My Case for eternal Hell

[Ambassador791]

Steve, though Ambassador is of course entitled to his position, I trust that he at least hopes you will be proven to have been right. If a Christian doesn`t hope for such, then I wonder whether there`s some hidden agenda at work in them.

I absolutly hope that steve is right.

If it were my heaven...I would invite everyone.

It was less than a year ago that I said to my best friend that if the scriptures are ambiguos about after death reconciliation...we would be dead wrong to accert it that it does not happend.

Since then I have seen other wise.

I have realized that the scripture is ambiguos when it comes to the type of suffering the sinner experiences. But the fact that not all are Gods chidren, rejection of the unbeliever, and full payment of all sins on the sinners part is not ambiguos at all.


This heavily weighs against the view that all will just be treated the same once all is said and done.


The fact that the nature of the sinners suffering is ambiguos, leaves me to think that it could be eternal...but no where near as bad as traditionally thought. It could simply be the leaving of the sinner to his own nature, bannished away from the nature from God. Seen this way, it is not the barbaric view some think.


As I said before, the fact that i want everyone in heaven, says alot about me: a reconciled fallen man that feels for my partners in crime, but says nothing about an Holy God that demands certain standards in order to dwell with any living soul. I have never been such a being to assume to know how HE would act.


Steve, I will get back to what you wrote later...till then God bless.

[steve7150]

The fact that the nature of the sinners suffering is ambiguos, leaves me to think that it could be eternal...but no where near as bad as traditionally thought. It could simply be the leaving of the sinner to his own nature, bannished away from the nature from God. Seen this way, it is not the barbaric view some think.




First of all for punishment to be eternal, sinners would have to have immortality. They don't because only God has immortality therefore it is a condition granted by God and usually portrayed as a gift. When Paul says that we shall all be raised with imperishable bodies he is talking to fellow believers in an ongoing correspondence of at least 3 letters and he is answering many questions.
Also whatever condition the sinner is in , whether in flames or darkness , eternal punishment is the same punishment which is contrary to judging everyone by their works. As i said the overwhelmingly important element of the punishment would be the eternality of it which is blatently against God's standard of justice which is "eye for eye". In the OT God had different punishments for different sins because that's justice, making the punishment fit the crime.

[Ambassador791]

Well actually scripture says he was the propitiation not only of the believers sins but the sins of the whole world. So perhaps the unbeliever has no sin debt at death

Most, at this point, argue that the sacrifice is applied in the same way that the offence came (sin)
This is to assume that the sacrifice of Christ is applied to all unilaterally. I don´t believe that. Neither do I believe the sin of Adam was applied to all unilaterally. The sinner is guilty for His own sin, and is saved on the grounds of HIS faith. There are both conditions for guilt, and justification. So, in the same way guilt came (participation on the part of the sinner) comes the justification.

First of all for punishment to be eternal, sinners would have to have immortality.

We know that God will resurrect all onto the Judgment. If we are on the other side of this life, we are supernatural, by definition. The Burdon of proof rests on you if you want to say that supernatural beings die of natural causes or other wise.

After the judgment, some will have eternal life as a reward. In scripture, the alternative to life (in Jesus) is not necessarily death. Those who have not found life on earth through Jesus are “dead in their transgression” but continue existing. Life and death (eternal or not) are synonymous for living with God or not.
Jesus said some will go onto eternal reward, others to eternal punishment. Need I add to his words?

Also whatever condition the sinner is in , whether in flames or darkness , eternal punishment is the same punishment which is contrary to judging everyone by their works. As i said the overwhelmingly important element of the punishment would be the eternality of it which is blatently against God's standard of justice which is "eye for eye".

Before I go on, I must ask you if this standard of Justice “an eye for an eye” is ever stated to be the standard that God uses to Judge?
You may say that God gave it to the Jews to use as a standard. Yes, but later he gave THE WORLD another standard:
You have heard that it was said, ‘Eye for eye, and tooth for tooth.’g 39But I tell you, Do not resist an evil person. If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also.

If God judges in accordance with the laws he gave man, he will resist no evil person. He will pass no judgment against the evil person. He will turn his cheek.

The standards God gave us to use in dealing with others are not applicable to himself. He might use them, but the fact that he gave them to use does not prove this. He gave them to us, in this situation, this world. When he judges, other factors are involved…one of them is whether or not he wants those set against him in his presence.

Does it not cheapen a Holy God if man can do whatever he wants, and by default make his way to salvation, into Gods presence no matter what? Does that not prove that he has no standards at all? Saying that God twists the sinners arm (in Hell) to make the sinner choose Himself, is all just as cheap. It ignores the value of a truly renewed heart and the fact that God created a free world in which man would chose Him freely. That is all the proof you need to know why the deadline is death for meeting the requirements for eternity with God. He has some standards…not none.

If man can do whatever he wants, and by default make his way to salvation, into Gods presence no matter what, THAT IS PREDESTINATION, and I will reject it on the same grounds I reject the Calvinists version of it.

NOW…

The continued existence after the initial punishment of the sinner (the part that may be harsher for some then others) may not be torture, but the sinner left to his own nature and away from the nature of God. This may not even be direct punishment; the banishing of the sinner may be punishment.
In other words, the sinner might reach a point in which he is free in a world away from God. A sad, horrid world, that lacks all things good: it lacks God. It would be the granting of the sinners desire to be away from God.

IT MAY ACTUALLY BE AN EYE FOR AN EYE PUNISHMENT (meeting the requirement for justice you believe God is bound by). God ignores and leaves the sinner alone just as man ignored God and left him alone. You say that if it is for eternity, it is not eye for an eye. Well, I believe that man does not want God, he proved that on earth by not reaching out and finding him (God was right in front of him according to Paul: acts 17).

Man will continue to reject God without the renewal of the Spirit. So, God´s response to that (rejection) is an eye for an eye, second for second, rejection for rejection...

making the punishment fit the crime.

This would not be unfair. It would be just. So, if this is true, it would not be barbaric. I believe that I have argued logically without running myself up against the scripture as you have. Thus, I see it as the view with the most scripture on its side. That is what I am looking for.

[steve7150]

We know that God will resurrect all onto the Judgment. If we are on the other side of this life, we are supernatural, by definition. The Burdon of proof rests on you if you want to say that supernatural beings die of natural causes or other wise.

After the judgment, some will have eternal life as a reward. In scripture, the alternative to life (in Jesus) is not necessarily death. Those who have not found life on earth through Jesus are “dead in their transgression” but continue existing. Life and death (eternal or not) are synonymous for living with God or not.
Jesus said some will go onto eternal reward, others to eternal punishment. Need I add to his words?






Supernatural does not mean immortal it means above and beyond the natural. As far as Matt 25 goes the word translated into eternal is "aionios" which is the adjective of "aion" which means age therefore aionios means "pertaining to the age" as Rotherham's correctly translates it. In Matt 25 the righteous already have immortality therefore the word "eternal" would be redundant in describing them.
In the OT God's law of an "eye for eye" was for governing and it is his standard of justice but when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheeck he was referring to human interaction and that mercy,love and forgiveness are what he wants from us in dealing with each other.
As i have said Paul said the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers , it is not a difficult concept to see that justice demands the gospel be preached to everyone without the devil having the power to blind minds and that will happen after he is thrown into the lake of fire,IMO. Rather then cheapen God , mercy and love are attributes of his and it glorifies Him to be just, yet also show the mercy he told us to exhibit since we are to be conformed to be like Him.

[Ambassador791]

In the OT God's law of an "eye for eye" was for governing and it is his standard of justice but when Jesus spoke of turning the other cheeck he was referring to human interaction and that mercy,love and forgiveness are what he wants from us in dealing with each other.

Excellent point, Steve!

In the end, though, this point was not key...to my over all point. I still made the point that: even under the eye for an eye standard God would be just to reject man for as long as man rejects him, eye for an eye.

That point is ever so strengthend by the fact that this argument: that man might repent in Hell, depends on the fact that man did not want God when he was ABLED to freely choose him (God was not far from him), but would choose him when there is no other choice. That has God forcing man to choose him. I reject this for the same reason I reject irrisistable grace. These views leave out free choice.

We know that God will resurrect all onto the Judgment. If we are on the other side of this life, we are supernatural, by definition. The Burdon of proof rests on you if you want to say that supernatural beings die of natural causes or other wise.

Supernatural does not mean immortal it means above and beyond the natural.

...and the natural is where death (the thing that stands in the way of imortality) applies . "above and beyond" the natural is where the soul is after it`s resurrection. I still say it is for you to prove that the only things that cause death (natural causes, second law of thermodynamics) will effect the resurrected soul in any way. When God resurrects, he places the beings into the immortal world, they are there because they have been given life by God himself. Sure, the bible tells us that God alone has eternal life, but later he tell us what quality of supernatural life the sinner gets.

As far as Matt 25 goes the word translated into eternal is "aionios" which is the adjective of "aion" which means age therefore aionios means "pertaining to the age" as Rotherham's correctly translates it. In Matt 25 the righteous already have immortality therefore the word "eternal" would be redundant in describing them.

I think you are answering something I have not stated, remember what I am making my claim about:

"Life" here is not describing length of existance, but quality. Notice that "life" is not set in contrast to "death", but "punishment"...a state, or quality of existance.

I am saying that "punishment" (in Mat 25) is not talking about the end of life, and that "life" is not refering to the continuation of existance, or "eternal"...anything. So, that both times we see "eternal" here, it does refer to a "time" or "age". The type of rewards: "punishment" and "life" do not have anything to do with time in themselves.

When the adjective "eternal" is placed in front of the reward, it adds info about whatever reward that might be.So, there is nothing redundant about it.

Remember what it is that I am arguing, and that will clear this up: on earth, Paul talks about two groups of already existing, already living beings: the dead in sins, and the living in Christ. Notice that when Paul uses "life" or "death" about them, he is not talking about "time" or "existance" in itself, but the quality of being of already living people.

As i have said Paul said the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers , it is not a difficult concept to see that justice demands the gospel be preached to everyone without the devil having the power to blind minds and that will happen after he is thrown into the lake of fire,IMO.

You seem to think that there are people that have died that truly wanted God, but could not find him

You seem to think that the "devil blinding the sinner`s mind" is what keeps them out of Heaven and that if it were not for this one thing, God would have truly given man a chance to know him while living on earth.

But...let me remind you, if it were true that this is what was really keeping man from knowing God...then no one would know him. How could anyone know God, if there is only blindness?

There is something else going one here: man can choose. Paul says that God has made sure that man might know God if only he wished (acts 17): God has determined the times and places for man SO THAT he might reach out for him because God is not far from anyone

We must conclued that: yes the devil blinds, but God can still be known dispite Satans work, if not, no one would know him.

[Ambassador791]

Sorry for always making such long posts

[steve7150]

That point is ever so strengthend by the fact that this argument: that man might repent in Hell, depends on the fact that man did not want God when he was ABLED to freely choose him (God was not far from him), but would choose him when there is no other choice. That has God forcing man to choose him. I reject this for the same reason I reject irrisistable grace. These views leave out free choice.

Do you believe Paul? Good because he said the devil blinds the minds of unbelievers therefore we do not have real freewill until after the devil is actually destroyed which is before sinners are in the lake of fire.
With regards to your point that if the devil blinds how is it that any are saved? I think the answer may be in the parable of the Sower and the Seed that if the ground is not soft the devil immediately steals the Word therefore your heart must be receptive. That's the answer but that still would not constitute freewill because the devil is free to steal the Word. We have a will but it is not free, it is subject to the devil.
BTW i think you said I need to prove sinners don't have immortality, however since only God has immortality you need to prove sinners do. It has to be given to unbelievers and i am not aware of where this is stated.

[steve7150]

I am saying that "punishment" (in Mat 25) is not talking about the end of life, and that "life" is not refering to the continuation of existance, or "eternal"...anything. So, that both times we see "eternal" here, it does refer to a "time" or "age". The type of rewards: "punishment" and "life" do not have anything to do with time in themselves.

When the adjective "eternal" is placed in front of the reward, it adds info about whatever reward that might be.So, there is nothing redundant about it.

Remember what it is that I am arguing, and that will clear this up: on earth, Paul talks about two groups of already existing, already living beings: the dead in sins, and the living in Christ. Notice that when Paul uses "life" or "death" about them, he is not talking about "time" or "existance" in itself, but the quality of being of already living people.






I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying that Matt 25 refers to this life or the afterlife or both?

[Ambassador791]

I'm not sure what you are referring to here. Are you saying that Matt 25 refers to this life or the afterlife or both?

I can see how this might be confusing.

I believe that Mat 25 is talking about the reward, or punishment for mankind. I believe that it is talking about what will take place after the judgment. I believe that "life" here (the reward), is the name for the quality, or kind of existance of the believer. "Punishment" is just that...for the unbeliever.

Things may have taken a confusing turn when I spoke about how Paul uses "life" and "death" in regards to people alive on earth.

It seems to me that you were saying that "life" in Mat 25 means eteral life in itself because the believer has received the gift of "eternal life": making the life that the belliever has eternal, thus making it redundant to say that the believer will be given "eternal life"

I believe that just as Paul uses "life" refering to the believer, living on earth, it is used in Mat 25. When Paul uses life refering to the believer on earth, he is not talking about the fact that he is simply existing or breathing...he is talking about thge quality of existance in Jesus...that is life.

So, in the same way, in Mat 25, Jesus talks about the quality of the punishment and reward. The reward is eternity wiuth Jesus : Life. This can be see by the contrast to "life": "punishment". The reward speaks of quality of existance. The adjective:"Eternal" gives information about the duration of the reward and punishment. "Eternal" is used for both reward and punishment, so we can be sure that the duration will be the same...whatever that may be.

I said all that to say: putting the adjective "eternal" in front of "life" would not be redundant at all, because spiritual "life" (in the scripture) speaks of location (of existance) in Jesus (before or after the Judgment) NOT duration of existance.

BTW i think you said I need to prove sinners don't have immortality, however since only God has immortality you need to prove sinners do. It has to be given to unbelievers and i am not aware of where this is stated.

The fact that God raises the just and the unjust onto judgment showes that neither of them have eternal life untill the resurrection. Even though the scripture says that the living breathing christian, on earth, has life... he will still reach a point in which he will die. That is why he must be resurrected. If here were already eternal, would he die? After death, when God graduates the just and the unjust onto the other side of death, that is when God adds the "eternal" to us (just or not). After the judment (already having been made eternal through resurrection), we are either rewarded or not.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
BTW i think you said I need to prove sinners don't have immortality, however since only God has immortality you need to prove sinners do. It has to be given to unbelievers and i am not aware of where this is stated.

The fact that God raises the just and the unjust onto judgment showes that neither of them have eternal life untill the resurrection. Even though the scripture says that the living breathing christian, on earth, has life... he will still reach a point in which he will die. That is why he must be resurrected. If here were already eternal, would he die? After death, when God graduates the just and the unjust onto the other side of death, that is when God adds the "eternal" to us (just or not). After the judment (already having been made eternal through resurrection), we are either rewarded or not.





This the the jist of the argument. The saved are specifically said by Paul to be given imperishable,incorruptable bodies but this description is never given to the unsaved therefore you are relying on the word"eternal" from your traditional bible translation.
This word "aionios" has traditionally been translated as "eternal" by the RCC and then by the KJV and then etched in stone by the subsequent translations.
More recent translations like Rotherhams and Youngs do not translate "aionios" as eternal but as "pertaining to the age" or "aion." "Aion" is an age or a indefinite period of time only known by God and adding the "ios" means a quality of that age.
I believe in a lake of fire and that the unsaved are punished and possibly some or all may be restored but first they must "reap what they sowed" because that's what justice is, but they are not in the lake of fire eternally. God promised to destroy evil not just keep it in storage. So at some point in the lake of fire the unsaved will either perish or be restored.