My Case for eternal Hell

[Ambassador791]

I am not sure that we can say when the cut-off point is for God-given opportunities for men to receive grace. You are placing the limit at death. Is there scripture to support that? Maybe so, but none immediately comes to mind.

John 3/16 God so loved the world that he gave his only Son that whoever believes MIGHT NOT PERISH but have eternal life (John 3:16).

I am sure that we can agree that perish here refers to the second death. ”that whoever believes might not perish”. Jesus died, tasted death, so that we may not perish. Now, in what moment is Jesus’ sacrifice applied? The very moment that we would perish (tast the second death). When is this moment? Right after death when the books are opened and God is separating the sheep from the goats.

Jesus saves us from perishing (the second death), those who perish were not saved by Jesus. Jesus’ sacrifice is not just applied anytime anywhere, it saves sinners from a specific thing: perishing.

Evangelical universalists, so far as I am aware, do not believe in anyone "working" for their salvation in hell. They believe that people in hell will be saved in just the same manner as we are saved today, through repentance and trust in Christ—albeit postmortem.

Postmortem, yes, but not postperish because that is where Jesus saves. (sorry for the play on words)

I still can't see how this “Evangelical universalism” squares with scripture.

The second a man enters the second death, he has forever lost Jesus as the savior that saves from the specific second death that he is in. He has proven that Jesus did not save him by the fact that he is in the very state that Jesus saves from. I know that I am just using John 3/16 right now, but we all know that the body of scripture says that Jesus was punished so that the sinner would not be punished. Jesus was condemned so that the sinner would not be. The one that enters condemnation has tasted the ACTUALITY of Gods wrath. Jesus tasted the wrath of God so that we don’t have to. Either Jesus tasts death for us or we do. If someone entered the second death and then was allowed into heaven, he recieved wrath for his own guilt, not Jesus. If he went to heaven at this point, he would not have done it on Christ’s merit because Christ’s merit saves FROM the second death. If he is in the second death, it is because Jesus’ merit was not applied to him.

When you say that a person under wrath should not expect undeserved grace, I have to ask what condition you and I were in before we came to Christ? Were we not "children of wrath, even as others"?

Remember that the sinner lives in a world that is good, and it was created good. The good world (life) that God made, was charged, packed with good from the beginning. Even after the fall, God did not with-draw the goodness from his creation, but he left it for the just and the unjust. I think this is the good sun and rain that the sinner gets. It is not as if God sends the good sun to some places and not to others. Simply by allowing mankind to live in a good world (holding back the actuality of his wrath), IS God being good to all. You and I found goodness here, and we fould Jesus under these conditions.

The bible says that the payment for sin is death. Death will be void of this, God did not make death good like he did his creation, it is a result of sin.Death is the opposite of the good life we found Jesus in. If the place for the sinner is called the second death, by definition, it should be void of good life producing options.

This, I am sure has it’s purposes. One is this: God says “I have set before you life and death, blessings and curses. Now choose life”

He said this in the Old Testament but he still says it through Jesus. Choose life or death.

Jesus is life, life IS good. Sun and rain are good and they produce life. If the sinner had never seen a good world full of good life, how could God say, choose the good. The sinner wouldn’t even know what good is. If we choose death, and then only find it void of good (life), this should be of no surprise.Just thinking about the contrast in: “choose life or death” should clear up what is not to be found in death: no good life.

This good life is permitted on earth so that the sinner can choose. Now, once he chooses death, is that death going to contain the good things to encourage him to choose life? He just choose death and choose to live away from the life of God. Death is the absence of God “life” .If death contained God (life and goodness),it would not be death because it would have potential life giving options.

Let me quote myself cause I don't want to miss this:"Now, once he chooses death, is that death going to contain the good things from life to encourage him to choose life?" This almost sounds like a wild reincarnation cycle, but maybe just with out the reincarnation, more lives to get it right .

If you choose death, and it really is just another path to life (just a longer rout), it is not death. Think of a “dead end path”. If you find another path branching off from it (some how hidden), it really was not a “dead” end at all.

Remember that my argument is that “destruction” and "death" describes GODlessness away from his good life.

One point I have wanted to make for some time is this: why do most people think that most of revelation is literal? They don't understand that God speaks in sybolic, apocalyptic language when he talks about wrath.

Remember this when you want to translate the "second death" of Revelation and "distruction" of 2 thess 2 as a literal end of the sinner. Sometimes God discribes something as utterly distroyed and then later you see It still existing.Ex: moon and stars falling, Egyptian cattle killed more than once in Exodus. You could say that Revelation is a apocalyptic book and second thessalonians is not. Well, neither was Exodus.

I think I can sum up the problem we are dealing with:

Imagine a man that is going to be condemned by the authorities (because of his guilt) to life in prison. He is given the option to choose a pardon (freedom, life) on the authorities terms, or condemnation (no freedom). The man’s free choice was a good thing given to him by good authorities. They showed their good character in virtue of giving the good option to the man while leaving him free for a year to make his decision in a good society governed by these same authorities. He enjoys the same freedoms and benifits of the country as the innocent people. But, after the year is up, he chooses to reject the pardon. Could I tell him “look, these are good authorities. The very fact that they gave you the good opportunity to choose while you enjoyed the good things they allowed you, proves that your condemnation will contain the option of freedom at some point, if they gave you the good option of freedom once, they will always give it, if they did not give it, they were never really good”.

I don’t think that they needed to even offer it once to be considered good, after all, the man is gulty and he rebeled against them. This is like us, according to the bible, we deserve wrath. God doesn’t even have to offer life once to save face and be “good”. If we deserved life and God did not offer it, then we could complain about how many times we should be offered chances. Someone might say, “but is it not God’s character to only offer life before condemnation”. First, as far as I know once condemnation has happened, it has happened BECAUSE God has judged you guilty, why would he flip flop?

The whole idea of “Everyone deserving wrath” is God’s testimony about man, not mine. When we think about his charactar, we must not forget this. Offering one pardon is more than he is obligated to do.

So then, you may ask, what happens when Christ returns, and what about the judgment? First of all, I don't believe Christ's judgment is restricted to a single day which doesn't commence until Christ returns from heaven to resurrect the dead. Christ, the Judge, has been on His throne executing judgment since He took his place at God's right hand. All nations are gathered before Him now, and he "separates them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats (Matt 25:32)." If you look at this passage from Matthew you'll notice that the criteria for punishment is based on the works of the people; those who show compassion on the needy are spiritually blessed, while those who lack this compassion are spiritually punished. This is something that happens everyday around us in this life.

I believe is true. This is like my example above of the governing "good" of God through the authorities that the sinner enjoys on earth.

And what of the resurrection of the dead? I think that the description of this event is best explained in 1 Cor 15 and Rom 8:18-23. Both these passages indicate that the "dead in Christ" or as they are also called, the "sons of God," will be raised first; these will "reign with Christ." The rest of creation (mankind) will follow and will share the glorious liberty of the children of God (Rom 8:21). There is no mention in either of these passages about any post resurrection judgment or punishment.

O.k,but there is in Rev 20/11-15. It talks about the "dead" being judged and the books being opened.It is clear that this takes place after this life because some of the "dead" who are now on the other side of death (supernatural, the natural will not make it to other side of death) are not found in the book of life and the must go to the lake of fire. This is the post resurrection judgment (day) and punishment.


I still think that Mat 25 proves enough on its face, the just and the unjust recieve "eternal "punishment or life", same length of time.

[Ambassador791]

I think we have some good back and forth going on here, thank's for your participation.

[steve]

Ambassador,

I am afraid I can not match your logic. I would make two suggestions, though. One would be that you look up the Greek word for "perish" in the concordance, and check its other uses in the New Testament. The other suggestion is that you read the posts in the "Views of Hell" category at the old forum — http://www.wvss.com/forumc/viewforum.ph ... c1858e9842 . You might discover some of your arguments already discussed in those threads.

[Todd]

O.k,but there is in Rev 20/11-15. It talks about the "dead" being judged and the books being opened.It is clear that this takes place after this life because some of the "dead" who are now on the other side of death (supernatural, the natural will not make it to other side of death) are not found in the book of life and the must go to the lake of fire. This is the post resurrection judgment (day) and punishment.

Ambassador791,

I see Rev 20:11-15 the same way as I see the passage in Matt 25 about the sheep and the goats - they are both taking place in this life. Those in Rev 20 who are called "dead" are not physically dead, but are spiritually dead, or "dead in sin," which is why they are cast into the Lake of Fire. In my opinion, the Lake of Fire is the spiritual and natural consequences of sin that I posted earlier. When one is overcome in sin, it will lead to corruption which eats away at one's soul like a cancer; this corruption, the conviction of the Holy Spirit, and the ministration of the governing authorities all combine to make up God's wrath in the Lake of fire. The important point is that it happens in this life, not the after-life. This is another way to view it, which to me makes much more sense than the other three views.

I agree with Steve. If you will spend some time reading some of the old threads, you will find very good points made in support of all three (or four) views.

Todd

[Ambassador791]

Maybe, Steve you do not wish to continue on with this thread, thats fine, this is time consuming. I can cheak out the link there.

But, for the sake of other readers, let me respond

From what I have seen, the word "perish"(apollumi) can mean lost. So John 3/16 could read: “whoever believes in Him should not be lost.”

I could see how you could see this as a general statement about someone being lost at anytime in their exitance. But, notice that this "lost" is an alternitive to eternal life. If you are lost on the other side of death, instead of being in eternal life, then Jesus' sacrifice was not applied to you, if It had been, you would not have been lost.

Actually, I would have thought the way most people understand "perish" (die) would fit the annihilation view. Lost fits a being away from the lord in ruin much better.

Lost fits the translation I gave for distruction: "ruin from the presence of the Lord to another place" in 2 thess 2.

Revelation tells us that the alternitive to eternal life is the second death.

So the second death could discribe something alive, but lost.

In Math 25, "punishment for eternity" is contrasted by "life for eternity". This qualifies how long the "lost" is lost for with the same length of time that the just are rewarded with.This is the same of the "lost" in John 3/16 being contrasted by eternal life.

let me quote myself if my point is lost by only using John 3/16

I know that I am just using John 3/16 right now, but we all know that the body of scripture says that Jesus was punished so that the sinner would not be punished. Jesus was condemned so that the sinner would not be. The one that enters condemnation has tasted the ACTUALITY of Gods wrath. Jesus tasted the wrath of God so that we don’t have to. Either Jesus tasts death for us or we do. If someone entered the second death and then was allowed into heaven, he recieved wrath for his own guilt, not Jesus.

[steve7150]

I could see how you could see this as a general statement about someone being lost at anytime in their exitance. But, notice that this "lost" is an alternitive to eternal life. If you are lost on the other side of death, instead of being in eternal life, then Jesus' sacrifice was not applied to you, if It had been, you would not have been lost.




You're reading things into your interpretations to validate your beliefs. But so does everyone including me. Be that as it may many people perished in the bible but all get resurrected to judgment and are judged by their works.
I hate repeating myself but once again i believe if everyone gets eternal punishment then there is no judging by their works , it is contradictory and illogical and incomprehensible.
Matt 25 seems to be your strongest verse but in fact the righteous already have immortality so to say the immortal have eternal life actually is redundant therefore the immortal simply keep going from age to age as do the unrighteous depending on how they are judged.
God is not limited by his own wrath as he has mercy and most of all HE IS LOVE, nor is hell bigger then God as your view infers, and it does infer it. God will judge righteously and we all have differing views as to how that will be manifested but i place my hope in the charactor of Jesus and what he said we should try to be like so we could be more like him which by extension is being like Father God.

[Homer]

Hi Steve,

You wrote:

Fathers ought to forgive their children, and also they ought to forgive other people's children, if Jesus' teachings are to be our guide. This generous spirit, which we are to have even to our enemies and persecutors, is recommended for the express purpose of our conforming to the heart of God Himself (Matt.5:44-45). When the disciples wished to call fire out of heaven on a city that was rejecting Christ, He told them "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of" (Luke 9:55). There is a danger that we may not discern what manner of spirit we are of in deciding that there should be fire without mercy upon those who are not Christians.

IMO the analogy on the eathly father to God is only a partial one and does not hold in all aspects. According to the quoted statement, human fathers, at least good ones, will always forgive their own children, and in following Jesus' teachings will necessarily forgive the children of others. Therefore God must forgive the children of others.

The context of the discussion you were involved in concerned ambassador's point about God's adopted children. The children that are not God's are the children of the Devil:

1 John 3:9-10 (NIV)
9. No one who is born of God will continue to sin, because God's seed remains in him; he cannot go on sinning, because he has been born of God. 10. This is how we know who the children of God are and who the children of the devil are: Anyone who does not do what is right is not a child of God; nor is anyone who does not love his brother.

Your argument then, if followed, would seem to be that God must forgive the children of the Devil; He could not punish them any more than an earthly father punishes another's child. But God expressly reserves to Himself the right to avenge, a right not allowed to us ("vengeance is mine....") and vengeance is not, by its nature, intended to be corrective.

And it seems to me God has a track record of sending down fire on some folks.

God bless,
your friendly Contrarian

[Todd]

And it seems to me God has a track record of sending down fire on some folks.

Hi Homer,

I'm glad you joined this discussion because your posts are always easy to understand and your arguments are always good ones.

Here you point out that God has a track record of sending down fire. This is true. It is also true that if the recipient of the fire dies as a result, it would be hard to characterize this punishment as corrective. However, I would like to point out that in each case that God sent down his wrath in the form of fire it was upon the living, not the dead who received this punishment. I still maintain that devine punishment ends at [physical] death. I would also say the same thing about sinning; anyone who is dead has ceased from sinning, which may be why God occasionally chooses to directly intervene and end someone's life early. In these instances nothing is said about what happens to them after the resurrection - at least, not that I am aware of.

Todd

[Ambassador791]

Great points Homer

[Ambassador791]

God is not limited by his own wrath as he has mercy and most of all HE IS LOVE, nor is hell bigger then God as your view infers, and it does infer it. God will judge righteously and we all have differing views as to how that will be manifested but i place my hope in the charactor of Jesus and what he said we should try to be like so we could be more like him which by extension is being like Father God.

Sometimes I think that we just want to look at the loving examples of Jesus. Keep in mind that he is not limited my mercy either as I will show below. Here we see that his mercy actually ends at one point, and then his wrath picks up. If there were no end point to his mercy, it seems to me that there would be no wrath at all.

If I were to not forgive someone, I would be wrong, bad and under Gods judgement.I have toi show mercy by forgiving, but the bible says that Jesus will not forgive some people. Jesus acts differenty in judgment as a rule, before judement he acts another way.Think about it, this should qualify how we see the charactar of Jesus.There is grace up until a point.Before judgement he would have forgiven, but in judement he will not says the scripture. Remember, Jesus said "As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or he may drag you off to the judge, and the judge turn you over to the officer, and the officer throw you into prison."

Jesus in the court room will excercise wrath, while before the court, grace.

I think that this shows us up until what point grace is given, fix the problem BEFORE court while grace may be found.