My Case for eternal Hell

[Ambassador791]

Certainly evil exists in hell because sinners by their nature are evil (you being evil) as Jesus said therefore simply being out of God's will is evil and as long as God exists and man exists, evil can exist. However God said evil will be destroyed therefore eternal punishment can not by definition mean punishing going on forever.

I am not trying to say I know how this will all happend...but

I know that the law showes us where we all fall short. Man falls short, and does not submit to Gods rules, to God's will. Hell will be Gods will (God's permissive will, if that does not make sence, see my last post). In hell, God will have man in line. It is man living out of line (God's will) that is evil. Once man is put in hell, a place void of the ability to rebel (no more option to rebel, no more free choce: the thing that creates evil) will he be rebeling against God? Would he be able to? Sure, man's nature is evil, but God was able to nullify the evil in the christian. Taking away the sinners abliity to do evil may be the nulification of his evil, the alternitive to reberth. Of corse, if that same sinner would be let free into a free choice worlsd again, he wold rebell, and evil would again exist.

God "distroying evil" may simply be done by distroying an enviroment in which evil could be done. No more free will, no more evil.

BTW re God's will, this phrase of God's perfect will is not meant to be extended to everything to the point it makes God's will almost meaningless. When Jesus prayed for God's will be done or God said his will, will be done i think it means what it says.

Certinly the part of God's will I wrote of in my last post is meaningful to Him. You wouold'nt deny that.

What are they save from, and how are they saved from it, who are they saved through, how and when do they become saved. All that comes into play and is part of the recipe of Gods full (yet permissive) will being done.

This is simple: The scripture says that God wants all man saved, not just that he wants all men in Heaven unconditionally. The fact that God would like all men in Heaven with him is qualified by his will that man might first be saved.

It is God's will that man not suffer for his own sin. Your view has man suffering for sin and going to heaven anyway. Your claim is that if all men do not go to heaven, God's will is not done. B ut if all men do go to heaven regardless of being saved from sin, Gods will of man being saved from sin in order that he go to heaven is not done either. Your argument, turned on itself self destructs. Abandon this argument, it does not help you.

Salvation is not for anything at any time.If you said that it was not for one thing or one time, you could say that salvation could be from earthquakes, floods, fires, poverty, sickness.Hey, God wants all men saved! The bible is clear: salvation is for sin at the time that man is convicted of that sin. So, trying to say that we don't know when the cut off point is for salvation does no good.

[steve7150]

This is simple: The scripture says that God wants all man saved, not just that he wants all men in Heaven unconditionally. The fact that God would like all men in Heaven with him is qualified by his will that man might first be saved.

It is God's will that man not suffer for his own sin. Your view has man suffering for sin and going to heaven anyway. Your claim is that if all men do not go to heaven, God's will is not done. B ut if all men do go to heaven regardless of being saved from sin, Gods will of man being saved from sin in order that he go to heaven is not done either. Your argument, turned on itself self destructs. Abandon this argument, it does not help you.



BTW means "by the way". BTW you are responding to things i never said like anyone being saved unconditionally or without a Savior. I never said that, implied that or hinted that.
Basically evil must be destroyed , eternal punishment allows evil to fester eternally therefore IMO it's not biblical. Paul said "Then comes the end , when he hands over the kingdom to his Father , AFTER he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power." 1st Cor 24 Then Paul says God will be "all in all."
Seems pretty straightforward to me, evil is destroyed , God will be "all in all". Therefore whoever this "all" is , has God in him therefore by definition is saved. The only question is regarding the definition of all.

[Ambassador791]

Basically evil must be destroyed , eternal punishment allows evil to fester eternally therefore IMO it's not biblical. Paul said "Then comes the end , when he hands over the kingdom to his Father , AFTER he has destroyed every ruler and every authority and power." 1st Cor 24 Then Paul says God will be "all in all."

We really could just go on in circles, the argument I offered in my last post sufficiently answers this:

I know that the law shows us where we all fall short. Man falls short, and does not submit to Gods rules, to God's will. Hell will be Gods will (God's permissive will, if that does not make sence, see my last post). In hell, God will have man in line. It is man living out of line (God's will) that is evil...Taking away the sinners abliity to do evil may be the nullification of his evil, the alternative to rebirth. Of course, if that same sinner would be let free into a free choice world again, he would rebel, and evil would again exist. God "distroying evil" may simply be done by destroying an environment in which evil could be done. No more free will, no more evil.

How did God do away with the evil in the sinner when he became Christian? God did not actually destroy the evil man, He renewed him, that made void the evil. What I wrote above may be how God destroys, makes void the evil in the man that would not be renewed.

BTW you are responding to things i never said like anyone being saved unconditionally or without a Savior. I never said that, implied that or hinted that.

Here is another quote of yours:

”Again i say that i see nothing in scripture that makes physical death the deadline for mankind learning these lessons. I acknowledge at the resurrection we will be judged but within the judgment process i believe is the possibility of restoration for unbelievers and they may have to pay their sin debt....”

Jesus said on more than one occasion that the sinner, having fallen under judgment would pay for every last sin. Here you say that man may pay for his sin, but is it not God's will that all be SAVED? Saved from what? Salvation in the New Testament is from sins, not any old thing. If you say that man goes to heaven after having paid for his sin, there is NO condition of salvation for heaven, no condition of salvation from sin to be able to go to heaven.

BTW you are responding to things i never said like anyone being saved unconditionally or without a Savior. I never said that, implied that or hinted that.

If you did not, I would not be disagreeing with you.

You did say in a recent post that you are not saying that man WILL go to heaven no matter what. But, in another post, you did argue that if all are not in heaven...God's will is not done. In your last post, you seem to say that you believe that there are real conditions that might stop man from going to heaven (if you did not believe that, it would be unconditional to you). So, this is all a little confusing to me.

If you simply mean to say that you don't want to rule out some future salvation (not dogmatically asserting it) because we know that God can be forgiving, I'm not going to argue with that.

I wish that were so. Yet, I am not squeamish now (as I think about eternal hell) as I don’t believe the sinner is actually tortured.

Who am I to say what will really happen, and who are you to say?

But we do have God’s word.

On those grounds (the only ones we got), it does not look good for the sinner.

What am I trying to say...?

Maybe it would be a good time to bring this to a close.

I would like to say all will go to heaven, but I have seen that the scripture actually to contradicts that.
I don’t have any problem with anyone wishing that all would be in heaven. But I would have a problem if they would teach it, because it can only be done in contradiction to the word.

After I heard Steve’s three views on hell, I spent a year and a half believing that the scripture was ambiguous on this subject. His representation of the eternal hell view made it look...beyond weak. I allowed myself to become convinced that the scripture is not clear (my fault, I wasn’t studying the bible enough). Some things are not clear but if the sinner pays for all his sin, and the condition for heaven is salvation FROM SIN, what is ambiguous about that? Maybe if Steve ever gives that lecture again that should be mentioned.

[steve7150]

steve7150 wrote:
BTW you are responding to things i never said like anyone being saved unconditionally or without a Savior. I never said that, implied that or hinted that.

Here is another quote of yours:

steve7150 wrote:
”Again i say that i see nothing in scripture that makes physical death the deadline for mankind learning these lessons. I acknowledge at the resurrection we will be judged but within the judgment process i believe is the possibility of restoration for unbelievers and they may have to pay their sin debt....”

Jesus said on more than one occasion that the sinner, having fallen under judgment would pay for every last sin. Here you say that man may pay for his sin, but is it not God's will that all be SAVED? Saved from what? Salvation in the New Testament is from sins, not any old thing. If you say that man goes to heaven after having paid for his sin, there is NO condition of salvation for heaven, no condition of salvation from sin to be able to go to heaven.





You're leaving out the part where i said several times that even if the unsaved could pay for their debt, that still does not make them righteous therefore Christ must still be their Lord and Savior. Paying for a sin debt would be for the sake of justice not salvation, IMHO.
You are also putting a whole lot of stock in one single verse referring to not getting out of jail until the last penny is paid. It is a metaphor and you are shaping it into your whole theology using pre-suppositions.
Again i refer to what Paul said in 1st Cor 15.24 , that evil will be destroyed and then God will be all in all. I don't know what else Paul could say to make his point.
As far as God's will being that everyone s/b saved, it is his will but often Jesus spoke using hyperbole therefore i'm not sure if "all" means every last person or a great majority of mankind in the end after evil is destroyed.

[Ambassador791]

You're leaving out the part where i said several times that even if the unsaved could pay for their debt, that still does not make them righteous therefore Christ must still be their Lord and Savior

I left that out because I don’t believe it follows in anyway.

Righteous: “acting in accord with divine or moral law : free from guilt or sin”

The sacrifice makes the sinner free from guilt. Even the Christian never was perfect in accordance with the moral law. The sacrifice it to clear from guilt.
If the sinner has paid for all sin, he needs not atonement, or freedom from guilt, he has already attained it on his own merits.

Colossians1/21Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of[f] your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and FREE FROM ACCUSATION". (guilt)

The sacrifice was to save from sins, but more accurately, to present us without accusation.

Once the sinner has paid for all his sin, he is free from accusation, he is not guilty, he is rightous (according to the definition of the word).

You accurately point out that it is God’s will for all men to be saved.

Whatever you want to try to say about some "need for the applying of righteousness" after payment for sin does not change the requirement for heaven: salvation...not some extra (post sin payment) applying of righteousness. Such applying of righteousness is not anywhere spoken of in the bible, I might add.

So, at least the scipture I give below prove that I have an argument from scriptue.

Paying for a sin debt would be for the sake of justice not salvation

Salvation is from Justice. If Justice is done, grace (salvation) is not. It is Gods will that man enter heaven on the grounds of grace (Salvation).

You are also putting a whole lot of stock in one single verse referring to not getting out of jail until the last penny is paid. It is a metaphor and you are shaping it into your whole theology using pre-suppositions.

One single verse?


Mat 5(AH)Make friends quickly with your opponent at law while you are with him on the way, so that your opponent may not hand you over to the judge, and the judge to the officer, and you be thrown into prison. 26"Truly I say to you, you will not come out of there until YOU HAVE PAID up the last cent.

Mat 18:32"Then summoning him, his lord said to him, 'You wicked slave, I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me. 33'(AC)Should you not also have had mercy on your fellow slave, in the same way that I had mercy on you?' 34"And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until HE SHOULD REPAY all that was owed him. 35My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

These are two separate verses, two separate occasions, and contexts in which Jesus affirms the same thing.

It is a metaphor and you are shaping it into your whole theology using pre-suppositions

It it just a medaphor? Jesus clarifies after the parable (metaphore) is finished: “)My heavenly Father will also do the same to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart."

...what will the heavenly Father do?:

“And his lord, moved with anger, handed him over to the torturers until HE SHOULD REPAY all that was owed him.”

We see that Jesus shapes this teaching into the same theology I do, so I have no problem with that.

[Homer]

Ambassador791,

You wrote:

The sacrifice makes the sinner free from guilt. Even the Christian never was perfect in accordance with the moral law. The sacrifice it to clear from guilt.
If the sinner has paid for all sin, he needs not atonement, or freedom from guilt, he has already attained it on his own merits.

I am a bit confused about this guilt thing. Where in the scriptures does it say we are not guilty? It is often said that we are free from guilt and Christ, it is implied if not said, became guilty in our place. But He had to be the "lamb without blemish", did He not? And how could He have been if He was stained with our sins? It seems to me when we say we are not guilty we actually mean that God no longer charges us with sin because we have placed our faith in Christ and His sacrificial death in our place. Additionally, we need no longer to feel guilt for our past.

According to Merriam-Webster here is the definition for guilt:

1 : the fact of having committed a breach of conduct especially violating law and involving a penalty; broadly : guilty conduct
2 a : the state of one who has committed an offense especially consciously b : feelings of culpability especially for imagined offenses or from a sense of inadequacy : self-reproach
3 : a feeling of culpability for offenses


We see that guilt is fact based, and facts are always true; they never can be erased. A fact is that which has been done. So in that sense, we are always guilty for our sins. Perhaps you have in mind the feelings as in 2 and 3 of the definition?

Is there some other biblical word that expresses what you meant? (sorry for getting off the track)

God bless, Homer

[Ambassador791]

The terminology is obviously not as cut and dry in scripture as I presented it.

Jesus says that the sinner will way every last cent of his guilt. I don’t really believe that this could be done. It could be that by saying every last cent, Jesus wants to show us that the sinner will be left to pay all, in contrast to the saved, that will pay none.

I have been arguing, assuming that the universalist would take these verses from Mat 5 and 18, to mean that the sinner could reach the end of his guilt . So I say, fine...let’s just say that he could, what would be the logical conclusion of that?: The sinner goes to heaven through the back door, Gods WILL of the sinner being saved FROM HIS OWN SIN through Jesus would not be done.

My hope is that if the Universalist see that this is where his argument takes him (Jesus not being the only way if we COULD pay for our sins) so that he would see that we really cannot reach the end of guilt without Christ.

[Homer]

Ambassador791,

In the parable of the "unmerciful servant, Jesus depicts a man thrown into prison until he paid back all he owed, but Jesus chose (deliberately I believe) a sum that would be impossible to pay - the equivalent of 100 million days' wages. You are right; it actually can not be paid.

God bless, Homer

[steve7150]

I have been arguing, assuming that the universalist would take these verses from Mat 5 and 18, to mean that the sinner could reach the end of his guilt . So I say, fine...let’s just say that he could, what would be the logical conclusion of that?: The sinner goes to heaven through the back door, Gods WILL of the sinner being saved FROM HIS OWN SIN through Jesus would not be done.






Has it been a dozen times i said the sinner can not save himself even if he could pay for all his sins? The payment or attempted payment of the sin debt is for the sake of justice not salvation, IMHO.
In Eph 1.4 Paul says "just as he chose us in Christ before the foundation of the world to be holy and blameless before him in love." In Hebrews 9 it says are sins are forgotten if we are in Christ.
Even if the sinner could pay for his sins he is not blameless, he is not holy , his sins are not forgotten, he has a record before God like a convict who gets out of prison. The convict paid his debt to society but he still has a record , unless he gets pardoned and only Christ can grant that pardon.

[steve7150]

Salvation is from Justice. If Justice is done, grace (salvation) is not. It is Gods will that man enter heaven on the grounds of grace (Salvation).







Did'nt you just contradict yourself? Anyway if you are saying salvation is not from justice but from grace then we agree and that's why sinners paying their own sin debt still would not get them through the pearly gates, because only Christ can pardon them.