioned that I wasn't that clear on two of the quotes I posted. I mentioned that those two quotes were part of what made me think he believed in annihalationism. As far as the rest of the quotes, I believe they are in context and I would challenge you to prove other wise. If it is found that I took any of those quotes out of context I will immediately apologize. I highly doubt that will be the case because those quotes are pretty clear and they are from non-fictional works.

Let me just say this regarding the atonement quotes. I know he believed in the atonement but not that it was a penal substitution in which Christ was punished for our sins. He believed it was only some sort of ransom Christ paid to redeem us. I posted those quotes so others can see how he undermines the penal substitution of Christ.

O
Oracio

Another thing I will say about C.S. Lewis. At first upon learning of his heretical views I was really puzzled as to why so many evangelicals, even some whom I deem to be solid, would endorse him, the same goes for John Stott. But I realize many may have not read his non-fictional books entirely and may have only read or heard his "good" quotes.

But I also believe that another reason he has been highly endorsed by so many evangelicals, even after they've read his non-fictional heretical books(like Mere Christianity) entirely, is because many simply don't care enough about sound doctrine in these last days.

T
TMK

Do you really have the temerity to call "Mere Christianity" heretical? That word seems be be tossed about rather excessively around here.

O
Oracio

Also TMK, just curious. That quote you have as your signature. Which of his writings is it from? And have you verified it's not taken out of context?

O
Oracio

Do you really have the temerity to call "Mere Christianity" heretical? That word seems be be tossed about rather excessively around here.

TMK, as you can see in the list of quotes I posted, three were from Mere Christianity. Those three quotes show how he undermines the penal substitution of Christ, and his view of inclusivism regarding people of different religions. I do honestly believe that's enough to deem the whole book as heretical and throw it in the trash.

S
sermonindex

I think the context of his statements is EXTREMELY important for the following reason: TMK


I agree that context is most important. I also agree that when we quote someone we ought to understand that person more throughly if we are to lay hold of the possibility of saying something more fruitful than that which appears too critical. (You can quote me on that!)

As you can see it is an easy thing to talk rubbish when it comes to a truth. If I say, "when we quote someone we ought to understand that person more throughly if we are to lay hold of the possibility of saying something more fruitful than that which appears too critical" then no doubt that will appear very reasonable. However when presented in the face of a diabolical lie, then it is mere philosophy and should be rebuked for being mere philosophy.

Clive Lewis was an academic in English Literature, and so he was well versed in classical literature as well. It was J. R. R. Tolkien {with others at Oxford) who encouraged him back into the Anglican Communion when he was 32 years of age. Your tag line is taken from a book published after his death and reflects a series of letters and speeches which he made over a number of years prior to his death. It is essentially a lament for the state of modern attitudes towards God.

God in the Dock is the title and it was published in 1970. I read a number of his books when I was a child growing up, including the theological ones so-called. The fact is they formed part of the cultural history of a certain kind of Englishness which if met, always held to the same philosophical attitudes which Lewis held to be true. Lewis even believed that the men of the ancient world were better placed to receive God than are those of his day of writing (1958) that prose. So he waxes lyrical about an imagined ancient world in which men knew they were evil and thus the gospel was good news indeed. But this is mere philosophy. It is to make rhetoric out of that which is spirit and truth.

The gospel is not an intellectual argument based on reason, it is to be proclaimed in the streets and the high places. Whether men believe it or not is a matter for them in the end. The reason I have never gone back to Lewis and his approach to christianity, is precisely that. It is an approach and has little to do with the gospel itself. If you want to give it its proper name it is Theological Anglicanism. Its all comfort and kind, with little true compassion and no gospel.

T
TMK

Oracio-

I did not intend to offend with my context comment. My question was whether you checked context and you said you had so I am satisfied.

I just have a very hard time branding someone a heretic who practically every evangelical leader I am aware of speaks of him highly or quotes him frequently. I know that David Jeremiah quotes him quite often.

I am not saying that Lewis was an evangelical as I am sure that he was not.

T
TMK

In regard to "praying for the dead" there may be a misunderstanding of what Lewis meant. I got the following off the " got questions" website:
----------------
Does the Bible condone praying for the dead?

There are three ways this question usually comes up. The first is related to the Catholic belief in Purgatory. The second refers to a misunderstanding of Jesus' proclamation in Sheol between His death and resurrection. The third is more personal and more ambiguous.

The Roman Catholic Church teaches that some Christ-followers who have died will spend time in a holding place, Purgatory, before they can enter heaven. These are people who died having committed venial sins that were not sufficiently atoned for. Roman Catholics are encouraged to pray for those in Purgatory so that their suffering will be eased and their time shortened. Since Purgatory does not actually exist, it is foolish to pray for anyone affiliated with it.

The second case is when a believer prays that an unbeliever who has died will accept Christ in the afterlife. Unfortunately, this is not possible. People do not receive a second chance to repent after they have died. If they did, the rich man in Luke 16:19-31 would have asked forgiveness for himself, not his brothers. And Hebrews 9:27 agrees, saying, "just as it is appointed for man to die once, and after that comes judgment." But 1 Peter 3:18-19 adds confusion to the argument. It says that between the crucifixion and the resurrection, Jesus "proclaimed to the spirits in prison." The prison in question is generally regarded to be the holding place for demons who sinned so egregiously God removed them from earth. The word translated "preach" means to herald a message. Jesus announced that He had conquered Satan and his forces, but He did not offer life to people who had already died rejecting Him.

The final situation that most often brings up the question of praying for the dead is related to retroactive petitionary prayer””a subcategory of "backward causation." Is it appropriate to pray for the salvation of someone who has died under ambiguous spiritual circumstances? If we didn't know if he was saved or not, could we pray retroactively that he was? Since the outcome is unclear to the survivors, and since God lives outside of our time, it would make sense that we could ask God to have worked in the life of someone who has died. Such a prayer could also be offered regarding physical comfort, for example, to pray that someone's sudden death was painless.

Of retroactive prayers, C.S. Lewis says:

When we are praying about the result, say, of a battle or a medical consultation, the thought will often cross our minds that (if only we knew it) the event is already decided one way or the other. I believe this to be no good reason for ceasing our prayers. The event certainly has been decided””in a sense it was decided "before all world." But one of the things taken into account in deciding it, and therefore one of the things that really causes it to happen, may be this very prayer that we are now offering. Thus, shocking as it may sound, I conclude that we can at noon become part causes of an event occurring at ten A.M.
Miracles

What he is saying is that in the time between your cancer test and the call from the doctor with the results, you can still pray that the test is negative. The cancer is there or not at that moment, but since God is not constrained by linear time, your prayer may still influence whether or not you have it. For the argument at hand, the same may be said. Either the friend died instantly or slowly, either he was saved or not. But our prayer may yet have influence.

Logically, the argument is sound. But while it brings up an interesting intellectual exercise, there is no indication in the Bible that such prayers would be retroactively effective. If they would, it would be reasonable to see some kind of instruction in the Bible, but the Bible never mentions praying for things that have already passed. It is true that God exists outside of our timeline, but when He made us, He confined us to linear time. All indication is that He wants us to concentrate on the present (Matthew 6:34).

So, the Bible tells us there is no Purgatory and there is no second chance at salvation after death; it follows that it is useless to pray for the dead as related to these topics. But the Bible does not mention if we should or shouldn't pray for things that have already happened. Still, it makes more sense to pray about the present and the people in need now, than the people who have already passed.

O
Oracio

In regard to "praying for the dead" there may be a misunderstanding of what Lewis meant.

Given the fact that Lewis firmly believed in purgatory I see no good reason for assuming he didn't mean praying for the purification of the dead in purgatory.

L
Logic

If Eternal Conscious Punishment is not true, then the time one does spend in torment is pointless.

S
sermonindex

Oracio I understand and know exactly how you feel. I uses to believe in internal torment too. But not convinced any longer. Annihilationism seems to me more of a solid doctrine. Think there could be a time in hell and after that God will ultimately destroy the body and spirit. This is new to me and still reading about it before I jump camps.

S
Sidewalk

I have been out of town and have not followed this thread. I read a few of the thoughts, and would say simply this:

The bible addresses major doctrines with multiple references across both Testaments. It is our protection against deception and being lured into false hope. So it is with the doctrine of Hell and the permanence of spirit life without God.

Never, allow me to repeat NEVER does the bible teach that Hell is temporary or limited. "Where the fire is not quenched and the worm dieth not" is a rich and vivid description of the place of torment, created for the devil and his angels, and for all who die in their sins. The bible does not have an escape hatch for this, and indeed the urgency cast upon us to win souls for God is just the reflection of Jesus enduring the horror of the crucifixion because it was so important. He died because there was no plan B.

We cannot help but be affected by a culture that loves sin, revels in its sweet indulgences, mocks the righteous at every turn, laughs at the thought of any eternal accountability.

But we are born of God, inheritors of His bounty, chosen to be ambassadors of His Holy Truth. The wicked are bound for eternal punishment if they refuse to repent and it is a very big deal. They will eternally suffer the reward of their sin, eternally testify to the holiness of the God whose love they spurned.

Frankly, Hell is the very best a loving God can do for those who reject Him.

Those who seek God do not jump camps!

S
sermonindex

Beg to differ those that seek God may find themselves learning something that might be contrary to what tradition has taught.

Want to make two point real quickly scripture is clear that hell was created for the devil and his angels.

fire that is not quenched means the fire consumes and destroys everything.

H
havok20x

reformer,

2000 years of Christian history would be what you consider "what tradition has taught." Those who do not believe in an eternal, conscious hell were in the great minority among our faithful fathers.

For someone who is still learning, you defend this "new" teaching with quite a bit of zeal.

Be wise and follow the advice of the other brothers in this thread: Do not start preaching that of which you are still unsure.

Go dig in the Scriptures as many before you have and, without bias and without trying to prove your new way of thinking right, read what they say.

S
Sidewalk

Watch how carefully the Spirit reveals His word through the men who wrote the Bible, how the fire is not quenched- (you might draw an annihilation argument from that) but it also adds that the worm dieth not. Whatever the reality of what is being described might turn out to be, there remains strong evidence that the punishment is ongoing. The fire is not consuming the worm.

Beware of any doctrine that weakens the clear resolve of Christ's work on the cross. If there is no eternal justice to be dealt with, there is no need for the crucifixion and it's wondrous atoning power. In the Garden of Gethsemane Jesus essentially asks the Father if there is another, an easier way. There is none. In the marvelous act of creating beings like Himself, He creates souls bound for eternal permanence. It is Satan who trashes men and tries to claim they are worthless- but each is an eternally precious gem in God's universe.

You will have to go away from Scripture and into your own imaginations to conclude that unrepentant men escape the eternal punishment we call Hell.

Universalism and the ultimate salvation of all souls is not a new doctrine. Theologians of every stripe have entertained it, and often based it on the doctrine of original sin. It is a compelling argument that if God created all men as sinners He is obligated to also save them all.

Which is another reason the doctrine of original sin is incompatible with the call of God for men to repent. One can turn from sinful deeds but not from a sinful nature.

So if you go to one of the universalist interpretations of those whose minds cannot accommodate an eternal ongoing Hell you will have plenty of company. They will also want to show you how homosexuality and abortion also have place in the church, no one is to be condemned or judged.

But before you go there with all the beautiful people, be sure to listen to the sermon leading the list of 20th century significance- "Ten Shekels and a Shirt" by Paris Reidhead.

Always plead in prayer, always allow the Holy Spirit to reveal your heart to you.


May truth prevail in our hearts, and may I never think I can create any of it on my own.

H
havok20x

The major problem with the doctrine of annihilationism is that do with the resurrection. It makes no sense for The Lord to provide all dead men with resurrected bodies only to destroy them.

The problem with universalism is one of degree of sin. Isaiah 59 makes it clear that men have separated themselves infinitely from The Lord. Sin is never in degrees of forgivability. It is either paid for or it is not and the cost of separation from an infinite holy God is infinite sacrifice, hence the sacrifice of God, who died for us--Jesus.

Wow! How marvelous and wonderful and mysterious is the cross! We will spend all eternity just mediating on the glory of God through the cross of Jesus Christ!

T
TMK

quote: "so if you go to one of the universalist interpretations of those whose minds cannot accommodate an eternal ongoing Hell you will have plenty of company. They will also want to show you how homosexuality and abortion also have place in the church, no one is to be condemned or judged."

Biting my tongue, oh how I am biting my tongue. Prayers please.

T
twayneb

I once heard a church leader say that all of those in leadership in his fellowship did not agree on many minor points of doctrine. So, they had questions that they referred to as their "Five Year Questions", meaning that they could never really reach total agreement and about once every five years they brought these things up for further discussion.

As I have followed this thread, I have noticed a few things about which I wanted to comment.

First, there has been an equivocation made between annihilationism and universalism. The two are very different topics. Annihilationism vs. eternal torment deals with the form of judgment that sinners experience. Universalism speaks to the supposed eventual salvation of all men. The first is a valid topic for scriptural discussion. The second is clear heresy. But to say that the first somehow implies the second is, in my opinion, to attempt to discredit one possible interpretation by linking it to something that is clearly indefensible. The idea that an annihilationist is somehow also a universalist is simply not a true idea.

Second, annihilationism vs. eternal torment is not a new argument in the church. I was raised as a pentecostal, brought up under the people who walked with Parham. They were very strict annihilationists, calling the doctrine "destruction of the wicked". Their scriptural interpretation and argument were a solid in that direction as any that I have seen to support eternal torment.

I would be interested to see someone begin to list scriptures that can be interpreted to support both doctrines, and a discussion as to how we interpret these scriptures in light of context and the other passages. I know we all have an opinion, some more strongly held than others. But our opinions are like belly buttons...well, you know the rest.

This discussion is archived and closed to new replies. Start a new discussion to carry the subject on.
Archived
1 of 159 posts

Everything we make is available for free because of a generous community of supporters.

Donate