# Lifestyles & Discussion > Peace Through Religion >  The truth about hell fire

## PaulConventionWV

Do you believe in Hell?  I don't.  

You may criticize this video for its reliance on our subjective feelings about the subject, but what it's really saying is that the entire idea of hell fire is not consistent with God's nature. 

One other thing I would like to make clear is that this video, while effectively refuting the idea that God would torture people for all eternity, it seems to be suggesting that people's existence is erased for being evil.  That is not something I necessarily believe, but as far as the concept of eternal torment in Hell is concerned, I think it's a ridiculous doctrine that needs to be expelled from Christianity altogether.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hell is consistent with God's nature because He is holy and won't allow sin in His presence.  It's the ones who reject Hell who deny God's holy nature...and that is a horrible position to be in.

----------


## staerker

I think arguing about the topic from such a "subjective" viewpoint... shows/encourages a complete lack of understanding of the motives/will of God in general.

Apply the same logic to sin, as you do hell.

----------


## bubbleboy

While others were burning and sacrificing their kids in the fire of Baal, didn't God say it has never entered His mind to burn His children?

----------


## bubbleboy

Would you marry a man that says he loves you, and if you don't love him back he will burn you?  
Or follow a God that demands you love your enemies but is going to burn all of his?
I suggest that if your in church for fire insurance, perhaps your going for the wrong reason.  Your pyrotechnic god sounds more like Baal to me.  Just sayn.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> While others were burning and sacrificing their kids in the fire of Baal, didn't God say it has never entered His mind to burn His children?


Are you saying God disproves of child sacrifice?  Of course.  But the reason they did that is because they were evil and under God's judgement.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Would you marry a man that says he loves you, and if you don't love him back he will burn you?  
> Or follow a God that demands you love your enemies but is going to burn all of his?
> I suggest that if your in church for fire insurance, perhaps your going for the wrong reason.  Your pyrotechnic god sounds more like Baal to me.  Just sayn.


God doesn't burn His enemies.   He had mercy on His enemies.   He chooses the enemies that He has eternally intended to regenerate,  and puts a heart of flesh in them, and totally saves them,  and makes them love Him by putting His spirit into them.

----------


## acptulsa

> Hell is consistent with God's nature because He is holy and won't allow sin in His presence.  It's the ones who reject Hell who deny God's holy nature...and that is a horrible position to be in.


Throwing the evil in a Lake of Fire and putting an end to them is another way to disallow evil from His presence.  Just because someone has long arms and kept going through drive throughs after his driver's door window quit working does not mean he's reaching through the rear door window.  He might have fixed the malfunction.




> God doesn't burn His enemies.   He had mercy on His enemies.   He chooses the enemies that He has eternally intended to regenerate,  and puts a heart of flesh in them, and totally saves them,  and makes them love Him by putting His spirit into them.


So He only subjects his friends to eternal torment?  With friends like _your_ god...

----------


## moostraks

> God doesn't burn His enemies.   He had mercy on His enemies.   He chooses the enemies that He has eternally intended to regenerate,  and puts a heart of flesh in them, and totally saves them,  and makes them love Him by putting His spirit into them.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you believe in Hell?  I don't.  
> 
> You may criticize this video for its reliance on our subjective feelings about the subject, but what it's really saying is that the entire idea of hell fire is not consistent with God's nature. 
> 
> One other thing I would like to make clear is that this video, while effectively refuting the idea that God would torture people for all eternity, it seems to be suggesting that people's existence is erased for being evil.  That is not something I necessarily believe, but as far as the concept of eternal torment in Hell is concerned, I think it's a ridiculous doctrine that needs to be expelled from Christianity altogether.


Very good video.  +rep.  Satan told the lie "You shall not surely die."  The idea of eternal hell perpetuates that lie.

----------


## Crashland

This is an excellent video. The only thing I would point out, is that when the appeals are made to the statement "God is just", then there are two ways to interpret that. Either "Anything that God does is just by definition" (which would not have any bearing on this topic either way because if he did burn people for eternity, then it would still be "just" even considering how illogical and hypocritical that idea seems to us), or it could mean "God always adheres to some standard of justice (which doesn't include burning people forever)." In my opinion, the second interpretation is more reasonable, but this would either have to appeal to our human sense of justice, or otherwise admit that justice exists outside of God.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> While others were burning and sacrificing their kids in the fire of Baal, didn't God say it has never entered His mind to burn His children?





> Do you believe in Hell?  I don't.  
> 
> You may criticize this video for its reliance on our subjective feelings about the subject, but what it's really saying is that the entire idea of hell fire is not consistent with God's nature. 
> 
> One other thing I would like to make clear is that this video, while effectively refuting the idea that God would torture people for all eternity, it seems to be suggesting that people's existence is erased for being evil.  That is not something I necessarily believe, but as far as the concept of eternal torment in Hell is concerned, I think it's a ridiculous doctrine that needs to be expelled from Christianity altogether.





> Would you marry a man that says he loves you, and if you don't love him back he will burn you?  
> Or follow a God that demands you love your enemies but is going to burn all of his?
> I suggest that if your in church for fire insurance, perhaps your going for the wrong reason.  Your pyrotechnic god sounds more like Baal to me.  Just sayn.





> Throwing the evil in a Lake of Fire and putting an end to them is another way to disallow evil from His presence.  Just because someone has long arms and kept going through drive throughs after his driver's door window quit working does not mean he's reaching through the rear door window.  He might have fixed the malfunction.
> 
> 
> 
> So He only subjects his friends to eternal torment?  With friends like _your_ god...





> 





> Very good video.  +rep.  Satan told the lie "You shall not surely die."  The idea of eternal hell perpetuates that lie.





> This is an excellent video. The only thing I would point out, is that when the appeals are made to the statement "God is just", then there are two ways to interpret that. Either "Anything that God does is just by definition" (which would not have any bearing on this topic either way because if he did burn people for eternity, then it would still be "just" even considering how illogical and hypocritical that idea seems to us), or it could mean "God always adheres to some standard of justice (which doesn't include burning people forever)." In my opinion, the second interpretation is more reasonable, but this would either have to appeal to our human sense of justice, or otherwise admit that justice exists outside of God.


It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?

But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?

Think about it.

----------


## Crashland

> It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?
> 
> But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?
> 
> Think about it.


If God's justice is not understood by me because I don't understand, then I would not understand because I don't understand. I hope that answers your question.

----------


## acptulsa

> It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?
> 
> But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?
> 
> Think about it.


It isn't popular because of denial.  Though this is one of the areas where the Bible has been known to contradict itself, this is still a far more Biblical model than Dante's _Inferno._

And if sinners can't understand a viewpoint, then that includes you, too.  No wonder you can never seem to successfully explain it.  Despite having a mind that God created in the image of His own.

I don't suppose you'd care to explain how God, who is everywhere (including, presumably, hell), is supposed to purge evil from His presence without destroying it outright...?

----------


## moostraks

> It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?
> 
> But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?
> 
> Think about it.


His Justice isn't being disputed but rather your corrupted viewpoint. 

"Think about it."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> His Justice isn't being disputed but rather your corrupted viewpoint. 
> 
> "Think about it."


Think about it though.   Is there anything to the fact that this viewpoint that I say the Bible teaches is universally hated?

----------


## acptulsa

> Think about it though.   Is there anything to the fact that this viewpoint that I say the Bible teaches is universally hated?


I know I hate it when certain people try to add works of fiction like Dante's _Inferno_ to the Bible.  There is enough misinterpretation of the book without that.

----------


## Crashland

> Think about it though.   Is there anything to the fact that this viewpoint that I say the Bible teaches is universally hated?


It's not universally hated. Millions of people in your religion, yourself included, and in other religions, don't hate it.

----------


## Brett85

Eternal torment is an entirely false doctrine that has no support in the Bible whatsoever.  Jesus taught about Gehenna, which is a literal place located outside of Jerusalem where children were sacrificed during Old Testament times.  Jesus used that term for a very specific reason, because it was used to communicate that those who will be thrown into Gehenna will receive the same fate that those children received.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hell is consistent with God's nature because He is holy and won't allow sin in His presence.  It's the ones who reject Hell who deny God's holy nature...and that is a horrible position to be in.


I think that's ridiculous.  You're saying denying hell makes you subject to going there?  That is absolutely bizarre.  I can't imagine how you think that's consistent with a loving God.  Remember, the Bible says God IS love.  It never says God IS vengeance...

Let me ask you, you believe God is omnipresent, right?  Wouldn't it follow that he is present in Hell, wherever that is?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think arguing about the topic from such a "subjective" viewpoint... shows/encourages a complete lack of understanding of the motives/will of God in general.
> 
> Apply the same logic to sin, as you do hell.


Meaning what?

----------


## moostraks

> Think about it though.   Is there anything to the fact that this viewpoint that I say the Bible teaches is universally hated?


I know that there is a perverse thought process that believes that if there is opposition to a specific viewpoint then it must be a "Biblical" argument which is being opposed and that the limited acceptance points to it being part of the narrow way. It is a ridiculous method of validating. If your proposal is being rejected it could very well be because it is ignorant of the Truth. If you wanted to proclaim people should throw their children into volcanoes to appease your god it is likely to find almost universal rejection as well...

Your turn, "Think about it".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Very good video.  +rep.  Satan told the lie "You shall not surely die."  The idea of eternal hell perpetuates that lie.


Exactly.  I wish SF would respond to the points in the video, such as, why would God make the evil immortal by keeping them artificially alive in Hell forever?  What's the point of that and how do you call that "just" based on God's Word?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This is an excellent video. The only thing I would point out, is that when the appeals are made to the statement "God is just", then there are two ways to interpret that. Either "Anything that God does is just by definition" (which would not have any bearing on this topic either way because if he did burn people for eternity, then it would still be "just" even considering how illogical and hypocritical that idea seems to us), or it could mean "God always adheres to some standard of justice (which doesn't include burning people forever)." In my opinion, the second interpretation is more reasonable, but this would either have to appeal to our human sense of justice, or otherwise admit that justice exists outside of God.


False.  There is a third option, namely "justice is a part of God's nature."  You don't have to appeal to anything other than God himself in order to say what is just.

----------


## Brett85

> Exactly.  I wish SF would respond to the points in the video, such as, why would God make the evil immortal by keeping them artificially alive in Hell forever?  What's the point of that and how do you call that "just" based on God's Word?


It's also the exact opposite of what the Bible says.  The Bible says that man can only receive immortality through the gospel.  

2 Timothy 1: 10

"But now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?
> 
> But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?
> 
> Think about it.


So you're saying there is no way for us to understand God's Word, the Bible because the Bible isn't for us sinners?  That makes no sense.  Isn't everyone a sinner?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you're saying there is no way for us to understand God's Word, the Bible because the Bible isn't for us sinners?  That makes no sense.  Isn't everyone a sinner?


Yes.  Most of the people who have read the Bible have read it as unregenerate sinners.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's also the exact opposite of what the Bible says.  The Bible says that man can only receive immortality through the gospel.  
> 
> 2 Timothy 1: 10
> 
> "But now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."


Exactly.  This is why I reject the doctrine of eternal torment.  It is neither biblical nor consistent with God's nature.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes.  Most of the people who have read the Bible have read it as unregenerate sinners.


So then none of us are capable of understanding it?  How are we capable of understanding anything?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So then none of us are capable of understanding it?  How are we capable of understanding anything?


The Holy Spirit makes God's people understand His word.  Without the Holy Spirit, the natural man can come up with anything,  including universalism.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Holy Spirit makes God's people understand His word.  Without the Holy Spirit, the natural man can come up with anything,  including universalism.


Are universalists going to hell for eternity?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are universalists going to hell for eternity?


Yes.  It's a false gospel.  It denies the Holy justice of God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes.  It's a false gospel.  It denies the Holy justice of God.


So, in other words, I can't even ask you to comport this with Scripture because there is no way I would ever understand.  In other words, I'm insane and cannot understand words.  

In that case, how do you know you're not the one who's deluded?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, in other words, I can't even ask you to comport this with Scripture because there is no way I would ever understand.  In other words, I'm insane and cannot understand words.  
> 
> In that case, how do you know you're not the one who's deluded?


It doesn't comport with Scripture. It denies that God glorifies His justice in eternity. That's how you know it's a false gospel.

----------


## Brett85

> Are universalists going to hell for eternity?


He thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement is going to hell for all eternity.  I agree with a lot of his political views, but on religious issues he should just be ignored.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He thinks that anyone who isn't a Calvinist is going to hell for all eternity.  I agree with a lot of his political views, but on religious issues he should just be ignored.


I'm not a Calvinist.  All those who believe a false gospel can't be saved.  What gospel do you believe in?

----------


## moostraks

> So, in other words, I can't even ask you to comport this with Scripture because there is no way I would ever understand.  In other words, I'm insane and cannot understand words.  
> 
> In that case, how do you know you're not the one who's deluded?


Pretty good test of who is doing the deluding:

Galatians 5:Walking in the Spirit
16 I say then: Walk in the Spirit, and you shall not fulfill the lust of the flesh. 17 For the flesh lusts against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh; and these are contrary to one another, so that you do not do the things that you wish. 18 But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law.

19 Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery,[c] fornication, uncleanness, lewdness, 20 idolatry, sorcery, hatred, contentions, jealousies, outbursts of wrath, selfish ambitions, dissensions, heresies, 21 envy, murders,[d] drunkenness, revelries, and the like; of which I tell you beforehand, just as I also told you in time past, that those who practice such things will not inherit the kingdom of God.

22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control. Against such there is no law. 24 And those who are Christ’s have crucified the flesh with its passions and desires. 25 If we live in the Spirit, let us also walk in the Spirit. 26 Let us not become conceited, provoking one another, envying one another.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm not a Calvinist.  All those who believe a false gospel can't be saved.  What gospel do you believe in?


Fine, I edited it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It doesn't comport with Scripture. It denies that God glorifies His justice in eternity. That's how you know it's a false gospel.


But you just said I am incapable of understanding Scripture, so how do I know anything?

You're saying, in effect, that you're the only one who can understand Scripture.  So how do you know when you're wrong?

You have a really warped view of justice if that's really what you believe, because Scripture tells me that the punishment is supposed to fit the crime.  How does eternal punishment fit the crime of a finite sin?  Also, wouldn't that mean that everyone's crimes receive the same punishment if they do not repent?  That's not justice.

----------


## Brett85

> What gospel do you believe in?


I believe the gospel found in John 3: 16, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.  And "perish" actually means "perish," not "be alive for all eternity in torment."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But you just said I am incapable of understanding Scripture, so how do I know anything?
> 
> You're saying, in effect, that you're the only one who can understand Scripture.  So how do you know when you're wrong?


No, I'm not saying that I'm the only one that understands Scripture.   I simply said that the Bible says that the Spirit gives the knowledge of the Scriptures to God's children.  The Scripture also says that God sends powerful delusions and blinds men so that they can never come to a knowledge of the truth.  You believe the Bible says this, right?

----------


## Brett85

> The Scripture also says that God sends powerful delusions and blinds men so that they can never come to a knowledge of the truth.


What if you're one of the people who has been deluded?

----------


## TER

*PARADISE AND HELL IN THE ORTHODOX TRADITION*

By Fr. George Metallinos, Dean of the Athens University School of Theology.


On Meatfare Sunday, as we prepare for the commencement of the Holy and Great Lent, we commemorate the Second and Incorruptible Coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. The expression "we commemorate" confirms that our Church, as the Body of Christ, re-enacts in its worship the Second Coming of our Lord as an event and not just something that is historically expected. The reason is that through the Divine Eucharist, we are transported to the celestial kingdom, to meta-history. It is in this Orthodox perspective that the subject of Paradise and hell is approached.

*In the Gospels (Matthew, Ch. 5), mention is made of kingdom and eternal fire.* In this excerpt, the kingdom is the divine destination of mankind. The fire is "prepared" for the devil and his "angels" (demons), not because God desired it, but because they are impenitent. The kingdom is prepared for those who remain faithful to the will of God. Kingdom (the uncreated glory) is Paradise. Fire (eternal) is hell (Mt 5:22). At the beginning of history, God invites man into Paradise, into a communion with His uncreated Grace. At the end of history, man has to face Paradise and hell. What this means, we shall see, is further down. We do however stress that it is one of the central subjects of our faith - it is Orthodox Christianity's philosophical cornerstone.

(I) Mention of Paradise and hell in the New Testament is frequent. In Luke 23:43, Christ says to the robber on the cross: Verily I say unto thee, today shalt thou be with me in Paradise. (Lk 23:43). However, the robber also refers to Paradise, when he says: Lord, remember me when thou comest into thy kingdom. (Lk 23:42). According to St. Theofylaktos of Bulgaria, "for the robber was in Paradise, in other words, the kingdom." The Apostle Paul (2 Cor I2:3-4) confesses (of himself): And I knew such a man, (whether in the body, or out of the body, I cannot tell; God knoweth.) How that he was caught up into Paradise, and heard unspeakable words, which it is not lawful for a man to utter. In Revelations we read: To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the tree of life, which is in the midst of the paradise of God (Rev 27). And Arethas of Caesaria interprets: "Paradise is understood to be the blessed and eternal life." Thus, Paradise, eternal life, Kingdom of God, are all related.

(2)* Paradise and hell are not two different places.* This separation idea is an idolatrous concept. *They instead signify two different situations (ways), which originate from the same uncreated source, and are perceived by man as two, different experiences.* *Or, more precisely, they are the same experience, except that they are perceived differently by man, depending on man's internal state.* This experience is the sight of Christ inside the uncreated light of His divinity, of His glory. From the moment of His Second Coming, through eternity, all people will be seeing Christ in His uncreated light. That is ... the hour is coming, ... all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation. On 5:28-29). In the presence of Christ, mankind will be separated (sheep and goats, to His right and His left). In other words, they will be discerned in two separate groups: those who will be looking upon Christ as Paradise and those who will be looking upon Christ as hell. For our God is a consuming fire.(Heb r2:29).

*Paradise and hell are the same reality.*

This is what is depicted in the portrayal of the Second Coming. From Christ a river flows forth: it is radiant like a golden light at the upper end of it, where the saints are. At its lower end, the same river is fiery, and it is in that part of the river that the demons and the unrepentant ("the never repentant" according to a hymn) are depicted. This is why in Lk 2:34 we read that Christ stands as the fall and the rising (resurrection) of many. *Christ becomes the resurrection into eternal life, for those who accepted Him and who followed the suggested means of healing the heart; and to those who rejected Him, He becomes their demise and their hell.*

There exist numerous patristic testimonies: St. John of the Ladder says that the uncreated light of Christ is "an all-consuming fire and an illuminating light." St. Gregory Palamas observes:* "Thus, it is said, He will baptize you by the Holy Spirit and by fire: in other words, by illumination and punishment, depending on each person's predisposition, which will bring upon him that which he deserves."* Elsewhere, The light of Christ, "albeit one and accessible to all, is not partaken of uniformly, but differently."

*Consequently, Paradise and hell are not a reward or a punishment (condemnation), but the way that we individually experience the sight of Christ, depending on the condition of our heart.* God does not punish in essence, although, for educative purposes, the Scripture does mention punishment. The more spiritual one becomes, the better he can comprehend the Scripture and our traditions. Man's condition (clean-unclean, repentant unrepentant) is the factor that determines the acceptance of the Light as "Paradise" or "hell."

(3) The anthropological issue in Orthodoxy is that man will eternally look upon Christ as Paradise and not as hell; that man will partake of His heavenly and eternal Kingdom. And this is where we see the difference between Christianity as Orthodoxy and the various other religions. The other religions promise a certain "blissful" state, even after death. Orthodoxy however is not a quest for bliss, but a cure from the illness of religion, as the late Fr. John Romanides so patristically teaches. Orthodoxy is an open hospital within history ("spiritual infirmary" according to St. John the Chrysostom), which offers the healing (catharsis) of the heart, in order to finally attain "theosis"-the only destination of man. This is the course that has been so comprehensively described by Fr. John Romanides and the Rev. Metropolitan of Nafpaktos, Hierotheos (Vlachos); it is the healing of mankind, as experienced by all of our Saints.

This is the meaning of life in the body of Christ (the Church) and the Church's reason for existence. St. Gregory Palamas (in his 4th Homily on the Second Coming) says that the pre-eternal will of God for man is "to find a place in the majesty of the divine kingdom" -to reach theosis. That was the purpose of creation. And he continues: "But even His divine and secret kenosis, His god-human conduct, His redemptory passions, and every single mystery (in other words, all of Christ's opus on earth) were all providentially and omnisciently pre-determined for this very end (purpose).

(4) The important thing, however, is that *not all people respond to this invitation of Christ, and that is why not everyone partakes in the same way of His uncreated glory.* This is taught by Christ, in the parable of the rich man and the poor Lazarus (Luke, Ch. 16). Man refuses Christ's offer, he becomes God's enemy and rejects the redemption offered by Christ (which is a blasphemy against the Holy Spirit-it is within the Holy Spirit that we accept the calling of Christ). This is the "never repentant" person referred to in the hymn. God "never bears enmity," the blessed Chrysostom observes; it is we who become His enemies; we are the ones who reject Him. The unrepentant man becomes demonized, because he has chosen to. God doesn't want this. St. Gregory Palamas says: "...for this was not My pre-existing will; I did not create you for this purpose; I did not prepare the pyre for you. This undying pyre was pre-fired for the demons who bear the unchanging trait of evil, to whom your own unrepentant opinion attracted you." "The co-habitation with mischievous angels is arbitrary (voluntary)." In other words, it is something that is freely chosen by man.

Both the rich man and Lazarus were looking upon the same reality, i.e., God in His uncreated light. The rich man reached the Truth, the sight of Christ, but could not partake of it, as Lazarus did. The poor Lazarus received "consolation," whereas the rich man received "anguish." Christ's words, that they: "have Moses and the prophets" - for those still in the world - signifies that we are all inexcusable. Because we have the Saints, who have experienced theosis and who call upon us to accede to their way of life so that we too might reach theosis like they did. We therefore conclude that those who have chosen evil ways-like the rich man-are inexcusable.

*Our stance towards our fellow man is indicative of our inner state, and that is why this will be the criterion of Judgment Day, during Christ's Second Coming.* This doesn't imply that faith, or man's faithfulness to Christ is disregarded; faith is naturally a prerequisite, because our stance towards each other will show whether or not we have God within us. The first Sundays of the Triodion preceding Lent revolve around fellow man. On the first of these Sundays, the (seemingly pious) Pharisee justifies (sanctifies) himself and rejects (derogates) the Tax-collector. On the second Sunday, the "elder" brother (a repetition of the seemingly pious Pharisee) is sorrowed by the return (salvation) of his brother. Likewise seemingly pious, he too had false piety, which did not produce love. On the third (carnival) Sunday, this stance reaches Christ's seat of judgment, and is evidenced as the criterion for our eternal life.

(5) The experience of Paradise or hell is beyond words or senses. It is an uncreated reality, not a created one. The Franks created the myth that Paradise and hell are both created realities. It is a myth that the damned will not be looking upon God; just as the "absence of God" is equally a myth. The Franks had also perceived the fires of hell as something created (e.g. Dante's Inferno). Orthodox tradition has remained faithful to the Scriptural claim that *the damned shall see God (like the rich man of the parable), but will perceive Him only as "an all-consuming fire."* The Frankish scholastics accepted hell as punishment and the deprivation of a tangible vision of the divine essence. Biblically and patristically however, "hell" is understood as man's failure to collaborate with Divine Grace, in order to reach the "illuminating" view of God (Paradise) and selfless love. Consequently, there is no such thing as "God's absence," only His presence. That is why His Second Coming is dire ("O, what an hour it will be then," we chant in the Laudatory hymns). It is an irrefutable reality, toward which Orthodoxy is permanently oriented: I anticipate resurrection of the dead ….

The damned - those who are depraved at heart, just like the Pharisees - eternally perceive the pyre of hell as their salvation! It is because their condition is not susceptible to any other form of salvation. They too are "finalized" - they reach the end of their road - but only the righteous reach the end of the road as saved persons. The others finish as damned. "Salvation" to them is hell, since in their lifetime, they pursued only pleasure. The rich man of the parable had "enjoyed all of his riches." The poor Lazarus uncomplainingly endured "every suffering."

The Apostle Paul expresses this (1 Cor 3:13-15): Every man's work shall be made manifest: for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire; and the fire shall try every man's work of what sort it is. If any man's work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man's work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved; yet so as by fire. The righteous and the unrepentant shall both pass through the uncreated "fire" of divine presence, however, the one shall pass through unscathed, while the other shall be burnt. He too is "saved," but only in the way that one passes through a fire. Efthimios Zigavinos (a 12th century theologian) indicates: *"God is fire that illuminates and brightens the pure, and burns and obscures the unclean."* And Theodoritos Kyrou (regarding this "saving") writes: "One is also saved by fire, being tested by it," just as when one passes through fire. If he has an appropriate protective cover, he will not be burnt? otherwise, he may be "saved," but he will be charred!

Consequently, the fire of hell has nothing in common with the Frankish "purgatory," nor is it created, nor is it punishment, or an intermediate stage. A viewpoint such as this is virtually a transferal of one's accountability to God. The accountability is entirely our own, whether we choose to accept or reject the salvation (healing) that is offered by God. "Spiritual death" is the viewing of the uncreated light, of divine glory, as a pyre, as fire. St. John the Chrysostom in his 9th homily on Corinthians I, notes: "Hell is never-ending... sinners shall be judged into a never-ending suffering. As for the 'being burnt altogether,' it means this: that he does not withstand the strength of the fire." And he continues: "And he (St. Paul) says, it means this: that he shall not be thus burnt also-like his works-into nothingness, but he shall continue to exist, only inside that fire. He therefore considers this as his 'salvation.' For it is customary for us to say 'saved in the fire,' when referring to materials that are not totally burnt away."

Scholastic perceptions-interpretations, which, through Dante's work (Inferno) have permeated our world, have consequences that amount to idolatrous views. An example is the separation of Paradise and hell as two different places. This has happened, because they did not distinguish between the created and the uncreated. Also, the denial of hell's eternity, with their idea of the "restoration" of everything, or the concept of a "good God" (Bon Dieu). God is indeed benevolent (Mt 8:17), since He offers salvation to everyone. (He wants all to be saved. .. per I Tim 2:4) However, the words of our Lord, as heard during the funeral service, are formidable: I can of mine own self do nothing: as I hear, I judge: and my judgment is just. On 5:30).

Equally manufactured is the concept of "theodicy," which applies in this case. Everything is finally attributed to God alone (i.e., if He intends to redeem or condemn), without taking into consideration man's "collaboration" as a factor of redemption. Salvation is possible, only within the framework of collaboration between man and Divine Grace. According to the blessed Chrysostom, "the utmost, almost everything, is God's; He did however leave something little to us." That "little something" is our acceptance of God's invitation. The robber on the cross was saved, "by using the key request of remember me..."

Finally, idolatrous is also the perception of a God becoming outraged against a sinner, whereas we mentioned earlier that God "never shows enmity." This is a juridical perception of God, which also leads to the prospect of "penances" in confessions as forms of punishment, and not as medications (means of healing).

(6) The mystery of Paradise-hell is also experienced in the life of the Church in the world. During the sacraments, there is a participation of the faithful in Grace, so that Grace may be activated in our lives, by our course towards Christ. Especially during the Divine Eucharist, the uncreated-Holy Communion-becomes inside us either Paradise or hell, depending on our condition. But mostly, our participation in Holy Communion is a participation in Paradise or hell, throughout history. That is why we beseech God, prior to receiving Holy Communion, to render the Precious Gifts inside us not as judgment or condemnation, or as eternal damnation.

Participation in Holy Communion is thus linked to the overall spiritual course of the faithful. When we approach Holy Communion uncleansed and unrepentant, we are condemned (burnt). Holy Communion inside us becomes the "inferno" and "spiritual death." Not because it is transformed into those things of course, but because our own uncleanliness cannot accept Holy Communion as "Paradise." Given that Holy Communion is called "medication for immortality" (St. Ignatius the God-bearer, 2nd century), the same thing exactly occurs as with any medication. If our organism does not have the prerequisites to absorb the medication, then the medication will produce side-effects and will kill instead of heal. It is not the medication that is responsible, but the condition of our organism. It must be stressed, that if we do not accept Christianity as a therapeutic process, and its sacraments as spiritual medication, then we are led to a "religionizing" of Christianity; in other words, we "idolatrize" it. And unfortunately, this is a frequent occurrence, when we perceive Christianity as a "religion."

St. Basil the Great tells us: "Everything we do is in preparation of another life." Our life must be a continuous preparation for our participation in "Paradise" -our community with the Uncreated. And everything begins from this lifetime. That is why the Apostle Paul says: "Behold, now is the opportune time. Behold, now is the day of redemption." (2 Cor 6:2).

Every moment of our lives is of redemptive importance. Either we gain eternity, the eternal community with God, or we lose it. Consequently, we can now understand why oriental religions and cults that preach reincarnations are injuring mankind; they are virtually transferring the problem to other, (nonexistent of course) lifetimes. The truth is, however, that only one life corresponds to each of us, whether we are saved or condemned. This is why St. Basil the Great continues: "Those things therefore that lead us towards that life, we need to say should be cherished and pursued with all our might; and those that do not lead us there, we should disregard, as something of no value." This is the criterion of Christian living.

A Christian continuously chooses whatever favors his salvation. We gain Paradise or lose it and end up in hell, in this lifetime. As St. John the Evangelist says: He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God. (Jn 3:18)

Consequently, the work of the church is not to "send" people to Paradise or to hell, but to prepare them for the final judgment. The work of the Clergy is therapeutic and not moralistic or character-shaping, in the temporal sense of the word. The essence of life in Christ is preserved in monasteries - naturally wherever they are Orthodox and of course patristic. The purpose of the Church's offered therapy is not to create "useful" citizens and essentially "usable" ones, but citizens of the celestial (uncreated) kingdom. Such citizens are the Confessors and the Martyrs, the true faithful, the saints.

However, this is also the way that our mission is supervised: What are we inviting people to? To the Church as a Hospital and a Therapy Center, or just an ideology that is labelled "Christian?"

More often than not, we strive to secure a place in "Paradise," instead of striving to be healed. That is why we focus on rituals and not on therapy. This of course does not signify a rejection of worship. But, without ascesis (spiritual exercise, ascetic lifestyle, act of therapy), worship cannot hallow us. The Grace that pours forth from it remains inert inside us. Orthodoxy doesn't make any promises to send mankind to any sort of Paradise or hell; but it does have the power-as evidenced by the incorruptible and miracle-working relics of our saints (incorruptibility=theosis)-to prepare man, so that he may forever look upon the Uncreated Grace and the Kingdom of Christ as Paradise, and not as Hell.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I'm not saying that I'm the only one that understands Scripture.   I simply said that the Bible says that the Spirit gives the knowledge of the Scriptures to God's children.  The Scripture also says that God sends powerful delusions and blinds men so that they can never come to a knowledge of the truth.  You believe the Bible says this, right?


Sure.  I also believe the Bible says the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in Hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure.  I also believe the Bible says the wages of sin is death, not eternal life in Hell.


The wages of sin is death...eternal death.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The wages of sin is death...eternal death.


I don't understand.  So you don't think people who suffer in Hell are alive while they're experiencing it?

----------


## erowe1

> I believe the gospel found in John 3: 16, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.  And "perish" actually means "perish," not "be alive for all eternity in torment."


That is what perish means.

----------


## TER

The Kingdom of heaven is already in the midst of those who live the spiritual life. What the spiritual person knows in the Holy Spirit, in Christ and the Church, will come with power and glory for all men to behold at the end of the ages.

The final coming of Christ will be the judgment of all men. *His very presence will be the judgment.* Now men can live without the love of Christ in their lives. They can exist as if there were no God, no Christ, no Spirit, no Church, no spiritual life. At the end of the ages this will no longer be possible.* All men will have to behold the Face of Him* who “for us men and our salvation came down from heaven and was incarnate… who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, and suffered and was buried . . . ” (Nicene Creed) All will have to look at Him whom they have crucified by their sins: Him “who was dead and is alive again.” (Revelation 1-.17-18)

*For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death. The reality for both the saved and the damned will be exactly the same when Christ “comes in glory, and all angels with Him,” so that “God may be all in all.”** (I Corinthians 15-28) Those who have God as their “all” within this life will finally have divine fulfillment and life. For those whose “all” is themselves and this world, the “all” of God will be their torture, their punishment and their death. And theirs will be “weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 8:21, et al.)*


    The Son of Man will send His angels and they will gather out of His kingdom all causes of sin and all evil doers, and throw them into the furnace of fire; there men will weep and gnash their teeth. Then the righteous will shine like the sun in the Kingdom of their Father. (Matthew 13:41-43)

According to the saints,* the “fire” that will consume sinners at the coming of the Kingdom of God is the same “fire” that will shine with splendor in the saints. It is the “fire” of God’s love; the “fire” of God Himself who is Love.* “For our God is a consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:29) who “dwells in unapproachable light.” (I Timothy 6:16) *For those who love God and who love all creation in Him, the “consuming fire” of God will be radiant bliss and unspeakable delight. For those who do not love God, and who do not love at all, this same "consuming fire” will be the cause of their “weeping” and their “gnashing of teeth.”
*
Thus it is the Church’s spiritual teaching that *God does not punish man by some material fire or physical torment. God simply reveals Himself in the risen Lord Jesus in such a glorious way that no man can fail to behold His glory. It is the presence of God’s splendid glory and love that is the scourge of those who reject its radiant power and light.*

_ ... those who find themselves in hell will be chastised by the scourge of love. How cruel and bitter this torment of love will be! For those who understand that they have sinned against love, undergo no greater suffering than those produced by the most fearful tortures. The sorrow which takes hold of the heart, which has sinned against love, is more piercing than any other pain. It is not right to say that the sinners in hell are deprived of the love of God… But love acts in two ways, as suffering of the reproved, and as joy in the blessed! (St. Isaac of Syria, Mystic Treatises)
_
This teaching is found in many spiritual writers and saints: St. Maximus the Confessor, the novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky. At the end of the ages God’s glorious love is revealed for all to behold in the Face of Christ. *Man’s eternal destiny - heaven or hell, salvation or damnation - depends solely on his response to this love.*

link

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is what perish means.


What is?

----------


## erowe1

> What is?


To undergo everlasting torment.

Admittedly, Brett used the word "alive," which I don't think is an appropriate term for this. It is death, not life.

But neither death, nor perishing, nor destruction indicate a cessation of existence, as I think Brett meant to imply by that post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe the gospel found in John 3: 16, that whosoever believes in him shall not perish but receive everlasting life.  And "perish" actually means "perish," not "be alive for all eternity in torment."


When the Bible uses the word "perish", it is synonymous with "eternal torment".



> *Matthew 25:46
> 
> "Then they will go away to eternal punishment, but the righteous to eternal life."
> 
> *

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> [B]For those who love the Lord, His Presence will be infinite joy, paradise and eternal life. For those who hate the Lord, the same Presence will be infinite torture, hell and eternal death.


Infinite torture AND eternal death?  How can someone be tortured if they are dead?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't understand.  So you don't think people who suffer in Hell are alive while they're experiencing it?


No, that is what you believe.   That is not what the Bible teaches.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To undergo everlasting torment.
> 
> Admittedly, Brett used the word "alive," which I don't think is an appropriate term for this. It is death, not life.
> 
> But neither death, nor perishing, nor destruction indicate a cessation of existence, as I think Brett meant to imply by that post.


So you think one can be dead and still be conscious?

----------


## Brett85

> That is what perish means.


No, that's not how the term is used in the Bible.

Genesis 7: 21

"All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So you think one can be dead and still be conscious?


Yes.  That is how the Bible uses the word "death" when it talks about eternity.

----------


## Brett85

> When the Bible uses the word "perish", it is synonymous with "eternal torment".


Nowhere in the Bible is the term "eternal torment" used, including Matthew 25: 46.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, that is what you believe.   That is not what the Bible teaches.


No, that is not what I believe.  I don't believe Hell is real.  The word itself is made-up and has no equivalents in Greek or Hebrew.  

I am still trying to wrap my head around how you think everyone can receive the same punishment for different crimes and call that justice? 

Also, how is it just to suffer an infinite punishment for a finite crime?

----------


## Brett85

> Infinite torture AND eternal death?  How can someone be tortured if they are dead?


It's an illogical argument they make.  They are essentially defending church tradition rather than interpreting the plain meaning of words.

----------


## erowe1

> So you think one can be dead and still be conscious?


Yes.

However, I admit that the afterlife is outside any of our experience. So it's impossible to say exactly what in the biblical descriptions of it is analogical language and what is a usage of words that mean precisely the same thing as what we experience here in this life.

But there's nothing about the word "death" that requires lack of any consciousness.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes.  That is how the Bible uses the word "death" when it talks about eternity.


How do you know this?

----------


## TER

> It's an illogical argument they make.  They are essentially defending church tradition rather than interpreting the plain meaning of words.


Or, perhaps your understanding of death is different than what the Church has believed?

----------


## erowe1

> No, that's not how the term is used in the Bible.
> 
> Genesis 7: 21
> 
> "All flesh that moved on the earth perished, birds and cattle and beasts and every swarming thing that swarms upon the earth, and all mankind."


I don't understand your argument. Are you trying to say that Genesis 7:21 refers to something ceasing to exist?

----------


## TER

> But there's nothing about the word "death" that requires lack of any consciousness.


And the parable of Lazarus told by Christ proves this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To undergo everlasting torment.
> 
> Admittedly, Brett used the word "alive," which I don't think is an appropriate term for this. It is death, not life.
> 
> But neither death, nor perishing, nor destruction indicate a cessation of existence, as I think Brett meant to imply by that post.


Where are you getting this alternate definition of death from?

----------


## erowe1

> Where are you getting this alternate definition of death from?


What alternate definition?

Is there some definition of death that involves ceasing to exist?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Or, perhaps your understanding of death is different than what the Church has believed?


Yes, it is.  That's what he's been saying.  You're essentially defending the doctrine of eternal torment based on church tradition and not on the actual words of the Bible.

----------


## TER

> But neither death, nor perishing, nor destruction indicate a cessation of existence, as I think Brett meant to imply by that post.


This is the correct understanding.

----------


## TER

> Yes, it is.  That's what he's been saying.  You're essentially defending the doctrine of eternal torment based on church tradition and not on the actual words of the Bible.


Church tradition has been explaining the actual words of the Bible for 2000 years, and either they were all wrong, or it took 20 centuries for people like you to figure out the real understanding.  I choose the understanding which goes back to the beginning over yours.  Please don't take offense.

----------


## Brett85

> Or, perhaps your understanding of death is different than what the Church has believed?


I don't care about what the church has believed.  The church has been wrong about a lot of things.  I care about what the Bible actually says.

----------


## Brett85

> I don't understand your argument. Are you trying to say that Genesis 7:21 refers to something ceasing to exist?


Genesis 7: 21 refers to things ceasing to consciously exist.

----------


## TER

> I don't care about what the church has believed.  The church has been wrong about a lot of things.  I care about what the Bible actually says.


You mean, you care only about how YOU interpret the Scriptures.  You see, I am not so confident to put myself over 2000 years of the Holy Spirit working in the Saints.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What alternate definition?
> 
> Is there some definition of death that involves ceasing to exist?


Yes. 

Ecclesiastes 9:5,6  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead *know not any thing,*

To say that we have an immortal soul is to deny our mortality altogether.

----------


## Brett85

> But there's nothing about the word "death" that requires lack of any consciousness.


That's how the Bible defines death.

Ecclesiastes 9: 10

"Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might, because there is neither work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, the place where you will eventually go."

----------


## TER

> Yes. 
> 
> Ecclesiastes 9:5,6  For the living know that they shall die: but the dead *know not any thing,*


So, you ignore Christ's words then because of something wrote prior to His coming?

----------


## Brett85

Genesis 3: 19

"For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You mean, you care only about how YOU interpret the Scriptures.  You see, I am not so confident to put myself over 2000 years of the Holy Spirit working in the Saints.


So "leave it up to the experts" is what you're saying.  Nobody can understand Scripture except the experts.  That sounds an awful lot like Roman Catholicism.

----------


## Brett85

> So, you ignore Christ's words then because of something wrote prior to His coming?


I don't.  Christ said the same thing.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nowhere in the Bible is the term "eternal torment" used, including Matthew 25: 46.


The Bible does describe eternal torment:



> And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, *If any man* worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and *he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 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" 
> 
> -Revelation 14:9-11

----------


## TER

> Genesis 3: 19
> 
> "For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."


Yes, that is referring to what happens to the body according to what was known _prior_ to Christ coming to reveal the good news that there is indeed life after death.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So, you ignore Christ's words then because of something wrote prior to His coming?


Are you saying Christ contradicted this writing?

----------


## TER

> I don't.  Christ said the same thing.


Actually, he makes it quite clear that there is consciousness after death and that those who do evil will be in eternal torment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, that is referring to what happens to the body according to what was known _prior_ to Christ coming to reveal the good news that there is indeed life after death.


There is life after death, but not until the resurrection.

----------


## TER

> Are you saying Christ contradicted this writing?


I am saying that Christ came to reveal things that the people in the Old Covenant did not yet have knowledge of.

----------


## Brett85

> Actually, he makes it quite clear that there is consciousness after death and that those who do evil will be in eternal torment.


Can you provide some verses for that claim?

----------


## TER

> There is life after death, but not until the resurrection.


There is consciousness though, according to the parable of Lazarus, the writings in the Holy Scriptures, the teaching of the Church, and the experience of the Saints.

----------


## TER

> Can you provide some verses for that claim?


Read the parable of Lazarus.

----------


## erowe1

> That's how the Bible defines death.
> 
> Ecclesiastes 9: 10
> 
> "Whatever you find to do with your hands, do it with all your might, because there is neither work nor planning nor knowledge nor wisdom in the grave, the place where you will eventually go."


Do you have anything defining it that way in the Bible that's not in the book of Ecclesiastes?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Actually, he makes it quite clear that there is consciousness after death and that those who do evil will be in eternal torment.


Psalms 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I* sleep the sleep of death*;

----------


## TER

> Psalms 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I* sleep the sleep of death*;


Again, written at a time prior to Christ, the Light of the World, came revealing certain truths hidden until His advent, (ESPECIALLY true with regards to what happens to the soul after death).

----------


## erowe1

> Genesis 3: 19
> 
> "For you are dust, And to dust you shall return."


Dust exists. That's conservation of mass right there.

The Bible never talks about something, whether material or spiritual, ceasing to exist. Death and destruction are changes in things, never the annihilation of them.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you have anything defining it that way in the Bible that's not in the book of Ecclesiastes?


I take it you don't like the book of Ecclesiastes for some reason.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nowhere in the Bible is the term "eternal torment" used, including Matthew 25: 46.


The Bible does describe eternal torment:



> And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, *If any man* worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and *he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: 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" 
> 
> -Revelation 14:9-11

----------


## erowe1

> Psalms 13:3 Consider and hear me, O LORD my God: lighten mine eyes, lest I* sleep the sleep of death*;


So there the psalmist who wrote that said that he had sorrow daily, and that his enemies were exalted over him, and yet death, which he describes not as a cessation of existence, but as sleet, is worse than that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Dust exists. That's conservation of mass right there.
> 
> The Bible never talks about something, whether material or spiritual, ceasing to exist. Death and destruction are changes in things, never the annihilation of them.


I'm still trying to get an answer to my biggest questions:  How can the punishment fit the crime if everyone who goes to Hell gets the same punishment?  Also, how can the punishment fit the crime if our crime was finite and the punishment is infinite?

----------


## Brett85

> The Bible does describe eternal torment:


Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and that language appears nowhere else in the Bible.  But even if you take it literally, that particular section of Revelation is describing something that happens during the Tribulation period to those who worship the beast and his image.  It's describing what they go through when they receive the plagues.  They will "receive no rest day and night" because they will have sores all over their bodies.  Final punishment in the lake of fire isn't even mentioned in Revelation until the 19th Chapter.

----------


## TER

> I'm still trying to get an answer to my biggest questions:  How can the punishment fit the crime if everyone who goes to Hell gets the same punishment?  Also, how can the punishment fit the crime if our crime was finite and the punishment is infinite?


Your misunderstanding is because you believe in a physical hell, as a place, and not as a condition and response to the revealed Glory of God, which is the correct orthodox teaching.

----------


## erowe1

> I take it you don't like the book of Ecclesiastes for some reason.


It's not that I don't like it. I just wouldn't want to base a doctrine about the afterlife exclusively on it. It is describing life under the sun, absent the meaning given things when viewed from an eternal perspective, so as to show their vanity.

But when seeing things properly, it is not the case that everything is vanity.

----------


## TER

> Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and that language appears nowhere else in the Bible.  But even if you take it literally, that particular section of Revelation is describing something that happens during the Tribulation period to those who worship the beast and his image.  It's describing what they go through when they receive the plagues.  They will "receive no rest day and night" because they will have sores all over their bodies.  Final punishment in the lake of fire isn't even mentioned in Revelation until the 19th Chapter.


Can you provide any patristic support for this position?

----------


## Brett85

> Dust exists. That's conservation of mass right there.
> 
> The Bible never talks about something, whether material or spiritual, ceasing to exist. Death and destruction are changes in things, never the annihilation of them.


Technically speaking, if we're going to be scientific about it, something doesn't cease to exist even if it's consumed by fire.  It still "exists" as ashes.  So technically I agree with you.  But I believe the Bible teaches that those who die cease to consciously exist, and that the unsaved who will be resurrected will cease to consciously exist after they get thrown into the lake of fire.

----------


## TER

> Technically speaking, if we're going to be scientific about it, something doesn't cease to exist even if it's consumed by fire.  It still "exists" as ashes.  So technically I agree with you.  But I believe the Bible teaches that those who die cease to consciously exist, and that the unsaved who will be resurrected will cease to consciously exist after they get thrown into the lake of fire.


Can you provide any patristic consensus which agrees with your position?

----------


## Brett85

> Can you provide any patristic support for this position?


I've given you examples of early church leaders who believed in annihilationism.  (I'm traditional conservative by the way, I changed my user name)  I can provide that for you again if you would like.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Another question for the eternal torment believers:

Why didn't Paul talk about it?

----------


## erowe1

> I'm still trying to get an answer to my biggest questions:  How can the punishment fit the crime if everyone who goes to Hell gets the same punishment?  Also, how can the punishment fit the crime if our crime was finite and the punishment is infinite?


I don't believe that everybody gets the same punishment.

I wouldn't say "infinite." I would say "everlasting." And one reason for that is that the people undergoing it continue to be sinners while they are there.

----------


## Brett85

> Can you provide any patristic consensus which agrees with your position?


There was no patristic consensus on this issue.  It was an issue that early church leaders were divided on.  But there were quite a few early church leaders who agreed with what I'm saying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't believe that everybody gets the same punishment.
> 
> I wouldn't say "infinite." I would say "everlasting." And one reason for that is that the people undergoing it continue to be sinners while they are there.


You don't believe that, but you can't base it on Scripture because the English word "Hell" is all you have to describe your conception of it.

----------


## TER

> I've given you examples of early church leaders who believed in annihilationism.  (I'm traditional conservative by the way, I changed my user name)  I can provide that for you again if you would like.


Hey TC!  Didn't know it was you!  

Yes, you have provided sparce quotes which I think you are taking out of context.  If you wish to learn what the _consensus_ is, look at all the writings of the early Christians and the liturgical and hymnological traditions, as well as what has been proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils.

----------


## TER

> There was no patristic consensus on this issue.  It was an issue that early church leaders were divided on.  But there were quite a few early church members who agreed with what I'm saying.


No, there weren't quite a few early Church Fathers who agreed with what you are saying, and there definitely IS a patristic consensus on this issue.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Revelation is a highly symbolic book, and that language appears nowhere else in the Bible.  But even if you take it literally, that particular section of Revelation is describing *something that happens during the Tribulation period to those who worship the beast and his image*.  It's describing what they go through when they receive the plagues.  They will "receive no rest day and night" because they will have sores all over their bodies.  Final punishment in the lake of fire isn't even mentioned in Revelation until the 19th Chapter.


Hell is eternal and conscious:




> *Daniel 12:2 
> 
> 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. 
> 
> *

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, there weren't quite a few early Church Fathers who agreed with what you are saying, and there definitely IS a patristic consensus on this issue.


No offense, TER, but do you have to ruin this discussion by citing what other people say about the issue?  We want to know what_ the Bible_ says about the issue.

----------


## erowe1

> Another question for the eternal torment believers:
> 
> Why didn't Paul talk about it?


He did.

Romans 2:5-9:



> 5 But in accordance with your hardness and your impenitent heart you are treasuring up for yourself wrath in the day of wrath and revelation of the righteous judgment of God, 6 who “will render to each one according to his deeds”: 7 eternal life to those who by patient continuance in doing good seek for glory, honor, and immortality; 8 but to those who are self-seeking and do not obey the truth, but obey unrighteousness—indignation and wrath, 9 tribulation and anguish, on every soul of man who does evil, of the Jew first and also of the Greek;


This, not ceasing to exist, is how he describes what he refers to elsewhere using the word "death" (E.g. Romans 6:23).

Notice also how he contrasts it with "eternal life." What makes eternal life "life," is not that it entails mere existence or consciousness, but that it entails divine blessings. And its opposite is indignation, wrath, tribulation, and anguish.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No offense, TER, but do you have to ruin this discussion by citing what other people say about the issue?  We want to know what_ the Bible_ says about the issue.


That is one thing I agree with you on.

----------


## TER

*Ignatius of Antioch*

"Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into* unquenchable* fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:12 [A.D. 110]).

----------


## Brett85

> Hey TC!  Didn't know it was you!  
> 
> Yes, you have provided sparce quotes which I think you are taking out of context.  If you wish to learn what the _consensus_ is, look at all the writings of the early Christians and the liturgical and hymnological traditions, as well as what has been proclaimed in the Ecumenical Councils.


We're just going to have to disagree on that.  The early church fathers used Biblical language.  They just quoted from the Bible, so whatever you think the Bible teaches is what you think they believed.  People who think the Bible teaches eternal torment believe that the early church fathers taught eternal torment, because the church fathers simply taught from the Bible.  Those of us who believe the Bible teaches conditional immortality believe that the church fathers taught conditional immortality, since they just used Biblical language.  So I don't think it is as cut and dried as you claim it is.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He did.
> 
> Romans 2:5-9:
> 
> 
> This, not ceasing to exist, is how he describes what he refers to elsewhere using the word "death."


That passage does not mention "Hell."

----------


## TER

> No offense, TER, but do you have to ruin this discussion by citing what other people say about the issue?  We want to know what_ the Bible_ says about the issue.


I'm sorry Sola, but I place more value on what the Church Fathers say than what you or anyone says the Bible says.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Are universalists going to hell for eternity?





> He thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement is going to hell for all eternity.  I agree with a lot of his political views, but on religious issues he should just be ignored.





> The wages of sin is death...eternal death.


I think I'd say scripture allows for true Christians to disagree on what "eternal death" means, whether it means that the person will be destroyed in the Lake of Fire [eternal cessasion of existance], or whether it means that people will literally be tortured to death for all of eternity.  That doesn't mean I deny the obvious truth that one of these positions must be wrong (and I do believe in eternal conscious torment), but I'd say that you can hold either one and still hold to the true gospel.  You still believe in eternal punishment in that case.  Perfect understanding of every detail regarding the gospel is not essential to being saved.

That said, universalism denies multiple essential tenants of the gospel.  It denies the very concept of eternal punishment [which annihilationists affirm], and it denies sola fide because it denies that faith is actually necessary to salvation [which annihilationists are at least able to affirm].  I understand Sola's argument that God's eternal justice requires eternal conscious torment, in fact I think I agree with it, but its not explicitly stated in the Bible, and I don't think we can demand people believe things that aren't stated in the Bible in order to be saved.  Universalism is obviously and specifically denied in the Bible, and I would assert that no true Christian believes in it.

There are some more radical postmillennialists who believe that the majority of humans will eventually be saved (which means they interpret "narrow is the gate" as specifically applying to its cultural context.)  I don't think I agree with this, but even there, these postmillennialists will say that salvation is through faith (which will become more and more common.)  By contrast, universalism asserts that a man can live his entire life without faith and still go to heaven, which is heresy.

----------


## TER

> That is one thing I agree with you on.


Of course you do, because you don't like the fact that the testimony and witness of the Christian saints disagree with your innovative interpretations!

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hell is a place that is "away from the presence of the Lord":




> *2 Thessalonians 1:9 
> 
> They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might,*

----------


## TER

*Second Clement*

"If we do the will of Christ, we shall obtain rest; but if not, if we neglect his commandments, nothing will rescue us from eternal punishment" (Second Clement 5:5 [A.D. 150]).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm sorry Sola, but I place more value on what the Church Fathers say than what you or anyone says the Bible says.


I know.  That is the problem.

----------


## TER

*Second Clement*

"But when they see how those who have sinned and who have denied Jesus by their words or by their deeds are punished with terrible torture in unquenchable fire, the righteous, who have done good, and who have endured tortures and have hated the luxuries of life, will give glory to their God saying, ‘There shall be hope for him that has served God with all his heart!’" (ibid., 17:7).

----------


## TER

> I know.  That is the problem.


Should I just discard 2000 of witnesses in the Holy Spirit and just take your word for it?

----------


## erowe1

> You don't believe that, but you can't base it on Scripture because the English word "Hell" is all you have to describe your conception of it.


Why do you think this? I never even used the English word Hell in this discussion.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course you do, because you don't like the fact that the testimony and witness of the Christian saints disagree with your innovative interpretations!


What do you know of my motivations?

Are you saying I should take the word of the church over the word of the Bible?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> He thinks that* anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement is going to hell for all eternity.*  I agree with a lot of his political views, but on religious issues he should just be ignored.


I don't agree with Sola on the bold, but I think I could make a stronger argument for that than that everyone who believes annihilationism is going to Hell.

That said, universalism isn't comparable to universal atonement or annihilationism.  Both of the latter at least have arguments from scripture.  Weak ones?  Maybe (I feel confident in the former case, and I haven't done as much research in the latter case.)  By contrast, there are absolutely no arguments for universalism.

----------


## Sola_Fide

Hell is the blackest conscious darkness:




> *Jude 1:13
> 
> [These people are] wild waves of the sea, casting up the foam of their own shame; wandering stars, for whom the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved forever.
> *

----------


## TER

*Justin Martyr*

"No more is it possible for the evildoer, the avaricious, and the treacherous to hide from God than it is for the virtuous. Every man will receive the eternal punishment or reward which his actions deserve. Indeed, if all men recognized this, no one would choose evil even for a short time, knowing that he would incur the eternal sentence of fire. On the contrary, he would take every means to control himself and to adorn himself in virtue, so that he might obtain the good gifts of God and escape the punishments" (First Apology 12 [A.D. 151]).

----------


## Brett85

> *Ignatius of Antioch*
> 
> "Corrupters of families will not inherit the kingdom of God. And if they who do these things according to the flesh suffer death, how much more if a man corrupt by evil teaching the faith of God for the sake of which Jesus Christ was crucified? A man become so foul will depart into* unquenchable* fire: and so will anyone who listens to him" (Letter to the Ephesians 16:1–2 [A.D. 110]).


See, that's just what I'm talking about.  Ignatius of Antioch believed what I believed in.  He was an annihilationist.  In this quote he simply used Biblical language, but you and I simply interpret that language differently.  I believe the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to a fire that never goes out, but instead refers to a fire that can't be put out by human beings until it accomplishes it's intended purpose, which is to consume everything in it's path.  That's how the term unquenchable fire is *always* used in the Bible.

Jeremiah 17: 27

"But if you do not obey me to keep the Sabbath day holy by not carrying any load as you come through the gates of Jerusalem on the Sabbath day, then I will kindle an *unquenchable fire* in the gates of Jerusalem that will consume her fortresses."

Ezekiel 20: 47

"Say to the southern forest: 'Hear the word of the LORD. This is what the Sovereign LORD says: I am about to set fire to you, and it will consume all your trees, both green and dry. The blazing flame *will not be quenched*, and every face from south to north will be scorched by it."

----------


## Brett85

> Hell is the blackest conscious darkness:


Nothing describes annihilationism better than "the blackest darkness."

----------


## TER

> See, that's just what I'm talking about.  Ignatius of Antioch believed what I believed in.  He was an annihilationist.  In this quote he simply used Biblical language, but you and I simply interpret that language differently.  *I believe* the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to a fire that never goes out...


St. Ignatius didn't believe that, and the Church which he was a Bishop of, that is still in Antioch, is proof.  

You should learn to say less "*I believe*" and rather seek to find what *the Church* ("*which is the pillar and foundation for the truth*") believes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Should I just discard 2000 of witnesses in the Holy Spirit and just take your word for it?


No, you take_ God's word_ as word for it.  _God's Word_ is what a Christian man goes to for the truth above all truths.

----------


## erowe1

> I'm sorry Sola, but I place more value on what the Church Fathers say than what you or anyone says the Bible says.


I don't get this. You can check the very Bible itself. Do you place more value on the Church Fathers than what your own eyes tell you are the words on the page? And if you're so distrusting of your ability to read, then how would you be able to know what any of the Church Fathers said? You would be as apt to misinterpret them as the Bible.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why do you think this? I never even used the English word Hell in this discussion.


You are saying you do not believe everyone receives the same punishment, yet they are all eternal in duration and you cannot back it up with Scripture.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nothing describes annihilationism better than "the blackest darkness."


Not when it is reserved for them forever.

----------


## TER

> I don't get this. You can check the very Bible itself. Do you place more value on the Church Fathers than what your own eyes tell you are the words on the page? And if you're so distrusting of your ability to read, then how would you be able to know what any of the Church Fathers said? You would be as apt to misinterpret them as the Bible.


What did the Ethiopian eunich do?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't agree with Sola on the bold, but I think I could make a stronger argument for that than that everyone who believes annihilationism is going to Hell.
> 
> That said, universalism isn't comparable to universal atonement or annihilationism.  Both of the latter at least have arguments from scripture.  Weak ones?  Maybe (I feel confident in the former case, and I haven't done as much research in the latter case.)  By contrast, there are absolutely no arguments for universalism.


How can an eternal punishment for a non-eternal crime be just?

----------


## TER

> How can an eternal punishment for a non-eternal crime be just?


What makes you think crimes are not eternal?

----------


## Brett85

Granted, TER, some of those do sound like eternal torment.  But Ignatius of Antioch was not one of those IMO.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't get this. You can check the very Bible itself. Do you place more value on the Church Fathers than what your own eyes tell you are the words on the page? *And if you're so distrusting of your ability to read, then how would you be able to know what any of the Church Fathers said? You would be as apt to misinterpret them as the Bible*.


That is the problem with the utter circularity of these churchianity religions.  They say we can't interpret God's Word, only "the church" can.  But who interprets the dictates of their church?  There still must be interpretation called upon.  And how do you interpret the interpretations of the interpretations?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What makes you think crimes are not eternal?


Because our bodies and the things we do are not eternal.  Everything we do exists only in the limited sense of time.

You can say we sin against an eternal being, but how does our sin inherit the quality of eternity just by being against an eternal being?

----------


## TER

> Granted, some of those do sound like eternal torment.  But Ignatius of Antioch was not one of those IMO.


Well, he was!

----------


## TER

> Because our bodies and the things we do are not eternal.  Everything we do exists only in the limited sense of time.


When we do a sin, is it not written in the divine ledgers of Heaven, what is called the Book of Life?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can an eternal punishment for a non-eternal crime be just?


Who said people stop sinning when they go to Hell?  Punishment is eternal because sinners never stop sinning.

----------


## TER

*Justin Martyr*

"We have been taught that only they may aim at immortality who have lived a holy and virtuous life near to God. We believe that they who live wickedly and do not repent will be punished in everlasting fire" (ibid., 21).

----------


## Brett85

> Not when it is reserved for them forever.


The blackest darkness will be reserved for them forever.  Everything is completely black when you're dead, and there's no evidence in the Bible that they'll ever be brought back to life.

----------


## TER

*Justin Martyr*

"[Jesus] shall come from the heavens in glory with his angelic host, when he shall raise the bodies of all the men who ever lived. Then he will clothe the worthy in immortality; but the wicked, clothed in eternal sensibility, he will commit to the eternal fire, along with the evil demons" (ibid., 52).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The blackest darkness will be reserved for them forever.  Everything is completely black when you're dead, and there's no evidence in the Bible that they'll ever be brought back to life.


There's no evidence that they cease to be conscious.

----------


## TER

*The Martyrdom of Polycarp*

"Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).

----------


## Brett85

> Well, he was!


Well, he wasn't.  Why don't you respond to by point about how the Bible uses the term "unquenchable fire?"  Do you not have an answer for that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> St. Ignatius didn't believe that, and the Church which he was a Bishop of, that is still in Antioch, is proof.  
> 
> You should learn to say less "*I believe*" and rather seek to find what *the Church* ("*which is the pillar and foundation for the truth*") believes.


Are you a Roman Catholic?

----------


## TER

*Mathetes
*
"When you know what is the true life, that of heaven; when you despise the merely apparent death, which is temporal; when you fear the death which is real, and which is reserved for those who will be condemned to the everlasting fire, the fire which will punish even to the end those who are delivered to it, then you will condemn the deceit and error of the world" (Letter to Diognetus 10:7 [A.D. 160]).

----------


## TER

> Are you a Roman Catholic?


No, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian.  What Church are you in communion with?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How can an eternal punishment for a non-eternal crime be just?


Who said people stop sinning when they go to Hell???  Punishment is eternal because sinners never stop sinning.

----------


## Brett85

> *The Martyrdom of Polycarp*
> 
> "Fixing their minds on the grace of Christ, [the martyrs] despised worldly tortures and purchased eternal life with but a single hour. To them, the fire of their cruel torturers was cold. They kept before their eyes their escape from the eternal and unquenchable fire" (Martyrdom of Polycarp 2:3 [A.D. 155]).


Again, they were just using Biblical language.  The Bible uses the term "eternal fire," but it says that Sodom and Gommorah served as an example of those who will receive the punishment of eternal fire.  Are Soddom and Gommorah still burning?  Of course not!

----------


## TER

> Well, he wasn't.  Why don't you respond to by point about how the Bible uses the term "unquenchable fire?"  Do you not have an answer for that?


Well, he was, and the Church in Antioch which he was a Bishop of (and which still exists today) would disagree with your position.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When we do a sin, is it not written in the divine ledgers of Heaven, what is called the Book of Life?


What does that have to do with it?  Does a sin we commit in our mortal, non-eternal bodies somehow become eternal by virtue of the fact  that it offends God?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> St. Ignatius didn't believe that, and the Church which he was a Bishop of, that is still in Antioch, is proof.  
> 
> You should learn to say less "*I believe*" and rather seek to find what *the Church* ("*which is the pillar and foundation for the truth*") believes.



Yes, the church (meaning "God's people") are the pillar for the truth.  They are not the truth.  There is a distinction between "the truth", and "God's people" in that verse.  A pillar is something that holds something up.  God's people hold up the truth of the Scriptures to the world.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What does that have to do with it?  Does a sin we commit in our mortal, non-eternal bodies somehow become eternal by virtue of the fact  that it offends God?


Who said people stop sinning when they go to Hell??? Punishment is eternal because sinners never stop sinning.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Who said people stop sinning when they go to Hell???  Punishment is eternal because sinners never stop sinning.


So, in other words, God makes the sin eternal by sending people to Hell?  Why would He perpetuate sin when the sin that caused the evil to go to hell itself is not eternal?

----------


## TER

> Again, they were just using Biblical language.  The Bible uses the term "eternal fire," but it says that Sodom and Gommorah served as an example of those who will receive the punishment of eternal fire.  Are Soddom and Gommorah still burning?  Of course not!


The example was the burning of the cities, which to those in hell, will be eternal.  TC, your position is not according to the teachings handed down by the Apostles.  You not only twist the Scriptures and the very words of Christ, but also twist the words of the Church Fathers in order to justify your innovative interpretation.

----------


## TER

> So, in other words, God makes the sin eternal by sending people to Hell?  Why would He perpetuate sin when the sin itself is not eternal?


You missed my explanation.  When people sin, are not their sins recorded in the Book of Life?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I am an Eastern Orthodox Christian.  What Church are you in communion with?


My sole authority is the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The example was the burning of the cities, which to those in hell, will be eternal.  TC, your position is not according to the teachings handed down by the Apostles.  You not only twist the Scriptures and the very words of Christ, but also twist the words of the Church Fathers in order to justify your innovative understanding.


I don't think TC twisted anything.  Many of the "church fathers" were heretics who believed all kinds of heretical things, including annihilationism and free will and all kinds of anti-Biblical things.

----------


## TER

> My sole authority is the Bible.


no, your sole authority is *your mind's interpretation* of the Bible, which is quite fallible.  No different than Sola Fide.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, in other words, God makes the sin eternal by sending people to Hell?  Why would He perpetuate sin when the sin that caused the evil to go to hell itself is not eternal?


Sinners don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.  What they do in this life, they continue to do in the next life.  And God continues to judge them for it.

----------


## juleswin

Not another stupid Molyneux video. That man is relentless

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You missed my explanation.  When people sin, are not their sins recorded in the Book of Life?


I responded to that.  I said, "What does that have to do with it? Does a sin we commit in our mortal, non-eternal bodies somehow become eternal by virtue of the fact that it offends God?"

----------


## Brett85

> There's no evidence that they cease to be conscious.


What does "ashes under the soles of your feet" mean, Sola?

Malachi 4: 1-3

For behold, the day is coming,
Burning like an oven,
And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
And the day which is coming shall burn them up,
Says the Lord of hosts,
That will leave them neither root nor branch.
2 But to you who fear My name
The Sun of Righteousness shall arise
With healing in His wings;
And you shall go out
And grow fat like stall-fed calves.
3 You shall trample the wicked,
For *they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet*
On the day that I do this,
Says the Lord of hosts.

----------


## TER

> I responded to that.  I said, "What does that have to do with it? Does a sin we commit in our mortal, non-eternal bodies somehow become eternal by virtue of the fact that it offends God?"


That was not an answer to my question.  Can you answer the question?  

 When people sin, are not their sins recorded in the Book of Life?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sinners don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.  What they do in this life, they continue to do in the next life.  And God continues to judge them for it.


Exactly.  So are you saying God can't stop it even if he wanted to?

----------


## TER

*Athenagoras*

"[W]e [Christians] are persuaded that when we are removed from this present life we shall live another life, better than the present one. . . . Then we shall abide near God and with God, changeless and free from suffering in the soul . . . or if we fall with the rest [of mankind], a worse one and in fire;*for God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated"* (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177]).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That was not an answer to my question.  Can you answer the question?  
> 
>  When people sin, are not their sins recorded in the Book of Life?


I don't know the answer to your question.  I would rather you just give a plain answer.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, he was, and the Church in Antioch which he was a Bishop of (and which still exists today) would disagree with your position.


So you aren't going to respond to the verses I cited which show that the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to "a fire that never goes out."  It's obvious what that term means when you simply look at how the term is used in the Bible, TER.  We are allowed to think for ourselves.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> no, your sole authority is *your mind's interpretation* of the Bible, which is quite fallible.  No different than Sola Fide.


And the church's mind is infallible?

Am I incapable of reading the Bible and understanding it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What does "ashes under the soles of your feet" mean, Sola?
> 
> Malachi 4: 1-3
> 
> “For behold, the day is coming,
> Burning like an oven,
> And all the proud, yes, all who do wickedly will be stubble.
> And the day which is coming shall burn them up,”
> Says the Lord of hosts,
> ...



What does that have to do with their souls?  The goats are surely "as ashes" or "like ashes" under the feet of the sheep because God gives them the victory over them.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And the church's mind is infallible?


Paul, please don't get sidetracked with the circus that is happening with TER.  Let's just stick to the Bible.

----------


## TER

> I don't know the answer to your question.  I would rather you just give a plain answer.


You haven't given any answer at all!

This is why I frankly don't enjoy debating you, because you can't even answer a simple question like whether when we sin or not, if they are recorded in the Book of Life.  If you can't answer a simple answer like that, then why should I believe any innovative interpretation of yours?

----------


## Brett85

> God has not made us as sheep or beasts of burden, a mere incidental work, that we should perish and be annihilated"[/B] (Plea for the Christians 31 [A.D. 177]).


Well, John disagreed.

"For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not *perish* but have everlasting life."

----------


## TER

> So you aren't going to respond to the verses I cited which show that the term "unquenchable fire" doesn't refer to "a fire that never goes out."  It's obvious what that term means when you simply look at how the term is used in the Bible, TER.  We are allowed to think for ourselves.


You are like Sola, fixating on one verse and making a dogma about it without taking in the whole of Scripture and God's revelation.  You shouldn't do that.  I am speaking to you as a friend.  This 'eternal hell vs. annihilationism' debate means very little to me (I am struggling to keep out of either one!).  My point is that you are doing with the Scriptures what Sola does.

----------


## Brett85

> What does that have to do with their souls?  The goats are surely "as ashes" or "like ashes" under the feet of the sheep because God gives them the victory over them.


You have the wrong understanding of the word "soul."  The Bible says that we are a living soul, not that we have a soul that's separate from our bodies.

Genesis 2:7

And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and *man became a living soul.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You haven't given any answer at all!
> 
> This is why I frankly don't enjoy debating you, because you can't even answer a simple question like whether when we sin or not, if they are recorded in the Book of Life.  If you can't answer a simple answer like that, then why should I believe any innovative interpretation of yours?


Fine, then, don't debate me.  There are many answers I would call "simple" that you can't seem to answer, such as why I should trust the fallible men of the church to give me infallible answers.

----------


## TER

> Well, John disagreed.
> 
> "For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not *perish* but have everlasting life."


Yes, those who love Him.  What St. Athenagoras was saying that we will not perish like the animals, but will be in eternal fire.

----------


## TER

> Fine, then, don't debate me.  There are many answers I would call "simple" that you can't seem to answer.


LOL!  Apparently, the same goes with you!

----------


## Brett85

> You are like Sola, fixating on one verse and making a dogma about it without taking in the whole of Scripture and God's revelation.  You shouldn't do that.  I am speaking to you as a friend.  This 'eternal hell vs. annihilationism' debate means very little to me (I am struggling to keep out of either one!).  My point is that you are doing with the Scriptures what Sola does.


I agree with Sola when it comes to the inerrancy of the Bible and looking to the Bible alone to come to our theological beliefs, rather than looking to church tradition.  That's about the only thing that I actually agree with him on.

----------


## TER

*Theophilus of Antioch*

"Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).

----------


## Brett85

> Yes, those who love Him.  What St. Athenagoras was saying that we will not perish like the animals, but will be in eternal fire.


There are no examples of the word "perish" in the Bible ever meaning "eternal suffering" or anything of the sort.  That's simply not what the word means.

----------


## Brett85

> *Theophilus of Antioch*
> 
> "Give studious attention to the prophetic writings [the Bible] and they will lead you on a clearer path to escape the eternal punishments and to obtain the eternal good things of God. . . . [God] will examine everything and will judge justly, granting recompense to each according to merit. To those who seek immortality by the patient exercise of good works, he will give everlasting life, joy, peace, rest, and all good things. . . . For the unbelievers and for the contemptuous, and for those who do not submit to the truth but assent to iniquity, when they have been involved in adulteries, and fornications, and homosexualities, and avarice, and in lawless idolatries, there will be wrath and indignation, tribulation and anguish; and in the end, such men as these will be detained in everlasting fire" (To Autolycus 1:14 [A.D. 181]).


That reads to me like support for annihilationism.  Again, we just interpret the Biblical language differently.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You have the wrong understanding of the word "soul."  The Bible says that we are a living soul, not that we have a soul that's separate from our bodies.
> 
> Genesis 2:7
> 
> And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and *man became a living soul.*


No, you don't understand how the Bible describes man.  Paul said that our bodies are a tent for our souls.  There is a differentiation between body and soul:




> 2nd Corinthians 5:1-5
> 
> For we know that *if the earthly tent we live in* is destroyed, we have a building from God, an eternal house in heaven, not built by human hands. Meanwhile we groan, longing to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, because when we are clothed, we will not be found naked*. For while we are in this tent*, we groan and are burdened, because we do not wish to be unclothed but to be clothed instead with our heavenly dwelling, so that what is mortal may be swallowed up by life. Now the one who has fashioned us for this very purpose is God, who has given us the Spirit as a deposit, guaranteeing what is to come.

----------


## erowe1

> There are no examples of the word "perish" in the Bible ever meaning "eternal suffering" or anything of the sort.  That's simply not what the word means.


That is what it means. What do you think it means? And why?

----------


## TER

> There are no examples of the word "perish" in the Bible ever meaning "eternal suffering" or anything of the sort.  That's simply not what the word means.


Yes, it does mean that.

----------


## TER

> That reads to me like support for annihilationism.  Again, we just interpret the Biblical language differently.


That is because that is what you want it to mean.  But everlasting fire does not mean annihilationism.

----------


## TER

*Irenaeus*

"[God will] send the spiritual forces of wickedness, and the angels who transgressed and became apostates, and the impious, unjust, lawless, and b.asphemous among men into everlasting fire" (Against Heresies 1:10:1 [A.D. 189]).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL!  Apparently, the same goes with you!


If you can't give me straight answers without wringing me through your obstacle course, then there's no point in trying.  I don't even know what your question had to do with the subject.

----------


## TER

*Irenaeus*

"The penalty increases for those who do not believe the Word of God and despise his coming. . . . *it is not merely temporal, but eternal*. To whomsoever the Lord shall say, ‘Depart from me, accursed ones, into the everlasting fire,’ *they will be damned forever*" (ibid., 4:28:2).

----------


## erowe1

> You have the wrong understanding of the word "soul."  The Bible says that we are a living soul, not that we have a soul that's separate from our bodies.
> 
> Genesis 2:7
> 
> And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and *man became a living soul.*


The Bible does say that we have souls and/or spirits that are separate from our bodies in lots of places.

But if that weren't the case, I'm not sure how it would help your case, since the matter that comprises our bodies continues to exist after we die. Death would not, in the case of materialism, entail the annihilation of that which makes up a person, but just a transformation of it.

----------


## TER

> If you can't give me straight answers without wringing me through your obstacle course, then there's no point in trying.  To me, the question you asked is irrelevant to the subject.


No it isn't irrelevant at all.  It directly answers why your belief that sin is only temporal is false.

----------


## Brett85

> That is because that is what you want it to mean.  But everlasting fire does not mean annihilationism.


It doesn't mean what you think it means.  You have your definition of what the term means, but that's not how the term is actually used in the Bible.  He also said that you have to "seek immortality," which contradicts your belief that everyone is born with an immortal soul.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> There are no examples of the word "perish" in the Bible ever meaning "eternal suffering" or anything of the sort.  That's simply not what the word means.


The theological reason for there being no cessation of existence is that if the reprobate are burned out of existence, then the reprobate have made satisfaction for their own sins. Since the reprobate can't make satisfaction for their own sins, then they must be punished forever.

Jesus said "it is finished".  Jesus, not any man, made satisfaction for sins.

----------


## TER

Brett, do you believe in a resurrection of our bodies at the Last Day?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Paul, please don't get sidetracked with the circus that is happening with TER.  Let's just stick to the Bible.


So, Sola, what is your problem with John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Why do you think people who worship God and devote their lives to Him perish just for believing in a doctrine like universalism?  Do they not believe?  Do they not worship?

----------


## TER

> It doesn't mean what you think it means.  You have your definition of what the term means, but that's not how the term is actually used in the Bible.  He also said that you have to "seek immortality," which contradicts your belief that everyone is born with an immortal soul.


What do you mean "my belief that everyone is born with an immortal soul"?

Do you believe Adam was immortal _by nature_?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No it isn't irrelevant at all.  It directly answers why your belief that sin is only temporal is false.


I don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion.

----------


## TER

*Tertullian*

"After the present age is ended he will judge his worshipers for a reward of eternal life and the godless for a fire equally perpetual and unending" (Apology 18:3 [A.D. 197]).

----------


## Brett85

> The Bible does say that we have souls and/or spirits that are separate from our bodies in lots of places.
> 
> But if that weren't the case, I'm not sure how it would help your case, since the matter that comprises our bodies continues to exist after we die. Death would not, in the case of materialism, entail the annihilation of that which makes up a person, but just a transformation of it.


I said earlier that I agree with you in a technical sense.  Even if the unsaved are consumed by fire, they will still "exist" as ashes.  But they won't "consciously exist."  They won't be conscious and aware of what's going on.

----------


## TER

> I don't understand how you arrive at that conclusion.


Our sins are indeed eternal, simply by the fact that they are recorded in the Book of Life, which is eternal and outside of time.  So, when we sin, it has real, eternal effects.  Likewise, it has real, eternal consequences.

----------


## TER

*Tertullian*

"Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility" (ibid., 44:12–13).

----------


## Brett85

> What do you mean "my belief that everyone is born with an immortal soul"?
> 
> Do you believe Adam was immortal _by nature_?


No, I thought that's what you believed.  You can correct me if I'm wrong.  I know that the traditional teaching of Christianity throughout the centuries has been that every person is born with an immortal soul which must live forever somewhere.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Bible does say that we have souls and/or spirits that are separate from our bodies in lots of places.
> 
> But if that weren't the case, I'm not sure how it would help your case, since the matter that comprises our bodies continues to exist after we die. Death would not, in the case of materialism, entail the annihilation of that which makes up a person, but just a transformation of it.


There are still two questions of mine that you have not answered.  Why didn't Paul mention "Hell" and why can't you back up your claim that not everyone in hell receives the same punishment with Scripture?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, Sola, what is your problem with John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Why do you think people who worship God and devote their lives to Him perish just for believing in a doctrine like universalism?  Do they not believe?  Do they not worship?


Because they put man on equal footing with Jesus.  Only Jesus can make satisfaction for sins.

If the reprobate are burned out of existence, then the reprobate have made satisfaction for their own sins. Since the reprobate can't make satisfaction for their own sins, then they must be punished forever.

----------


## TER

*Hippolytus*

"Standing before [Christ’s] judgment, all of them, men, angels, and demons, crying out in one voice, shall say: ‘Just is your judgment!’ And the righteousness of that cry will be apparent in the recompense made to each. To those who have done well, everlasting enjoyment shall be given; while to the lovers of evil shall be given eternal punishment. The unquenchable and unending fire awaits these latter, and a certain fiery worm which does not die and which does not waste the body but continually bursts forth from the body with unceasing pain. No sleep will give them rest; no night will soothe them; no death will deliver them from punishment; no appeal of interceding friends will profit them" (Against the Greeks 3 [A.D. 212]).

----------


## Brett85

> Brett, do you believe in a resurrection of our bodies at the Last Day?


Yes, and I don't believe there's any form of life for anyone who has died until the resurrection.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Our sins are indeed eternal, simply by the fact that they are recorded in the Book of Life, which is eternal and outside of time.  So, when we sin, it has real, eternal effects.  Likewise, it has real, eternal consequences.


Just because they are recorded in the book, that doesn't mean the sin itself is eternal.  And what kind of "consequences" are you talking about?  Does our sin somehow change God's plan?

----------


## Brett85

> *Tertullian*
> 
> "Then will the entire race of men be restored to receive its just deserts according to what it has merited in this period of good and evil, and thereafter to have these paid out in an immeasurable and unending eternity. Then there will be neither death again nor resurrection again, but we shall be always the same as we are now, without changing. The worshipers of God shall always be with God, clothed in the proper substance of eternity. But the godless and those who have not turned wholly to God will be punished in fire equally unending, and they shall have from the very nature of this fire, divine as it were, a supply of incorruptibility" (ibid., 44:12–13).


Sola, this is why you should be an annihilationist.  Lol.  You're taking TER's position that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So, Sola, what is your problem with John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Why do you think people who worship God and devote their lives to Him perish just for believing in a doctrine like universalism?  Do they not believe?  Do they not worship?


Because they put man on equal footing with Jesus, but only Jesus can make satisfaction for sins.

If the reprobate are burned out of existence, then the reprobate have made satisfaction for their own sins. Since the reprobate can't make satisfaction for their own sins, then they must be punished forever.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because they put man on equal footing with Jesus.  Only Jesus can make satisfaction for sins.
> 
> If the reprobate are burned out of existence, then the reprobate have made satisfaction for their own sins. Since the reprobate can't make satisfaction for their own sins, then they must be punished forever.


So is John 3:16 wrong?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, this is why you should be an annihilationist.  Lol.  You're taking TER's position that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.


No, I don't believe that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.  I also don't think the heretics that TER says are "church fathers" represent the Christian faith.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So is John 3:16 wrong?


Nothing Jesus said can be wrong. But your understanding of it (using the theological reason I gave above) is wrong.

----------


## erowe1

> I said earlier that I agree with you in a technical sense.  Even if the unsaved are consumed by fire, they will still "exist" as ashes.  But they won't "consciously exist."  They won't be conscious and aware of what's going on.


But the Bible doesn't say that. The words that you appeal to, like "death," "perish," and "destroy," don't entail that. You just seem to assume they do.

----------


## TER

> No, I thought that's what you believed.  You can correct me if I'm wrong.  I know that the traditional teaching of Christianity throughout the centuries has been that every person is born with an immortal soul which must live forever somewhere.


According to the teachings of the Church Fathers (and likewise, the teachings of the Orthodox Church), Adam was not born with an immortal soul by nature.  His soul was immortal _only as long as God's grace was upon him_.  

When Christ rose from the dead and destroyed the gates of hell by His resurrection, He destroyed the power of sin over man and made death impotent.  Now, though all men die in this world, they will arise from death on the Last Day.  Then, when Christ will be fully revealed and will judge and will be "all in all", then all men shall be immortal, and those whose hearts accept Christ's love and light will be in eternal Paradise, and those who reject it will be in eternal hell.

----------


## TER

> Just because they are recorded in the book, that doesn't mean the sin itself is eternal.  And what kind of "consequences" are you talking about?  Does our sin somehow change God's plan?


If it is recorded in the Book of Life, you better believe it is eternal.

----------


## TER

> Yes, and I don't believe there's any form of life for anyone who has died until the resurrection.


I understand that (which is innovative, by the way).  But I mean to ask, do you believe that man will rise in their bodies on the Last Day?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just because they are recorded in the book, that doesn't mean the sin itself is eternal.  And what kind of "consequences" are you talking about?  Does our sin somehow change God's plan?


Sin is eternal because people don't stop sinning when they die, and so their punishment never stops for the sin they continually commit.

----------


## Brett85

> If the reprobate are burned out of existence, then the reprobate have made satisfaction for their own sins. Since the reprobate can't make satisfaction for their own sins, then they must be punished forever.


They are punished forever.  They receive the punishment of being dead for all eternity, just like it says in Romans 6: 23 and many other verses.

----------


## Brett85

> I understand that (which is innovative, by the way).  But I mean to ask, do you believe that man will rise in their bodies on the Last Day?


Yes, of course.

----------


## TER

> Yes, of course.


Okay, just checking.  Some Christians don't believe that.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Nothing Jesus said can be wrong. But your understanding of it (using the theological reason I gave above) is wrong.


My understanding of it is wrong?  Can you back that up with scripture or are you just using your understanding to evaluate my understanding?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yes, and I don't believe there's any form of life for anyone who has died until the resurrection.


Are you kidding me?  That is just ridiculous.




> Matthew 22:31-32
> 
> But about the resurrection of the dead—have you not read what God said to you,* ‘I am* the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob' ?* He is not the God of the dead but of the living.*”

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But the Bible doesn't say that. The words that you appeal to, like "death," "perish," and "destroy," don't entail that. You just seem to assume they do.


Why should we assume otherwise?  Can you back up your assertion that they do not mean that with Scripture?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> They are punished forever.  They receive the punishment of being dead for all eternity, just like it says in Romans 6: 23 and many other verses.


But you are saying that a sinner can make satisfaction for his sins by being burned out of existence.  And this is wrong (and blasphemous) because only Jesus can make satisfaction for sins.

----------


## Brett85

> Are you kidding me?  That is just ridiculous.


That's just talking about the future resurrection, which the entire New Testament talks about.  The Bible is clear that Jesus is the only one who has gone into heaven.

John 3: 13

"No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man."

----------


## Brett85

> But you are saying that a sinner can make satisfaction for his sins by being burned out of existence.  And this is wrong (and blasphemous) because only Jesus can make satisfaction for sins.


No, I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the punishment is eternal, that it never ends.  The unsaved will receive an eternal death sentence, and the sinner can never make satisfaction for their sins.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> If it is recorded in the Book of Life, you better believe it is eternal.


Why do you automatically attribute the eternal quality of the book to the actual sin?  You didn't answer my second question.

----------


## TER

*Minucius Felix*

"I am not ignorant of the fact that many, in the consciousness of what they deserve, would rather hope than actually believe that there is nothing for them after death. *They would prefer to be annihilated rather than be restored for punishment. . . . Nor is there either measure nor end to these torments. That clever fire burns the limbs and restores them, wears them away and yet sustains them, just as fiery thunderbolts strike bodies but do not consume them*" (Octavius 34:12–5:3 [A.D. 226]).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sin is eternal because people don't stop sinning when they die, and so their punishment never stops for the sin they continually commit.


Is God not capable of stopping sin?

----------


## TER

*Cyprian of Carthage*

"An ever-burning Gehenna and the punishment of being devoured by living flames will consume the condemned; nor will there be any way in which the tormented can ever have respite or be at an end. Souls along with their bodies will be preserved for suffering in unlimited agonies. . . . The grief at punishment will then be without the fruit of repentance; weeping will be useless, and prayer ineffectual. Too late will they believe in eternal punishment, who would not believe in eternal life" (To Demetrian 24 [A.D. 252]).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's just talking about the future resurrection, which the entire New Testament talks about.  The Bible is clear that Jesus is the only one who has gone into heaven.
> 
> John 3: 13
> 
> "No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man."


Wrong. This is so plainly wrong.  Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without even dying.  Jesus wasn't saying that no man has gone to heaven, he was telling Nicodemus that His authority carried weight because He was from heaven and Nicodemus wasn't.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is God not capable of stopping sin?


Of course He can.  But God WILLS that sin exists so that He can glorify His eternal justice.

----------


## TER

*Lactantius
*
"[T]he sacred writings inform us in what manner the wicked are to undergo punishment. For because they have committed sins in their bodies, they will again be clothed with flesh, that they may make atonement in their bodies; and yet it will not be that flesh with which God clothed man, like this our earthly body, but indestructible, and abiding forever, that it may be able to hold out against tortures and everlasting fire, the nature of which is different from this fire of ours, which we use for the necessary purposes of life, and which is extinguished unless it be sustained by the fuel of some material. But that divine fire always lives by itself, and flourishes without any nourishment. . . . *The same divine fire, therefore, with one and the same force and power, will both burn the wicked and will form them again, and will replace as much as it shall consume of their bodies, and will supply itself with eternal nourishment*. . . . Thus, without any wasting of bodies, which regain their substance, it will only burn and affect them with a sense of pain. But when [God] shall have judged the righteous, he will also try them with fire" (Divine Institutes 7:21 [A.D. 307]).

----------


## TER

*Cyril of Jerusalem*

"We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past" (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350]).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I'm not saying that at all.  I'm saying that the punishment is eternal, that it never ends.  The unsaved will receive an eternal death sentence, and the sinner can never make satisfaction for their sins.


No, you are saying that the cessation of existence is a satisfaction for sin.  If there was no satisfaction for sin, then punishment wouldn't end.  You are saying punishment ends.

----------


## Brett85

> Wrong. This is so plainly wrong.  Enoch and Elijah went to heaven without even dying.  Jesus wasn't saying that no man has gone to heaven, he was telling Nicodemus that His authority carried weight because He was from heaven and Nicodemus wasn't.


No, they didn't.  Elijah was launched by a chariot into "heaven," meaning the clouds.  There is more than one definition of the word "heaven" in the Bible.  He lived out his remaining days on earth.  The Bible says that Enoch died before he received all of the promises made to him.




> Hebrews:11:5 tells us, "Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death." The verse continues with a quotation from Genesis 5, saying that he "was not found." The wording implies that someone was looking for him to cause him harm, and that God protected him by removing him to a safe place. Some assumed that God took him to heaven, but the verse does not say that. "Taken away" ("translated" in the King James Version) is from the Greek word metatithemi and it means "to transfer to another place" ( Vine's Expository Dictionary of Biblical Words , 1985).
> What of Elijah—did God take him to heaven? Without reading the full account of the history of Judah and Israel, one might easily assume that 2 Kings:2:11 reports the death of Elijah and his subsequent removal from earth to heaven. Actually, the prophet did not die, as is borne out by the astonishing record of a letter that he wrote some years later! You can read this letter in 2 Chronicles:21:12-15
> 
> 
> 
> .
> What was the "heaven" to which Elijah was taken? Scriptures speak of three heavens:
> The first, the atmosphere that envelops the earth (Genesis:1:8).
> The second, what we call "space" (Genesis:15:5).
> ...


http://www.ucg.org/bible-faq/did-god...-elijah-heaven

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Cyril of Jerusalem*
> 
> "We shall be raised therefore, all with our bodies eternal, but not all with bodies alike: for if a man is righteous, he will receive a heavenly body, that he may be able worthily to hold converse with angels; but if a man is a sinner, he shall receive an eternal body, fitted to endure the penalties of sins, that he may burn eternally in fire, nor ever be consumed. And righteously will God assign this portion to either company; for we do nothing without the body. We blaspheme with the mouth, and with the mouth we pray. With the body we commit fornication, and with the body we keep chastity. With the hand we rob, and by the hand we bestow alms; and the rest in like manner. Since then the body has been our minister in all things, it shall also share with us in the future the fruits of the past" (Catechetical Lectures 18:19 [A.D. 350]).


TER, no offense, but will you stop crowding up the thread?  We are trying to have a discussion about the Bible and its just taking up space.  Again, no offense.

----------


## Brett85

> No, you are saying that the cessation of existence is a satisfaction for sin.  If there was no satisfaction for sin, then punishment wouldn't end.  You are saying punishment ends.


No, I'm saying that torment isn't the only form of punishment.  Death is a punishment, and it will last for all eternity for the unsaved.  If someone receives the death penalty on this earth, we don't measure that person's punishment by the minute or two that it takes to kill that person, but the fact that that person is forever removed from the community of the living.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course He can.  But God WILLS that sin exists so that He can glorify His eternal justice.


That makes absolutely no sense.  The sin we commit in our flesh is non-eternal, and yet God makes it eternal?  That would mean He was punishing us eternally for a non-eternal sin.  And this is all done to display His justice, even though eternal torment for a non-eternal sin is clearly not just.

And besides, even sinning perpetually doesn't make the sin itself eternal because it's all limited by the constraints of time.  What you are saying is that God brings it outside of time and makes it something more than it ever was in our earthly existence.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> TER, no offense, but will you stop crowding up the thread?  We are trying to have a discussion about the Bible and its just taking up space.  Again, no offense.


As the OP, I second this.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Why didn't Paul mention "Hell"?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That makes absolutely no sense.  The sin we commit in our flesh is non-eternal, and yet God makes it eternal? 
>  That would mean He was punishing us eternally for a non-eternal sin.  And this is all done to display His justice, even though eternal torment for a non-eternal sin is clearly not just.


No, sinners never stop sinning eternally.  That is why punishment is eternal. Sinners commit sin in this world AND after they die, eternally.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, I'm saying that torment isn't the only form of punishment.  Death is a punishment, and it will last for all eternity for the unsaved.  If someone receives the death penalty on this earth, we don't measure that person's punishment by the minute or two that it takes to kill that person, but the fact that that person is forever removed from the community of the living.


And when a soul is taken out of existence, then God has no more punishment to give to that soul.  The cessation of existence has satisfied (ended) God's wrath against them.

This is blasphemous because only Jesus can satisfy the wrath of God.  This is why I pray you repent and believe the gospel TC.  And I mean that very sincerely.  What you believe and teach will condemn you for all eternity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, sinners never stop sinning eternally.  That is why punishment is eternal. Sinners commit sin in this world AND after they die, eternally.


Then I ask you again, can God stop this?  Why doesn't He?

----------


## TER

> As the OP, I second this.


Very well.  You guys keep arguing on a topic that was settled in the first century.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And when a soul is taken out of existence, then God has no more punishment to give to that soul.  The cessation of existence has satisfied (ended) God's wrath against them.
> 
> This is blasphemous because only Jesus can satisfy the wrath of God.  This is why I pray you repent and believe the gospel TC.  And I mean that very sincerely.  What you believe and teach will condemn you for all eternity.


And yet you reject John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Does TC not believe and worship God?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Very well.  You guys keep arguing on a topic that was settled in the first century.


You determine it to be settled with your fallible understanding.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then I ask you again, can God stop this?  Why doesn't He?


Because God has chosen to glorify all aspects of His being through all eternity...His mercy AND His justice.

----------


## Crashland

> This is an excellent video. The only thing I would point out, is that when the appeals are made to the statement "God is just", then there are two ways to interpret that. Either "Anything that God does is just by definition" (which would not have any bearing on this topic either way because if he did burn people for eternity, then it would still be "just" even considering how illogical and hypocritical that idea seems to us), or it could mean "God always adheres to some standard of justice (which doesn't include burning people forever)." In my opinion, the second interpretation is more reasonable, but this would either have to appeal to our human sense of justice, or otherwise admit that justice exists outside of God.





> False.  There is a third option, namely "justice is a part of God's nature."  You don't have to appeal to anything other than God himself in order to say what is just.


Is there a third option? If you don't have to appeal to anything other than God himself in order to say what is just, then if God really did torment people for eternity, then that would *be* justice by definition. There would be nothing else to appeal to in order to claim that eternal torture isn't justice. You can't use justice as an argument against God torturing people for eternity if justice is defined by God's nature. It would still be justice no matter what God did.

----------


## Brett85

> And I mean that very sincerely.  What you believe and teach will condemn you for all eternity.


I don't care what you say.  What I'm telling you is what the Bible teaches.  You agree with TER and the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox people that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And yet you reject John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Does TC not believe and worship God?


No, I don't believe he does.  I believe the word "perish" is where we keep having the problem though.   I believe that all those not in Him will perish, but the Bible describes the word differently than the meaning you attach to it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't care what you say.  What I'm telling you is what the Bible teaches.  You agree with TER and the Catholic/Eastern Orthodox people that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.


Does the sacrifice of Jesus mean anything to you?  Why would you say that something other than Jesus' sacrifice could satisfy God's wrath?

----------


## Brett85

> And yet you reject John 3:16 when it says "whosoever believeth in Him shall not perish but have everlasting life."  Does TC not believe and worship God?


He doesn't think that I'm unsaved just because of what I believe about this.  He thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement and unconditional election is unsaved.  He's an extremist who shouldn't be taken seriously be anyone.

----------


## Brett85

> Does the sacrifice of Jesus mean anything to you?  Why would you say that something other than Jesus' sacrifice could satisfy God's wrath?


I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus' sacrifice, which is that he bore the penalty of *death* on our behalf.  He died on the cross so that we wouldn't have to die.

Romans 4: 25

"He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification."

----------


## TER

> You determine it to be settled with your fallible understanding.


Not only me, but greater men then me!  Many of them, all the way back to the first century!  What a wonderful feeling to be able to stand upon the shoulder of such giants!  

We both have fallible minds, my friend.  The difference is I have not made mine the final authority on matters of doctrine, but like St. Paul did, run to the Saints to learn the truth, lest I run in vain.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

What many of us need to understand is that we throw around words like "eternal" very casually even though Greek and Hebrew had no such concepts.  The word translated as "eternal" is _aionios_, meaning "age-lasting" or "age-abiding."  It was used to mean an indefinite period of time, not literally time without end.  

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...d-everlasting/

They did not use abstract concepts like "eternity" in the original Biblical languages.  Think about it:




> ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gn. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as "forever," means in itself no more than "for an indefinitely long period." Thus, me olam does not mean "from eternity" but "of old" (Gn. 6:4, etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam.
> 
> Dr. F.W. Farrar, The Eternal Hope, p. 198]





> Time: The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life;" then "age," "lifetime." It is, however, also used generally of a (limited or unlimited long space of time. The use of the word aion is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means "long distant uninterrupted time" in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14).





> (Page 63) Since, as we have seen, the noun aion refers to a period of time, it appears very improbable that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show that such a concept was expressed by this term.
> 
> (Page 72) In 1 Cor. 15:22-29 the inspired apostle to the Gentiles transports his readers' thoughts far into the future, beyond the furthest point envisaged elsewhere in holy writ. After outlining the triumph of the Son of God in bringing all creation under His benign control, Paul sets forth the consummation of the divine plan of the ages in four simple, yet infinitely profound words, "God all in all." This is our God, purposeful, wise, loving, and almighty, His Son our Lord a triumphant Savior, Who destroys His enemies by making them friends.
> 
> Jeremy Taylor, author of Systematic Hellology, which advocates the common belief in eternal torment, later writes a modified view in Jeremy Taylor's Works, Vol. III, p. 43.





> All the way through, it is never feasible to understand aionios as everlasting. 
> 
> Dr. (Prof.) Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. IV


When all of this is taken in context with the fact that Hell is a made-up word which has no equivalent in the original languages, but was made up to replace four Greek and Hebrew words, none of which literally mean "a place of eternal torment", it makes perfect sense that we should reject the traditional understanding of punishment as being everlasting.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Not only me, but greater men then me!  Many of them, all the way back to the first century!  What a wonderful feeling to be able to stand upon the shoulder of such giants!  
> 
> We both have fallible minds, my friend.  The difference is I have not made mine the final authority on matters of doctrine, but like St. Paul did, run to the Saints to learn the truth, lest I run in vain.


Greater men, perhaps, but still men.  They are fallible and you are standing on their shoulders.  What does that say about you?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because God has chosen to glorify all aspects of His being through all eternity...His mercy AND His justice.


But you're saying His justice is glorified by dealing a punishment that is unjust.  

The Bible says God IS love, but nowhere does it say God IS justice.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is there a third option? If you don't have to appeal to anything other than God himself in order to say what is just, then if God really did torment people for eternity, then that would *be* justice by definition. There would be nothing else to appeal to in order to claim that eternal torture isn't justice. You can't use justice as an argument against God torturing people for eternity if justice is defined by God's nature. It would still be justice no matter what God did.


But He doesn't torment people for eternity because that is not consistent with His nature and what the Bible says about justice.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He doesn't think that I'm unsaved just because of what I believe about this.  He thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement and unconditional election is unsaved.  He's an extremist who shouldn't be taken seriously be anyone.


But TC, I believe your rejection of limited atonement is theologically related to your rejection of eternal hell.  If other Arminians were consistent,  they would just believe what you and the false teachers you read believe.

Annihilationism is an extension of Arminianism...that God loves the non-elect so much that He would punish them eternally.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I don't believe he does.  I believe the word "perish" is where we keep having the problem though.   I believe that all those not in Him will perish, but the Bible describes the word differently than the meaning you attach to it.


Saying it doesn't make it true.  You have to back it up with Scripture.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> He doesn't think that I'm unsaved just because of what I believe about this.  He thinks that anyone who doesn't believe in limited atonement and unconditional election is unsaved.  He's an extremist who shouldn't be taken seriously be anyone.


And yet, here we are, taking him seriously.

----------


## TER

> Greater men, perhaps, but still men.  They are fallible and you are standing on their shoulders.  What does that say about you?


They are less fallible then I am, so I am still better off than just relying on myself!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe what the Bible teaches about Jesus' sacrifice, which is that he bore the penalty of *death* on our behalf.  He died on the cross so that we wouldn't have to die.
> 
> Romans 4: 25
> 
> "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification."


But Jesus' spirit didn't die. You believe that right?  You believe that Jesus is the eternal Second Person, right?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But you're saying His justice is glorified by dealing a punishment that is unjust.  
> 
> The Bible says God IS love, but nowhere does it say God IS justice.


Romans 9 for example.   He creates vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.   In the vessels of mercy, His mercy is glorified.  In the vessels of wrath, His justice is glorified.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> They are less fallible then I am, so I am still better off than just relying on myself!


Are you saying you are incapable of understanding the words of Scripture without other fallible men telling you what they mean?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Romans 9 for example.   He creates vessels of mercy and vessels of wrath.   In the vessels of mercy, His mercy is glorified.  In the vessels of wrath, His justice is glorified.


That doesn't contradict what I just said.  An eternal punishment for a non-eternal sin is unjust by God's very nature.  God IS love, not God IS justice.

----------


## TER

> Are you saying you are incapable of understanding the words of Scripture without other fallible men telling you what they mean?


No, I m saying I am relying on the teachings of holier men then me to correct any innovative interpretations my fallible mind dreams up.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

What many of us need to understand is that we throw around words like "eternal" very casually even though Greek and Hebrew had no such concepts. The word translated as "eternal" is aionios, meaning "age-lasting" or "age-abiding." It was used to mean an indefinite period of time, not literally time without end. 

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...d-everlasting/

They did not use abstract concepts like "eternity" in the original Biblical languages. Think about it:




> ETERNITY: The Bible hardly speaks of eternity in the philosophical sense of infinite duration without beginning or end. The Hebrew word olam, which is used alone (Ps. 61:8; etc.) or with various prepositions (Gn. 3:22; etc.) in contexts where it is traditionally translated as "forever," means in itself no more than "for an indefinitely long period." Thus, me olam does not mean "from eternity" but "of old" (Gn. 6:4, etc.). In the N.T. aion is used as the equivalent of olam.
> 
> Dr. F.W. Farrar, The Eternal Hope, p. 198]





> Time: The O.T. and the N.T. are not acquainted with the conception of eternity as timelessness. The O.T. has not developed a special term for "eternity." The word aion originally meant "vital force," "life;" then "age," "lifetime." It is, however, also used generally of a (limited or unlimited long space of time. The use of the word aion is determined very much by the O.T. and the LXX. Aion means "long distant uninterrupted time" in the past (Luke 1:10), as well as in the future (John 4:14).
> (Page 63) Since, as we have seen, the noun aion refers to a period of time, it appears very improbable that the derived adjective aionios would indicate infinite duration, nor have we found any evidence in Greek writing to show that such a concept was expressed by this term.
> 
> (Page 72) In 1 Cor. 15:22-29 the inspired apostle to the Gentiles transports his readers' thoughts far into the future, beyond the furthest point envisaged elsewhere in holy writ. After outlining the triumph of the Son of God in bringing all creation under His benign control, Paul sets forth the consummation of the divine plan of the ages in four simple, yet infinitely profound words, "God all in all." This is our God, purposeful, wise, loving, and almighty, His Son our Lord a triumphant Savior, Who destroys His enemies by making them friends.
> 
> Jeremy Taylor, author of Systematic Hellology, which advocates the common belief in eternal torment, later writes a modified view in Jeremy Taylor's Works, Vol. III, p. 43.





> All the way through, it is never feasible to understand aionios as everlasting. 
> 
> Dr. (Prof.) Marvin Vincent, Word Studies of the New Testament, Vol. IV


When all of this is taken in context with the fact that Hell is a made-up word which has no equivalent in the original languages, but was made up to replace four Greek and Hebrew words, none of which literally mean "a place of eternal torment", it makes perfect sense that we should reject the traditional understanding of punishment as being everlasting.

----------


## Crashland

> But He doesn't torment people for eternity because that is not consistent with His nature and what the Bible says about justice.


Ok so you are making the argument that God eternally tormenting people is not consistent with God's justice as described in the Bible. I can roll with that. We agree then, but for different reasons. I happen to agree that justice does not include eternally tormenting people for finite crimes, but I as an atheist would be appealing either to my own justice or to a justice that is outside of God. From a Christian perspective if the Bible is presupposed as true, I think your Biblical argument isn't bad either.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, I m saying I am relying on the teachings of holier men then me to correct any innovative interpretations my fallible mind dreams up.


Why not rely on the actual Bible?  If you're capable of understanding the Bible, then that should be your ultimate authority, not the fallible men of the church.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That doesn't contradict what I just said.  An eternal punishment for a non-eternal sin is unjust by God's very nature.  God IS love, not God IS justice.


1.  Um...yes, God is justice.  God is the just Judge of this universe.  I don't know how you can read the Bible and not understand God's eternal justice.

2.  You keep saying "eternal judgment for non-eternal sin", but I've already explained that sinners sin eternally.   The punishment doesn't end because men don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.

----------


## Brett85

> But TC, I believe your rejection of limited atonement is theologically related to your rejection of eternal hell.  If other Arminians were consistent,  they would just believe what you and the false teachers you read believe.
> 
> Annihilationism is an extension of Arminianism...that God loves the non-elect so much that He would punish them eternally.


No, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.  Most of the annihilationists I've talked to are Calvinists.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok so you are making the argument that God eternally tormenting people is not consistent with God's justice as described in the Bible. I can roll with that. We agree then, but for different reasons. I happen to agree that justice does not include eternally tormenting people for finite crimes, but I as an atheist would be appealing either to my own justice or to a justice that is outside of God. From a Christian perspective if the Bible is presupposed as true, I think your Biblical argument isn't bad either.


Thanks.  I'm glad the atheist agrees with me.  Why aren't you a Christian?

----------


## TER

> Why not rely on the actual Bible?  If you're capable of understanding the Bible, then that should be your ultimate authority, not the fallible men of the church.


But St. Paul didn't say that 'TER's mind' is the bulwark and foundation of the truth.  Why shouldn't I listen to St. Paul's teaching?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking about.  Most of the annihilationists I've talked to are Calvinists.


Haha...what does that prove?   Modern Calvinism is a morass of all kinds of utterly heretical views.  My advice is: NEVER listen to Calvinists.   Ever.

----------


## bubbleboy

the wicked will become ashes and inert gases, and will vanish.    
Does anybody look up words in the Strong's Concordance?  

Eternal torment doesn't last forever.  Like the the song, it only hurts for a little while.  

Maybe your god will get pleasure with burning people forever.  Actually its kinda funny thinking about jumping from one hot rock to another.  hahah.  Maybe your god will flip you over to get the other side, then stand you up to get the bottoms of your feet.  bahaha.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 1.  Um...yes, God is justice.  God is the just Judge of this universe.  I don't know how you can read the Bible and not understand God's eternal justice.


But the Bible doesn't say "God is justice."  The Bible says "God is love."




> 2.  You keep saying "eternal judgment for non-eternal sin", but I've already explained that sinners sin eternally.   The punishment doesn't end because men don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.


But your justification for this is that God perpetuates the sin when He could make everyone repent and do away with sin and evil.  Therefore, you are saying He chooses to inflict an eternal punishment for a sin that is not eternal because it exists only in our earthly existence.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thanks.  I'm glad the atheist agrees with me.  Why aren't you a Christian?


It comforts you that atheists are comfortable with your position?  Wow man.  Re-evaluate yourself.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But St. Paul did say that TER's mind is the bulwark and foundation of the faith.  Why shouldn't I listen to St. Paul's teaching?


Can you quote Paul?  I'm not sure what the context is here.  Keep in mind, though, when you do quote Paul, you'll be using the Bible to reinforce your ideas.

----------


## TER

> Can you quote Paul?  I'm not sure what the context is here.  Keep in mind, though, when you do quote Paul, you'll be using the Bible to reinforce your ideas.


I use the Bible to reinforce all the doctrines of the Church!  I will go look for the verse...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But the Bible doesn't say "God is justice."  The Bible says "God is love."
> 
> 
> 
> But your justification for this is that God perpetuates the sin when He could make everyone repent and do away with sin and evil.  Therefore, you are saying He chooses to inflict an eternal punishment for a sin that is not eternal because it exists only in our earthly existence.



I've said it 3 times, but I still don't think you get what I'm saying.   _Sinners don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.  You keep talking about the "non-eternal sins" men do in this life.  I don't even care about that.   I'm talking about the sins that men commit when they are in Hell._

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It comforts you that atheists are comfortable with your position?  Wow man.  Re-evaluate yourself.


I was being sarcastic... man.

----------


## Crashland

> Thanks.  I'm glad the atheist agrees with me.  Why aren't you a Christian?


That would be a long story. Honestly, the hell issue in this thread is *one* of the reasons I came out of the Christian faith, because I saw it as a major inconsistency. I now believe that it is possible for a Christian to reconcile the problem, as you have. But, that wasn't the only reason.

Now if we could just agree on that blasted morality.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I use the Bible to reinforce all the doctrines of the Church!  I will go look for the verse...


So the Bible IS your ultimate authority!  Why didn't you say so?

I guess that means we can have a discussion on the Bible without relying on the teachings of fallible men.

----------


## TER

*1 Timothy 3:15*

I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is* the church of the living God*, the pillar and ground of the truth.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I've said it 3 times, but I still don't think you get what I'm saying.   _Sinners don't stop sinning when they go to Hell.  You keep talking about the "non-eternal sins" men do in this life.  I don't even care about that.   I'm talking about the sins that men commit when they are in Hell._


You don't care about that?  What is Hell for if not for the sins man commits in this life?

----------


## TER

> So the Bible IS your ultimate authority!  Why didn't you say so?
> 
> I guess that means we can have a discussion on the Bible without relying on the teachings of fallible men.


But if my debate is with someone who has a fallible mind, why can't I use the teachings and interpretations of other fallible men?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That would be a long story. Honestly, the hell issue in this thread is *one* of the reasons I came out of the Christian faith, because I saw it as a major inconsistency. I now believe that it is possible for a Christian to reconcile the problem, as you have. But, that wasn't the only reason.
> 
> Now if we could just agree on that blasted morality.


I'm glad I could help bring you one step closer!  Take the leap, man.  It's worth it.

----------


## TER

> That would be a long story. Honestly, the hell issue in this thread is *one* of the reasons I came out of the Christian faith, because I saw it as a major inconsistency.


What inconsistency is that?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But if my debate is with someone who has a fallible mind, why can't I use the teachings and interpretations of other fallible men?


You can, but only insofar as they refer to Scripture themselves, not just taking their words and using them as your final standard of correctness.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You don't care about that?  What is Hell for if not for the sins man commits in this life?


You keep going on with your argument but it's like you're blind to what I've said multiple times now.  No, Hell is not just for "the sins man commits in this life".  Sinners never stop sinning when the go to Hell.  

Sin is only no more in Heaven.  In Hell, men still sin...eternally.  That is why punishment never ends.

----------


## Crashland

> What inconsistency is that?


The one pointed out by PaulConventionWV. I do not think that implementing eternal torture as a consequence for a temporal offense is compatible with a God of justice.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What inconsistency is that?


The one I outlaid.  No one has yet responded to my post about the meaning of aionios and olam as not meaning "eternal".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The one pointed out by PaulConventionWV. I do not think that implementing eternal torture as a consequence for a temporal offense is compatible with a God of justice.


Why don'tyou go back and read my posts.  I've answered that 5 times.

----------


## Brett85

> The one pointed out by PaulConventionWV. I do not think that implementing eternal torture as a consequence for a temporal offense is compatible with a God of justice.


The main argument is the simple fact that there's not a single verse in the Bible which teaches it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You keep going on with your argument but it's like you're blind to what I've said multiple times now.  No, Hell is not just for "the sins man commits in this life".  Sinners never stop sinning when the go to Hell.  
> 
> Sin is only no more in Heaven.  In Hell, men still sin...eternally.  That is why punishment never ends.


But you believe God can stop this and yet He doesn't?  Do you not see the inconsistency there?  You're affirming the consequent by saying that God perpetuates the sin to justify the punishment of the sin.  Why would He perpetuate it in the first place?  If He could stop it, then not doing so would be unjust because the punishment for the non-eternal crimes of this life would end up being eternal when it didn't have to be.

----------


## Brett85

> Why don'tyou go back and read my posts.  I've answered that 5 times.


Why don't you respond to Paul's post about what "aionios" means?  I'm interested to hear how you address that.

----------


## Crashland

> The main argument is the simple fact that there's not a single verse in the Bible which teaches it.


Right. There are some passages that could be interpreted to mean that though, as Sola is demonstrating.

----------


## Brett85

> Right. There are some passages that could be interpreted to mean that though, as Sola is demonstrating.


There aren't any at all.  He thinks that torment is the only form of punishment, when that simply isn't the case at all.  "Eternal punishment" is a neutral term.  That verse doesn't describe what the punishment consists of.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why don'tyou go back and read my posts.  I've answered that 5 times.


No, you haven't.  Your views are completely inconsistent with the Biblical concept of justice.

----------


## Crashland

> There aren't any at all.  He thinks that torment is the only form of punishment, when that simply isn't the case at all.  "Eternal punishment" is a neutral term.  That verse doesn't describe what the punishment consists of.


Yeah I'm not saying it is the correct interpretation. Only that a lot of people including Sola do interpret it that way.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Why don't you respond to Paul's post about what "aionios" means?  I'm interested to hear how you address that.


Keep in mind, this is kind of a prick for annihilationists as well.

----------


## TER

> You can, but only insofar as they refer to Scripture themselves, not just taking their words and using them as your final standard of correctness.


So you want me to ignore what the Saints of the first centuries believed and taught to be the correct understanding of the Scriptures?  That seems like you want to disqualify a lot of Christians, who lived in times must closer to the Apostles then either of us.  It seems like you don't like to know that the earlier belief was if it is different then yours.

The catholic faith, that is the faith of the whole of the Church that had spread throughout the Christian world, can be discerned by learning about the history and the hagiography of the early Christians.  God did not stop working at the last page of Acts.  The Holy Spirit has kept the truth known and heldfast from the Day of Pentecost.  Sound unbelievable?  But what is impossible for man is possible for God!

According to the historical writings of the early Christian Church, they all have the same understanding of what Christ meant when He said everlasting torment.  Your position is hardly, if at all, known amongst Christians until the year 2000.  

If we are going to have an intellectual debate about a doctrine of the Church, then you need to demonstrate why YOUR interpretation is more authoritative then all of theirs, who collectively belong to the one Church.  So far, you haven't.  I respect your liberty to believe your mind is the greatest authority for the truth.  (Sound like gnosticm, actually...).  Please respect my liberty to not believe your mind is the final authority of the truth and rather take the wisdom of the earlier martyrs and saints above yours.

----------


## Brett85

> Keep in mind, this is kind of a prick for annihilationists as well.


I know, and I'm not sure how to respond to it.  That's why I was wondering what Sola's response would be.

----------


## TER

> I was being sarcastic... man.


Maybe that is why he is still not a Christian?  Because he sees the way they judge the sins of others?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you want me to ignore what the Saints of the first centuries believed and taught to be the correct understanding of the Scriptures?  That seems like you want to disqualify a lot of Christians, who lived in times must closer to the Apostles then either of us.  It seems like you don't like to know that the earlier belief was if it is different then yours.


I accept other men's beliefs only insofar as they apply to Scripture.  What don't you get about that?




> The catholic faith, that is the faith of the whole of the Church that had spread throughout the Christian world, can be discerned by learning about the history and the hagiography of the early Christians.  God did not stop working at the last page of Acts.  The Holy Spirit has kept the truth known and heldfast from the Day of Pentecost.  Sound unbelievable?  But what is impossible for man is possible for God!
> 
> According to the historical writings of the early Christian Church, they all have the same understanding of what Christ meant when He said everlasting torment.  Your position is hardly, if at all, known amongst Christians until the year 2000.


Fine, but is their position biblical?  I don't want to debate about human history when I can debate about the actual words of the Bible.  What you say about the early Christian Church is, itself, debatable and yet you would rather spend time on that than what Scripture actually says.  




> If we are going to have an intellectual debate about a doctrine of the Church, then you need to demonstrate why YOUR interpretation is more authoritative then all of theirs, who collectively belong to the one Church.  So far, you haven't.  I respect your liberty to believe your mind is the greatest authority for the truth.  (Sound like gnosticm, actually...).  Please respect my liberty to not believe your mind is the final authority of the truth and rather take the wisdom of the earlier martyrs and saints above yours.


Mine is more authoritative because it comes from the Bible.  Your interpretation of their interpretation comes from them.  Your interpretation does not rely on the inerrant word of God if you give the beliefs of fallible men as a reason for me to believe said interpretation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Maybe that is why he is still not a Christian?  Because he sees the way they judge the sins of others?


Actually, I helped him come closer to Christ by resolving one of his concerns with Scripture, so I'm not going to let you make me out to be responsible for his lack of faith.

----------


## lilymc

> I'm still trying to get an answer to my biggest questions:  How can the punishment fit the crime if everyone who goes to Hell gets the same punishment?  Also, how can the punishment fit the crime if our crime was finite and the punishment is infinite?


Where does the bible say that everyone in hell gets the same punishment?     From what I understand, the opposite is true.  And that goes for heaven as well. Not everyone will have the same level of heavenly rewards.   Everything we do in this life will be judged.  To be clear, that doesn't mean we are saved by our works.... We are saved by God's grace, through faith.  But it's not going to be the same in hell for someone like Stalin and someone who doesn't have a long list of heinous crimes under his belt.   Just as it won't be exactly the same in heaven for everyone.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> There aren't any at all.  He thinks that torment is the only form of punishment, when that simply isn't the case at all.  "Eternal punishment" is a neutral term.  That verse doesn't describe what the punishment consists of.


At the very least, "eternal punishment" would exclude universalism.

----------


## TER

> The one pointed out by PaulConventionWV. I do not think that implementing eternal torture as a consequence for a temporal offense is compatible with a God of justice.


But the offense, my friend is not temporal.  The sins we do have eternal consequences.

 To believe in God is to also believe in the Kingdom of Heaven.  And Heaven is eternal.  When we sin, our sin is recorded in the divine ledgers in Heaven, in the Book of Life atop the Altar of God.  This is the Scriptural description of what is Heaven, according to what God revealed.  

Our sins affect not only us, but those around us, indeed, all of creation.  But_ even more terrible_, it is recorded in the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is why the Judeo-Christian prayer is for God to 'not remember our sins'.  As long as God, Who is outside of time, remembers it, it is eternal.  Likewise, too, the consequences.

Christ did not say He would forget the sins of those who did evil, but that He will, in fact, always remember them.

He would always remember them, that is, unless we repent and confess our sins to one another.  Then the sins are removed from the divine ledgers of Heaven and no longer a source of damnation.  This is the function of the Church, to give the noetic medicine of the body and the soul through the sacred mysteries of the Church.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No, I don't believe that church tradition is more important than the actual teachings of the Bible.  I also don't think the heretics that TER says are "church fathers" represent the Christian faith.


Just to play devil's advocate here... God promises that the gates of Hell will never prevail against his church.  Now, that doesn't mean no churches (small c) will go apostate.  But if there was ever a time where there were no true Christians on the earth, it would seem that Satan had indeed overcome the church.

Where were the true Christians between John the Apostle and John Calvin?

One argument I've received is that the Catholic Church kept careful records of heresies during the first fifteen centuries of its existance, but there was no "Protestant" heresy before Martin Luther.  Why do you think that is?

----------


## Brett85

> At the very least, "eternal punishment" would exclude universalism.


I agree.  Their claim is that "aionios" doesn't actually mean "eternal."  I wanted Sola to give his take on that, but he hasn't yet.

----------


## TER

> I agree.  Their claim is that "aionios" doesn't actually mean "eternal."  I wanted Sola to give his take on that, but he hasn't yet.



It means the punishment will be "without time", that is, eternal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> *Where does the bible say that everyone in hell gets the same punishment?*     From what I understand, the opposite is true.  And that goes for heaven as well. Not everyone will have the same level of heavenly rewards.   Everything we do in this life will be judged.  To be clear, that doesn't mean we are saved by our works.... We are saved by God's grace, through faith.  But it's not going to be the same in hell for someone like Stalin and someone who doesn't have a long list of heinous crimes under his belt.   Just as it won't be exactly the same in heaven for everyone.


Where does it say that they don't?  If there was something about the fate of sinners in Hell that we needed to know, the Bible would mention that, wouldn't it?

So far all we know about the "eternal torment" narrative of punishment is that all punishments are supposed to be "eternal" in duration.  Where does it say how the punishments are different?

----------


## Brett85

> It means the punishment will be "without time", that is, eternal.


They claim that the Greek term "aionios" means "age lasting."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I agree.  Their claim is that "aionios" doesn't actually mean "eternal."  I wanted Sola to give his take on that, but he hasn't yet.


I think that's just their imposition on the text, especially considering the same argument would say heaven isn't eternal.

----------


## Crashland

> But the offense, my friend is not temporal.  The sins we do have eternal consequences.
> 
>  To believe in God is to also believe in the Kingdom of Heaven.  And Heaven is eternal.  When we sin, our sin is recorded in the divine ledgers in Heaven, in the Book of Life atop the Altar of God.  This is the Scriptural description of what is Heaven, according to what God revealed.  
> 
> Our sins affect not only us, but those around us, indeed, all of creation.  But_ even more terrible_, it is recorded in the Kingdom of Heaven.  This is why the Judeo-Christian prayer is for God to 'not remember our sins'.  As long as God, Who is outside of time, remembers it, it is eternal.  Likewise, too, the consequences.
> 
> Christ did not say He would forget the sins of those who did evil, but that He will, in fact, always remember them.
> 
> He would always remember them, that is, unless we repent and confess our sins to one another.  Then the sins are removed from the divine ledgers of Heaven and no longer a source of damnation.  This is the function of the Church, to give the noetic medicine of the body and the soul through the sacred mysteries of the Church.


Firstly, if God is omniscient then he knows every choice we will ever make before we are even born anyway.
Secondly, if the eternal consequence of a sin is merely that God will remember it forever, or that it will be forever recorded somewhere, how does that warrant eternal torture? How is having your deed recorded permanently even an offense at all? Having your stuff recorded doesn't hurt anybody and you're not even the one doing the recording. Unless the sin is eternally torturing someone else, or doing some other form of harm eternally, then imposing a consequence of eternal torture on the perpetrator is not justified.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> At the very least, "eternal punishment" would exclude universalism.


But the original Greek and Hebrew languages did not use words that literally meant "time without end".  They didn't even have such an abstract concept.  

I am not arguing for "universalism" in that I believe there IS punishment, but that it is "age-abiding" punishment, not everlasting.

----------


## TER

> Just to play devil's advocate here... God promises that the gates of Hell will never prevail against his church.  Now, that doesn't mean no churches (small c) will go apostate.  But if there was ever a time where there were no true Christians on the earth, it would seem that Satan had indeed overcome the church.
> 
> Where were the true Christians between John the Apostle and John Calvin?
> 
> One argument I've received is that the Catholic Church kept careful records of heresies during the first fifteen centuries of its existance, but there was no "Protestant" heresy before Martin Luther.  Why do you think that is?


According to Sola, there existed a mysterious group he calls the 'Biblical Christians', although they are nowhere referred to or seem to be known to the world in those early centuries.  Nothing about them playing any part in defending and defining the fundamental Christilogical and Trinitarian doctrines against the great heresies.  Unknown at the time when the Biblical canon was decided.  Unfortunately, he doesn't want to reveal the name of even one to me.  Perhaps he will for you.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But the offense, my friend is not temporal.  The sins we do have eternal consequences.


Would you care to explain this?  Are the consequences of our sins enough to change God's plan?  How do our sins affect eternity?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I agree.  Their claim is that "aionios" doesn't actually mean "eternal."  I wanted Sola to give his take on that, but he hasn't yet.


Yep, I've got linguists to back that up.  Once you take away the word "eternal" and expose the word "Hell" for what it is, a modern invention to explain a concept that was not originally in the Bible, the doctrine of eternal punishment collapses.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It means the punishment will be "without time", that is, eternal.


That is not what it means.  Check out my post again.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think that's just their imposition on the text, especially considering the same argument would say heaven isn't eternal.


No, you've got it all wrong.  I've got linguists to back up this interpretation of the word.  Our English word "eon" is closely related to the Greek "aion".  Does eon mean "time without end"?

----------


## TER

> Firstly, if God is omniscient then he knows every choice we will ever make before we are even born anyway.


Just, that is because He is aeoneos, that is, outside of time.  We agree on this.




> Secondly, if the eternal consequence of a sin is merely that God will remember it forever, or that it will be forever recorded somewhere, how does that warrant eternal torture?


Because it will convict us on the Final and Eternal Last Day.




> How is having your deed recorded permanently even an offense at all?


Because we are not our own, but God's.  Our sin affects both this time and the aeoneos.




> Having your stuff recorded doesn't hurt anybody and you're not even the one doing the recording. Unless the sin is eternally torturing someone else, or doing some other form of harm eternally, then imposing a consequence of eternal torture on the perpetrator is not justified.


But if our sins are written in the ledgers in Heaven, then they are eternal and ever present.  For this reason they have consequences which, too, are eternal. 

But have you read what the Orthodox understanding of hell is?  That it is the same God's love which will be paradise to some and unquenchable fire for others.

----------


## TER

> No, you've got it all wrong.  I've got linguists to back up this interpretation of the word.  Our English word "eon" is closely related to the Greek "aion".  Does eon mean "time without end"?


No, you and your linguists are incorrect.  Aion can mean a period of time (etc. from ages to ages).  Aenion, however, means without time.  And that is how it is used in the New Testament writings.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Just to play devil's advocate here... God promises that the gates of Hell will never prevail against his church.  Now, that doesn't mean no churches (small c) will go apostate.  But if there was ever a time where there were no true Christians on the earth, it would seem that Satan had indeed overcome the church.
> 
> Where were the true Christians between John the Apostle and John Calvin?
> 
> One argument I've received is that the Catholic Church kept careful records of heresies during the first fifteen centuries of its existance, but there was no "Protestant" heresy before Martin Luther.  Why do you think that is?


Yeah that's definitely the devil's advocate.  What we see in the early church is a gradual rejection of faith alone and a gradual acceptance of the view that Jesus came to give man new commandments to follow to be righteous.  God's people have ALWAYS been persecuted by the religious churches of man, from the first century on.  And it's only gotten worse.

----------


## lilymc

> Where does it say that they don't?  If there was something about the fate of sinners in Hell that we needed to know, the Bible would mention that, wouldn't it?
> 
> So far all we know about the "eternal torment" narrative of punishment is that all punishments are supposed to be "eternal" in duration.  Where does it say how the punishments are different?


1) There are many scriptures that state that some sins are worse than others.   

2) The bible states that people will be judged according to their deeds.   

Then I saw a great white throne and Him who sat upon it, from whose presence earth and heaven fled away, and no place was found for them.   And I saw the dead, the great and the small, standing before the throne, and books were opened; and another book was opened, which is the book of life; and *the dead were judged from the things which were written in the books, according to their deeds.*  - Revelation 20:11–12
3)  Although there may not be a lot of scriptures that state it explicitly, there are a number of scriptures that imply different levels of punishment.  Here are a couple, but there are more:

"And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn't prepared and doesn't carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required." Luke 12:47-48

How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? - Hebrews 10:29
4)  God is 100% just, and to think that God would be unfair (giving the same punishment to everyone or the same rewards to everyone)  I think is to distrust God's character.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

*If God could save everyone, would he?*




> The word for “eternal” and “everlasting” is the Greek word, aeonian, which means “pertaining to an eon (age).” In other words, God's final judgments pertain to a specific age in the future that eventually will end with the great Creation Jubilee, when all judgment ceases, and all men are brought fully into the glory of God, even as He promised by covenant.


http://www.christian-universalism.in...ryone-pg4.html

The people of Israel doubted God's covenant in the forest on their way to the Holy Land.  He did not annihilate them.  When people accept the doctrine of eternal punishment, they are doubting God's covenant just as the people of Israel did.

----------


## TER

> Yeah that's definitely the devil's advocate.  What we see in the early church is a gradual rejection of faith alone and a gradual acceptance of the view that Jesus came to give man new commandments to follow to be righteous.  God's people have ALWAYS been persecuted by the religious churches of man, from the first century on.  And it's only gotten worse.


Can you provide me with one name of an early Christian who believes as you do with regards to ecclesiology or soteriology?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Can you provide me with one name of an early Christian who believes as you do with regards to ecclesiology or soteriology?


See what you're doing?  You're wasting your time debating about history when, in reality, the history doesn't matter.  It's the word of God that matters, and you're not getting any closer to understanding that by debating the history of fallible men.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can you provide me with one name of an early Christian who believes as you do with regards to ecclesiology or soteriology?


Where does the Bible say there is a "Bishop of Rome"?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, you and your linguists are incorrect.  Aion can mean a period of time (etc. from ages to ages).  Aenion, however, means without time.  And that is how it is used in the New Testament writings.


aeonion means "pertaining to an age".  If aion means a period of time, then how does aeonion mean without time?  What's your source?  I gave you mine.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> 1) There are many scriptures that state that some sins are worse than others.


Which is exactly my point.  Some sins are worse than others, so we should hear about how some *punishments* are also worse than others.  Where do we hear about that?




> 2) The bible states that people will be judged according to their deeds.


Sure, but the judgment is not eternal, as you have been led to believe.  





> 3)  Although there may not be a lot of scriptures that state it explicitly, there are a number of scriptures that imply different levels of punishment.  Here are a couple, but there are more:
> 
> "And a servant who knows what the master wants, but isn't prepared and doesn't carry out those instructions, will be severely punished. But someone who does not know, and then does something wrong, will be punished only lightly. When someone has been given much, much will be required in return; and when someone has been entrusted with much, even more will be required." Luke 12:47-48
> 
> How much worse punishment, do you think, will be deserved by the one who has trampled underfoot the Son of God, and has profaned the blood of the covenant by which he was sanctified, and has outraged the Spirit of grace? - Hebrews 10:29


Don't you think it would be important to know what those different levels are?  Doesn't it say what the punishment for murder is as opposed to the punishment for a lesser crime?  You would think the Bible would mention this and not just make vague references to "different levels" of punishment.  People need to know what they are going to be judged for if the judgment is to be just.




> 4)  God is 100% just, and to think that God would be unfair (giving the same punishment to everyone or the same rewards to everyone)  I think is to distrust God's character.


I agree 100%!  The idea of an eternal punishment for a non-eternal sin is completely incosistent with God's just nature.

----------


## TER

> *If God could save everyone, would he?*
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.christian-universalism.in...ryone-pg4.html
> 
> The people of Israel doubted God's covenant in the forest on their way to the Holy Land.  He did not annihilate them.  When people accept the doctrine of eternal punishment, they are doubting God's covenant just as the people of Israel did.


αἰώνιος means, LITERALLY, "without time".  The two roots of the words put together means "without time".

It can be used, ALSO, to make a reference for a time which cannot be described, for example, 'a long time without measure'.  But in Greek word actually mean, "without time", and that is the sense it is used in the New Testament verses about the fate of the judged.


According to Strong's:

*αἰώνιος*, , and (in 2 Thessalonians 2:16; Hebrews 9:12; Numbers 25:13; Plato, Tim., p. 38 b. (see below); Diodorus 1:1; (cf. WHs Appendix, p. 157; Winers Grammar, 69 (67); Buttmann, 26 (23))) αἰώνιος, αἰώνια, αἰώνιον (αἰών);

*1. without beginning or end,* *that which always has been and always will be: Θεός*, Romans 16:26 (ὁ μόνος αἰώνιος, 2 Macc. 1:25); *πνεῦμα*, Hebrews 9:14.
*
2. without beginning:* χρόνοις αἰωνίοις, Romans 16:25; πρό χρόνων αἰωνίων, 2 Timothy 1:9; Titus 1:2; εὐαγγέλιον, a gospel whose subject-matter is eternal, i. e., the saving purpose of God adopted from eternity, Revelation 14:6.

*3. without end, never to cease, everlasting*: 2 Corinthians 4:18 (opposed to πρόσκαιρος); αἰώνιον αὐτόν, joined to thee forever as a sharer of the same eternal life, Philcmon 1:15; βάρος δόξης, 2 Corinthians 4:17; βασιλεία, 2 Peter 1:11; δόξα, 2 Timothy 2:10; 1 Peter 5:10; ζωή (see ζωή, 2 b.); κληρονομία, Hebrews 9:15; λύτρωσις, Hebrews 9:12; παράκλησις, 2 Thessalonians 2:16; σκηναί, abodes to be occupied forever, Luke 16:9 (the habitations of the blessed in heaven are referred to, cf. John 14:2 (also,dabo eis tabernacula aeterna, quae praeparaveram illis, 4 Esdras (Fritzsche, 5 Esdr.) []); similarly Hades is called αἰώνιος τόπος, Tobit 3:6, cf. Ecclesiastes 12:5); σωτηρία, Hebrews 5:9; (so Mark 16 (WH) in the (rejected) 'Shorter Conclusion'). Opposite ideas are: κόλασις, Matthew 25:46; κρίμα, Hebrews 6:2; κρίσις, Mark 3:29 (Rec. (but L T WH Tr text ἁμαρτήματος; in Acta Thom. § 47, p. 227 Tdf., ἔσται σοι τοῦτο εἰς ἄφεσιν ἁμαρτιῶν καί λύτρον αἰωνίων παραπτωμάτων, it has been plausibly conjectured we should read λύτρον, αἰώνιον (cf. Hebrews 9:12))); ὄλεθρος (Lachmann text ὀλέθριος, 2 Thessalonians 1:9 (4 Macc. 10:15); πῦρ, Matthew 25:41 (4 Macc. 12:12 αἰωνίῳ πυρί καί βασάνοις, αἱ εἰς ὅλον τόν αἰῶνα οὐκ ἀρνήσουσί σε). (Of the examples of αἰώνιος from Philo (with whom it is less common than ἀΐδιος, which see, of which there are some fifty instances) the following are noteworthy: de mut. nora. § 2; de caritate § 17; κόλασις αἰώνιος fragment in Mang. 2:667 at the end (Richter 6:229 middle); cf. de praem, et poen. § 12. Other examples are de alleg, leg. iii., § 70; de poster. Caini § 35; quod deus immut. § 30; quis rer. div. her. § 58; de congressu quaer, erud. § 19; de secular sec 38; de somn. ii. § 43; de Josepho § 24; quod omn. prob. book § 4, § 18; de ebrietate § 32; de Abrah. § 10; ζωή αἰώνιος: de secular § 15; Θεός (ὁ) αἰώνιος: de plantat. § 2, § 18 (twice), § 20 (twice);de mundo § 2. from Josephus: Antiquities 7, 14, 5; 12, 7, 3; 15, 10, 5; b. j. 1, 33, 2; 6, 2, I; κλέος αἰών Antiquities 4, 6, 5; b. j. 3, 8, 5, μνήμη αἱ.: Antiquities 1, 13, 4; 6, 14, 4; 10, 11, 7; 15, 11, 1; οἶκον μέν αἰώνιον ἔχεις (of God), Antiquities 8, 4, 2; ἐφυλάχθη ὁ Ἰωάννης δεσμοῖς αἰωνίοις, b. j. 6, 9, 4. SYNONYMS: ἀΐδιος, αἰώνιος: ἀΐδιος covers the complete philosophic idea  without beginning and without end; also either without beginning or without end; as respects the past, it is applied to what has existed time out of mind. αἰώνιος (from Plato on) gives prominence to the immeasurableness of eternity (while such words as συνεχής continuous, unintermitted, διατελής perpetual, lasting to the end, are not so applicable to an abstract term, like αἰών); αἰώνιος accordingly is especially adapted to supersensuous things, see the N. T. Cf. Tim. Locr. 96 c. Θεόν δέ τόν μέν αἰώνιον νόος ὄρη μόνος etc.; Plato, Tim. 37 d. (and Stallbaum at the passage); 38 b. c.; legg. x., p. 904 a. ἀνώλεθρον δέ ὄν γενόμενον, ἀλλ' οὐκ αἰώνιον. Cf. also Plato's διαιώνιος (Tim. 38 b.; 39 e.). Schmidt, chapter 45.

----------


## TER

> Where does the Bible say there is a "Bishop of Rome"?


I never claimed to say the Bible says in the exact words "Bishop of Rome".  You claimed there were Biblical Christians yet won't share one name.

----------


## TER

> 1) 4)  God is 100% just, and to think that God would be unfair (giving the same punishment to everyone or the same rewards to everyone)  I think is to distrust God's character.


You are absolutely correct!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> αἰώνιος means, LITERALLY, "without time".  The two roots of the words put together means "without time".
> 
> It can be used, ALSO, to make a reference for a time which cannot be described, for example, 'a long time without measure'.  But in Greek word actually mean, "without time", and that is the sense it is used in the New Testament verses about the fate of the judged.
> 
> 
> According to Strong's:
> 
> *αἰώνιος*, , and (in 2 Thessalonians 2:16; Hebrews 9:12; Numbers 25:13; Plato, Tim., p. 38 b. (see below); Diodorus 1:1; (cf. WHs Appendix, p. 157; Winers Grammar, 69 (67); Buttmann, 26 (23))) αἰώνιος, αἰώνια, αἰώνιον (αἰών);
> 
> ...


"That the adjective is applied to some things which are "endless" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant "endless," and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd."

Dr. F.W. Farrar, Mercy and Judgment, p. 378

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Take, for instance, the translation of "aionios ton aionios" in Revelations to mean "forever and ever."  Why would such a redundant phrase be used?  Why did they need to stick that vestigial "and ever" on the end?  This is because a more appropriate translation is "for the ages of the ages", which is to say that God's is the glory throughout all of the ages, and not just limited to one or two ages.  This makes much more sense than to say "forever and ever" which is both repetitive and redundant in that "and ever" doesn't add any meaning to the phrase.  So why put such a meaningless phrase as "forever and ever" in the Bible?  Does it mean to say that there are multiple "forevers"?  Surely not.

----------


## TER

> Which is exactly my point.  Some sins are worse than others, so we should hear about how some *punishments* are also worse than others.  Where do we hear about that?


Well, sounds like some will be gnashing their teeth, some will have an unending worm...  There does seem to be some Biblical characteristics of various torment.  (And again, these 'punishments' are our own doing)

We also hear Christ talking about some getting more lashes than others.  




> Sure, but the judgment is not eternal, as you have been led to believe.


So says you.  But you have yet to prove it.  But perhaps that is why you choose to ignore historical reality and just stick to the Scriptures?  But didn't the Arians use the same Scriptures?  It was the catholic Church which stopped their heretical ravings, and you should be grateful.

I am still waiting for you to reply to the words of St. Paul to St. Timothy regarding the fact that neither of our minds are the pillar and foundation for the truth...




> Don't you think it would be important to know what those different levels are?  Doesn't it say what the punishment for murder is as opposed to the punishment for a lesser crime?  You would think the Bible would mention this and not just make vague references to "different levels" of punishment.  People need to know what they are going to be judged for if the judgment is to be just.


No.  The Bible was to reveal Christ has come and through Him we find eternal life and without Him eternal judgement.  It was not designed to be a catalog as you are describing.




> I agree 100%!  The idea of an eternal punishment for a non-eternal sin is completely incosistent with God's just nature.


I agree!  The punishment will be how we experience His love, which will be hell if our hearts are evil and burdened with sin.

----------


## TER

> "That the adjective is applied to some things which are "endless" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant "endless," and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd."
> 
> Dr. F.W. Farrar, Mercy and Judgment, p. 378


I would say the same thing to Dr. Farrar!  That the adjective is applied to some things which are "of an age" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant "of an age," and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd.

In fact, the word LITERALLY means: WITHOUT TIME!  Who is being absurd now!?!

----------


## TER

> Take, for instance, the translation of "aionios ton aionios" in Revelations to mean "forever and ever."  Why would such a redundant phrase be used?  Why did they need to stick that vestigial "and ever" on the end?  This is because a more appropriate translation is "for the ages of the ages", which is to say that God's is the glory throughout all of the ages, and not just limited to one or two ages.  This makes much more sense than to say "forever and ever" which is both repetitive and redundant in that "and ever" doesn't add any meaning to the phrase.  So why put such a meaningless phrase as "forever and ever" in the Bible?  Does it mean to say that there are multiple "forevers"?  Surely not.


So you know more Greek than the early Church saints?  Oops!  I brought them up again!  I am supposed to ignore them!

The word CAN be used "For ages to ages", meaning lengths of time THEY COULD NOT QUANTIFY, which is why they use the word which literally says "WITHOUT TIME".  They could not provide a time!

The Greek language can use the same words with different meanings and uses.  This is one of them.  The correct, and MUCH MORE COMMON USE in the NT and the writings of the earliest Christians is that hell is eternal, without time, everlasting.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Perhaps the most confusion of understanding on this subject is the lack of understanding of the Greek word translated either as age, world, ever, forever and with other translated version words. In Koine Greek this is the word aion, aioon or aioonos. When seeing the following biblical usages of this word aion, a clear definition is age with a limited duration of time, or a period of longer or shorter duration having a beginning and an end. When seeing other biblical usages, which will be covered on the final page of this study, this word could also be understood and used in context as an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity. This Greek word is used as a noun. There are 125 usages of this word in the New Testament. From a number of usages of this word it is clearly seen that age often has a limitation of time with an end to the age. In the King James Version this is often translated world. However, most if not all of the newer biblical versions use the word age for aion more often. Below are versus with aion from the King James Version, followed by other biblical versions chosen randomly. As I stated previously, with editing biblical versions can improve for truth and clarity.
> 
> *Matthew 13:39-40 
> 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (aion); and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world (aion).
> King James Version (KJV) 
> Matthew 13:39-40 
> 39 and the enemy who sowed them is the devil. The harvest is the end of the age (aion), and the reapers are angels. 40 Just as the weeds are gathered and burned with fire, so will it be at the end of the age (aion). 
> English Standard Version (ESV)
> 
> ...


Sometimes the word can be used in the sense of "without end", but to assume this definition is erroneous.  The Greek did not have the same abstract concept of "eternal" as we do when we throw that word around like it's the Greek itself.

----------


## TER

> Sometimes the word can be used in the sense of "without end", but to assume this definition is erroneous.  The Greek did not have the same abstract concept of "eternal" as we do when we throw that word around like it's the Greek itself.


It was the ancient Greek philosophers who first spoke about eternity and a condition or state outside of time!  The term aionios and the abstract topics it pertains to (outside of time) is straight from Greek philosphy!  And it means 'without time'. Can it be used to mean 'unknown amount of time', YES, but that is NOT the more general philosophical and abstract term it implies and is used to described hell in the NT.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, sounds like some will be gnashing their teeth, some will have an unending worm...  There does seem to be some Biblical characteristics of various torment.  (And again, these 'punishments' are our own doing)
> 
> We also hear Christ talking about some getting more lashes than others.


Indeed!  Lashes are not "eternal."  They are part of our punishment, but why should we take these lashes to be a vague reference to an unending form of punishment, which is clearly not what the word "lashes" means. 




> So says you.  But you have yet to prove it.  But perhaps that is why you choose to ignore historical reality and just stick to the Scriptures?  But didn't the Arians use the same Scriptures?  It was the catholic Church which stopped their heretical ravings, and you should be grateful.


You can refer to the history of fallible men all you want.  I only respond to arguments from Scripture because I believe we can understand it.




> I am still waiting for you to reply to the words of St. Paul to St. Timothy regarding the fact that neither of our minds are the pillar and foundation for the truth...


I didn't mean to start a debate about history.  That was not my intention, but it was yours.




> No.  The Bible was to reveal Christ has come and through Him we find eternal life and without Him eternal judgement.  It was not designed to be a catalog as you are describing.


The Bible catalogs our sins, does it not?  Ten commandments?  Why, then, does it not let us know the punishments we will be receiving for breaking each of these rules?  All we really know about it is that, apparently, all of the punishments are supposed to be "eternal", which is, itself, unjust.  There is no way you can call an eternal punishment for a non-eternal sin "justice."




> I agree!  The punishment will be how we experience His love, which will be hell if our hearts are evil and burdened with sin.


That's a pretty twisted view of love.  Can God be said to love someone He tortures for all eternity?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It was the ancient Greek philosophers who first spoke about eternity and a condition or state outside of time!  The term aionios and the abstract topics it pertains to (outside of time) is straight from Greek philosphy!  And it means 'without time'. Can it be used to mean 'unknown amount of time', YES, but that is NOT the more general philosophical and abstract term it implies and is used to described hell in the NT.


You're just saying that's not how it's used without supporting this with Scripture.  I gave you my supporting evidence and you are just making assertions about how we should use the word without providing any context.  I provided context.  Your assertions do not match up with what the linguists say.

Also, I forgot to give you the link.  You can read the whole thing here:

http://www.christian-universalism.in...words-pg3.html

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yeah that's definitely the devil's advocate.  What we see in the early church is a gradual rejection of faith alone and a gradual acceptance of the view that Jesus came to give man new commandments to follow to be righteous.  God's people have ALWAYS been persecuted by the religious churches of man, from the first century on.  And it's only gotten worse.


Where were God's people in the first fifteen centuries?  Do you know of any?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you know more Greek than the early Church saints?  Oops!  I brought them up again!  I am supposed to ignore them!
> 
> The word CAN be used "For ages to ages", meaning lengths of time THEY COULD NOT QUANTIFY, which is why they use the word which literally says "WITHOUT TIME".  They could not provide a time!
> 
> The Greek language can use the same words with different meanings and uses.  This is one of them.  The correct, and MUCH MORE COMMON USE in the NT and the writings of the earliest Christians is that hell is eternal, without time, everlasting.


A time not being quantifiable or indefinite does not make it absent of time.

My point still stands about the redundancy of the phrase "forever and ever".  You can use the early church saints if you want, but only insofar as they refer to Scripture.

----------


## Working Poor

I believe we will all walk thru the fire one day.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would say the same thing to Dr. Farrar!  That the adjective is applied to some things which are "of an age" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant "of an age," and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd.
> 
> In fact, the word LITERALLY means: WITHOUT TIME!  Who is being absurd now!?!


It does not mean "without time".  It means an indefinite period of time, but that does not mean it literally has no end.  Most NT passages that use it clearly refer to a period of time that has both and end and a beginning, as I have shown.

Besides, how does "without time" comport with the idea of a time without end?  Those are not the same things.

One example from the many examples I gave above:




> Matthew 13:39-40 
> 39 The enemy that sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the world (aion); and the reapers are the angels. 40 As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the *end* of this world (aion).


This use of aion clearly had an end.

----------


## TER

> A time not being quantifiable or indefinite does not make it absent of time.
> 
> My point still stands about the redundancy of the phrase "forever and ever".  You can use the early church saints if you want, but only insofar as they refer to Scripture.


I see there is no teaching you.  Very well, believe as you wish.  Good night and may God bless you!  

Tomorrow, let's discuss what St.Paul wrote to St. Timothy, which the Church put into the  Bible  Canon.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I see there is no teaching you.  Very well, believe as you wish.  Good night and may God bless you!  
> 
> Tomorrow, let's discuss what St.Paul wrote to St. Timothy, which the Church put into the  Bible  Canon.


Take comfort in knowing that you will not suffer in eternal hell fire for not accepting my (clearly correct) interpretation.

----------


## TER

> It does not mean "without time".  It means an indefinite period of time, but that does not mean it literally has no end.  Most NT passages that use it clearly refer to a period of time that has both and end and a beginning, as I have shown.


The Greek roots of the word is literally _without time_, an-eonios, like a-pathy, an-archy, and a-theos (atheist).

The ancient Greeks used it in their philosophical writings extensively, regarding God or Truth as being outside of time, aeonios.  With regards to the torment of hell being 'without time', that is the same understanding and use of the term, referring to a condition apart from time, outside of the limits of time, eternal before the presence of the eternal living God.  

When the Logos of God used it, when St. Paul used, and when every Christian writers for the first centuries used it, it was understood to mean exactly that. And the witness of the Church has given the Amen, and that is why today we consider these holy men as saints to emulate, for proclaiming the faith of the fathers before them!

As long as our sins remain in the Book of Life, they are eternal and outside of time.  We pray for God to forget our sins.  

They are remembered by our Father, unless we repent, then they can be erased from the memory of Heaven.  If the sin remains in God's memory, than with His existence.  And if in God's existence, then for eternity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I would say the same thing to Dr. Farrar!  That the adjective is applied to some things which are "of an age" does not, of course, for one moment prove that the word itself meant "of an age," and to introduce this rendering into many passages would be utterly impossible and absurd.
> 
> In fact, the word LITERALLY means: WITHOUT TIME!  Who is being absurd now!?!


You don't even have any sources and yet you want to tell Dr. Farrar how the term should be used.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The Greek roots of the word is literally _without time_, an-eonios, like a-pathy and a-theos (atheist).
> 
> The ancient Greeks used it in their philosophical writings extensively, regarding God or Truth as being outside of time, aeonios.  With regards to the torment of hell being 'without time', that is the same understanding of the term, referring apart from time, eternal in the presence of the eternal living God.  
> 
> When the Logos of God used it, when St. Paul used, and when every Christian writers for the first centuries used it, it was understood to mean exactly that. And the witness of the Church has given the Amen, and that is why today we consider these holy men as saints to emulate.  
> 
> As long as our sins remain in the Book of Life, they are eternal and outside of time.  Likewise, they are remembered by our Father, if we do not repent.  If in God's memory, than with in His existence.  And if in God's existence, then for eternity.


*An-aeonios is not the word that is used!*  Take off the prefix and aionios means "age-abiding" or aionion, which means "pertaining to an age."  Not to mention that there is a *PLURAL* for aion.  How can there be a plural if it means forever as you say?

I still don't understand how you think our sins being recorded in the book of life makes the sins themselves eternal just by virtue of that fact.  Our sins are only committed in the context of time and earthly existence, so it makes the most logical sense that our sins are NOT eternal, so you need to re-evaluate this claim before you accept the idea just based on it being recorded in the book of life.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

"There is also a plural Greek word for aion, which is aionas. If aion does not mean an age of time with a beginning and ending, but rather means eternity or an eternal time period then how can we have more than one eternal time period? Does that mean we had one eternal time period and then a second eternal time period?"

~Mark Sanguinetti

http://www.christian-universalism.in...words-pg4.html

----------


## TER

> *An-aeonios is not the word that is used!*  Take off the prefix and aionios means "age-abiding" or aionion, which means "pertaining to an age."


The word aionios means without time my friend.  I am sorry we can't come to an agreement.  We will continue to disagree. 




> I still don't understand how you think our sins being recorded in the book of life makes the sins themselves eternal just by virtue of that fact.  Our sins are only committed in the context of time and earthly existence, so it makes the most logical sense that our sins are NOT eternal, so you need to re-evaluate this claim before you accept the idea just based on it being recorded in the book of life.


Is the Kingdom of Heaven constrained by time?

----------


## TER

> "There is also a plural Greek word for aion, which is aionas. If aion does not mean an age of time with a beginning and ending, but rather means eternity or an eternal time period then how can we have more than one eternal time period? Does that mean we had one eternal time period and then a second eternal time period?"


I already explained it to you that Greek words, like English words, can have different meanings.  Whoever wrote the above obviously does not speak Greek.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The word aionios means without time my friend.  I am sorry we can't come to an agreement.  We will continue to disagree.


You were using the word an-aionios, not the root word itself.  You also still have to deal with the fact that 1) there is a plural of the term, 2) "Forever and ever" is a ridiculous phrase to use in Revelations and 3) You have no sources with which to criticize my sources.




> Is the Kingdom of Heaven constrained by time?


No.  But that doesn't mean our sins inherit that quality by virtue of being recorded.

----------


## TER

> *An-aeonios is not the word that is used!*


I know.  The word is aeonios which means a-eon, meaning, without time.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I already explained it to you that Greek words, like English words, can have different meanings.  Whoever wrote the above obviously does not speak Greek.


Do you?  And I know that Greek words can have different meanings.  My point is that I have sources who say it is used in such a way, and you're saying without any sources that they are wrong.  I gave the words in context of actual passages from the NT and you have yet to quote a single passage with its use.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I know.  The word is aeonios which means a-eon, meaning, without time.


No, the word is not A-eon, the word is "aionios".  The Greek did not use English letters, so the sounds used in the word "aion" clearly match up better with the sounds in the root word "eon" and not "a-eon."  The letters we use to form Greek words do not have the same meanings they would in English, so saying "aeonios" is just another way of pronouncing the "ae" sound and not literally a prefix "a-e".  It is also spelled "aionios" and some other variants.  

If you want to show how it means "without time", then quote a passage that uses "An-aeonios" with that prefix on it.

----------


## TER

> You were using the word an-aionios, not the root word itself.  You also still have to deal with the fact that 1) there is a plural of the term, 2) "Forever and ever" is a ridiculous phrase to use in Revelations and 3) You have no sources with which to criticize my sources.


I just saw my error!  I wrote an-eonios instead of a-eonios in a prior post!  Good catch.  I meant to say a-eonios.




> No.  But that doesn't mean our sins inherit that quality by virtue of being recorded.


So if the sin is remembered by God ,Who is aeonios, is the memory aeonios?

----------


## lilymc

> Don't you think it would be important to know what those different levels are?  Doesn't it say what the punishment for murder is as opposed to the punishment for a lesser crime?  You would think the Bible would mention this and not just make vague references to "different levels" of punishment.  People need to know what they are going to be judged for if the judgment is to be just.


I understand where you're coming from.  The way I see it is, we may not know everything now, and we may have some questions or doubts now.... but that's where faith and trust in God's character come in.    Eventually, we WILL see what we're not seeing now... and I get the feeling that at that time our reaction is going to be something like, "WOW.  I should've just trusted God all along, instead of wasting time needlessly worrying and doubting."    

The bible doesn't explain everything in detail.  There are also other topics that are implied, instead of fully explained. 

Obviously there are different views on what hell is.  Some people believe the flame terminology is literal... other people believe it's figurative, to describe the emotional pain that will come from knowing one made the wrong decision.    And as we can see on this thread, there are other views as well, and some reject it entirely.

I think it's clear that we are being saved from _something._   Otherwise the word salvation would be meaningless.   But as for what hell is exactly, I'm reserving judgement on that.  I do know a few things though... God can be trusted.  And being eternally separated from God would be the worst possible destiny.     

Thankfully, God made a way.       And I want to focus on reaching people for God, instead of dwelling on what hell is or isn't.

----------


## TER

> Do you?


Yes, Greek was my first language and I speak it fluently.




> And I know that Greek words can have different meanings.  My point is that I have sources who say it is used in such a way, and you're saying without any sources that they are wrong.  I gave the words in context of actual passages from the NT and you have yet to quote a single passage with its use.


I gave you a whole list of sources of the earliest known Christian writings which demonstrate your interpretation to be wrong.  Why should I believe your interpretation?

----------


## TER

> I understand where you're coming from.  The way I see it is, we may not know everything now, and we may have some questions or doubts now.... but that's where faith and trust in God's character come in.    Eventually, we WILL see what we're not seeing now... and I get the feeling that at that time our reaction is going to be something like, "WOW.  I should've just trusted God all along, instead of wasting time needlessly worrying and doubting."    
> 
> The bible doesn't explain everything in detail.  There are also other topics that are implied, instead of fully explained. 
> 
> Obviously there are different views on what hell is.  Some people believe the flame terminology is literal... other people believe it's figurative, to describe the emotional pain that will come from knowing one made the wrong decision.    And as we can see on this thread, there are other views as well, and some reject it entirely.
> 
> I think it's clear that we are being saved from _something._   Otherwise the word salvation would be meaningless.   But as for what hell is exactly, I'm reserving judgement on that.  I do know a few things though... God can be trusted.  And being eternally separated from God would be the worst possible destiny.     
> 
> Thankfully, God made a way.       And I want to focus on reaching people for God, instead of dwelling on what hell is or isn't.


+ rep 

Best post on the thread that I can tell!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I just saw my error!  I wrote an-eonios instead of a-eonios in a prior post!  Good catch.  I meant to say a-eonios.


Okay, but you are still mistaken in that you think the letter "a" is meant as a prefix.  The Greek did not use English letters so "ae" is just used to make a sound close to how they would have said it.  The English prefix has no meaning here.




> So if the sin is remembered by God ,Who is aeonios, is the memory aeonios?


Perhaps, but what does that prove?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I understand where you're coming from.  The way I see it is, we may not know everything now, and we may have some questions or doubts now.... but that's where faith and trust in God's character come in.    Eventually, we WILL see what we're not seeing now... and I get the feeling that at that time our reaction is going to be something like, "WOW.  I should've just trusted God all along, instead of wasting time needlessly worrying and doubting."    
> 
> The bible doesn't explain everything in detail.  There are also other topics that are implied, instead of fully explained. 
> 
> Obviously there are different views on what hell is.  Some people believe the flame terminology is literal... other people believe it's figurative, to describe the emotional pain that will come from knowing one made the wrong decision.    And as we can see on this thread, there are other views as well, and some reject it entirely.
> 
> I think it's clear that we are being saved from _something._   Otherwise the word salvation would be meaningless.   But as for what hell is exactly, I'm reserving judgement on that.  I do know a few things though... God can be trusted.  And being eternally separated from God would be the worst possible destiny.     
> 
> Thankfully, God made a way.       And I want to focus on reaching people for God, instead of dwelling on what hell is or isn't.


God was kind enough to let us know specifically what the sins were, so I refuse to believe He would not let us know what the punishments for those sins were.  That would not be just to judge us by what we didn't know.

And by the way, I believe you're right that we do not see everything now, but the consequences for our sins should not be one of those things.

We may not need to know the exact time and nature of our resurrection, but that's because it doesn't really affect us.  We will each be cleansed in the spiritual lake of fire so that we repent and sin is finally erased, not immortalized through eternal Hell.

I also think the doctrine of eternal Hell has a real effect on our ability to reach people.  Many people would see the inconsistency of a loving God that would torture people for eternity, and they would be right to question if anyone was even capable of loving such a God, or if such a God could truly be loving.

----------


## TER

> Okay, but you are still mistaken in that you think the letter "a" is meant as a prefix.  The Greek did not use English letters so "ae" is just used to make a sound close to how they would have said it.  The English prefix has no meaning here.


Of course the Greeks used the ''a" as a prefix.  It means without or apart from.  The English prefix comes from the Greek use, silly!




> Perhaps, but what does that prove?


It is the memory of our sin which will judge us, and if the memory remains with God Who is aeonios, then so too the judgment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, Greek was my first language and I speak it fluently.


Ok, I know Greek was not your first language, so I'm going to take that as sarcasm.  




> I gave you a whole list of sources of the earliest known Christian writings which demonstrate your interpretation to be wrong.  Why should I believe your interpretation?


You gave me the equivalent of a dictionary citation without any reference to how the word should be used.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Of course the Greeks used the ''a" as a prefix.  It means without or apart from.  The English prefix comes from the Greek use, silly!


Examples from Scripture?  Sources?  How do you know?




> It is the memory of our sin which will judge us, and if the memory remains with God Who is aeonios, then so too the judgment.


I remain unconvinced.  The fact that God, being eternal, records our sins does not mean the punishments for those sins are anything other than temporal punishments.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

From the same link:



> Or we had two eternal time periods occurring at the same time? Obviously, when taken literally and not figuratvely this makes no sense and is not true. *An aion would have to be a time period with an ending before the next aion time period could begin. This is the only way we could have two time periods or aionas, the plural of aion.* In addition, this word aionas for multiple time periods could also be taken as figurative and not literal and we see figurative language used many times in the bible. However, for an understanding of this word or concept then, the context of how the word is used might have to be looked at in large depth. *Below are two usages of this Greek word, which is actually translated ages even in the New King James Version and King James Version of the bible. The usage in 1 Corinthians 10:11 shows an end to the ages.* As we will see later in our study and we saw in 1 Corinthians chapter 15, the age or ages that will end in the future is where the affairs of this world today has sin and death and Satan, the god of this world has rulership and authority. In the future ages Jesus Christ will only have rulership and authority and when his goal is finally reached of all under him he will turn back this authority to God his Father. Also the usage of ages in Colossians 1:26 shows at least a change in the ages with the mystery, which is the one body of Christ, hid during ages past, but now made known or manifest.
> 
> 1 Corinthians 10:11 
> 11 Now all these things happened to them as examples, and they were written for our admonition, on whom the ends of the ages (aionas) have come.
> NKJV 
> 
> Colossians 1:26
> 26 Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages (aionas) and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints:
> KJV


Do you still say that the 'a' is a prefix even when it's used in the plural?  Does aionas mean "Without multiple times" or "multiple without times"?

You still have yet to quote any Scripture for context.

----------


## lilymc

> God was kind enough to let us know specifically what the sins were, so I refuse to believe He would not let us know what the punishments for those sins were.  That would not be just to judge us by what we didn't know.
> 
> And by the way, I believe you're right that we do not see everything now, but the consequences for our sins should not be one of those things.
> 
> We may not need to know the exact time and nature of our resurrection, but that's because it doesn't really affect us.  We will each be cleansed in the spiritual lake of fire so that we repent and sin is finally erased, not immortalized through eternal Hell.


But we do know what the consequence is.  The concept of spiritual death is taught in numerous scriptures.  Anyone who wants to know the truth can study the scriptures and learn.     The thing that we have been talking about here is the varying degrees of punishment, and what that means exactly.

Why do you think God owes you every detail?  Like I said before, there are a number of topics that aren't spelled out in detail.




> I also think the doctrine of eternal Hell has a real effect on our ability to reach people.  Many people would see the inconsistency of a loving God that would torture people for eternity, and they would be right to question if anyone was even capable of loving such a God, or if such a God could truly be loving.


I don't believe that God "tortures" anyone, which implies that God is a monster.  

Again, you're making a lot of assumptions.  And since we don't have all the answers right now, but since we DO know (or should know) that God can be trusted no matter what, why not simply reserve judgement? 

I have found time and time again, that when we have major misunderstandings about the bible, it's always worth it to reserve judgement and trust that we WILL eventually understand.... (and that has happened for me, with a few different topics)  instead of throwing things out entirely because we don't like it or understand it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> But we do know what the consequence is.  The concept of spiritual death is taught in numerous scriptures.  Anyone who wants to know the truth can study the scriptures and learn.     The thing that we have been talking about here is the varying degrees of punishment, and what that means exactly.


We will be judged according to our actions, but if this eternal Hell fire is somehow different for some than it is for others, I simply fail to see how you get that from Scripture.  The logical conclusion is that your view is not based on Scripture but what you're reading into it.  If I am in Hell for murder (among other things), then is my torment somehow hotter or what?  How can you trust in the existence of multiple levels of punishment in Hell fire when the concept of Hell carries with it no such implications or distinctions between these supposed levels?




> Why do you think God owes you every detail?  Like I said before, there are a number of topics that aren't spelled out in detail.


It doesn't have to be particularly detailed, but I would think, if we were to believe in a Hell with multiple variations of torture, that such a distinction would be made somewhere in Scripture and yet we don't find anything like that anywhere in Scripture.  All we find is this monolithic concept of eternal torment.  It makes a lot more sense to question whether this concept is really just than to say without any evidence that Hell has multiple forms of eternal punishment since the word itself has no such connotation and it is never described in such a way.




> I don't believe that God "tortures" anyone, which implies that God is a monster.


Exactly!  This is exactly what the doctrine of eternal torment implies!




> Again, you're making a lot of assumptions.  And since we don't have all the answers right now, but since we DO know (or should know) that God can be trusted no matter what, why not simply reserve judgement?


*I'm* making a lot of assumptions?  How about the people who accept this doctrine and somehow believe in just punishment even though they can't explain how eternal torment is just in the first place, nor can they point to a Scriptural indication of how one eternal justice would be different from another eternal justice.  There is no indication of this in Scripture and yet you just assume that Hell carries with it the connotation of different punishments for different sins when the Bible is strikingly silent on the matter of Hell in general, not to mention the different kinds of Hell.  

Of course, this all makes sense when you realize Hell is just a made-up English word with no Greek or Hebrew equivalents.




> I have found time and time again, that when we have major misunderstandings about the bible, it's always worth it to reserve judgement and trust that we WILL eventually understand.... (and that has happened for me, with a few different topics)  instead of throwing things out entirely because we don't like it or understand it.


I think the false doctrine of eternal Hell is worth trying to sort out.  After all, it affects our ability to evangelize if the people we come into contact with see an inconsistency and we have no answer.  

Besides, I feel much more empowered in my faith if I'm not constantly being held under the threat of eternal torment and not constantly wondering whether my friends and family and everyone I meet will meet that horrible fate.  I like knowing the truth because it's a lot less scary than we have traditionally made it out to be.

To me, teaching that the vast majority of people will go to Hell simply for not believing a specific doctrine is absurd.  Did John 3:16 not make it clear?  All you have to do is believe and have faith and the rest is just icing on the cake.  I don't believe anyone here is going to hell for their lack of strict alignment with a text that is sometimes a bit faulty.  My view makes much more sense in that not everyone is expected to know the exact meaning of the text, although the truth is out there for those who search for it, and the elite few who do will be rewarded in the First Resurrection as opposed to the Second one (some have even postulated that there could be a third).  It's a much more wholesome message than "believe or else!"

----------


## lilymc

> We will be judged according to our actions, but if this eternal Hell fire is somehow different for some than it is for others, I simply fail to see how you get that from Scripture.  The logical conclusion is that your view is not based on Scripture but what you're reading into it.  If I am in Hell for murder (among other things), then is my torment somehow hotter or what?  How can you trust in the existence of multiple levels of punishment in Hell fire when the concept of Hell carries with it no such implications or distinctions between these supposed levels?
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't have to be particularly detailed, but I would think, if we were to believe in a Hell with multiple variations of torture, that such a distinction would be made somewhere in Scripture and yet we don't find anything like that anywhere in Scripture.  All we find is this monolithic concept of eternal torment.  It makes a lot more sense to question whether this concept is really just than to say without any evidence that Hell has multiple forms of eternal punishment since the word itself has no such connotation and it is never described in such a way.
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly!  This is exactly what the doctrine of eternal torment implies!
> ...


It's hard to have this conversation with you because you're starting off with all sorts of assumptions, and then knocking over those assumptions.  As I said a few times already, why not just realize we don't know or understand everything right now?    

You should read the book 'The Case for Faith.'    It has been a while since I read that book, but I remember there was a chapter on hell that went over all of these questions and objections.




> Besides, I feel much more empowered in my faith if I'm not constantly being held under the threat of eternal torment and not constantly wondering whether my friends and family and everyone I meet will meet that horrible fate.  I like knowing the truth because it's a lot less scary than we have traditionally made it out to be.


Ok, what you just said is VERY telling.  If you were worried about being "constantly held under the threat of eternal torment" then that shows you have not understood grace or truly believed that you're under grace.    There is NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.  

Peace shouldn't come from throwing out parts of the bible that are difficult.  Peace comes from believing and knowing who you belong to, and having that assurance that you are saved, and NOTHING can separate you from God's love.

Do you mind if I ask what your religious background is?  What denomination did you grow up in?

----------


## lilymc

> To me, teaching that the vast majority of people will go to Hell simply for not believing a specific doctrine is absurd.  Did John 3:16 not make it clear?  All you have to do is believe and have faith and the rest is just icing on the cake.  I don't believe anyone here is going to hell for their lack of strict alignment with a text that is sometimes a bit faulty.  My view makes much more sense in that not everyone is expected to know the exact meaning of the text, although the truth is out there for those who search for it, and the elite few who do will be rewarded in the First Resurrection as opposed to the Second one (some have even postulated that there could be a third).  It's a much more wholesome message than "believe or else!"


Who said people will go to hell for that?       Who said that salvation was about more than belief and faith?  I know there are people on this site who believe you have to jump through hoops to be saved but I'm not one of them.

I don't know if you remember, but we had a HUGE, months-long debate on salvation last year...  I was so sickened at some of the unbiblical views, that I actually made a whole video in response to that topic.

Here it is, if you want to watch it:

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It's hard to have this conversation with you because you're starting off with all sorts of assumptions, and then knocking over those assumptions.  As I said a few times already, why not just realize we don't know or understand everything right now?


Because I don't believe that we are incapable of knowing these things.  I am comfortable with not knowing certain things, but this is important.  If you say something like "Hell is different for different people" and then you can't back that up with Scripture, I'm likely to believe that that's because Scripture doesn't actually teach that.




> You should read the book 'The Case for Faith.'    It has been a while since I read that book, but I remember there was a chapter on hell that went over all of these questions and objections.


Thanks.  Maybe I'll check it out, but I think I've made a pretty compelling case here.  I have some books I could suggest if anyone wants them.




> Ok, what you just said is VERY telling.  If you were worried about being "constantly held under the threat of eternal torment" then that shows you have not understood grace or truly believed that you're under grace.    There is NO condemnation for those who are in Christ Jesus.


I didn't say that.  I meant "constantly" as in, if I ever gave up my faith.  That's the threat.  Kind of like the tax man isn't literally holding a gun to your head when he comes to collect your taxes, but he might if you change your mind about paying.




> Peace shouldn't come from throwing out parts of the bible that are difficult.  Peace comes from believing and knowing who you belong to, and having that assurance that you are saved, and NOTHING can separate you from God's love.


I'm not throwing out parts that are difficult.  I'm throwing out parts that are obviously incosistent with God's nature.  If they're wrong, we shouldn't keep them.  This is the difference between those in the First Resurrection and those in the Second.  The over-comers are the ones who will be in the First, having searched out the truth and not simply been satisfied with being wrong for the sake of a "safe" option.  Why do you insist on clinging to a doctrine just out of sheer fear of change?  What are you afraid of?  Do you think God is going to throw you in hell for not believing in hell?




> Do you mind if I ask what your religious background is?  What denomination did you grow up in?


It's hard to say.  My family didn't go to church a lot, although we did some.  None of us really identify with a specific faith and would probably lean toward calling ourselves non-denominational.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Who said people will go to hell for that?       Who said that salvation was about more than belief and faith?  I know there are people on this site who believe you have to jump through hoops to be saved but I'm not one of them.


Sola_Fide, for one, said those things explicitly.  Not sure about the others in this thread.  Just thought I would mention that you don't have to have a really specific understanding of the entire text in order to know what's expected of you, but I do believe the points I'm making are very important points because they change the whole outlook.




> I don't know if you remember, but we had a HUGE, months-long debate on salvation last year...  I was so sickened at some of the unbiblical views, that I actually made a whole video in response to that topic.
> 
> Here it is, if you want to watch it:


I wasn't really hanging around the religion sub-forum much last year.  Nice video, though!

----------


## lilymc

> I didn't say that.  I meant "constantly" as in, if I ever gave up my faith.  That's the threat.  Kind of like the tax man isn't literally holding a gun to your head when he comes to collect your taxes, but he might if you change your mind about paying.


Ok. Well, I think the problem was that you were reacting to a false doctrine.  (Not hell, but the idea that salvation can be lost).   That was the exact topic that we were debating here, for months.    

As a matter of fact, your reaction to it (fear that if one loses their faith, they will go to hell) is an example of the bad "fruit" of that false doctrine.   Obviously God doesn't want us to to worry and have a heavy dark cloud of doubt and fear hanging over our heads.  

That's why I made that video... because the idea that salvation can be lost almost always stems from a works-based view of salvation.





> I'm not throwing out parts that are difficult.  I'm throwing out parts that are obviously incosistent with God's nature.  If they're wrong, we shouldn't keep them.  This is the difference between those in the First Resurrection and those in the Second.  The over-comers are the ones who will be in the First, having searched out the truth and not simply been satisfied with being wrong for the sake of a "safe" option.  Why do you insist on clinging to a doctrine just out of sheer fear of change?  What are you afraid of?  Do you think God is going to throw you in hell for not believing in hell?


I'm not clinging to anything.  I told you already, I have reserved judgment on the specifics of hell.    I believe it is eternal separation from God, but apart from that, I have a "wait and trust" attitude about it.





> It's hard to say.  My family didn't go to church a lot, although we did some.  None of us really identify with a specific faith and would probably lean toward calling ourselves non-denominational.


Oh, ok.   My family was also not religious (Atheist father and Catholic mother). And unfortunately, I wasn't taught the truth on a lot of things growing up. 






> I wasn't really hanging around the religion sub-forum much last year.  Nice video, though!


Thanks!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Ok. Well, I think the problem was that you were reacting to a false doctrine.  (Not hell, but the idea that salvation can be lost).   That was the exact topic that we were debating here, for months.


True, and I don't actually believe in that myself, anyway.  The doctrine of Hell, at at its deepest level, is a gun to your head or to the head of the unbeliever.  




> As a matter of fact, your reaction to it (fear that if one loses their faith, they will go to hell) is an example of the bad "fruit" of that false doctrine.   Obviously God doesn't want us to to worry and have a heavy dark cloud of doubt and fear hanging over our heads.


I agree. 




> That's why I made that video... because the idea that salvation can be lost almost always stems from a works-based view of salvation.


Fine, but I'm just talking about the unbeliever in general.  Whatever your view of works-based salvation, Hell is like a threat to those who are not saved.  




> I'm not clinging to anything.  I told you already, I have reserved judgment on the specifics of hell.    I believe it is eternal separation from God, but apart from that, I have a "wait and trust" attitude about it.


That's fine.  I just don't understand why because I believe this is something worth thinking about.




> Oh, ok.   My family was also not religious (Atheist father and Catholic mother). And unfortunately, I wasn't taught the truth on a lot of things growing up.


And look at you now!




> Thanks!


You're welcome.

----------


## Brett85

@lilymc-Do you have any interest in responding to my argument that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be thrown in the lake of fire and be annihilated, rather than tormented for all eternity?  I'm interested in having an actual debate over the issue, rather than talking to someone like Sola who does nothing but use straw man arguments and make false claims that I believe the punishment for the unsaved ends.

----------


## TER

> Ok, I know Greek was not your first language, so I'm going to take that as sarcasm.


Greek was indeed my first language (my parents immigrated here in their early 20s and met in America.  I am a first generation American, and Greek was the language spoken in my house growing up.)  Greek is also the first language of my children and my wife doesn't allow them to watch any television unless it is in Greek!

But anyways, I just wanted to thank you and Brett for the interesting debate last night.  I am sorry I left abruptly (me and my wife got into a deep discussion and then we both passed out in bed!)

I can see that neither of us are willing to change our minds with regards to this topic, so I will let it go and move on to other things.  May you have a wonderful day and week ahead!

----------


## jmdrake

> It's a very popular view isn't it, everybody?


Naw.  The popular view is the "boogity boogity" view of "God's going to get you" just like "ISIS is going to get you" or "Al Qaeda is going to get you."  Fear is popular...at least to the people pushing it.




> But what if God's justice is not understood by you because you are a sinner and don't understand the holiness of God?


What if Sodom isn't burning forever (and it isn't) but the Bible seems to say that it is?  What if your own understanding is wrong because...well it just is?




> Think about it.


Think about the fact that you didn't actually address any of the Biblical points brought up in the video and sunk back into "I'm write because I just am" mode?  What is there to think about?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> @lilymc-Do you have any interest in responding to my argument that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be thrown in the lake of fire and be annihilated, rather than tormented for all eternity?  I'm interested in having an actual debate over the issue, rather than talking to someone like Sola who does nothing but use straw man arguments and make false claims that I believe the punishment for the unsaved ends.


You *are* saying the punishment for the one who ceased has ended.  How can their punishment continue if that one doesn't exist?

And of course this is blasphemous.   Only CHRIST can satisfy the wrath of God against a person, not anyone or anything else, including their cessation.

----------


## jmdrake

> You *are* saying the punishment for the one who ceased has ended.  How can their punishment continue if that one doesn't exist?


Is Sodom still physically burning?




> And of course this is blasphemous.   Only CHRIST can satisfy the wrath of God against a person, not anyone or anything else, including their cessation.


Right.  When you can't when an argument through the Bible or through logic rely on scare tactics and emotion and call the other side "blaphemous."  You'd make a very good pope.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Is Sodom still physically burning?
> 
> 
> 
> Right.  When you can't when an argument through the Bible or through logic rely on scare tactics and emotion and call the other side "blaphemous."  You'd make a very good pope.


To say that anyone or anything can satisfy (end) the wrath of God other than Christ is blasphemous.   This is why annihilationists are not Christians and dont love Jesus.

----------


## jmdrake

> Just to play devil's advocate here... God promises that the gates of Hell will never prevail against his church.  Now, that doesn't mean no churches (small c) will go apostate.  But if there was ever a time where there were no true Christians on the earth, it would seem that Satan had indeed overcome the church.
> 
> Where were the true Christians between John the Apostle and John Calvin?
> 
> One argument I've received is that the Catholic Church kept careful records of heresies during the first fifteen centuries of its existance, but there was no "Protestant" heresy before Martin Luther.  Why do you think that is?


Where do you get the false idea that Martin Luther was the first Protestant?

----------


## jmdrake

> To say that anyone or anything can satisfy (end) the wrath of God other than Christ is blasphemous.   This is why annihilationists are not Christians and dont love Jesus.


Whenever someone goes around calling others non Christians based on nothing but their own shouting, as you do all of that time, that proves that the person (you in this case) is actually an agent of Satan.  You argument is made without Bible and full of emotion.  Come with the Bible or don't come at all.

Edit: And I noticed that you still don't want to address the Biblical point that Sodom isn't still physically burning.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Whenever someone goes around calling others non Christians based on nothing but their own shouting, as you do all of that time, that proves that the person (you in this case) is actually an agent of Satan.  You argument is made without Bible and full of emotion.  Come with the Bible or don't come at all.
> 
> Edit: And I noticed that you still don't want to address the Biblical point that Sodom isn't still physically burning.


Sodom and Gomorrah burning has nothing to do with my argument.   You can't answer my charge of blasphemy because...well, you just can't.   You don't believe that Jesus alone satisfies the wrath of God, therefore it's not a Christian viewpoint.

Furthermore,  it would be rather difficult for an "agent of Satan" to believe in Christ alone in all things.  I do believe in Christ alone in all things, you dont.

----------


## acptulsa

> To say that anyone or anything can satisfy (end) the wrath of God other than Christ is blasphemous.   This is why annihilationists are not Christians and dont love Jesus.


But if Jesus is reigning on the Day of Judgment, then it's Jesus who either annihilates or sends to eternal torment those toward whom God's wrath is directed.  So, how would it be 'someone or something other than Christ', and if it isn't, then how does God's wrath not get sated by that annihilation?

You get so hung up on these 'logical links' that pretend to knit your dogma together, but the majority of them aren't logical, aren't links, and knit nothing together at all.




> Furthermore,  it would be rather difficult for an "agent of Satan" to believe in Christ alone in all things.  I do believe in Christ alone in all things, you dont.


An agent of Satan will say anything *at all* provided it serves his evil ends.  And as far as I'm concerned, your opinion about what Mr. Drake believes and seven dollars will buy a five dollar cup of froufrou coffee.  The extra two bucks, by the way, is a tip for making the barista listen to the tripe.

----------


## TER

> Where do you get the false idea that Martin Luther was the first Protestant?


I think that might be nitpicking, although most historians would consider Luther as the founder of Protestantism. 

The greater question he is asking, which has yet to be answered, is where are these "Biblical Christians" which Sola claims but doesn't want to name?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But if Jesus is reigning on the Day of Judgment, then it's Jesus who either annihilates or sends to eternal torment those toward whom God's wrath is directed.  So, how would it be 'someone or something other than Christ', and if it isn't, then how does God's wrath not get sated by that annihilation?
> 
> You get so hung up on these 'logical links' that pretend to knit your dogma together, but the majority of them aren't logical, aren't links, and knit nothing together at all.


Because in the cessation of existence, God no longer has wrath against that person.  How could He? The person no longer exists.

Christians believe only Jesus can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against a person.   When Jesus said "it is finished", He meant it.  And He was the only one who could say that.

----------


## acptulsa

> Because in the cessation of existence, God no longer has wrath against that person.  How could He? The person no longer exists.
> 
> Christians believe only Jesus can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against a person.   When Jesus said "it is finished", He meant it.  And He was the only one who could say that.


Now you've done your Gregorian Chant and repeated your totally illogical dogma.  Well, I guess you had to do that or you'd explode.  Now.  Answer the question, Mr. God Made My Brain in His Image.  If you can.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sodom and Gomorrah burning has nothing to do with my argument.   You can't answer my charge of blasphemy because...well, you just can't.   You don't believe that Jesus alone satisfies the wrath of God, therefore it's not a Christian viewpoint.


You argument was made without a single biblical reference so as far as I'm concerned it doesn't exist.  You claim to be sola scriptura but you are really sola your own arrogant and ignorant self.  Nowhere in the Bible does it say anything about hell being tied to satisfying God's wrath nor does it say that people must burn forever in order to satisfy God's wrath.  The Bible does teach that the wages of sin is death.  You are perpetuating Satan's first lie by claiming that sinners never die.




> Furthermore,  it would be rather difficult for an "agent of Satan" to believe in Christ alone in all things.  I do believe in Christ alone in all things, you dont.


You don't believe in Christ.  You believe in yourself.  You make arguments based on your own reasoning and without using any Bible to back it up.  That is what Satan does.

Edit: And here is why you don't want to address the point about Sodom burning.  That's because that's a Biblical point and you don't really believe the Bible.  If you tried to actually use the Bible to back up your argument you would fail and you know that.  So you make post after post that contains not a single Bible verse, and say others are "blaspheming" for disagreeing with you, and in the process you put yourself in the place of God.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Because in the cessation of existence, God no longer has wrath against that person.  How could He? The person no longer exists.
> 
> Christians believe only Jesus can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against a person.   When Jesus said "it is finished", He meant it.  And He was the only one who could say that.


Sola, 

Why did Jesus lose faith on the cross?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Now you've done your Gregorian Chant and repeated your totally illogical dogma.  Well, I guess you had to do that or you'd explode.  Now.  Answer the question.  If you can.


To be honest, I don't even think you understood what I said.  You've probably never even heard the argument before.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, 
> 
> Why did Jesus lose faith on the cross?


Source?

----------


## jmdrake

> Now you've done your Gregorian Chant and repeated your totally illogical dogma.


LOL Sad but true.

----------


## jmdrake

> Source?


I can't believe you are asking for a source when you give none for your crap.

----------


## acptulsa

> To be honest, I don't even think you understood what I said.  You've probably never even heard the argument before.


You deduced that from the fact that you ducked my question and I called you on it?  I was brainwashed with more tripe than you will ever know.  But, bless Him, God gave me the ability to reason that tripe right into the garbage pail where it belongs.  And as you should have learned by now, repetition will never replant that tripe in my head.

Answer the question.  If Jesus annihilates, then how could that not possibly be God sating His vengeance through Jesus?  How is that impossible?




> Source?


The _Bible,_  S_F.  The _Bible._  Try reading it some time.




> And about the ninth houre, Iesus cried with a loud voyce, saying, Eli, Eli, Lamasabachthani, that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?

----------


## TER

> Sola, 
> 
> Why did Jesus lose faith on the cross?


Christ didn't lose faith on the cross.  That is something I also believed and interpreted in reading the Bible on my own,  but after reading the writings of the Church Fathers and the historical practices of the Jews at the time, Christ was referencing the Psalm which prophecized His crucifixion.  It was standard practice at that time to say the first line of a Psalm to refer to it.  If you read the Psalm in it's entirety, it is not about losing faith.  It is about God NOT forsaking Him or mankind and about having complete trust in God!

----------


## wizardwatson

> Source?





> Matthew 27:46 And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, *why hast thou forsaken me*?


WW

----------


## TER

*Psalm 22*

My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?
Why are You so far from helping Me,
And from the words of My groaning?
2 O My God, I cry in the daytime, but You do not hear;
And in the night season, and am not silent.

3 But You are holy,
Enthroned in the praises of Israel.
4 Our fathers trusted in You;
They trusted, and You delivered them.
5 They cried to You, and were delivered;
They trusted in You, and were not ashamed.

6 But I am a worm, and no man;
A reproach of men, and despised by the people.
7 All those who see Me ridicule Me;
They shoot out the lip, they shake the head, saying,
8 He trusted[b] in the Lord, let Him rescue Him;
Let Him deliver Him, since He delights in Him!

9 But You are He who took Me out of the womb;
You made Me trust while on My mothers breasts.
10 I was cast upon You from birth.
From My mothers womb
You have been My God.
11 Be not far from Me,
For trouble is near;
For there is none to help.

12 Many bulls have surrounded Me;
Strong bulls of Bashan have encircled Me.
13 They gape at Me with their mouths,
Like a raging and roaring lion.

14 I am poured out like water,
And all My bones are out of joint;
My heart is like wax;
It has melted within Me.
15 My strength is dried up like a potsherd,
And My tongue clings to My jaws;
You have brought Me to the dust of death.

16 For dogs have surrounded Me;
The congregation of the wicked has enclosed Me.
They pierced[c] My hands and My feet;
17 I can count all My bones.
They look and stare at Me.
18 They divide My garments among them,
And for My clothing they cast lots.

19 But You, O Lord, do not be far from Me;
O My Strength, hasten to help Me!
20 Deliver Me from the sword,
My precious life from the power of the dog.
21 Save Me from the lions mouth
And from the horns of the wild oxen!

*You have answered Me.

22 I will declare Your name to My brethren;
In the midst of the assembly I will praise You.*
23 *You who fear the Lord, praise Him!
All you descendants of Jacob, glorify Him,
And fear Him, all you offspring of Israel!
24 For He has not despised nor abhorred the affliction of the afflicted;
Nor has He hidden His face from Him;
But when He cried to Him, He heard.

25 My praise shall be of You in the great assembly;
I will pay My vows before those who fear Him.
26 The poor shall eat and be satisfied;
Those who seek Him will praise the Lord.
Let your heart live forever!

27 All the ends of the world
Shall remember and turn to the Lord,
And all the families of the nations
Shall worship before You.[d]
28 For the kingdom is the Lords,
And He rules over the nations.

29 All the prosperous of the earth
Shall eat and worship;
All those who go down to the dust
Shall bow before Him,
Even he who cannot keep himself alive.

30 A posterity shall serve Him.
It will be recounted of the Lord to the next generation,
31 They will come and declare His righteousness to a people who will be born,
That He has done this.*

----------


## jllundqu

God is love.... except when he sees fit to smite the first born of an entire city or condemn you to eternal flame-torture for exercising free will.

Christianity is too funny sometimes.  So many inconsitencies that get either shrugged off or rationalized cuz "it's GOD, duh!"

----------


## Brett85

> Because in the cessation of existence, God no longer has wrath against that person.  How could He? The person no longer exists.


It's because God still has wrath against that person that that person no longer exists and will never again exist.

----------


## TER

> God is love.... except when he sees fit to smite the first born of an entire city or condemn you to eternal flame-torture for exercising free will.
> 
> Christianity is too funny sometimes.  So many inconsitencies that get either shrugged off or rationalized cuz "it's GOD, duh!"


People are condemned to eternal torture because they willfully reject the love of God and life which comes from God.  It will be the same love which be to one as Paradise which to another will be as a hell.  Blaming one's state of judgement on God after the record of their sins are exposed will be a fruitless exercise.  Their own sins will accuse them and be their judgment on that day.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Christ didn't lose faith on the cross.  That is something I also believed and interpreted in reading the Bible on my own,  but after reading the writings of the Church Fathers and the historical practices of the Jews at the time, Christ was referencing the Psalm which prophecized His crucifixion.  It was standard practice at that time to say the first line of a Psalm to refer to it.  If you read the Psalm in it's entirety, it is not about losing faith.  It is about overcoming doubt and having complete trust in God!


So he was quoting scripture to fulfill a prophecy?  The act may have fulfilled prophecy but "fulfilling prophecy" is not the act itself.  To me, saying that "he didn't really lose faith" in this scenario is like saying, "Oh, he didn't really ride into town on an ass, that was just fulfilling prophecy."  

He DID lose faith.  He was abandoned.  Deep in affliction.

I don't understand this persistent attempt by so many to deny that Jesus was just as normal a guy as any one of you.  The magic powers thing isn't really a big deal.  You could have magic powers to if God wanted you to have them for some reason.  Losing faith at the moment of his triumph was part of the journey.  

Anyway, my point to Sola_Fide was that even Jesus with all his knowledge, power, position...with all the "logical connections" he had to confirm that he was who he was, his faith was still crushed under affliction.  

I'm not sure how this relates.  I lost my original thought whilst writing.

----------


## TER

> So he was quoting scripture to fulfill a prophecy?  The act may have fulfilled prophecy but "fulfilling prophecy" is not the act itself.  To me, saying that "he didn't really lose faith" in this scenario is like saying, "Oh, he didn't really ride into town on an ass, that was just fulfilling prophecy."


He referenced the Psalm, and any Jew in ear shot would have known exactly what Psalm He was referencing to, which does not speak about doubt, but rather the opposite, namely complete trust. 




> He DID lose faith.  He was abandoned.  Deep in affliction.


Yes, that is what I mistakenly thought until I learned the truth by studying the writings of the Church Fathers and the historical practice of the Jews at that time.




> I don't understand this persistent attempt by so many to deny that Jesus was just as normal a guy as any one of you.  The magic powers thing isn't really a big deal.  You could have magic powers to if God wanted you to have them for some reason.  Losing faith at the moment of his triumph was part of the journey.


The 21 Christian martyrs who were killed, they didn't lose faith.  They refused to convert to Islam or deny Christ, yet you believe that Christ, the living Word of God, would lose faith?  Were these Egyptian martyrs more couragous and faithful than Christ?  

Your are making a common mistake in saying Jesus was some 'regular guy' and in saying that He lost His faith on the cross.  




> Anyway, my point to Sola_Fide was that even Jesus with all his knowledge, power, position...with all the "logical connections" he had to confirm that he was who he was, his faith was still crushed under affliction.  
> 
> I'm not sure how this relates.  I lost my original thought whilst writing.


Again, no, Christ's faith was not crushed under affliction, just as it wasn't for those 21 Egyptian martyrs.

----------


## acptulsa

People.  No wonder jllundqu laughs at Christians.  I don't blame him.

If Jesus was a regular guy, and did lose faith, is that enough to cause you to lose faith in Him, TER?  If Jesus were just a regular guy all along, would He have had the courage and strength to get that far, WW?  Does it matter?  Are we capable of understanding?  Does God even want us to?

If God is immortal, and Jesus is God, then how did Jesus die?  Answer me that one.  Did God not have to forsake that body, if only for a minute, in order for that body to die?  Do we wonder why it is that, when we get to parsing every damned detail this way, that everyone who values having a little mystery in life gets turned right off and runs away from us?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> People.  No wonder jllundqu laughs at Christians.  I don't blame him.
> 
> If Jesus was a regular guy, and did lose faith, is that enough to cause you to lose faith in Him, TER?  If Jesus were just a regular guy all along, would He have had the courage and strength to get that far, WW?  Does it matter?  Are we capable of understanding?  Does God even want us to?
> 
> If God is immortal, and Jesus is God, then how did Jesus die?  Answer me that one.  Did God not have to forsake that body, if only for a minute, in order for that body to die?  Do we wonder why it is that, when we get to parsing every damned detail this way, that everyone who values having a little mystery in life gets turned right off and runs away from us?


You laugh at Christians too.

----------


## TER

> If Jesus was a regular guy, and did lose faith, is that enough to cause you to lose faith in Him, TER?  If Jesus were just a regular guy all along, would He have had the courage and strength to get that far, WW?  Does it matter?  Are we capable of understanding?  Does God even want us to?


But Jesus is not a regular guy, He is God incarnate.  If He did lose faith on the cross, that wouldn't mean I would lose faith in Him, because as I said above, I once believed that and still had great faith in Him. 




> If God is immortal, and Jesus is God, then how did Jesus die?  Answer me that one.


By His own will He experienced death.  It was His perfect will to die so that He might heal death.




> Did God not have to forsake that body, if only for a minute, in order for that body to die?


Christ accepted death to happen to Him not because He forsook His body, but so that the power of death over human nature would be made impotent.




> Do we wonder why it is that, when we get to parsing every damned detail this way, that everyone who values having a little mystery in life gets turned right off and runs away from us?


These details are important in order for the apostolic and orthodox faith to be transmitted over time.  Introducing false details or interpretations are what the great heretics have done which has cause schisms and separations and has led to the post-Christian world we live in now.  So, details matter and mean something.

----------


## acptulsa

> You laugh at Christians too.


Only the laughable ones.




> These details are important in order for the apostolic and orthodox faith to be transmitted over time.  Introducing false details or interpretations are what the great heretics have done which has cause schisms and separations and has led to the post-Christian world we live in now.  So, details matter and mean something.


Very Creationist of you, so to speak.  But faith has evolved over time.  Once upon a time, there were people of so little faith that this faith was shaken by the fact that the Earth travels around the sun.  I think we can all thank God that faith is generally stronger now than it was back then.

There are details and there are details.  And there is faith and there is faith.  There's faith like, God is good and my dogma is right so God made my dogma right and if you don't believe my dogma you're an idol worshipper.  And there's faith like, I don't know, I can guess but might be wrong, but I do believe God had a good reason whether I can explain it or not.  Which is the kind of faith Jesus advocated?

----------


## acptulsa

dp

----------


## moostraks

> But Jesus is not a regular guy, He is God incarnate.  If He did lose faith on the cross, that wouldn't mean I would lose faith in Him, because as I said above, I once believed that and still had great faith in Him. 
> 
> 
> 
> By His own will He experienced death.  It was His perfect will to die so that He might heal death.
> 
> 
> 
> Christ accepted death to happen to Him not because He forsook His body, but so that the power of death over human nature would be made impotent.
> ...


The line for purpose of bringing forth the rest of the Psalm made sense to me when I heard it as well. These words were written in their minds and hearts much as commercial jingles and popular songs are nowadays. So to read the whole Psalm in context of the moment makes more sense imo...

----------


## TER

> Very Creationist of you, so to speak.


I'm not sure what that means. 




> But faith has evolved over time.  Once upon a time, there were people of so little faith that this faith was shaken by the fact that the Earth travels around the sun.  I think we can all thank God that faith is generally stronger now than it was back then.


Faith may have evolved, but the truth hasn't. Shouldn't we not speak what the truth is? Should we not proclaim what has been proclaimed since the beginning? And I would strongly disagree with you that faith is generally stronger now than it was back then. I think we are definitely in a time of decreased faith amongst those who were raised in Christian households.




> There are details and there are details.  And there is faith and there is faith.  There's faith like, God is good and my dogma is right so God made my dogma right and if you don't believe my dogma you're an idol worshipper.  And there's faith like, I don't know, I can guess but might be wrong, but I do believe God had a good reason whether I can explain it or not.  Which is the kind of faith Jesus advocated?


I'm not sure why you are personally attacking me. I did not say that 'God made my dogma' right. I am simply repeating what has been proclaimed to be true for a long long time. If you don't want to discuss details, then don't. If you wish to ignore details, then that is fine too.  Personally, I find great interest in learning about these details because they reveal of the great beauty, wisdom, and depth of what Christ has done.  These things only strengthen my faith! Plus, they help carry down through time the correct and apostolic orthodox teachings of the Christian faith.  One does not need to know everyone of these details of course to be a lover of Christ and a good Christian. However one should not criticize another who digs deeper into finding the historical and apostolic understandings of the faith.

----------


## TER

> The line for purpose of bringing forth the rest of the Psalm made sense to me when I heard it as well. These words were written in their minds and hearts much as commercial jingles and popular songs are nowadays. So to read the whole Psalm in context of the moment makes more sense imo...


So true, it makes so much more sense when one understands that Christ is referring to the Psalm.

----------


## jmdrake

I haven't followed the whole thread so I'm not sure the point of the argument over "My God, why hast thou forsaken me?"  Personally I believe at the moment that Jesus felt forsaken.  Is that "losing faith?"  I don't think so.  Job felt forsaken but he didn't lose faith.  Yes Jesus was quoting the OT, but He also quoted the OT when he talked about the shepherd being smitten and the sheep scattering.

----------


## wizardwatson

> He referenced the Psalm, and any Jew in ear shot would have known exactly what Psalm He was referencing to, which does not speak about doubt, but rather the opposite, namely complete trust. 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, that is what I mistakenly thought until I learned the truth by studying the writings of the Church Fathers and the historical practice of the Jews at that time.
> 
> 
> 
> The 21 Christian martyrs who were killed, they didn't lose faith.  They refused to convert to Islam or deny Christ, yet you believe that Christ, the living Word of God, would lose faith?  Were these Egyptian martyrs more couragous and faithful than Christ?  
> ...


Everybody breaks.  It's biology.

Jesus was a regular guy.  He walked, he talked, he laughed, he cried, he pooped and yes when he was lacerated, burning, bleeding to death, and nailed to a piece of wood he had a moment-however short it might have been-of doubt.

Is not sin the opposite of faith?  And doesn't it make sense that taking the sin upon himself would manifest?

The "giving" of the Son is in the abandonment.  So to me, one unschooled by the ancients, this verse wherein Christ cries out from the pit of despair is very telling.  It's not some prophetic footnote, "oh, wait, I need to quote Psalm 22 before I give up the Ghost, almost forgot."

Jesus is NOT a "regular guy" in the sense of the spirit, in the sense in which he is the Word.  He, his life, IS the teaching.  Etc., etc.  

If you met him though-no matter how much you have built up the image of his spiritual truth and tried to amalgamate it to his temporal form-you would most likely have the impression of, "man, he seems just like a regular guy."

I'm not robbing Christ of his deity.  I'm reinforcing that he came in the flesh and not as some spirit being wearing a flesh costume pretending to do things we do to "fit in" or quote scripture.

----------


## TER

> Everybody breaks.  It's biology.
> 
> Jesus was a regular guy.  He walked, he talked, he laughed, he cried, he pooped and yes when he was lacerated, burning, bleeding to death, and nailed to a piece of wood he had a moment-however short it might have been-of doubt.
> 
> Is not sin the opposite of faith?  And doesn't it make sense that taking the sin upon himself would manifest?
> 
> The "giving" of the Son is in the abandonment.  So to me, one unschooled by the ancients, this verse wherein Christ cries out from the pit of despair is very telling.  It's not some prophetic footnote, "oh, wait, I need to quote Psalm 22 before I give up the Ghost, almost forgot."
> 
> Jesus is NOT a "regular guy" in the sense of the spirit, in the sense in which he is the Word.  He, his life, IS the teaching.  Etc., etc.  
> ...


So were the 21 Egyptian martyrs more courageous and faithful then Christ, Who knew He would rise again in three days and knew He would die on a cross from before the foundation of the world?

----------


## jmdrake

> So were the 21 Egyptian martyrs more courageous and faithful then Christ, Who knew He would rise again in three days and knew He would die on a cross from before the foundation of the world?


Do we know with 100% certainty that they never said or even thought "God, why are you abandoning us to die?"  Because that would require mind reading powers that I don't have.

----------


## TER

> Do we know with 100% certainty that they never said or even thought "God, why are you abandoning us to die?"  Because that would require mind reading powers that I don't have.


Well, of course we don't know 100%, but the fact that they confessed Christ the Lord and their salvation as the knives cut into their throats instead of crying out 'My Lord, why have you forsaken me!' should tell us something.  Plus, if you read the writings of the early martyrs, especially St. Ignatius and St. Polycarb, they had no fear of death and no loss of faith as they were being sent towards their execution.  If a man can have such faith, wouldn't Christ have at least that much?  Christ's cry was not out of anguish or fear or feeling forsaken, it was for the benefit of those around Him to recall the glorious Psalm which is one of complete trust and faith and the victory of God over the cross.

----------


## wizardwatson

> So were the 21 Egyptian martyrs more courageous and faithful then Christ, Who knew He would rise again in three days and knew He would die on a cross from before the foundation of the world?


Well, I had heard of these Egyptian dudes.  But given that I heard it on MSM I'm suspicious.  Even if it is true I doubt ISIS would grant them life even if they could recite the Koran from front to back.  So their courage and their existence is in question.

This "who had MORE" faith is silly talk.  Christ had courage because God gave him courage.  If those Egyptians had courage it was for the same reason.  

Why does it trouble you so that I said Christ lost faith?  And then you go so far as to try to place him above other saints when he would place himself below.  Was Christ powered by faith?  The virtue of "courage"?

To a novice like me the words are primary.  He asked God why he forsake him.  Clearly there was some doubt going on.  

So my answer to your question is:

I don't know but it doesn't matter.  Far more important is you preaching this false doctrine that Christ couldn't lose faith because he had an incredible amount of the virtue of courage.  Virtue is not faith.

----------


## TER

> Well, I had heard of these Egyptian dudes.  But given that I heard it on MSM I'm suspicious.  Even if it is true I doubt ISIS would grant them life even if they could recite the Koran from front to back.  So their courage and their existence is in question.
> 
> This "who had MORE" faith is silly talk.  Christ had courage because God gave him courage.  If those Egyptians had courage it was for the same reason.  
> 
> Why does it trouble you so that I said Christ lost faith?  And then you go so far as to try to place him above other saints when he would place himself below.  Was Christ powered by faith?  The virtue of "courage"?
> 
> To a novice like me the words are primary.  He asked God why he forsake him.  Clearly there was some doubt going on.  
> 
> So my answer to your question is:
> ...


I think the false doctrine is the one you are saying which is making Christ to lose faith.  Christ is God.  Would God forsake Himself?

And your comment that the courage and the faith of Egyptian martyrs is in question is a sad comment to make being that they died honorable Christian deaths, showing no fear or lose of faith.  May we have such faith as they had if we were ever in the same situation.

----------


## TER

Anyways, I have to run.  We can discuss this later if you like.  You have the last word for now.

----------


## jmdrake

> Well, of course we don't know 100%, but the fact that they confessed Christ the Lord and their salvation as the knives cut into their throats instead of crying out 'My Lord, why have you forsaken me!' should tell us something.  Plus, if you read the writings of the early martyrs, especially St. Ignatius and St. Polycarb, they had no fear of death and no loss of faith as they were being sent towards their execution.  If a man can have such faith, wouldn't Christ have at least that much?  Christ's cry was not out of anguish or fear or feeling forsaken, it was for the benefit of those around Him to recall the glorious Psalm which is one of complete trust and faith and the victory of God over the cross.


Christ's last words were "Into Thy hands I commend My."  He was up on the cross for hours.  I don't think comparing what was said the last seconds of one's life to what was said the last hours of one's life is accurate.

----------


## TER

> Christ's last words were "Into Thy hands I commend My."  He was up on the cross for hours.  I don't think comparing what was said the last seconds of one's life to what was said the last hours of one's life is accurate.


Yes, He was referring to another Psalm saying that as well.  I think Psalm 31 but I don't have time to check right now...

----------


## wizardwatson

> I think the false doctrine is the one you are saying which is making Christ to lose faith.  Christ is God.  Would God forsake Himself?
> 
> And your comment that the courage and the faith of Egyptian martyrs is in question is a sad comment to make being that they died honorable Christian deaths, showing no fear or lose of faith.  May we have such faith as they had if we were ever in the same situation.


Well, as far as the dead christians, like I said, I only read some news blurb about it.  Is there a video or something showing them in their final moments that makes you so sure?

Let me tell you what I'm doing in such a situation.  I'm praying to Allah, Mohammed, and buying my plane ticket to Mecca and Medina.  If these people have a family they should or should have done the same.  If telling some deluded teenager with an AK-47 that I deny Christ will save myself or my family then I'm all for it.  

Now if you are in the military and are ordered to shoot someone or be executed yourself and you refuse the order on account of Christ's command, THAT is courage.  Killing in that case would be denying Christ.  Saying, "I won't deny Christ!", to some idiot child who will execute you on the spot for saying that is stupidity not courage.  That isn't to say that God wouldn't see it as courageous, but in general I'd say it isn't exactly the requirements of martyrdom.

People deny Christ in words all day long even here on this forum.  Certainly if it could save lives it could be forgiven.

But lets move on to an even more horribly false doctrine you've highlighted in your response:




> Christ is God.  Would God forsake Himself?


Um.  You do realize that the Father and the Son are two different people right?  Because the more time I spend on these boards the more I feel like people are willfully ignoring this fact.  He didn't forsake "himself" just like he wasn't talking to himself.  

So before we get ahead of ourselves with high-level discussion, please tell me you don't believe that the Father is the Son?  And don't give me any of this 3-person/1-essence mumbo jumbo.  The question is simple.  In this world or the world after will we ever see the Father walking along side the Son with perhaps others there?  Or is the Father just symbolic?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Answer the question.  If Jesus annihilates, then how could that not possibly be God sating His vengeance through Jesus?  How is that impossible?


How can it not be?  Because the point of Jesus saying "it is finished" is that His sacrifice alone satisfies (ends) the punishment of God against a person.  Annihilationists say that a person is burned out of existence.  That means that something other than Christ's sacrifice ends the punishsment of God against a person.

----------


## jllundqu

> You laugh at Christians too.


I laugh at all of this nonsense...  Judge not lest ye be SF or some other hateful (non)christian....

----------


## moostraks

> Yes, He was referring to another Psalm saying that as well.  I think Psalm 31 but I don't have time to check right now...


Here's a wiki link as a springboard for those who might be interested in this discussion:
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sayin...s_on_the_cross 

You were correct about Psalm 31 from what this link shows.

----------


## jmdrake

> How can it not be?  Because the point of Jesus saying "it is finished" is that His sacrifice alone satisfies (ends) the punishment of God against a person.  Annihilationists say that a person is burned out of existence.  That means that something other than Christ's sacrifice ends the punishsment of God against a person.


 So that's the basis for your ridiculous assertions?  Because Jesus said it is finished?  From there you have made up an entire doctrine of "wrath satiation" that is no where in the Bible.  It is finished meant that the price needed for man to have eternal life had been paid.  It did not mean that people had to burn forever to make God feel better.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What if Sodom isn't burning forever (and it isn't) but the Bible seems to say that it is?  What if your own understanding is wrong because...well it just is?


That's another good point I forgot to mention.  If hell fire is always eternal, then why isn't Sodom and Gomorrah still burning?




> Think about the fact that you didn't actually address any of the Biblical points brought up in the video and sunk back into "I'm write because I just am" mode?  What is there to think about?


Anyone who honestly wants to know the truth can find it.  Unfortunately, even when we have a concrete basis from which to judge who is right, people often choose to remain willingly ignorant so they can stick to what they know, what's comfortable.  You'll notice the arguments I brought up appear to be new even to our resident Greek speaker who couldn't back up his assertions with Scripture.

----------


## wizardwatson

> People.  No wonder jllundqu laughs at Christians.  I don't blame him.
> 
> If Jesus was a regular guy, and did lose faith, is that enough to cause you to lose faith in Him, TER?  If Jesus were just a regular guy all along, *[1] would He have had the courage and strength to get that far, WW?*  Does it matter?  Are we capable of understanding?  Does God even want us to?
> 
> If God is immortal, and Jesus is God, then how did Jesus die?  Answer me that one.  Did God not have to forsake that body, if only for a minute, in order for that body to die?  Do we wonder why it is that, when we get to parsing every damned detail this way, that everyone who values having a little mystery in life gets turned right off and runs away from us?


Lots of people got scourged and crucified.  Being dragged around in chains and then nailed to something by soldiers requires ZERO courage.  He begged God to "take this cup from me!"  Is that courage?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You *are* saying the punishment for the one who ceased has ended.  How can their punishment continue if that one doesn't exist?
> 
> And of course this is blasphemous.   Only CHRIST can satisfy the wrath of God against a person, not anyone or anything else, including their cessation.


Christ DID satisfy.  It's past tense.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So that's the basis for your ridiculous assertions?  Because Jesus said it is finished?  From there you have made up an entire doctrine of "wrath satiation" that is no where in the Bible.  It is finished meant that the price needed for man to have eternal life had been paid.  It did not mean that people had to burn forever to make God feel better.


You don't believe that Jesus fulfilled the law on behalf of a person and satisfied God's wrath against them?  So now you deny propitiation too?  Haha...it never ends.

If you want to start a thread about propitiation, go ahead.  I think the entire board would like to see how the Bible proves that Jesus propitiated God's wrath against sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Christ DID satisfy.  It's past tense.


Yes, it is past tense.   Jesus satisfied the wrath of God against all the elect who will ever live.  He did it for them on the cross.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sodom and Gomorrah burning has nothing to do with my argument.   You can't answer my charge of blasphemy because...well, you just can't.   You don't believe that Jesus alone satisfies the wrath of God, therefore it's not a Christian viewpoint.


Why should he answer charges against him if you can't support your charges biblically?  Christ already died for us.  He doesn't need to do it again.  Are you saying that this was not enough for God and that only eternal torture can satisfy His wrath?  Again, this goes against everything Scripture says.  The Bible says God IS love, it does not say God IS justice or God IS vengeance.  He is just and vengeful, but He doesn't just _have_ love.  He IS love.

You have left several of my other questions unanswered as well.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, it is past tense.   Jesus satisfied the wrath of God against all the elect who will ever live.  He did it for them on the cross.


Who exactly are "the elect"?

I don't think you even have a clue. 


I have an idea,, but also consider that I could be wrong.. our understanding is limited at this time.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why should he answer charges against him if you can't support your charges biblically?  Christ already died for us.  He doesn't need to do it again.  Are you saying that this was not enough for God and that only eternal torture can satisfy His wrath?  Again, this goes against everything Scripture says.


Christ died for the elect.  That is why they no longer are (and will forever not be) under God's wrath.  Christ did not die for the goats.  That is why they are still (and will forever) be under God's wrath.







> The Bible says God IS love, it does not say God IS justice or God IS vengeance.  He is just and vengeful, but He doesn't just _have_ love.  He IS love.


God is justice:



> Isaiah 30:18
> 
> Yet the LORD longs to be gracious to you; therefore he will rise up to show you compassion. *For the LORD is a God of justice*. Blessed are all who wait for him!


God is vengeance:



> Romans 12:19
> 
> Do not take revenge, my dear friends, but leave room for God's wrath, for it is written: *"It is mine to avenge; I will repay," says the Lord.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Who exactly are "the elect"?
> 
> I don't think you even have a clue. 
> 
> 
> I have an idea,, but also consider that I could be wrong.. our understanding is limited at this time.



The elect are the chosen ones who God has chosen for redemption:

Ephesians 1:



> Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places,* even as he chose us in him before the foundation of the world,* that we should be holy and blameless before him. *In love he predestined us* for adoption as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved. In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ s a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth.
> 
> *In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will*, so that we who were the first to hope in Christ might be to the praise of his glory. In him you also, when you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation, and believed in him, were sealed with the promised Holy Spirit, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until we acquire possession of it,* to the praise of his glory.
> *

----------


## pcosmar

I don't believe we have a clear understanding of Hell.

We have descriptions written in ancient languages,, that were the best that men with limited ability were able to describe.

I have the feeling that it is worse than any possible description that human tongue is capable of describing. 
*
Hell was never made for Man*. It was made as a place for the punishment of powerful spiritual beings (The devil and his followers).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> God is love.... except when he sees fit to smite the first born of an entire city or condemn you to eternal flame-torture for exercising free will.
> 
> Christianity is too funny sometimes.  So many inconsitencies that get either shrugged off or rationalized cuz "it's GOD, duh!"


That's not Christianity.  It's counterfeit Christianity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> People are condemned to eternal torture because they willfully reject the love of God and life which comes from God.  It will be the same love which be to one as Paradise which to another will be as a hell.  Blaming one's state of judgement on God after the record of their sins are exposed will be a fruitless exercise.  Their own sins will accuse them and be their judgment on that day.


There's that word "eternal" again. 

Oh, but I forgot, you don't want to talk about that and haven't provided a single reference to Scripture yet.  I've provided several.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *
> Hell was never made for Man*. It was made as a place for the punishment of powerful spiritual beings (The devil and his followers).


No, that is not a correct reading of that verse.  Jesus is not saying that Hell wasn't made for man.  He was saying "this place is so bad, its where the devil is going to be punished!  You don't want to go there!"

----------


## pcosmar

> The elect are the chosen ones who God has chosen for redemption:


OK,, who are they.

Because you are very quick to condemn everyone that doesn't follow your particular doctrine as unsaved and condemned.

I have an Idea who the elect are..

*Man*. (as opposed to angels or animals) 

of all creation,, Man is Elect.

----------


## pcosmar

> No, that is not a correct reading of that verse.  Jesus is not saying that Hell wasn't made for man.  He was saying "this place is so bad, its where the devil is going to be punished!  You don't want to go there!"


No,, he said it was a place made for the devil..* that is what it was made for*. To punish those that rebelled.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I laugh at all of this nonsense...  Judge not lest ye be SF or some other hateful (non)christian....


Of course a non-believer would go around quoting that severely abused passage out of context.  The "Judge not part" came right after Jesus talked about not being a hypocrite.  "Judge not lest ye be judged" is just a warning not to be a hypocrite in your judgment or you might get called out on it.  It doesn't say we should never claim to know the difference between right and wrong.  We're supposed to judge.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK,, who are they.
> 
> Because you are very quick to condemn everyone that doesn't follow your particular doctrine as unsaved and condemned.
> 
> I have an Idea who the elect are..
> 
> *Man*. (as opposed to angels or animals) 
> 
> of all creation,, Man is Elect.



No.  That is an impossible reading of those verses.  Because in the same verses, they talk about the ones who were not elect:




> 1st Peter 2:8-9
> 
> *for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed*.
> 
> *But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession,* so that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light,


The disobedient ones are predestined.  The elect ones are predestined as well.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Of course a non-believer would go around quoting that severely abused passage out of context.  The "Judge not part" came right after Jesus talked about not being a hypocrite.  "Judge not lest ye be judged" is just a warning not to be a hypocrite in your judgment or you might get called out on it.  It doesn't say we should never claim to know the difference between right and wrong.  We're supposed to judge.


That is correct.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, it is past tense.   Jesus satisfied the wrath of God against all the elect who will ever live.  He did it for them on the cross.


He did it for the entire world.  When He made the covenant with Israel, He explicitly included the Israelites as well as the aliens both present and those not present. (Deut. 29:10-13)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No,, he said it was a place made for the devil..* that is what it was made for*. To punish those that rebelled.


People go to Hell too.  How you can question this, who knows...That is just nuts.

Jesus said:



> *Mark 9:43-48
> 
> If your hand causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life maimed than with two hands to go into hell, where the fire never goes out.  
> 
> And if your foot causes you to stumble, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than to have two feet and be thrown into hell. 
> 
> And if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into hell, where
> 
> “ ‘the worms that eat them do not die,
> and the fire is not quenched.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Christ died for the elect.  That is why they no longer are (and will forever not be) under God's wrath.  Christ did not die for the goats.  That is why they are still (and will forever) be under God's wrath.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God is justice:
> 
> ...


No, you just don't get it.  YOU are saying God IS justice.  The Bible doesn't say that.  It only says that for love.  God is a God *of* justice, but the Bible only ever says God *IS* love.  Why the special emphasis on love?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, that is not a correct reading of that verse.  Jesus is not saying that Hell wasn't made for man.  He was saying "this place is so bad, its where the devil is going to be punished!  You don't want to go there!"


Did Paul leave something out of his teachings, Sola?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He did it for the entire world.  When He made the covenant with Israel, He explicitly included the Israelites as well as the aliens both present and those not present. (Deut. 29:10-13)


No He didn't.  Even in the Old Covenant, the sacrifice was made for the ones who drew near, NOT for all people.

And the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant, because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.  The high priest, year after year, made sacrifice for the sins of the people with blood that could never take away sin.

But in the New Covenant, Christ's work is complete.  He made His one sacrifice as the high priest and then SAT DOWN at the right hand of God (meaning His work of intercession was done).

----------


## wizardwatson

> People go to Hell too.  How you can question this, who knows...That is just nuts.
> 
> Jesus said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 			
> ...


Sola, there's nothing in those verses that says they go there forever.  You know it says in another place that people are brought out of hell to the judgement.  

Yes the fire never goes out, that doesn't mean those who experience it are in it forever.  

You are using scripture to support your point and then saying, "so it follows...".

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, you just don't get it.  YOU are saying God IS justice.  The Bible doesn't say that.  It only says that for love.  God is a God *of* justice, but the Bible only ever says God *IS* love.  Why the special emphasis on love?


The special emphasis is on love because man doesn't deserve it.  If God was completely just and had no mercy on anyone, all of us would be in Hell forever.  That is the consequence of sin.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No He didn't.  Even in the Old Covenant, the sacrifice was made for the ones who drew near, NOT for all people.
> 
> And the New Covenant is better than the Old Covenant, because the blood of bulls and goats could never take away sin.  The high priest, year after year, made sacrifice for the sins of the people with blood that could never take away sin.
> 
> But in the New Covenant, Christ's work is complete.  He made His one sacrifice as the high priest and then SAT DOWN at the right hand of God (meaning His work of intercession was done).


Why don't you refer to Scripture?  I gave you the passage I was talking about where God explicitly says He is also addressing "the aliens in your camps" and both those present and not present.  In other words, He was very, very careful to point out that He was addressing every single person.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The special emphasis is on love because man doesn't deserve it.  If God was completely just and had no mercy on anyone, all of us would be in Hell forever.  That is the consequence of sin.


That's a pretty backward way of thinking.  Another example of you reading things into Scripture that just aren't there.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why don't you refer to Scripture?  I gave you the passage I was talking about where God explicitly says He is also addressing "the aliens in your camps" and both those present and not present.  In other words, He was very, very careful to point out that He was addressing every single person.


*The Arminian Heresy Of Unlimited Atonement*
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthr...ited-Atonement

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That's a pretty backward way of thinking.  Another example of you reading things into Scripture that just aren't there.


No sir, I think it is illustrative of the fact that you don't have a Biblical theology that understands the holiness and justice of God.

----------


## jmdrake

> You don't believe that Jesus fulfilled the law on behalf of a person and satisfied God's wrath against them?  So now you deny propitiation too?  Haha...it never ends.


I don't believe that God needs people to burn forever in order to feel better.  You have not provided a single Bible verse to support that bovine scat.  You have turned the Bible on its head and made God a liar.  God said "You shall surely die."  You teach Lucifer's lie that "You shall NOT surely die."  Do you even understand the reason why God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden?  Hint.  It wasn't to satiate His wrath.

Edit: One more thing.  John taught that Jesus' propitiation was not just for the sins of Christians, but for the entire world.  I know.  You don't believe John actually meant what he said.  But that's the only rational reading of 1 John 2:2.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No sir, I think it is illustrative of the fact that you don't have a Biblical theology that understands the holiness and justice of God.


That's very strange.  Let me show you why.  You read "God is love" and you see the emphasis placed on love over justice and vengeance and you say, "Wow, God's love is the only thing holding us back from His eternal vengeance!"  I look at the same emphasis on love and I say, "Wow, God's vengeance is the only thing holding us back from His eternal love!"  Being that God is love, which one makes more sense?

----------


## pcosmar

> No sir, I think it is illustrative of the fact that you don't have a Biblical theology that understands the holiness and justice of God.


I was thinking exactly the same thing of you..

you paint God as a heartless capricious narcissistic tyrant.. I do believe He is Just. and not capricious. He is also merciful.

Yes,, He is a sovereign God,, and can do whatsoever he chooses. I just believe that He chooses differently than *you* do.

----------


## wizardwatson

> No sir, I think it is illustrative of the fact that you don't have a Biblical theology that understands the holiness and justice of God.


*I don't think you understand the* "would I say the things I say about Jesus and God if both were standing right next to me which I should always consider since they may as well be given their dominion over facts and circumstances concerning reality"*-ness of God*.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't believe that God needs people to burn forever in order to feel better.  You have not provided a single Bible verse to support that bovine scat.  You have turned the Bible on its head and made God a liar.  God said "You shall surely die."  You teach Lucifer's lie that "You shall NOT surely die."  Do you even understand the reason why God kicked Adam and Eve out of the garden of Eden?  Hint.  It wasn't to satiate His wrath.
> 
> Edit: One more thing.  John taught that Jesus' propitiation was not just for the sins of Christians, but for the entire world.  I know.  You don't believe John actually meant what he said.  But that's the only rational reading of 1 John 2:2.



To "feel better"?  No.  This is the consequence of sin.  God would not be just if He did not punish sin.  God is the righteous judge, and all of His judgments are right.

----------


## wizardwatson

> To "feel better"?  No.  This is the consequence of sin.  God would not be just if He did not punish sin.  God is the righteous judge, and all of His judgments are right.


God wouldn't be just if he didn't punish sin?

Or, God wouldn't be just if he didn't punish sin* for you to witness*?

Somehow I think it's the latter.  Why?  Because if he didn't punish sinners for you to watch how 'o how are you going to get confirmation that you are one of the elect?

----------


## jmdrake

> To "feel better"?  No.  This is the consequence of sin.  God would not be just if He did not punish sin.  God is the righteous judge, and all of His judgments are right.


I take it you don't know what the word "satiate" means.  If God says the wages of sin is death (as opposed to eternal life in hell) then sin is punished by annihilation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God wouldn't be just if he didn't punish sin?
> 
> Or, God wouldn't be just if he didn't punish sin* for you to witness*?
> 
> Somehow I think it's the latter.  Why?  Because if he didn't punish sinners for you to watch how 'o how are you going to get confirmation that you are one of the elect?


It doesn't have anything to do with the elect or the non-elect. It has to do with God glorifying His justice and His mercy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I take it you don't know what the word "satiate" means.  If God says the wages of sin is death (as opposed to eternal life in hell) then sin is punished by annihilation.


No, you don't know what it means.  Because if Jesus satisfied the wrath of God for every man, every man would be saved.

If you were consistent, you would be a universalist like PaulWV is.

----------


## jmdrake

> It doesn't have anything to do with the elect or the non-elect. It has to do with God glorifying His justice and His mercy.


  It actually has nothing to do with anything but your own perverted imagination.  You're position isn't biblical.  Or if it is you haven't given a source for it.

----------


## moostraks

> It doesn't have anything to do with the elect or the non-elect. It has to do with God glorifying His justice and His mercy.


Your choice to avoid telling the rest of this oft told sentence by you is telling...

----------


## jmdrake

> No, you don't know what it means.


Yeah I do.  Satiate or satisfy means to be made to feel better.  If you are hungry and you are then satisfied you feel better.  Jesus sacrifice isn't about making God feel better.  God said he takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  But there is a wage to be paid for sin.  That wage, according to the Bible, is death.  It is not eternal torture.  You have made God a liar.

----------


## wizardwatson

> It doesn't have anything to do with the elect or the non-elect. It has to do with God glorifying His justice and His mercy.


You really breathe life into the saying, "when you only have a hammer, everything looks like a nail."

All things to the glory of God!!!!!!!

Why did this happen?  - To show God's glory.
How did it happen? - Because God showed His glory.
When did it happen? - When God was at His most glorious.

Is God's name Jealous or Gloria?

God is REASONABLE.  God loves reason.  God loves stories that make sense.  

You can't answer every "why" and criticism with - SMACK!!! - He is sovereign.  All he does is for His Glory.  Period.

God doesn't hide behind, "Because I can!  So shut it!", so why do you?

----------


## Brett85

> I don't believe we have a clear understanding of Hell.
> 
> We have descriptions written in ancient languages,, that were the best that men with limited ability were able to describe.
> 
> I have the feeling that it is worse than any possible description that human tongue is capable of describing. 
> *
> Hell was never made for Man*. It was made as a place for the punishment of powerful spiritual beings (The devil and his followers).


It doesn't exist at all.  The word "hell" was simply a word that was created by English translators and inserted into the Bible.  Jesus never taught such a concept.  Jesus taught about Gehenna, which as I mentioned earlier is a literal place located outside of Jerusalem.  It's not some place located within the earth's core where people are tormented with fire.  Jesus spoke of a literal place located right outside of Jerusalem.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It actually has nothing to do with anything but your own perverted imagination.  You're position isn't biblical.  Or if it is you haven't given a source for it.





> “Because of this, it is also contained in the Scripture: “Behold,” I lay in Zion” an elect, “precious Stone,” “a Corner-foundation;” “and the one believing in Him shall not be ashamed, never!” Then to you who believe belongs the preciousness. *But to disobeying ones, He is the “Stone which those building rejected; this One became the Head of the Corner,” and a Stone-of-stumbling, and a Rock-of-offense” to the ones stumbling, being disobedient to the Word, to which they were also appointed.* But you are “an elect race,” “a royal priesthood,” “a holy nation,” “a people for possession,” so that “you may openly speak of the virtues” of the One who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light; you who then were “not a people, but now are the people” of God; “the one not pitied then but now pitied”.
> 
> 1 Peter 2:6-10





> Romans 9:22-27
> 
> *What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles? As he says in Hosea:
> 
> *
> *“I will call them ‘my people’ who are not my people;
>     and I will call her ‘my loved one’ who is not my loved one,”
> 
> and,
> ...


....

----------


## wizardwatson

> It doesn't exist at all.  The word "hell" was simply a word that was created by English translators and inserted into the Bible.  Jesus never taught such a concept.  Jesus taught about Gehenna, which as I mentioned earlier is a literal place located outside of Jerusalem.  It's not some place located within the earth's core where people are tormented with fire.  Jesus spoke of a literal place located right outside of Jerusalem.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gehenna


Hmmmm..




> 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 ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.


So are you saying that in the above passage Jesus is saying that the Father will kill you and then throw you into a place outside of Jerusalem?

----------


## jmdrake

> ....


I hope you aren't using that for the source for your bovine scat because nothing in what you posted says anything close to what you believe.  Once you find a verse that says "Men burn in hell forever satisfy God" let me know.  In fact your own verse destroys your own belief.  Something that is destroyed doesn't go on forever.

----------


## Brett85

> Hmmmm..
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that in the above passage Jesus is saying that the Father will kill you and then throw you into a place outside of Jerusalem?


The parallel to that verse is Matthew 10: 28, which says "do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."  Both of those verses together are basically telling us not to fear those who can kill the body, because that's only temporary.  If someone kills our body, that's not the end of our existence, because we'll still be raised from the dead on the last day.  But when God "destroys both body and soul in hell," that's a permanent end to our existence, and that's what we should fear.  The word "destroy" does not mean "torment for all eternity."  It means just that, that the person who's been destroyed won't be around anymore.  I'm not necessarily saying that the actual place that they'll be killed by God in the next life will be located outside of Jerusalem, but Jesus used "Gehenna" as an example of what will happen to the unsaved after the resurrection.  Gehenna was a place where children were sacrificed and killed by burning them to ashes, and Jesus was using that as an example of what will happen to the ungodly on the last day.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Yeah I do.  Satiate or satisfy means to be made to feel better.  If you are hungry and you are then satisfied you feel better.  Jesus sacrifice isn't about making God feel better.  God said he takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  But there is a wage to be paid for sin.  That wage, according to the Bible, is death.  It is not eternal torture.  You have made God a liar.


No you don't know what it means. _ It means to satisfy the requirements of the law._  Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law on behalf of the elect.  That is why they are saved.

----------


## wizardwatson

> The parallel to that verse is Matthew 10: 28, which says "do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."  Both of those verses together are basically telling us not to fear those who can kill the body, because that's only temporary.  If someone kills our body, that's not the end of our existence, because we'll still be raised from the dead on the last day.  But when God "destroys both body and soul in hell," that's a permanent end to our existence, and that's what we should fear.  The word "destroy" does not mean "torment for all eternity."  It means just that, that the person who's been destroyed won't be around anymore.  I'm not necessarily saying that the actual place that they'll be killed by God in the next life will be located outside of Jerusalem, but Jesus used "Gehenna" as an example of what will happen to the unsaved after the resurrection.  Gehenna was a place where children were sacrificed and killed by burning them to ashes, and Jesus was using that as an example of what will happen to the ungodly on the last day.


Makes sense.  

I just think of hell as judgement.  Maybe I should stop using the word hell, I don't know.  Reaping what you sow necessitates some kind of hell I would presume.  

It's clear neither of us believe in eternal hell but do you believe in hell as a judgement?  If I burned people to death and didn't repent do you think God would burn me as a form of punishment?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> To "feel better"?  No.  This is the consequence of sin.  God would not be just if He did not punish sin.  God is the righteous judge, and all of His judgments are right.


He also wouldn't be just if He punished sin eternally, but you are willing to overlook that and explain/distort it away.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, you don't know what it means.  Because if Jesus satisfied the wrath of God for every man, every man would be saved.
> 
> If you were consistent, you would be a universalist like PaulWV is.


Thanks.  I'll take that as an endorsement.

----------


## jmdrake

> No you don't know what it means. _ It means to satisfy the requirements of the law._  Jesus satisfied the requirements of the law on behalf of the elect.  That is why they are saved.


Except *you* have been saying that people need to burn forever *to satisfy the wrath of God*.  Now we are actually getting into two different discussion.  One is universal atonement, the other is idea that people must burn forever to satisfy God's wrath.  I can understand why you want to mix these up because it's clear that there is no bibical support for your "satisfy God's wrath" argument.  But taken at face value, whether you have the balls to admit it or not, you are saying that the only way God can feel better and not be so angry is for people to burn forever.  That's what "satisfy wrath" literally means.  Sorry but I'm not going to let you change the meaning of plain English just so you can avoid personal embarrassment.

Now, let's look at satisfying the requirements of the law.  If the punishment of the law is death, then Jesus paying the price for that punishment means that those who accept His sacrifice (or "predestined to accept it" according to your theology) don't have to die.  This simply has to do with the punishment God decided to meet out for sin which is death.  But you have changed that to mean eternal life in a state of torture.  You have changed the requirement of the law to something God never said.  And why?  Because somehow if the lost actually die then that means the have satisfied God and God can't be satisfied?  Sorry, but there is no biblical basis for your argument.  You just made it up.  I don't even thing most Calvinists buy it.

----------


## Brett85

> Makes sense.  
> 
> I just think of hell as judgement.  Maybe I should stop using the word hell, I don't know.  Reaping what you sow necessitates some kind of hell I would presume.  
> 
> It's clear neither of us believe in eternal hell but do you believe in hell as a judgement?  If I burned people to death and didn't repent do you think God would burn me as a form of punishment?


I believe that what's referred to as "hell" in the Bible is a future event which will happen here on earth.  After the unsaved are judged, God will rain down fire and brimstone from heaven and destroy them all, and destroy the entire earth as well.  After that, the entire earth will be made new.

2 Peter 3: 5-7, 10

"But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for *the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.*

But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.

----------


## jmdrake

> Thanks.  I'll take that as an endorsement.


I thought you said you weren't a univeralist?  I forget the term you used to describe yourself but I'm certain you said that wasn't it.

----------


## jmdrake

> He also wouldn't be just if He punished sin eternally, but you are willing to overlook that and explain/distort it away.


The god of Sola_Fide is incapable of justice because he has an insatiable wrath.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Hmmmm..
> 
> 
> 
> So are you saying that in the above passage Jesus is saying that the Father will kill you and then throw you into a place outside of Jerusalem?


There are four different words translated as "Hell", so I'm not sure which one that is.  Gehenna is only one of those.

----------


## Brett85

> There are four different words translated as "Hell", so I'm not sure which one that is.  Gehenna is only one of those.


The most recent translations of the Bible only translate "Gehenna" as hell.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I believe that what's referred to as "hell" in the Bible is a future event which will happen here on earth.  After the unsaved are judged, God will rain down fire and brimstone from heaven and destroy them all, and destroy the entire earth as well.  After that, the entire earth will be made new.
> 
> 2 Peter 3: 5-7, 10
> 
> "But they deliberately forget that long ago by God’s word the heavens came into being and the earth was formed out of water and by water. 6 By these waters also the world of that time was deluged and destroyed. 7 By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for *the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly.*
> 
> But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, in which the heavens will pass away with a roar and the elements will be destroyed with intense heat, and the earth and its works will be burned up.


Well, the future events are certainly "hellish" but your eschatology seems a little wonky.

The "day of judgment" and the "day of the Lord" are two very different things.  The latter is the FIRST thing that happens during the apocalypse.  The former doesn't happen during the apocalypse.

How is the Father to come "like a thief in the night" at the end of all things?  You don't yell "surprise!!" at the end of the party.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I thought you said you weren't a univeralist?  I forget the term you used to describe yourself but I'm certain you said that wasn't it.


Yeah, I actually don't, but I gave him the benefit of the doubt because that's the label people like to apply to me.  I had hardly even heard of it before people started throwing it at me.  I call myself a Restorationist because I believe God's creation will be restored to its original perfection, and I don't call myself a universalist because I don't believe that God does not punish or that anyone is entitled to God's grace.  Jesus died for our sins, but that doesn't mean we can take that for granted.  There are separate resurrections for the righteous and the unrighteous and we will be punished, albeit not eternally, according to our sins.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, the future events are certainly "hellish" but your eschatology seems a little wonky.
> 
> The "day of judgment" and the "day of the Lord" are two very different things.  The latter is the FIRST thing that happens during the apocalypse.  The former doesn't happen during the apocalypse.
> 
> How is the Father to come "like a thief in the night" at the end of all things?  You don't yell "surprise!!" at the end of the party.


I'm still open minded on eschatology and haven't come to a firm view.  I think that the view that the 7th Day Adventists have makes a lot of sense, (although I'm not a 7th day Adventist) although recently I've been talking to people who are amillennialists as well, and I think they make a very good case for their views.  

I think the particular verse that I cited above though is pretty clear that it's talking about the day of judgment, and that on the day of judgment God will rain down fire and brimstone and destroy the resurrected unsaved.  I'm not exactly sure how you're interpreting that verse.  I think the idea that God will annihilate the unsaved on judgment day fits with a number of different eschatological views.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The most recent translations of the Bible only translate "Gehenna" as hell.


There are four: Gehenna, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus; none of which mean a place of eternal torment.  One, as you said, refers to a valley outside of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and others can be used loosely as "grave" or "pit."  Many passages would have made much more sense if they had just used this translation instead of inventing a new concept and applying it to the Bible.

You can read in-depth about the translation of "Hell" here:

http://www.mercifultruth.com/the-real-hell.html

----------


## Sola_Fide

> He also wouldn't be just if He punished sin eternally, but you are willing to overlook that and explain/distort it away.


Yes He would be just.  The only thing that justly ends the wrath of God against a person is the sacrifice of Jesus.  Since the non-elect don't have the sacrifice of Jesus, their punishment does not end.  Also, they will sin in Hell, which means that God punishment of that sin will not end.

----------


## Brett85

> There are four: Gehenna, Sheol, Hades and Tartarus; none of which mean a place of eternal torment.  One, as you said, refers to a valley outside of Jerusalem where rubbish was burned and others can be used loosely as "grave" or "pit."


You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.

----------


## Brett85

> Since the non-elect don't have the sacrifice of Jesus, their punishment does not end.


Annihilationists don't claim that their punishment ever ends.  Once again, you have absolutely nothing but straw man arguments.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Annihilationists don't claim that their punishment ever ends.  Once again, you have absolutely nothing but straw man arguments.


Yes they do.  If a person is burned out of existence, the punishment has ended.  How can you punish something that doesn't exist?  

This is blasphemous because only Jesus' sacrifice can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against sin.  What this view really shows is that you don't love Jesus.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes He would be just.  The only thing that justly ends the wrath of God against a person is the sacrifice of Jesus.  Since the non-elect don't have the sacrifice of Jesus, their punishment does not end.  Also, they will sin in Hell, which means that God punishment of that sin will not end.


When someone says "No, Jesus didn't die for YOUR sins!", that's what I would call heresy.  

And you still haven't answered why you think God chooses to perpetuate sin in Hell when he could stop the whole thing.  We aren't in Hell yet, so how is it just to send us there so we can sin eternally?  

Also, you should be more clear about which word for "Hell" you're using.  Are you referring to Gehenna, Sheol, Hades, or Tartarus?

----------


## Brett85

> Yes they do.  If a person is burned out of existence, the punishment has ended.  How can you punish something that doesn't exist?


Again, you are proving that you have no interest in having an honest debate about the issue.  The eternal punishment they receive is that they'll never be allowed to enter heaven.  Only universalists deny eternal punishment.  Traditionalists and annihilationists both believe in eternal punishment, but simply differ on the nature of the punishment.  Universalists believe that the unsaved will only be punished for a period of time and then will be allowed to enter heaven, making them the only group which rejects the Biblical teaching of eternal punishment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.


True, true.  I'm just saying, they exist.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes they do.  If a person is burned out of existence, the punishment has ended.  How can you punish something that doesn't exist?


The same way someone can be conscious after they are dead.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, you are proving that you have no interest in having an honest debate about the issue.  The eternal punishment they receive is that they'll never be allowed to enter heaven.  Only universalists deny eternal punishment.  Traditionalists and annihilationists both believe in eternal punishment, but simply differ on the nature of the punishment.  Universalists believe that the unsaved will only be punished for a period of time and then will be allowed to enter heaven, making them the only group which rejects the Biblical teaching of eternal punishment.


Considering the translation of "eternal" is faulty as I have demonstrated, I don't think the teaching of eternal punishment is Biblical.  Many of the same problems go for annihilationists, although their position is notably less absurd.  One such problem is, how is it just to punish eternally for a sin committed only in the context of our earthly, mortal existence?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Yes they do.  If a person is burned out of existence, the punishment has ended.  How can you punish something that doesn't exist?  
> 
> This is blasphemous because only Jesus' sacrifice can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against sin.  What this view really shows is that you don't love Jesus.


I'm not an annihilationist, but if I were I'd say that they are still being punished for all eternity.  The fact that they aren't conscious doesn't change the fact that they are being denied heaven.  And that's a punishment that lasts forever.  That person won't get to be in the presence of God at any point for all eternity.  That's still quite serious.  I don't get why people portray this as a trivial punishment.

I still don't agree, but he's not saying the punishment isn't eternal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, you are proving that you have no interest in having an honest debate about the issue.  The eternal punishment they receive is that they'll never be allowed to enter heaven.  Only universalists deny eternal punishment.  Traditionalists and annihilationists both believe in eternal punishment, but simply differ on the nature of the punishment.  Universalists believe that the unsaved will only be punished for a period of time and then will be allowed to enter heaven, making them the only group which rejects the Biblical teaching of eternal punishment.


Again, you are showing that you say something other than the sacrifice of Jesus can end the wrath of God against a person.  A sinner cannot pay for his sins by his cessation.  Only Jesus can pay the price for a man's sins.  

This is why all of those false teachers on the websites you read have made you twice the sons of Hell that they are.  I say this as your good friend on RPF.  I would love nothing more for God to open your eyes so that I could call you my brother.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Considering the translation of "eternal" is faulty as I have demonstrated, I don't think the teaching of eternal punishment is Biblical.  Many of the same problems go for annihilationists, although their position is notably less absurd.  One such problem is, how is it just to punish eternally for a sin committed only in the context of our earthly, mortal existence?


Because God is eternally good, so anything that violates his perfect justice deserves eternal punishment.  And the Bible says the punishment is eternal.  Since eternal reward in heaven means living in God's presence for eternity it seems that eternal punishment would mean *living* outside God's presence and under his judgment forever.

----------


## Brett85

> Considering the translation of "eternal" is faulty as I have demonstrated, I don't think the teaching of eternal punishment is Biblical.  Many of the same problems go for annihilationists, although their position is notably less absurd.  One such problem is, how is it just to punish eternally for a sin committed only in the context of our earthly, mortal existence?


I guess I would say that the punishment of eternal death is just because this life that we have is a gift from God, not something that we actually deserve.  None of us deserve to be alive.  The fact that we're alive is a gift from God.  So I don't think that God taking a gift away from us as a punishment for our sin against him is in any way "unjust."  He also made a way for us to live for all eternity with him in heaven by sending his son to die for us on the cross.  All we have to do is accept his free gift.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm not an annihilationist, but if I were I'd say that they are still being punished for all eternity.  The fact that they aren't conscious doesn't change the fact that they are being denied heaven.  And that's a punishment that lasts forever.  That person won't get to be in the presence of God at any point for all eternity.  That's still quite serious.  I don't get why people portray this as a trivial punishment.
> 
> I still don't agree, but he's not saying the punishment isn't eternal.



Yes he is saying the punishment is not eternal.  The punishment ends with the cessation of existence.  The only thing that can end the punishment of God against a man is the sacrifice of Jesus.  If you don't accept this, then you don't love Jesus and don't worship Him.

----------


## Brett85

> I would love nothing more for God to open your eyes so that I could call you my brother.


I wouldn't call you my brother even if I agreed with you theologically.  The way that you treat other people is completely contrary to how Christ treated others, and I see nothing about you that is any way "Christian."

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Again, you are showing that you say something other than the sacrifice of Jesus can end the wrath of God against a person.  A sinner cannot pay for his sins by his cessation.  Only Jesus can pay the price for a man's sins.  
> 
> This is why all of those false teachers on the websites you read have made you twice the sons of Hell that they are.  I say this as your good friend on RPF.  I would love nothing more for God to open your eyes so that I could call you my brother.


I already call you my brother in Christ.  I don't limit that just to people who believe in my specific doctrine.  I believe you are already saved like we all are, although I do wish you would stop telling people they are going to burn in Hell because it gives Christianity a bad name.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I wouldn't call you my brother even if I agreed with you theologically.  The way that you treat other people is completely contrary to how Christ treated others, and I see nothing about you that is any way "Christian."


TC, you need to know that your position is evil and that you don't love Jesus.  You need to know that you don't believe in Him alone.  Could you imagine if you went through life and no one ever told you that?  I am happy that when I was a sinful ignorant person, someone told me the gospel.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Again, you are showing that you say something other than the sacrifice of Jesus can end the wrath of God against a person.  A sinner cannot pay for his sins by his cessation.  Only Jesus can pay the price for a man's sins.  
> 
> This is why* all of those false teachers on the websites you read have made you twice the sons of Hell that they are.  I* say this as your good friend on RPF.  I would love nothing more for God to open your eyes so that I could call you my brother.


Wait, even if annihilation is a damnable heresy, the Bible teaches that teachers are held more accountable, not less.  Wouldn't it be his teachers that are twice the sons of Hell?

But seriously, you've never proven that annihilation is a damnable heresy.  Your argument regarding why it is "blasphemy" isn't actually in the Bible.  At least with predestinarian theology you have a specific example of a man being rebuked by Paul for questioning it and a logical link to works salvation.  You don't have any argument here.  I almost think you're just being as exclusivist as you can for the fun of it at this point...

----------


## Brett85

> I already call you my brother in Christ.  I don't limit that just to people who believe in my specific doctrine.  I believe you are already saved like we all are, although I do wish you would stop telling people they are going to burn in Hell because it gives Christianity a bad name.


I don't see any evidence at all that he's saved.  He's an arrogant, egotistical person.  The Bible teaches that we will know them by their fruit, and it's absolutely clear by his fruit that he's not one of us.  He's clearly outside of Christianity.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I wouldn't call you my brother even if I agreed with you theologically.  The way that you treat other people is completely contrary to how Christ treated others, and I see nothing about you that is any way "Christian."


If you'd say he's not a brother for his doctrine, OK (although I'd disagree with that.)  But, I don't think you can really make judgments of people's souls based on their attitudes in internet conversations.  Its easy to lose your temper, its really easy to lose it with people you don't even really know.  And really, SF has calmed down a lot, which definitely seems like evidence of sanctification to me.  I don't agree with him on everything, but I don't think you can say he's not a Christian based on anything he's said on this forum.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I don't see any evidence at all that he's saved.  He's an arrogant, egotistical person.  The Bible teaches that we will know them by their fruit, and it's absolutely clear by his fruit that he's not one of us.  He's clearly outside of Christianity.


Well, PaulConvention is saying that Adolf Hitler was saved.  You're missing the real problems with his position, lol...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because God is eternally good, so anything that violates his perfect justice deserves eternal punishment.  And the Bible says the punishment is eternal.  Since eternal reward in heaven means living in God's presence for eternity it seems that eternal punishment would mean *living* outside God's presence and under his judgment forever.


This does not make sense and is an example of rationalization, not logic.  What is there in Scripture or elsewhere to suggest that a sin inherits the quality of being eternal simply by being committed against an eternal being?  

And no, the Bible does not say the punishment is eternal.  It says it is "age-abiding."  Think about the phrase "forever and ever" used in Revelations or "aionios ton aionios".  Does God mean to say that there are multiple forevers, or is it more likely that 'aionios' is referring to finite lengths of time of which there can be multiple?  

When I read the phrase "aionios ton aionios" I read it as "for the ages of the ages" which makes more sense because it is not redundant and oxymoronic, and it makes much more sense in the context to say that God's glory lasts "through the ages of the ages" as opposed to one or two ages.  As it is translated, "forever and ever", it is a ridiculous phrase that makes no sense.

----------


## Brett85

> Well, PaulConvention is saying that Adolf Hitler was saved.  You're missing the real problems with his position, lol...


No, and I think what he believes is basically that Adolf Hitler will go to hell and be tormented for a period of time, but will then be allowed to repent and enter heaven.  I think that's basically what he believes, although I guess he can speak for himself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wait, even if annihilation is a damnable heresy, the Bible teaches that teachers are held more accountable, not less.  Wouldn't it be his teachers that are twice the sons of Hell?
> 
> But seriously, you've never proven that annihilation is a damnable heresy.  Your argument regarding why it is "blasphemy" isn't actually in the Bible.  At least with predestinarian theology you have a specific example of a man being rebuked by Paul for questioning it and a logical link to works salvation.  You don't have any argument here.  I almost think you're just being as exclusivist as you can for the fun of it at this point...


Saying that something other than Jesus' sacrifice can end the wrath of God against a person is heretical.  Not just heretical, but blasphemous.  No one who downgrades the sacrifice of the Son of God like that believes the gospel.  And believing the gospel is the way a man is saved.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, and I think what he believes is basically that Adolf Hitler will go to hell and be tormented for a period of time, but will then be allowed to repent and enter heaven.  I think that's basically what he believes, although I guess he can speak for himself.


Yes, it's just another variant of a denial of the holiness and justice of God.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I guess I would say that the punishment of eternal death is just because this life that we have is a gift from God, not something that we actually deserve.  None of us deserve to be alive.  The fact that we're alive is a gift from God.  So I don't think that God taking a gift away from us as a punishment for our sin against him is in any way "unjust."  He also made a way for us to live for all eternity with him in heaven by sending his son to die for us on the cross.  All we have to do is accept his free gift.


Fine, but realize that is a rationalization you made and not a logical argument based on Scripture.  I don't think it's fair to say the fact that life is a gift negates God's justice.

----------


## Brett85

> And really, SF has calmed down a lot, which definitely seems like evidence of sanctification to me.


I see no evidence of that at all.  He still wants to inject his opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with his views is going to burn in hell for all eternity even though his opinion on that isn't central to the debate and doesn't need to be said.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't see any evidence at all that he's saved.  He's an arrogant, egotistical person.  The Bible teaches that we will know them by their fruit, and it's absolutely clear by his fruit that he's not one of us.  He's clearly outside of Christianity.


I'm not so sure.  I see no Scriptural argument for thinking that he's not a Christian.  He may suffer punishment for his imperfect faith, but not eternal punishment.

Jesus saved us all from eternal punishment.  Not that it ever 'crossed His mind' to eternally punish anyone.  Ring a bell?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I see no evidence of that at all.  He still wants to inject his opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with his views is going to burn in hell for all eternity even though his opinion on that isn't central to the debate and doesn't need to be said.


TC, wouldn't you like to know that?  If I believed something other than the gospel, I would want to know.  My love for God and my desire to be with Him would compel me to dig until I found the truth.  

What gospel honors God?  The one that says something other than Jesus' sacrifice can end God's wrath against sin? I don't see how that is possible.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well, PaulConvention is saying that Adolf Hitler was saved.  You're missing the real problems with his position, lol...


What is there to suggest that even Hitler deserves _eternal_ punishment?  We will be punished according to our works.  On the other hand, traditionalists are faced with  two opposing messages: Either God is willing to forgive ALL of our sins just by repentance, or we all deserve eternal damnation, which makes God out to be quite bi-polar.  Does God have His finger on the forgiveness switch as soon as we come to him, or is he twitching at the "eternal damnation" switch unless we somehow manage to applease His wrath?

The problem with your position is that you want to think that you can judge the sins of people here on earth and say what God should do and surely this guy or that guy deserves Hell, right?  Well, no, even the most conservative teachings of Christianity teach that there is no unforgivable sin.

----------


## jmdrake

> Wait, even if annihilation is a damnable heresy, the Bible teaches that teachers are held more accountable, not less.  Wouldn't it be his teachers that are twice the sons of Hell?
> 
> But seriously, you've never proven that annihilation is a damnable heresy.  Your argument regarding why it is "blasphemy" isn't actually in the Bible.  At least with predestinarian theology you have a specific example of a man being rebuked by Paul for questioning it and a logical link to works salvation.  You don't have any argument here.  I almost think you're just being as exclusivist as you can for the fun of it at this point...


+rep.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> +rep.


Saying that something other than Jesus' sacrifice can end the wrath of God against a person is heretical. Not just heretical, but blasphemous. No one who downgrades the sacrifice of the Son of God like that believes the gospel. And believing the gospel is the way a man is saved.

----------


## Brett85

> What gospel honors God?  The one that says something other than Jesus' sacrifice can end God's wrath against sin? I don't see how that is possible.


You purposely distort what I believe.  You claim that I believe things that I don't believe.  I don't think highly of liars, and I'm just going to ignore your posts in the future and not respond to you.  You're not worth my time to respond to here.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No, and I think what he believes is basically that Adolf Hitler will go to hell and be tormented for a period of time, but will then be allowed to repent and enter heaven.  I think that's basically what he believes, although I guess he can speak for himself.


I don't call it hell, though.  That is a made-up concept.  The punishment of the wicked is laid out in Revelations, which I haven't spent a whole lot of time trying to decipher since it is very figurative.  

But yeah, that's basically my position.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You purposely distort what I believe.  You claim that I believe things that I don't believe.  I don't think highly of liars, and I'm just going to ignore your posts in the future and not respond to you.  You're not worth my time to respond to here.


TC, do you believe that Jesus' sacrifice alone can satisfy the wrath of God against a man?

----------


## Brett85

> I don't call it hell, though.  That is a made-up concept.


I agree.  It's a man made doctrine.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes they do.  If a person is burned out of existence, the punishment has ended.  How can you punish something that doesn't exist?


Is Sodom still burning? 

_Jude 1:7 Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire._

Or is the "eternal fire" Sodom suffered one of eternal consequences?




> This is blasphemous because only Jesus' sacrifice can satisfy (end) the wrath of God against sin.  What this view really shows is that you don't love Jesus.


Nobody but nobody buys your argument that those who disagree with you on this point are being "blasphemous".  As FF pointed out, you are making a claim here without any biblical basis.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Saying that something other than Jesus' sacrifice can end the wrath of God against a person is heretical.  Not just heretical, but blasphemous.  No one who downgrades the sacrifice of the Son of God like that believes the gospel.  And believing the gospel is the way a man is saved.


I don't think that's what he's saying.  And, there are too many verses that at least at a surface level seem to say what he's saying for me to be willing to say that he's not saved.  By contrast, there's no verse that specifically connects eternal conscious torment with the gospel.  There are verses that teach it, and thus I believe as you do that references to "death" as spiritual punishment aren't literally referring to cessasion of existance.  But I don't see any Biblical evidence at all that this is an essential gospel doctrine.  This is even more far fetched than you saying limited atonement and unconditional election are essential (I'd even see FAR more far-fetched.)




> I see no evidence of that at all.  He still wants to inject his opinion that anyone who doesn't agree with his views is going to burn in hell for all eternity even though his opinion on that isn't central to the debate and doesn't need to be said.


There are certain views I hold which I would say someone who disagrees with them is not saved, and if they die in that state they will go to Hell.  Do you believe I'm not saved either?



> What is there to suggest that even Hitler deserves _eternal_ punishment?  We will be punished according to our works.  On the other hand, traditionalists are faced with  two opposing messages: Either God is willing to forgive ALL of our sins just by repentance, or we all deserve eternal damnation, which makes God out to be quite bi-polar.  Does God have His finger on the forgiveness switch as soon as we come to him, or is he twitching at the "eternal damnation" switch unless we somehow manage to applease His wrath?
> 
> The problem with your position is that you want to think that you can judge the sins of people here on earth and say what God should do and surely this guy or that guy deserves Hell, right?  Well, no, even the most conservative teachings of Christianity teach that there is no unforgivable sin.


Actually, I believe God created certain people for life, and others for damnation, from the beginning of the world.  While those who are unregenerate elect are under temporary wrath until God saves them in time, there was never any time where God intended them to be damned for all eternity.  Admittedly, universalism "resolves" some of the inconsistencies of Arminianism, which is a problem with Arminianism in the first place.

----------


## Brett85

> There are certain views I hold which I would say someone who disagrees with them is not saved, and if they die in that state they will go to Hell.


So do I, but I'm not going to just repeat that over and over again when that's not central to the debate, and when it's done for the sole purpose of antagonizing people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't think that's what he's saying.  And, there are too many verses that at least at a surface level seem to say what he's saying for me to be willing to say that he's not saved.  By contrast, there's no verse that specifically connects eternal conscious torment with the gospel.  There are verses that teach it, and thus I believe as you do that references to "death" as spiritual punishment aren't literally referring to cessasion of existance.  But I don't see any Biblical evidence at all that this is an essential gospel doctrine.  This is even more far fetched than you saying limited atonement and unconditional election are essential (I'd even see FAR more far-fetched.)



_Yes it is_ an essential gospel doctrine.  It's not the gospel, therefore it cannot save.  The cessation of existence means that God's wrath against that person ends.  If a person believes anything other than Jesus' sacrifice ends the wrath of God against a man, then that is another gospel.

----------


## jmdrake

> TC, do you believe that Jesus' sacrifice alone can satisfy the wrath of God against a man?


Ah.  So now you're back to "satisfying the wrath of God" from your earlier position of "satisfying the requirements of the law."  Two different things.  And God doesn't need people to burn in order for Him to feel better.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

I'm reminded of another problem with eternal damnation.  It suggests that we can never be forgiven.  Every denomination of the Christian faith that I know of teaches that there is no unforgivable sin, and yet the doctrine of eternall Hell teaches that the damned can never be forgiven.  It can't be both.

----------


## jmdrake

> _Yes it is_ an essential gospel doctrine.  It's not the gospel, therefore it cannot save.  The cessation of existence means that God's wrath against that person ends.  If a person believes anything other than Jesus' sacrifice ends the wrath of God against a man, then that is another gospel.


Actually even if I accepted the "people need to burn in order for God to feel better" argument that you are putting forward whether you are willing to admit that or not, your argument still doesn't make sense.  When a person is put to death that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who were angry at them are no longer angry.  So God can still go on having wrath at persons who no longer exist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ah.  So now you're back to "satisfying the wrath of God" from your earlier position of "satisfying the requirements of the law."  Two different things.  And God doesn't need people to burn in order for Him to feel better.


So, you don't understand.  Ok, I'll explain it to you:

God has wrath against a man because that man has not been righteous and has not fulfilled God's requirements for him.  God requires a perfect righteousness.

When Jesus satisfies the requirements of the law for a man, the wrath of God is satisfied.  An atonement has been made.  A propitiation has been made.  Therefore, there is no more reason for God to have wrath against that man.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> _Yes it is_ an essential gospel doctrine.  It's not the gospel, therefore it cannot save.  The cessation of existence means that God's wrath against that person ends.  If a person believes anything other than Jesus' sacrifice ends the wrath of God against a man, then that is another gospel.


Where does the Bible say this?  Find me a verse and I'll accept it.  I don't care what people think of my positions, I care what the Bible says.

----------


## Brett85

> I'm reminded of another problem with eternal damnation.  It suggests that we can never be forgiven.  Every denomination of the Christian faith that I know of teaches that there is no unforgivable sin, and yet the doctrine of eternall Hell teaches that the damned can never be forgiven.  It can't be both.


I think the Bible teaches that we won't be forgiven in the next life.  Our fate is set when we die.

John 3: 36

"He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him."

----------


## Christian Liberty

> So do I, but I'm not going to just repeat that over and over again when that's not central to the debate, and when it's done for the sole purpose of antagonizing people.


Do you believe universalists are saved?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I don't think that's what he's saying.  And, there are too many verses that at least at a surface level seem to say what he's saying for me to be willing to say that he's not saved.  By contrast, there's no verse that specifically connects eternal conscious torment with the gospel.  There are verses that teach it, and thus I believe as you do that references to "death" as spiritual punishment aren't literally referring to cessasion of existance.  But I don't see any Biblical evidence at all that this is an essential gospel doctrine.  This is even more far fetched than you saying limited atonement and unconditional election are essential (I'd even see FAR more far-fetched.)
> 
> 
> 
> There are certain views I hold which I would say someone who disagrees with them is not saved, and if they die in that state they will go to Hell.  Do you believe I'm not saved either?
> 
> 
> Actually, I believe God created certain people for life, and others for damnation, from the beginning of the world.  While those who are unregenerate elect are under temporary wrath until God saves them in time, there was never any time where God intended them to be damned for all eternity.  Admittedly, universalism "resolves" some of the inconsistencies of Arminianism, which is a problem with Arminianism in the first place.


I believe that too, but at least I don't have to reconcile it with the idea that God would predestine people to eternal hell.  If certain people are created just for damnation, what was the purpose of creating them in the first place?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Actually even if I accepted the "people need to burn in order for God to feel better" argument that you are putting forward whether you are willing to admit that or not, your argument still doesn't make sense.  When a person is put to death that doesn't necessarily mean that the people who were angry at them are no longer angry.  So God can still go on having wrath at persons who no longer exist.


There you go with your "to make God feel better" smear.  You know that I don't believe that.  That is your ridiculous painting of the picture (which actually shows a complete disdain for the God of the Bible who has wrath against sin).

The propitiation of Jesus is not there to "make God feel better".  It is to satisfy the perfect requirements of the law on behalf of God's elect.  God would not be just if he lowered His standards for anyone.  God requires the same from EVERY man:  to be holy as He is holy.

----------


## Brett85

> Do you believe universalists are saved?


That's hard to say, because there are different types of universalists.  I think it just depends on what kind of universalist we're talking about.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I believe that too, but at least I don't have to reconcile it with the idea that God would predestine people to eternal hell.  If certain people are created just for damnation, what was the purpose of creating them in the first place?


Romans 9 is extremely clear that he does.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's hard to say, because there are different types of universalists.  I think it just depends on what kind of universalist we're talking about.


I think universalism in any form denies the gospel.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Where does the Bible say this?  Find me a verse and I'll accept it.  I don't care what people think of my positions, I care what the Bible says.


That's a ridiculous question.  There is no verse in the Bible that says "If you don't believe in the Trinity, you aren't saved", but it is the truth.  It is a combination of several propositions.

Any gospel that says that something other than Christ's sacrifice can end God's punishment against a man is a false gospel, therefore it cannot save.  There isn't a verse that says exactly this, but it is a combination of several propositions.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I think universalism in any form denies the gospel.


Obviously.

----------


## Brett85

> I think universalism in any form denies the gospel.


It doesn't deny the entire gospel.  They still believe (or some of them) that you have to believe that Jesus died and rose again in order to make it into heaven.  According to John 3: 16 they're saved if they believe that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that too, but at least I don't have to reconcile it with the idea that God would predestine people to eternal hell.  If certain people are created just for damnation, what was the purpose of creating them in the first place?


God creates the vessels of wrath so that He may glorify His justice.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> That's a ridiculous question.  There is no verse in the Bible that says "If you don't believe in the Trinity, you aren't saved", but it is the truth.  It is a combination of several propositions.
> 
> Any gospel that says that something other than Christ's sacrifice can end God's punishment against a man is a false gospel, therefore it cannot save.  There isn't a verse that says exactly this, but it is a combination of several propositions.


OK, this is a fair point, but I still want to know what propositions you are combining.  I at least understand how this works with limited atonement and unconditional election, though I'm not necessarily convinced.  But I don't even understand how the combination of propositions is working here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't deny the entire gospel. * They still believe (or some of them) that you have to believe that Jesus died and rose again in order to make it into heaven.*  According to John 3: 16 they're saved if they believe that.


That is not the gospel either.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Obviously.


I don't assume anything is "obvious" on this forum at this point  But I agree that its not even really questionable.




> It doesn't deny the entire gospel.  They still believe (or some of them) that you have to believe that Jesus died and rose again in order to make it into heaven.  According to John 3: 16 they're saved if they believe that.


No, they do not believe that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> OK, this is a fair point, but I still want to know what propositions you are combining.  I at least understand how this works with limited atonement and unconditional election, though I'm not necessarily convinced.  But I don't even understand how the combination of propositions is working here.


Here are some:

-The sacrifice of Jesus ends the punishment of sin against a man
-There is only one gospel, and even if an angel from heaven preaches another, then you are to reject it

----------


## Brett85

> No, they do not believe that.


Why do you say that?

----------


## HVACTech

interesting conversation. 

clarification please. when the "Bible" and the "Godspell" are mentioned..

should I automatically assume KJV? (or some dirivitive thereof?) 
 I do. is that wrong of me?

----------


## jmdrake

> There you go with your "to make God feel better" smear.


It's not a "smear."  It's what the words "satisfy wrath" literally means.  If you don't like that, quit using those words.




> You know that I don't believe that.  That is your ridiculous painting of the picture (which actually shows a complete disdain for the God of the Bible who has wrath against sin).


If God you have wrath against something the way to handle that is to get rid of it.  Your view of God is that He keeps sin around for eternity so that He can keep getting mad at it and punishing the persons responsible to satisfy (feel better) His anger.  That's the ridiculous picture *you* are painting.





> The propitiation of Jesus is not there to "make God feel better".


Right.  It's not there to "satisfy wrath" because the words "satisfy wrath" literally involves making someone feel better.  If you are angry you don't feel good.  If someone satisfies that anger you feel better.   




> It is to satisfy the perfect requirements of the law on behalf of God's elect.


Satisfying the requirements of the law and satisfying wrath are two different things.

----------


## jmdrake

> God creates the vessels of wrath so that He may glorify His justice.


Translation.  God creates eternal firewood so that He can feel better about Himself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Right.  It's not there to "satisfy wrath" because the words "satisfy wrath" literally involves making someone feel better.  If you are angry you don't feel good.  If someone satisfies that anger you feel better.


Let's get an understanding of God first.   Westminster Confession:



> I. There is but one only living and true God, who is infinite in being and perfection, a most pure spirit, invisible, without body, parts, or passions, immutable, immense, eternal, incomprehensible, almighty, most wise, most holy, most free, most absolute, working all things according to the counsel of his own immutable and most righteous will, for his own glory, most loving, gracious, merciful, long-suffering, abundant in goodness and truth, forgiving iniquity, transgression, and sin; the rewarder of them that diligently seek him; and withal most just and terrible in his judgments; hating all sin; and who will by no means clear the guilty. 
> 
> II. God hath all life, glory, goodness, blessedness, in and of himself; and is alone in and unto himself all-sufficient, not standing in need of any creatures which he hath made, nor deriving any glory from them, but only manifesting his own glory in, by, unto, and upon them; he is the alone foundation of all being, of whom, through whom, and to whom, are all things; and hath most sovereign dominion over them, to do by them, for them, or upon them, whatsoever himself pleaseth. In his sight all things are open and manifest; his knowledge is infinite, infallible, and independent upon the creature; so as nothing is to him contingent or uncertain. He is most holy in all his counsels, in all his works, and in all his commands. To him is due from angels and men, and every other creature, whatsoever worship, service, or obedience he is pleased to require of them. 
> 
> III. In the unity of the Godhead there be three Persons of one substance, power, and eternity: God the Father, God the Son, and God the Holy Ghost. The Father is of none, neither begotten nor proceeding; the Son is eternal begotten of the Father; the Holy Ghost eternally proceeding from the Father and the Son.







> Satisfying the requirements of the law and satisfying wrath are two different things.


No it is not.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Translation.  God creates eternal firewood so that He can feel better about Himself.


"Feel better".  See, you don't even have a Biblical view of God.  You don't understand the God of the Bible that is holy and has a law that all men must follow.

----------


## jmdrake

> "Feel better".  See, you don't even have a Biblical view of God.  You don't understand the God of the Bible that is holy and has a law that all men must follow.


I do understand God.  I also understand English.  You seem to be struggling with both.  There is a difference between saying "satisfying the law" and "satisfying wrath."  God says He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  They have to be annihilated in order to satisfy the requirements of the law that says the wages of sin is death.

----------


## jmdrake

> Let's get an understanding of God first.   Westminster Confession:


Are you Catholic now?  You admit that you can't justify your position by sola scriptura so you are appealing to church tradition?




> No it is not.


Yes it is.

----------


## moostraks

> Are you Catholic now?  You admit that you can't justify your position by sola scriptura so you are appealing to church tradition?
> 
> 
> 
> Yes it is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are you Catholic now?  You admit that you can't justify your position by sola scriptura so you are appealing to church tradition?


Some traditions are Biblical, others aren't.  The Sola Scriptura position in no way, shape, or form, rejects Biblical traditions.  It's SOLA scriptura, not SOLO scriptura.  Sola Scriptura means that all of our traditions must be judged by the standard of Scripture.  It doesn't deny tradition in and of itself.




> Yes it is.


No it isn't.

God has wrath against a man because that man has not been righteous and has not fulfilled God's requirements for him. God requires a perfect righteousness.

When Jesus satisfies the requirements of the law for a man, the wrath of God is satisfied. An atonement has been made. A propitiation has been made. Therefore, there is no more reason for God to have wrath against that man.

----------


## moostraks

> Some traditions are Biblical, others aren't.  The Sola Scriptura position in no way, shape, or form, rejects Biblical traditions.  It's SOLA scriptura, not SOLO scriptura.  Sola Scriptura means that all of our traditions must be judged by the standard of Scripture.  It doesn't deny tradition in and of itself.
> 
> 
> 
> No it isn't.
> 
> God has wrath against a man because that man has not been righteous and has not fulfilled God's requirements for him. God requires a perfect righteousness.
> 
> When Jesus satisfies the requirements of the law for a man, the wrath of God is satisfied. An atonement has been made. A propitiation has been made. Therefore, there is no more reason for God to have wrath against that man.


If you have to appeal to the WMC in order to prove your point then it is no longer Sola...

----------


## jmdrake

> Some traditions are Biblical, others aren't.  The Sola Scriptura position in no way, shape, or form, rejects Biblical traditions.  It's SOLA scriptura, not SOLO scriptura.  Sola Scriptura means that all of our traditions must be judged by the standard of Scripture.  It doesn't deny tradition in and of itself.


Sola scriptura means that you cannot appeal to tradition in order to make your Biblical point.  Seriously, TER has a closer position to sola scriptural than the one you are now taking.  TER says basically the same thing which is that church tradition must be judged by the older tradition (the scriptures).  The question is one of authority.  Do you accept the Westminster Confession as authoritative?  I do not.  If you do that's fine, just be honest about it.  It's one thing to say "I appeal to the church fathers position on what the nature of God is."  It's another to say "I will appeal to the Westminster Confession."




> No it isn't.


Yes it is.  And your appeal to your own opinion and to the opinions of other people who happen to (maybe) agree with you but who are not part of the Bible doesn't change that fact.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do understand God.  I also understand English.  You seem to be struggling with both.  There is a difference between saying "satisfying the law" and "satisfying wrath."  God says He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  *They have to be annihilated in order to satisfy the requirements of the law that says the wages of sin is death*.


There you go.  You are saying that something other than the sacrifice of Jesus can satisfy the requirements of the law.  This is why you don't love Jesus.
_
A man's cessation of existence cannot fulfill the righteous requirements of the law against him._   The only thing that can fulfill the righteous requirements of the law against a man is the atonement of Jesus.

----------


## pcosmar

> interesting conversation. 
> 
> clarification please. when the "Bible" and the "Godspell" are mentioned..
> 
> should I automatically assume KJV? (or some dirivitive thereof?) 
>  I do. is that wrong of me?


The bible is a collection of writings.. recorded over many years by many authors. it contains many lessons,, history, and the words of God.

The "Gospel" is the Good News of salvation.  also contained in the bible.




> Middle English go (d) spell, Old English gōdspell (good, spiel)
>  translation of Greek euangélion good news;


I personally like the KJV,, but use several. Sometimes they give a fuller understanding of translation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola scriptura means that you cannot appeal to tradition in order to make your Biblical point.


No sir it does not.  Every tradition that is Biblical is good.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.





> I do understand God.  I also understand English.  You seem to be struggling with both.  There is a difference between saying "satisfying the law" and "satisfying wrath."  God says He takes no pleasure in the destruction of the wicked.  They have to be annihilated in order to satisfy the requirements of the law that says the wages of sin is death.


And that is no cause to celebrate.  

The wrath and judgement described in revelation is certainly just.  It is vengeance.  The saints should rejoice that they were avenged and vindicated.  That won't be the prominent theme, point is there is certainly room for that type of sentiment concerning that time period.  

But the destruction of the wicked as the final judgement is only sorrow and mourning.  

I fail to see how God's last resort glorifies him unless you want to somehow link glory to sorrow and mourning.

----------


## jmdrake

> No sir it does not.  Every tradition that is Biblical is good.


Your position is not biblical.  That's why you went outside of the Bible to look for evidence to back it up.

----------


## jmdrake

> There you go telling the truth jmdrake


Fixed it for you.

----------


## jmdrake

> And that is no cause to celebrate.  
> 
> The wrath and judgement described in revelation is certainly just.  It is vengeance.  The saints should rejoice that they were avenged and vindicated.  That won't be the prominent theme, point is there is certainly room for that type of sentiment concerning that time period.  
> 
> But the destruction of the wicked as the final judgement is only sorrow and mourning.  
> 
> I fail to see how God's last resort glorifies him unless you want to somehow link glory to sorrow and mourning.


True.  Just to be clear I'm not making the "it glorifies God" argument.  That's SF.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> If you have to appeal to the WMC in order to prove your point then it is no longer Sola...


What a confession of faith does is simply take the truths about something in the Scriptures and writes it out in sections.  Some confessions are Biblical, some aren't.  EVERY person has a confession of faith (either written or non-written).

If I was to go up to you and ask you "what is the gospel?"  You wouldn't start reciting from Genesis 1 and say every word until Revelation.  You would simplify the message of the gospel into one or two sentences and tell me what it was.  This is your confession.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your position is not biblical.  That's why you went outside of the Bible to look for evidence to back it up.


My position on propitiation is Biblical.  You worship an idol that has no wrath against sin.  That is not Biblical.




> *1 John 4:10
> 
> In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 
> *

----------


## jmdrake

> My position on propitiation is Biblical.  You worship an idol that has no wrath against sin.  That is not Biblical.


You worship a liar that says that God was lying when He said "You shalt surely die."

You worship an idol that doesn't realize that the best way to actually get rid of sin is to destroy it rather than keep it around forever.

In fact your false God *loves* sin.  He created sin and he wants it around forever and ever.

----------


## jmdrake

> What a confession of faith does is simply take the truths about something in the Scriptures and writes it out in sections.


If those truths are so "biblical" why not just cite the Bible verses and be done with that?  Oh that's right.  It's because they aren't.

----------


## jmdrake

> My position on propitiation is Biblical.  You worship an idol that has no wrath against sin.  That is not Biblical.


Wrong.  Your idol loves sin.  He created it and he wants it to exist forever.

----------


## moostraks

> What a confession of faith does is simply take the truths about something in the Scriptures and writes it out in sections.  Some confessions are Biblical, some aren't.  EVERY person has a confession of faith (either written or non-written).
> 
> If I was to go up to you and ask you "what is the gospel?"  You wouldn't start reciting from Genesis 1 and say every word until Revelation.  You would simplify the message of the gospel into one or two sentences and tell me what it was.  This is your confession.


And if you are trying to prove a point that is sola scriptura, then it should be within the Scripture such that you should be able to efficiently prove the point. You are doing no different that what you accuse others of doing when you ridicule them for not proving their point only through Scripture. 

So use Scripture and prove your point, or you are not "Sola" and you are merely demanding others to accept some position based upon your churches traditions rather than Scripture...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Wrong.  Your idol loves sin.  He created it and he wants it to exist forever.


No. The Lord loves justice.  And God will glorify His justice in the vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *
> John 3:36  
> 
> Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him.*


How can the wrath of God remain on a soul that doesn't exist?

----------


## jmdrake

> No. The Lord loves justice.  And God will glorify His justice in the vessels of wrath (Romans 9:22).


The Lord loves justice but you do not worship Him.  You worship a false god that created sin and wants to see it live on forever in tortured sinners.

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.





> True.  Just to be clear I'm not making the "it glorifies God" argument.  That's SF.


Well I'm just talking in everyone's general direction.  

I've tried talking to SF but if you're more than 2 degrees of separation away from that post he's hitched himself to he seems pretty silent.  

I'm not entirely convinced he's real.  Siri could lead you to Christ before this guy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Lord loves justice but you do not worship Him.  You worship a false god that created sin and wants to see it live on forever in tortured sinners.


Do you believe that God foreknew everything?  Yes.

Do you believe that God created this world, knowing the outcome?  Yes.

Therefore you believe that God created evil too.  Why do you argue against yourself?

----------


## jmdrake

> How can the wrath of God remain on a soul that doesn't exist?


John 3:36 doesn't say it remains on him in perpetuity.  When Jesus was talking to the Pharisees sin remained because they said they were able to see.

_John 9:41 Jesus said unto them, If ye were blind, ye should have no sin: but now ye say, We see; therefore your sin remaineth._

That doesn't mean that none of them that said at that moment "we see" had no possibility of salvation at any point in the future.  But, using your "logic", it would.

----------


## jmdrake

> Do you believe that God foreknew everything?  Yes.
> 
> Do you believe that God created this world, knowing the outcome?  Yes.
> 
> Therefore you believe that God created evil too.  Why do you argue against yourself?


Why do you try to pretend to me be and argue on my behalf?  Are you insane?

----------


## jmdrake

> Well I'm just talking in everyone's general direction.  
> 
> I've tried talking to SF but if you're more than 2 degrees of separation away from that post he's hitched himself to he seems pretty silent.  
> 
> *I'm not entirely convinced he's real.  Siri could lead you to Christ before this guy.*


ROLFLMAO!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Why do you try to pretend to me be and argue on my behalf?  Are you insane?


Okay, let me ask you these two questions.

1.  Do you believe God foreknows everything?
2.  Do you believe God created the world?

----------


## jmdrake

> Okay, let me ask you these two questions.
> 
> 1.  Do you believe God foreknows everything?
> 2.  Do you believe God created the world?


I already told you.  I believe God created the multiverse and that all possible realities happen.  Next question?

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.





> Do you believe that God foreknew everything?  Yes.
> 
> Do you believe that God created this world, knowing the outcome?  Yes.
> 
> Therefore you believe that God created evil too.  Why do you argue against yourself?


Evil is not forever.  Just can't eradicate yet without pulling out the good ones too.  

Save your keyboard.  Crack a bible. Why do you capitalize Bible by the way?  Is it mockery?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I already told you.  I believe God created the multiverse and that all possible realities happen.  Next question?


Where is that in the Bible?

----------


## heavenlyboy34

> Evil is not forever.  Just can't eradicate yet without pulling out the good ones too.  
> 
> Save your keyboard.  Crack a bible. *Why do you capitalize Bible by the way?  Is it mockery?*


IDK SF's mind, but when we use "Bible" in the sense of the canon known as "The Holy Bible", it is a title and should be capitalized.  Small-b "bible" just means "a book".

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Romans 9 is extremely clear that he does.


But how does that make sense?  What's the purpose of creating the damned in the first place?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> But how does that make sense?  What's the purpose of creating the damned in the first place?


God created the damned to glorify His justice for eternity.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> God creates the vessels of wrath so that He may glorify His justice.


In other words, so you can watch them burn.  Wonderful, just wonderful.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In other words, so you can watch them burn.  Wonderful, just wonderful.


In Romans 9, one of the reasons that it says the vessels of wrath were created is so that the vessels of mercy would know how gracious mercy truly is.  But for the grace of God, we would all be condemned.

----------


## jmdrake

> Where is that in the Bible?


Were is the fact that the earth rotates around the sun in the Bible?  Where is your "Sinners have to burn forever in order to satisfy God's wrath" belief in the Bible?  It's not even in the WTC that you quoted.  You basically have made your own belief up out of thin air.

Anyway back to the multiverse.  It doesn't contradict the Bible.  Further it harmonizes parts of the Bible that seem in conflict without doing the mental gymnastics and reinterpretation of simple words like "all" and "whole world" in order to fit your view.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Were is the fact that the earth rotates around the sun in the Bible?  Where is your "Sinners have to burn forever in order to satisfy God's wrath" belief in the Bible?  It's not even in the WTC that you quoted.  You basically have made your own belief up out of thin air.
> 
> Anyway back to the multiverse.  It doesn't contradict the Bible.  Further it harmonizes parts of the Bible that seem in conflict without doing the mental gymnastics and reinterpretation of simple words like "all" and "whole world" in order to fit your view.


But the Bible isn't concerned with astronomy and the orbits of the planets and that sort of thing.

The Bible IS concerned with the Creator of the world and mentions it in hundreds of different places.  Where is even the HINT of your idea in the Bible?

----------


## moostraks

> In other words, so you can watch them burn.  Wonderful, just wonderful.


Lol, yeah, that is pretty much how many of us view this "philosophy". Some folks seem to take great comfort in being made genetically superior and believing there will be some time in the future where they can relish watching others be tormented for all eternity so they are glorified and thus bring glory to their god and they claim this is "justice". Perverse is putting it mildly...

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You worship a liar that says that God was lying when He said "You shalt surely die."
> 
> You worship an idol that doesn't realize that the best way to actually get rid of sin is to destroy it rather than keep it around forever.
> 
> In fact your false God *loves* sin.  He created sin and he wants it around forever and ever.


I noticed that, too.  Apparently SF's best response to the problem of eternal consequences for non-eternal sin is that God made sin eternal.  If that's not a backward reading of Scripture, I don't know what is.

*Nowhere in Scripture is eternal sin mentioned.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *Genesis 1:1-5
> 
> 
> In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
> And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
> *


God created ONE earth, and ONE universe.

----------


## AuH20

Let's say that there is a hell. I don't believe God enjoys the fact that the sinners will be tormented for eternity, but they were given the choice whether to embark down that path. We are essentially creating our own personal hells when we violate certain basic human standards.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Lol, yeah, that is pretty much how many of us view this "philosophy". Some folks seem to take great comfort in *being made genetically superior* and believing there will be some time in the future where they can relish watching others be tormented for all eternity so they are glorified and thus bring glory to their god and they claim this is "justice". Perverse is putting it mildly...


What are you talking about?  Do you know what "genetics" is?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Do you believe that God foreknew everything?  Yes.
> 
> Do you believe that God created this world, knowing the outcome?  Yes.
> 
> Therefore you believe that God created evil too.  Why do you argue against yourself?


God created evil, but He created it for a good outcome.  He did not create it to exist forever in Hell.  Again, where in the Bible does it mention eternal sin?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God created evil, but He created it for a good outcome.  He did not create it to exist forever in Hell.  Again, where in the Bible does it mention eternal sin?


Yes, He created evil for a good outcome.  That good outcome is that His justice will be glorified (Romans 9:22).

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I already told you.  I believe God created the multiverse and that all possible realities happen.  Next question?


Really?  You believe in a multiverse?  Uni- means single and -verse means the spoken sentence.  The universe is a single spoken sentence.  God said, "Let there be light."  That is the universe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

This thread is a mish-mash of heresy and error.  I can't even begin to try to deal with all the anti-Biblical ideas floating around in this thread.  

Lets start here.  God created ONE earth, and ONE universe.




> *Genesis 1:1-5
> 
> 
>  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
>  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> God created the damned to glorify His justice for eternity.


Yeah, thanks, broken record.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> In Romans 9, one of the reasons that it says the vessels of wrath were created is so that the vessels of mercy would know how gracious mercy truly is.  But for the grace of God, we would all be condemned.


That can just as easily apply to this life.  Why do we have to make up a concept like eternal Hell and torment in order to know how gracious mercy truly is?  We know it by contrasting it with this life.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> That can just as easily apply to this life.  Why do we have to make up a concept like eternal Hell and torment in order to know how gracious mercy truly is?  We know it by contrasting it with this life.


We didn't make it up.  It's in the Bible in Romans 9.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Were is the fact that the earth rotates around the sun in the Bible?  Where is your "Sinners have to burn forever in order to satisfy God's wrath" belief in the Bible?  It's not even in the WTC that you quoted.  You basically have made your own belief up out of thin air.
> 
> Anyway back to the multiverse.  It doesn't contradict the Bible.  Further it harmonizes parts of the Bible that seem in conflict without doing the mental gymnastics and reinterpretation of simple words like "all" and "whole world" in order to fit your view.


Your idea of a multiverse does seem to contradict the Bible.  'Universe' means 'single spoken sentence' which fits nicely with the account given in Genesis when God says "Let there be light."  I have no idea how you got the idea of a multiverse.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes, He created evil for a good outcome.  That good outcome is that His justice will be glorified (Romans 9:22).


You didn't answer my question.  Your definition of a "good outcome" is obviously way different from mine, but I defy you to find in the Bible where it mentions eternal sin.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We didn't make it up.  It's in the Bible in Romans 9.


No, it's not.  Can you define Hell for me?

----------


## jmdrake

> Really?  You believe in a multiverse?  Uni- means single and -verse means the spoken sentence.  The universe is a single spoken sentence.  God said, "Let there be light."  That is the universe.


http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe
_universe (n.) Look up universe at Dictionary.com

1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus)._

It doesn't seem that the etymology of the word "universe" is what you think it is.  If you have a reference please post.  Meantime the fact that God said "Let there be light" in one reality doesn't mean He couldn't have spoken the same in multiple realities or that the same creative force could not have rippled across multiple realities.

----------


## moostraks

> What are you talking about?  Do you know what "genetics" is?


Don't act clueless as to what I mean by this as I just explained to you the other day. It is you who thinks that some people are fashioned, created, superior while others are made eternally damned. So it is YOU who is trying to sell that some are made genetically (written within their coding) one way or t'other...

----------


## wizardwatson

> You're talking about the King James version.  English translators today have at least figured out that "sheol" and "hades" don't refer to "hell."  So the NIV and all of the other new translations only translate Gehenna as "hell," and there's only about 13 uses of the word "hell" in the NIV, compared to over 50 in the King James translation of the Bible.





> We didn't make it up.  It's in the Bible in Romans 9.


Ah!  Romans 9:22

I just love that the cornerstone piece of scripture that the Calvinist fortifies himself with as he digs in to fight to the death, begins with...

"What if..."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe
> _universe (n.) Look up universe at Dictionary.com
> 
> 1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus)._
> 
> It doesn't seem that the etymology of the word "universe" is what you think it is.  If you have a reference please post.  Meantime the fact that God said "Let there be light" in one reality doesn't mean He couldn't have spoken the same in multiple realities or that the same creative force could not have rippled across multiple realities.




Where is the "multiverse" in this?



> *Genesis 1:1-5
> 
>  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
>  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day. 
> *

----------


## jmdrake

> This thread is a mish-mash of heresy and error.  I can't even begin to try to deal with all the anti-Biblical ideas floating around in this thread.  
> 
> Lets start here.  God created ONE earth, and ONE universe.


LOL.  If you believe this is the only world God created then your knowledge of astronomy is lacking.  We can see earth like planets in our own galaxy.  And that the Bible says God created this earth does *not* mean He didn't create others.  I guess you will say next that since the Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" that the earth is really flat right?  After all a sphere (or ellipsoid) has no corners.

I will agree there is heresy in this thread.  You are the source of most of it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Don't act clueless as to what I mean by this as I just explained to you the other day. It is you who thinks that some people are fashioned, created, superior while others are made eternally damned. So it is YOU who is trying to sell that some are made genetically (written within their coding) one way or t'other...


What does election have to do with genetics?  Election has absolutely NOTHING to do with men being "made different" than anyone else.  What an absurd lie!

----------


## jmdrake

> Where is the "multiverse" in this?


Where is the ellipsoid earth in this?

_Revelation 7:1 And after these things I saw four angels standing on the four corners of the earth, holding the four winds of the earth, that the wind should not blow on the earth, nor on the sea, nor on any tree._

Oh and when Joshua made the sun stand still it was literally that the sun that quit moving across the sky right?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe
> _universe (n.) Look up universe at Dictionary.com
> 
> 1580s, "the whole world, cosmos, the totality of existing things," from Old French univers (12c.), from Latin universum "all things, everybody, all people, the whole world," noun use of neuter of adjective universus "all together, all in one, whole, entire, relating to all," literally "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, past participle of vertere "to turn" (see versus)._
> 
> It doesn't seem that the etymology of the word "universe" is what you think it is.  If you have a reference please post.  Meantime the fact that God said "Let there be light" in one reality doesn't mean He couldn't have spoken the same in multiple realities or that the same creative force could not have rippled across multiple realities.


Sure, I'll admit that it doesn't mean that could not have happened, but what makes you believe it did happen?  The Bible only mentions one universe and refers to it as *the* universe, not *an* universe.  I'm bewildered as to why you would come up with something like that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> LOL.  If you believe this is the only world God created then your knowledge of astronomy is lacking.  We can see earth like planets in our own galaxy.  And that the Bible says God created this earth does *not* mean He didn't create others.  I guess you will say next that since the Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" that the earth is really flat right?  After all a sphere (or ellipsoid) has no corners.
> 
> I will agree there is heresy in this thread.  You are the source of most of it.



The Bible says He created all the worlds in this universe.  But where is there any more than one universe in this?



> *Genesis 1:1-5
> 
> 
>  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
>  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL.  If you believe this is the only world God created then your knowledge of astronomy is lacking.  We can see earth like planets in our own galaxy.  And that the Bible says God created this earth does *not* mean He didn't create others.  I guess you will say next that since the Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" that the earth is really flat right?  After all a sphere (or ellipsoid) has no corners.
> 
> I will agree there is heresy in this thread.  You are the source of most of it.


Who defines "Earth-like" and why do you think it means there is other life when we have no indication that this is the case?

----------


## jmdrake

> Sure, I'll admit that it doesn't mean that could not have happened, but what makes you believe it did happen?  The Bible only mentions one universe and refers to it as *the* universe, not *an* universe.  I'm bewildered as to why you would come up with something like that.


Well the Bible mentions God created heavens plural.  Yes one can look at that as "Sky - cosmos - throne of God" but that can also mean more than one cosmos.  Beyond that, do you restrict yourself to only believing science that is strictly mentioned in the Bible?  I think that's not very Biblical or scientific.  The Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" even though the earth is round.  It says Joshua made the sun stand still even though it was the earth rotating and orbiting the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth.  If science directly contradicts the Bible that's one thing.  But a multiverse doesn't contradict the Bible, only your interpretation of it.  Again "heavens" as in more than one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Well the Bible mentions God created heavens plural.  Yes one can look at that as "Sky - cosmos - throne of God" but that can also mean more than one cosmos.  Beyond that, do you restrict yourself to only believing science that is strictly mentioned in the Bible?  I think that's not very Biblical or scientific.  The Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" even though the earth is round.  It says Joshua made the sun stand still even though it was the earth rotating and orbiting the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth.  If science directly contradicts the Bible that's one thing.  But a multiverse doesn't contradict the Bible, only your interpretation of it.  Again "heavens" as in more than one.


Yes, heavens is more than one.  God created the first heaven (the place where the birds fly), and the second heaven (space where the planets are).

----------


## jmdrake

> The Bible says He created all the worlds in this universe.  But where is there any more than one universe in this?


A) Heavens plural

B) Genesis was never meant to be an exhaustive explanation of creation.  

But hey, let me know when you decide the earth is really flat and the sun rotates around the earth okay?

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, heavens is more than one.  God created the first heaven (the place where the birds fly), and the second heaven (space where the planets are).


And that's one interpretation but not an exhaustive one.  No where in the Bible does it say there is only one cosmos.  That's merely your interpretation.  Now, do you believe the sun rotates around the earth?  Why not when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A) Heavens plural
> 
> B) Genesis was never meant to be an exhaustive explanation of creation.  
> 
> But hey, let me know when you decide the earth is really flat and the sun rotates around the earth okay?


A. Yes, heavens is plural. God created the first heaven (the place where the birds fly), and the second heaven (space where the planets are).

B.  Genesis doesn't have to be an exhaustive explanation of creation to explain that God only created ONE universe.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And that's one interpretation but not an exhaustive one.  *No where in the Bible does it say there is only one cosmos*.  That's merely your interpretation.  Now, do you believe the sun rotates around the earth?  Why not when Joshua commanded the sun to stand still?


Yes it does:



> *Genesis 1:1-5
> 
>  In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
> 
> 
>  And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness. God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.*

----------


## moostraks

> What does election have to do with genetics?  Election has absolutely NOTHING to do with men being "made different" than anyone else.  What an absurd lie!


Oh, I believe it is crap. It is the crap you try to sell people on right as you start whacking them over the head with Romans 9.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Well the Bible mentions God created heavens plural.  Yes one can look at that as "Sky - cosmos - throne of God" but that can also mean more than one cosmos.  Beyond that, do you restrict yourself to only believing science that is strictly mentioned in the Bible?  I think that's not very Biblical or scientific.  The Bible talks about the "four corners of the earth" even though the earth is round.  It says Joshua made the sun stand still even though it was the earth rotating and orbiting the sun and not the sun rotating around the earth.  If science directly contradicts the Bible that's one thing.  But a multiverse doesn't contradict the Bible, only your interpretation of it.  Again "heavens" as in more than one.


That's because "Heavens" is a non-countable noun like "waters".

Are you saying that there are scientific gaps in the Bible and your idea of a multiverse fills that gap?

The problem is not that I believe in only scientific things mentioned in the Bible, it's that I don't even see how your ideas are scientific.

----------


## jmdrake

> Who defines "Earth-like" and why do you think it means there is other life when we have no indication that this is the case?


Who says there is no indication that this is the cares?  Are you talking from a scientific standpoint or a Biblical one?  From a Biblical standpoint it is clear that there is life outside of earth.  Read Job with the sons of God coming to present themselves before Him.  Satan came to represent earth because he had dominion having taken that from Adam.  Adam was called the son of God in Luke.  And even if you go with the angel interpretation of sons of God that's still life outside of earth.  From a scientific point of view we have not yet made it close enough to another earth like planet (same size as earth and similar distance from its sun) to be able to say one way or another.  That said, we could find life in the ocean under one of Jupiter's moons.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh, I believe it is crap. It is the crap you try to sell people on right as you start whacking them over the head with Romans 9.


You have not shown that I believe that some men are made "genetically different" than anyone else.  I've NEVER said that and I believe that to be utterly repugnant.  I repudiate that with everything I am.  Either tell the truth about my position or quit talking about it.

----------


## jmdrake

> That's because "Heavens" is a non-countable noun like "waters".


I'm not sure what you mean by that.  Heaven is singular.  Heavens is plural.  I don't know of any "countable" nouns.    Man singular.  Men plural.  Seriously, what's your point?




> Are you saying that there are scientific gaps in the Bible and your idea of a multiverse fills that gap?


If there is strong scientific evidence for something that doesn't directly conflict with the Bible, I go with the science.  Actually our current model of the solar system sort of contradicts with a strict interpretation of the Bible, but we go with it anyway and just assume that when the writer Joshua said Joshua "made the sun stand still" he was really just describing his perception of the event and not making a scientific pronouncement.  God simply didn't reveal all science in the Bible.  I'm not sure why you believe the universe/multiverse would be any different.




> The problem is not that I believe in only scientific things mentioned in the Bible, it's that I don't even see how your ideas are scientific.


You don't believe the muliverse is scientific?  Then your understanding of physics is lacking.  I'm not trying to be snarky here.  The multiverse is strongly predicted by quantum mechanics.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Who says there is no indication that this is the cares?  Are you talking from a scientific standpoint or a Biblical one?  From a Biblical standpoint it is clear that there is life outside of earth.  Read Job with the sons of God coming to present themselves before Him.  Satan came to represent earth because he had dominion having taken that from Adam.  Adam was called the son of God in Luke.  And even if you go with the angel interpretation of sons of God that's still life outside of earth.  From a scientific point of view we have not yet made it close enough to another earth like planet (same size as earth and similar distance from its sun) to be able to say one way or another.  That said, we could find life in the ocean under one of Jupiter's moons.


I'll believe it when I see it.

----------


## Crashland

> Yes it does:


Nowhere in Genesis 1:1-5 is there a claim that there are only two "heavens" which refer to the place where the birds fly and the cosmos. Also nowhere in Genesis 1:1-5 is there a claim that the earth being described is the only earth that God created. "God created X" does not mean "God created *only* X." You are inserting that interpretation into your scripture.

----------


## jmdrake

> Election has absolutely NOTHING to do with men being "made different" than anyone else.  What an absurd lie!


You believe that some men were created to go to heaven and some were created to go to hell.  By the very definition of your belief you believe that mean are "made different."  Now whether you believe this difference is encoded genetically or not is another matter.

----------


## TER

> Let's say that there is a hell. I don't believe God enjoys the fact that the sinners will be tormented for eternity, but they were given the choice whether to embark down that path. We are essentially creating our own personal hells when we violate certain basic human standards.


What an excellent observation!  I think your on to something!

----------


## moostraks

> You have not shown that I believe that some men are made "genetically different" than anyone else.  I've NEVER said that and I believe that to be utterly repugnant.  I repudiate that with everything I am.  Either tell the truth about my position or quit talking about it.


Then you do not believe that some are formed by the Creator with no capacity for salvation, to be eternally tormented, while others are formed to be saved?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You believe that some men were created to go to heaven and some were created to go to hell.  By the very definition of your belief you believe that mean are "made different."  Now whether you believe this difference is encoded genetically or not is another matter.


Yeah, its another matter alright.  I don't believe it all. Personally, I am offended at that.  That is RACISM, and I hate racists.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Then you do not believe that some are formed by the Creator with no capacity for salvation, to be eternally tormented, while others are formed to be saved?


Yes.  What on earth does that have to do with genetics?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible says He created all the worlds in this universe.  But where is there any more than one universe in this?


The Bible doesn't say if God created any other universes, so we really don't know.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The Bible doesn't say if God created any other universes, so we really don't know.


The Bible doesn't say explicitly that Mary was assumed into heaven, therefore we believe it.

Right?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> You worship a liar that says that God was lying when He said "You shalt surely die."
> 
> You worship an idol that doesn't realize that the best way to actually get rid of sin is to destroy it rather than keep it around forever.
> 
> In fact your false God *loves* sin.  He created sin and he wants it around forever and ever.


Are all who believe in Eternal Conscious Torment idolaters?  If you don't believe so you are being inconsistent.

----------


## jmdrake

> Are all who believe in Eternal Conscious Torment idolaters?  If you don't believe so you are being inconsistent.


I'm giving back to SF in a way that hopefully he can understand.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> I'm giving back to SF in a way that hopefully he can understand.


So you're asserting something you don't believe?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'm giving back to SF in a way that hopefully he can understand.


Sir, I laid out in more than a dozen posts the theological reasons that you worship an idol.  I'm not just throwing that out in the air as an insult.  I would love nothing more than for the Lord of Glory to open your eyes so that I could call you a brother.

But to say that there is something other than the sacrifice of Christ which can end God's punishment of sin is to say a blasphemous thing.  It rejects the authority and power of Christ. It spits on His blood.

----------


## jmdrake

> So you're asserting something you don't believe?


I believe those who go around calling other people idolaters are often themselves idolaters.

----------


## jmdrake

> Sir, I laid out in more than a dozen posts the theological reasons that you worship an idol.


And they're all bull$#@!.  Even FF knows that your position regarding me being an idolater is unbibical.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> The Bible doesn't say explicitly that Mary was assumed into heaven, therefore we believe it.
> 
> Right?


I didn't say I believe it.  I'm saying its possible.  

I have a harder time saying that the assumption of Mary is possible because of the other heresies its linked to.  I just think its really unlikely.  But, Enoch and Elijah both didn't die, so its not impossible that God did the same thing with Mary.  I see no good reason to believe that since its not in the text.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> And they're all bull$#@!.  Even FF knows that your position regarding me being an idolater is unbibical.


I know a solid Reformed guy who agrees with me almost completely on doctrine except he believes that unbelievers will eventually be annihilated.  In his case, I am absolutely certain that he didn't have a problem with the idea of Hell at a personal level.  He was one of the guys who convinced me to be a Calvinist, and he was the first one to clearly say that God had the right to save and damn who he wills.  But, he was persuaded by some of the same Biblical arguments that persuaded TC.  I think he was wrong.  I don't think he's an unsaved man.

I've wrestled a bit over whether Arminianism is heresy or not.  I tend to think its somewhere near the borderline.  I don't think its an orthodox position, but I'm also not convinced that every single person who believes it (especially in ignorance) is unsaved.

Make of that what you will.  I know SF is going to go off on me for not being harsh enough and the rest of you are going to go off on me for being too harsh, but it is what it is.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I didn't say I believe it.  I'm saying its possible.  
> 
> I have a harder time saying that the assumption of Mary is possible because of the other heresies its linked to.  I just think its really unlikely.  But, Enoch and Elijah both didn't die, so its not impossible that God did the same thing with Mary.  I see no good reason to believe that since its not in the text.


Right.  It's not in the text, so why believe it?  I'll tell you why:

Roman Catholics believe it because they want nothing more than to elevate Mary to the place of mediator between God and man.

Jmdrake believes what he believes because it allows him to elevate man's will so that it is autonomous.

Look at the motivations behind doctrines.  Do they magnify the Creator?  Or magnify the creation?

----------


## jmdrake

> Nowhere in Genesis 1:1-5 is there a claim that there are only two "heavens" which refer to the place where the birds fly and the cosmos. Also nowhere in Genesis 1:1-5 is there a claim that the earth being described is the only earth that God created. "God created X" does not mean "God created *only* X." You are inserting that interpretation into your scripture.


^This

----------


## wizardwatson

You guys talk about other worlds as though you are arguing about how to fold towels. 

It would be a crime if God did NOT create other worlds. World's only he has known.  Worlds he hasn't been and has only created for others.  Worlds within worlds.  

But please continue, we are all dying to see how this ends.

----------


## jmdrake

> Jmdrake believes what he believes because it allows him to elevate man's will so that it is autonomous.


No liar.  I read the science and understood enough about quantum mechanics for the multiverse to make sense.  It doesn't go against the Bible despite your infantile protestations to the contrary.  I believed in the concept of the multi-verse long before I ran into people that were so warped that they denied the Bible truth that God is not the author of sin like you do.

----------


## Crashland

> It would be a crime if God did NOT create other worlds. World's only he has known.  Worlds he hasn't been and has only created for others.  Worlds within worlds.


Indeed. God would not in any way be obligated to tell us about them, either, especially if they have nothing to do with us.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No liar.  I read the science and understood enough about quantum mechanics for the multiverse to make sense.  It doesn't go against the Bible despite your infantile protestations to the contrary.  I believed in the concept of the multi-verse long before I ran into people that were so warped that they denied the Bible truth that God is not the author of sin like you do.


You believe in that theory that is no where in the Bible because you use it as the foundation for free will.  If you think that isn't obvious to everyone here, you must be nuts.

----------


## jmdrake

> I didn't say I believe it.  I'm saying its possible.  
> 
> I have a harder time saying that the assumption of Mary is possible because of the other heresies its linked to.  I just think its really unlikely.  But, Enoch and Elijah both didn't die, so its not impossible that God did the same thing with Mary.  I see no good reason to believe that since its not in the text.


I'm pretty sure Sola_Fide believes that Enoch and Elijah died.  So you are "wrong" on that as well according to the gospel of SF.  Welcome to the heretic party.

----------


## jmdrake

> You believe in that theory that is no where in the Bible because you use it as the foundation for free will.


No liar.  I believe it because it is supported by science.  You are the first Christian I ever ran into that denies freewill so it's beyond stupid of you to think that was my motivation for believing in the multiverse when I believed that before I met you.  Now liar, here is another question for you that you so far have refused to answer.  Why do you not believe that the sun moves across the sky as opposed to the earth rotating?  After all the Bible says Joshua made the sun stand still. 




> If you think that isn't obvious to everyone here, you must be nuts.


Says the person that argued on my behalf and claimed I was talking to myself.  Clearly you are the crazy one.  I guess I am nuts for thinking I could have an intelligent conversation with someone as looney as you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> No liar. I believe it because it is supported by science. You are the first Christian I ever ran into that denies freewill


I deny it as well.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Right.  It's not in the text, so why believe it?  I'll tell you why:
> 
> Roman Catholics believe it because they want nothing more than to elevate Mary to the place of mediator between God and man.
> 
> Jmdrake believes what he believes because it allows him to elevate man's will so that it is autonomous.
> 
> Look at the motivations behind doctrines.  Do they magnify the Creator?  Or magnify the creation?


I don't "believe" in multiple universes either.  I'm just saying its not absolutely impossible.  I'd say the same thing about the "assumption of Mary" as well.

With that said, I agree with you.  The motivations are bad in either case.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No liar.  I believe it because it is supported by science.  *You are the first Christian I ever ran into that denies freewill* so it's beyond stupid of you to think that was my motivation for believing in the multiverse when I believed that before I met you.  Now liar, here is another question for you that you so far have refused to answer.  Why do you not believe that the sun moves across the sky as opposed to the earth rotating?  After all the Bible says Joshua made the sun stand still. 
> 
> 
> 
> Says the person that argued on my behalf and claimed I was talking to myself.  Clearly you are the crazy one.  I guess I am nuts for thinking I could have an intelligent conversation with someone as looney as you.



No Christian that has ever existed says that man has a free will to choose or reject God.  You've never talked to a Christian.

----------


## jmdrake

> I deny it as well.


I didn't say he was the only one.  And (sadly) I met him before I met you.  My point is that I had an understanding of the multiverse before I ever had the "motivation" for that belief that he falsely claims I have.  I thought the point I as making as obvious.

----------


## jmdrake

> No Christian that has ever existed says that man has a free will to choose or reject God.  You've never talked to a Christian.


Well I know for certain I'm not talking to one when I am talking to you.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Well I know for certain I'm not talking to one when I am talking to you.


No you don't

----------


## jmdrake

> I don't "believe" in multiple universes either.  I'm just saying its not absolutely impossible.  I'd say the same thing about the "assumption of Mary" as well.
> 
> With that said, I agree with you.  The motivations are bad in either case.


Except the only "motivation" for a belief in the multiverse is science.  Really, have you not studied quantum mechanics?  That all of this fits what my understanding of freewill simply is a bonus of further knowledge.  It is a lie to call it a motivation.  Don't fall into SF's trap.  And I'm still waiting for SF to answer my question about Joshua.  He won't because he is afraid to answer it.  That's the way he always operates.  He won't answer questions that show him to be the ignoramus he is.

----------


## Crashland

> No Christian that has ever existed says that man has a free will to choose or reject God.  You've never talked to a Christian.


Even if you were right about free will, if you don't think it is possible to be simply wrong about something and be a Christ-follower at the same time, then no one is a Christian including you.

----------


## jmdrake

> No you don't


Yeah I do.

John 13:35; John 8:44; Rev 12:10; Matt 7:16; Gal 5:22

----------


## Brett85

These conversations on the religion forum are so much more pleasant to read when you put Sola Fide on ignore.  That's really something that everyone should do.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Except the only "motivation" for a belief in the multiverse is science.  Really, have you not studied quantum mechanics?  That all of this fits what my understanding of freewill simply is a bonus of further knowledge.  It is a lie to call it a motivation.  Don't fall into SF's trap.  *And I'm still waiting for SF to answer my question about Joshua.  He won't because he is afraid to answer it.  That's the way he always operates.  He won't answer questions that show him to be the ignoramus he is.*


Okay, let's answer it. Here's your question:



> Why do you not believe that the sun moves across the sky as opposed to the earth rotating? After all the Bible says Joshua made the sun stand still.


Since the multiverse exists, and every possible thing happened, then there was never a person named Joshua.  Jesus didn't die on the cross either.  That is another thing that happened.

Wait...why do you say you can know anything at all based on this theory of yours?

----------


## Crashland

> No Christian that has ever existed says that man has a free will to choose or reject God.  You've never talked to a Christian.





> The jailer called for lights, rushed in and fell trembling before Paul and Silas. He then brought them out and asked, Sirs, what must I do to be saved?
> 
> They replied, Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be savedyou and your household.


It doesn't say "believe that God created one universe and not many universes"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> These conversations on the religion forum are so much more pleasant to read when you put Sola Fide on ignore.  That's really something that everyone should do.


The ignore function is for cowards who are too afraid to offer their views in the marketplace of ideas.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It doesn't say "believe that God created one universe and not many universes"


What Lord Jesus?  The one who died on the cross?  If the multiverse exists, then there was a Jesus who didn't die on the cross.  And there was never a Jesus who became flesh and dwelt among men.  If everything possible happened, those things happened too.

----------


## moostraks

> Yes.  What on earth does that have to do with genetics?


Um, so it is integral to their make up that they are different from each other in their formation? think real long and hard as to what that means and I am sure your superior intellect will grasp how that relates to their genetic make up.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Um, so it is integral to their make up that they are different from each other in their formation? think real long and hard as to what that means and I am sure your superior intellect will grasp how that relates to their genetic make up.


No one here has said that men are made different from one another.  I have not said that.  There is no such thing as a genetic difference in regards to election.  Election has NOTHING to do with genetics.

----------


## moostraks

> What Lord Jesus?  The one who died on the cross?  If the multiverse exists, then there was a Jesus who didn't die on the cross.  And there was never a Jesus who became flesh and dwelt among men.  If everything possible happened, those things happened too.


Hebrews 13: 8Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever

----------


## moostraks

> No one here has said that men are made different from one another.  I have not said that.  There is no such thing as a genetic difference in regards to election.  Election has NOTHING to do with genetics.


Are they different in how they are formed and are the elect made with such that by the preaching of the Word they hear and are saved?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Are they different in how they are formed


No.




> and are the elect made with such that by the preaching of the Word they hear and are saved?


No.





> *Ephesians 2:3
> 
> All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath. 
> *

----------


## moostraks

> Then you do not believe that some are formed by the Creator with no capacity for salvation, to be eternally tormented, while others are formed to be saved?





> Yes.  What on earth does that have to do with genetics?





> No one here has said that men are made different from one another.  I have not said that.  There is no such thing as a genetic difference in regards to election.  Election has NOTHING to do with genetics.





> No.
> 
> 
> 
> No.


You speak out both sides of your mouth. 

So why again do you bother to preach when the elect are predestined to believe?

----------


## Christian Liberty

> What Lord Jesus?  The one who died on the cross?  If the multiverse exists, then there was a Jesus who didn't die on the cross.  And there was never a Jesus who became flesh and dwelt among men.  If everything possible happened, those things happened too.


That's a fair point.  So I guess you can't say that this particular multiverse theory is true *and realize all its implications* and still be Christian.  I was commenting more generally on the idea that there is more than universe, which the Bible doesn't comment on.  I'm not saying I believe it.  I'm inclined not to, but I don't know for sure that there aren't, and neither do you.

----------


## jmdrake

> Okay, let's answer it. Here's your question:
> 
> 
> Since the multiverse exists, and every possible thing happened, then there was never a person named Joshua.  Jesus didn't die on the cross either.  That is another thing that happened.


Actually you did not answer my question and you misrepresented my position.  I said every possible thing happened.  It's not possible that Jesus didn't die on the cross.  Why?  Because God wouldn't allow the existence of a universe where He didn't win.  That still leaves for an infinite number of possible universes.

Now back to my question.  Do you believe that the sun actually stood still?  Yes or no?




> Wait...why do you say you can know anything at all based on this theory of yours?


It's not my theory.  It's quantum mechanics.  It's science that is not contradicted by the Bible.  That the sun is fixed in relation to the earth is science that is contradicted by a literal reading of the Bible but you (I think) believe it anyway.  That you are afraid to give a simple yes or no to a simply question is quite telling.  What is your "motivation" for hiding from the question?

----------


## jmdrake

> That's a fair point.  So I guess you can't say that this particular multiverse theory is true *and realize all its implications* and still be Christian.  I was commenting more generally on the idea that there is more than universe, which the Bible doesn't comment on.  I'm not saying I believe it.  I'm inclined not to, but I don't know for sure that there aren't, and neither do you.


No it's not a fair point.  It's a dishonest point.  I said that anything that is possible happens.  Somethings are not possible.  God doesn't allow for the possibility of a multiverse where Jesus didn't die for mankind.  And *that* is what is predestined.  Thus you have predestination and freewill at the same time.  I have explained this all before multiple times in other threads.  Sola_Fide has to lie about my position in order to attempt to refute it.

----------


## Brett85

Christian Liberty, you never responded to my comment on why you think that universalists don't believe that believing in Christ's death and resurrection is the only way to get to heaven.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Christian Liberty, you never responded to my comment on why you think that universalists don't believe that believing in Christ's death and resurrection is the only way to get to heaven.


Sorry.  A universalist cannot believe John 3:18, which Jesus presents as a necessary part of the gospel.  Those who don't believe are condemned already.  To say that every man without exception is going to heaven is to blatantly call Jesus a liar, it is a blatantly liberal position, but it is damnable heresy.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sorry.  A universalist cannot believe John 3:18, which Jesus presents as a necessary part of the gospel.  Those who don't believe are condemned already.  To say that every man without exception is going to heaven is to blatantly call Jesus a liar, it is a blatantly liberal position, but it is damnable heresy.


Yep.

----------


## Brett85

> Sorry.  A universalist cannot believe John 3:18, which Jesus presents as a necessary part of the gospel.  Those who don't believe are condemned already.  To say that every man without exception is going to heaven is to blatantly call Jesus a liar, it is a blatantly liberal position, but it is damnable heresy.


I'm not sure why a universalist couldn't believe in John 3: 18.  They believe that those who do not believe are condemned.  They just don't believe that the condemnation lasts forever.  I'm not necessarily saying that they're saved.  I think it's a serious error.  But I do think it's the case that they believe that believing in Christ's death and resurrection is the only way to make it to heaven, which makes their view a lot different from the universalism which says that all religions are equal and all religions lead to heaven.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

This video just gave me another thought that I hadn't considered previously.  If God sends people to eternal Hell immediately after they die as an immortal soul to burn forever, does that mean those who died a thousand years ago have to suffer through Hell a thousand years longer than the people who were born later?  Where's the justice in that?  

The reason I started this thread is because I think there's way too much witch-hunting and scaremongering.  Some preachers get really imaginative about their descriptions of hell, but the problem is that they must leave Scripture in order to come up with any description.  The concept of Hell is so vague because it's not biblical.  Why can't we just learn to accept other Christians despite their imperfections and stop trying to decide who's going to Hell and who's not?  The average person should be able to read the Bible and understand what they have to do, and I think people like SF who demand a very specific set of beliefs or else hell fire for all eternity need to step back and realize just how simple it is to receive salvation.  You can only push the "it denies God's glory in such and such a way" argument so far before it just becomes absurd the things you're applying it to.  What gave these people such a bleak idea of salvation?  It's really a shame and they should stop teaching it because it's really divisive and finger-pointing and fearful and hateful and all other manners of speech to say that you're going to Hell for denying such and such because God wants you to sin for eternity.  It gives Christianity a bad name and it's not biblical at all.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

We have a certain accepted standard of punishment here on earth.  You receive your punishment fairly, and once the punishment is meted out, the punishment is over.  Given that God created us in His image, there's no way I can imagine a fair punishment as ever being eternal in any sense (that goes for annihilationists as well).  We have this idea of punishment because that is God's idea of fair punishment, and yet we're twisting the idea of just punishment way beyond what any human could possibly imagine, much less comprehend, and yet we're expected to think this is God's nature even though it is a completely foreign concept to all of us (Yes, it's foreign to you, too, SF).  We suffer punishment that is fair, which is to say, punishment that ends.  If it does not end, then it is not fair.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> We have a certain accepted standard of punishment here on earth.  You receive your punishment fairly, and once the punishment is meted out, the punishment is over.  Given that God created us in His image, there's no way I can imagine a fair punishment as ever being eternal in any sense (that goes for annihilationists as well).  We have this idea of punishment because that is God's idea of fair punishment, and yet we're twisting the idea of just punishment way beyond what any human could possibly imagine, much less comprehend, and yet we're expected to think this is God's nature even though it is a completely foreign concept to all of us (Yes, it's foreign to you, too, SF).  We suffer punishment that is fair, which is to say, punishment that ends.  If it does not end, then it is not fair.



When you go to Hell and you don't stop sinning, then God is just to continue to punish you.

----------


## jmdrake

> When you go to Hell and you don't stop sinning, then God is just to continue to punish you.


A god who creates sin and makes sure that it continues to go on forever must have a sin fetish.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Here's another video.  It's quite boring, but this guy absolutely annihilates the doctrine of eternal hell in the most complete way possible, and he quotes much more Scripture than I am able to do from memory. If you want to be convinced, then watch this video:

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> When you go to Hell and you don't stop sinning, then God is just to continue to punish you.


This is insane.  You have already admitted that God can stop this.  Why would He cause you to sin eternally so that He can continue to punish you eternally?  This is so far beyond any rational idea of justice that it can't possibly be true.  In fact, there are tons of Scripture that contradict what you're saying about sin being eternal.  I implore you especially to watch the video I posted above in post #695.

There are just way too many logical inconsistencies and Scriptural contradictions for me to cover them all, but the video I posted above does a much better job of that.

----------


## Crashland

> This video just gave me another thought that I hadn't considered previously.  If God sends people to eternal Hell immediately after they die as an immortal soul to burn forever, does that mean those who died a thousand years ago have to suffer through Hell a thousand years longer than the people who were born later?  Where's the justice in that?


Infinity years minus 1000 years is still infinity years. Even dying a million years later you wouldn't be any less worse off than the people who died first.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> A god who creates sin and makes sure that it continues to go on forever must have a sin fetish.


Another thing is that, if we all really deserve eternal punishment, then it would be unjust not to send us all to eternal torment, correct?  So why does SF believe that we all deserve eternal torment and yet there are some who will escape justice by not receiving it?  In order to be consistent when he says all people deserve eternal punishment, He would also have to believe that, in order for God to be just, all people would go to Hell for eternity.  Clearly this is not the case.

----------


## Crashland

> When you go to Hell and you don't stop sinning, then God is just to continue to punish you.


I would agree if it weren't for the idea that once you are in hell then there is nothing you can do to stop the situation. In your view God does not allow the opportunity of redemption. Or do you hold the position that the people in hell actually would still not realize they made a mistake and would still want to keep sinning after the first 10 billion years of relentless torture?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Infinity years minus 1000 years is still infinity years. Even dying a million years later you wouldn't be any less worse off than the people who died first.


I know.  I guess that shows you the absurdity of the eternal hell claim.  

Any punishment God hands out cannot truly be eternal because it had a beginning.

----------


## Christian Liberty

> Another thing is that, if we all really deserve eternal punishment, then it would be unjust not to send us all to eternal torment, correct?  So why does SF believe that we all deserve eternal torment and yet there are some who will escape justice by not receiving it?  In order to be consistent when he says all people deserve eternal punishment, He would also have to believe that, in order for God to be just, all people would go to Hell for eternity.  Clearly this is not the case.


Because Jesus represented them on the cross.  of course, that's illogical if you believe in Arminianism.  But it isn't a problem if you have Biblical theology.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I would agree if it weren't for the idea that once you are in hell then there is nothing you can do to stop the situation. In your view God does not allow the opportunity of redemption. Or do you hold the position that the people in hell actually would still not realize they made a mistake and would still want to keep sinning after the first 10 billion years of relentless torture?


People sin because they have a nature to sin.  In heaven, God will take away sin and perfect those whom He glorifies.  It is not so in Hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> A god who creates sin and makes sure that it continues to go on forever must have a sin fetish.


Or He has a purpose for sin...to glorify His justice (Romans 9:22).

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I know.  I guess that shows you the absurdity of the eternal hell claim.  
> 
> Any punishment God hands out cannot truly be eternal because it had a beginning.


That is true.   Eternal may not be the correct term.  Never ending would be the better term.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Another thing is that, if we all really deserve eternal punishment, then it would be unjust not to send us all to eternal torment, correct?  So why does SF believe that we all deserve eternal torment and yet there are some who will escape justice by not receiving it?  In order to be consistent when he says all people deserve eternal punishment, He would also have to believe that, in order for God to be just, all people would go to Hell for eternity.  Clearly this is not the case.


If God was only just, then all of us in Adam would be in Hell forever.   But He is not only just, He is also merciful.   The ones He is merciful to de-deserve what they recieve...grace.

----------


## Ender

> If God was only just, then all of us in Adam would be in Hell forever.   But He is not only just, He is also merciful.   The ones He is merciful to de-deserve what they recieve...grace.


My God is a God of Love. He loves us like a Loving Father loves His children- AND he is smart enough and patient enough to receive all of His children back in time.

His Greek name is: El Olam, which translated means God Eternal. 

Eternal punishment is God's punishment- it is not hell fire and damnation for eternity.

----------


## lilymc

> @lilymc-Do you have any interest in responding to my argument that the Bible teaches that the unsaved will be thrown in the lake of fire and be annihilated, rather than tormented for all eternity?  I'm interested in having an actual debate over the issue, rather than talking to someone like Sola who does nothing but use straw man arguments and make false claims that I believe the punishment for the unsaved ends.


Hi Brett.  Well, I think there's a lot we don't know when it comes to this topic... and TBH, I think there are problems with both sides.  (Annihilation and the literal, fire and brimstone view.)     So I haven't come to a firm conclusion on this topic either way.   Also, I haven't done a study specifically on the topic of hell.  So I should probably do that first, before saying too much here.

----------


## jmdrake

> Or He has a purpose for sin...to glorify His justice (Romans 9:22).


That's still having a sin fetish.  Your god loves sin the same way that a fox hunter loves foxes.  Fox hunting was started to end the "nuisance" of foxes, but then the British imported foxes to Australia so they could enjoy the sport of fox hunting and now foxes are a nuisance in Australia.  He's also kind of like the U.S. intelligence agencies that create terrorism in order to fight it.

----------


## jmdrake

> When you go to Hell and you don't stop sinning, then God is just to continue to punish you.





> This is insane.  You have already admitted that God can stop this.  Why would He cause you to sin eternally so that He can continue to punish you eternally?  This is so far beyond any rational idea of justice that it can't possibly be true.  In fact, there are tons of Scripture that contradict what you're saying about sin being eternal.  I implore you especially to watch the video I posted above in post #695.
> 
> There are just way too many logical inconsistencies and Scriptural contradictions for me to cover them all, but the video I posted above does a much better job of that.





> I would agree if it weren't for the idea that once you are in hell then there is nothing you can do to stop the situation. In your view God does not allow the opportunity of redemption. Or do you hold the position that the people in hell actually would still not realize they made a mistake and would still want to keep sinning after the first 10 billion years of relentless torture?





> People sin because they have a nature to sin.  In heaven, God will take away sin and perfect those whom He glorifies.  It is not so in Hell.


You ignored PaulConventionWV and you didn't adequately answer Crashland's.  The issue isn't simply that God doesn't perfect those in hell and take away their ability to sin.  The issue is that He could do that, but He doesn't according to you, just to highlight justice?  Yeah, that's insane.  And further people have the nature to sin because, according to you, God wanted them to have that nature.  So God is the author of sin but not the finisher of sin.  Sinners are not only allowed, but caused by God to keep sinning for eternity.  

Psalms 30:5 teaches "For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning."

(PaulcoventionVW, I got that from one of your videos.  Thanks for sharing.)

So if God's wrath only lasts for a moment, why does it need to be eternal?  That's a rhetorical question of course.  Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil.  (1 John 3:8) Your view of God has those works continuing forever.

----------


## DamianTV

Hellfire?  Hold on, I'll get some Marshmallows to toast...

----------


## otherone

> Hellfire?  Hold on, I'll get some Marshmallows to toast...


Be sure to get the ones marked "for destruction", as the ones labeled "elect" won't toast.

----------


## jmdrake

> Be sure to get the ones marked "for destruction", as the ones labeled "elect" won't toast.


LOL.  But according to some your marshmallows will never get done.  Just when the outside starts to get a little crispy they will miraculously become fresh again so you can keep roasting them for eternity and never truly be satisfied.  Talk about hell!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> My God is a God of Love. He loves us like a Loving Father loves His children- AND he is smart enough and patient enough to receive all of His children back in time.


God loves His children, but not every person is a child of God.



> *1 John 3:10
> 
> 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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 
> *







> His Greek name is: El Olam, which translated means God Eternal.


El Olam is_ Hebrew_ for Everlasting God.






> Eternal punishment is God's punishment- it is not hell fire and damnation for eternity.


I don't know what you mean here.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You ignored PaulConventionWV and you didn't adequately answer Crashland's.  The issue isn't simply that God doesn't perfect those in hell and take away their ability to sin.  The issue is that He could do that, but He doesn't according to you, just to highlight justice?  Yeah, that's insane.  And further people have the nature to sin because, according to you, God wanted them to have that nature.  So God is the author of sin but not the finisher of sin.  Sinners are not only allowed, but caused by God to keep sinning for eternity.


Yes, God is the righteous author of sin.  He uses sin for His own good purpose: to glorify His justice.






> Psalms 30:5 teaches "For his anger lasts only a moment, but his favor lasts a lifetime; weeping may stay for the night, but rejoicing comes in the morning."
> 
> (PaulcoventionVW, I got that from one of your videos.  Thanks for sharing.)
> 
> So if God's wrath only lasts for a moment, why does it need to be eternal?  That's a rhetorical question of course.  Jesus came to destroy the works of the devil.  (1 John 3:8) Your view of God has those works continuing forever.


God's anger last only for a moment_ toward His elect_, who He chastises but ultimately saves.  Toward the vessels of wrath, His wrath is never placated because there is no atonement for their sin.

Jesus destroyed the works of the devil.  And not only did He conquer death, but also at the end of time, the devil and His followers will be punished for their evil.  God is JUST to punish evil.

----------


## pcosmar

> God loves His children, but not every person is a child of God.


This is true,, but I'm not sure if you understand the truth of it.
Adam was a child of God.. and his offspring. Noah was one as well,, as many more.

But not all are. Fallen angels had sex with women and produced offspring. Those Godless creatures are not Children of God.

The land of Canaan was full of such.. and the people of God failed to remove them. (which caused untold problems)
They mixed with them and were corrupted by them..

Not everyone is a child of God. Some are children of devils.  


And yes,, God loves his.. And they will hear His voice. Christ came to redeem them. ALL of them. Even those corrupted by this world..

This is why he said,, "You must be born again".

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, God is the righteous author of sin..


*The Lord rebuke you*. 
Begone with that lie from the mouth of Satan.


God is not Evil and is not the author of evil. There is no Evil in Him.
 That is a Lie.  (Like the one Adam tried ,,placing the blame on God for giving him Eve)

An old lie,, from the Father of Lies.

----------


## DamianTV

> LOL.  But according to some your marshmallows will never get done.  Just when the outside starts to get a little crispy they will miraculously become fresh again so you can keep roasting them for eternity and never truly be satisfied.  Talk about hell!


All good, I'll just light up a Heretic and torch my marshmallows until they are a nice crispy golden brown!  If that fails, theres always Plan B: Gasoline and Bar Soap (napalm).  Now, where did I put those crackers and chocolate?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> *The Lord rebuke you*. 
> Begone with that lie from the mouth of Satan.
> 
> 
> God is not Evil and is not the author of evil. There is no Evil in Him.
>  That is a Lie.  (Like the one Adam tried ,,placing the blame on God for giving him Eve)
> 
> An old lie,, from the Father of Lies.



I didn't say God was evil, I said God is _sovereign_ over evil and uses it to glorify Himself.  God has a_ good_ reason for the evil He plans, so in this way, everything God does is good.


Who needs the rebuking here is you who says that man's will or Satan's will can frustrate God's will.  That is the truly evil viewpoint.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This is true,, but I'm not sure if you understand the truth of it.
> Adam was a child of God.. and his offspring. Noah was one as well,, as many more.
> 
> But not all are. Fallen angels had sex with women and produced offspring. Those Godless creatures are not Children of God.
> 
> The land of Canaan was full of such.. and the people of God failed to remove them. (which caused untold problems)
> They mixed with them and were corrupted by them..
> 
> Not everyone is a child of God. Some are children of devils.  
> ...




Well, that is nuts.  

The Bible says how we know who are the children of God and the children of the devil (and it doesn't have anything to do with fallen angels having sex with aliens or whatever):



> *1 John 3:10
> 
> 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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 
> *

----------


## pcosmar

> (and it doesn't have anything to do with fallen angels having sex with aliens or whatever):


I said nothing about "aliens".

Where did you get that??? from your father?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I said nothing about "aliens".
> 
> Where did you get that??? from your father?


Can you see in this that the children of the devil have nothing to do with the offspring of angels?



> *1 John 3:10
> 
> 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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 
> *


That's people, right Pete?

When Jesus called the Pharisees children of the devil, He wasn't saying they were Nephilim or anything, right?




> *John 8:44
> 
> You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies. 
> *

----------


## pcosmar

> When Jesus called the Pharisees children of the devil, He wasn't saying they were Nephilim or anything, right?


I do not know that.. I suspect he said exactly what he meant.. that those Pharisees were offspring of devils.
The direct result of the People of Israel failing to wipe them out as they were commanded.

And I have no scriptural evidence that the devils stopped creating offspring. They were still doing so after the Flood.. as evidenced by scripture.

Many years after Israel was established in the land,, David killed Goliath.. who was one of the more obvious offspring.
 So it was still ongoing even then.

And even in Christ's time,, people were worshiping devils in Groves in Israel. 
Show me scriptural evidence that this ever ended.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I do not know that.. I suspect he said exactly what he meant.. that those Pharisees were offspring of devils.
> The direct result of the People of Israel failing to wipe them out as they were commanded.
> 
> And I have no scriptural evidence that the devils stopped creating offspring. They were still doing so after the Flood.. as evidenced by scripture.
> 
> Many years after Israel was established in the land,, David killed Goliath.. who was one of the more obvious offspring.
>  So it was still ongoing even then.
> 
> And even in Christ's time,, people were worshiping devils in Groves in Israel. 
> Show me scriptural evidence that this ever ended.


Ok.  That's la la land.  No offense.  But that is not what the Bible means by children of the devil at all.  The children of the devil are people.  Just as the children of God are people.

----------


## pcosmar

> Ok.  That's la la land.  No offense.


I am not offended.. I expect such.



> And it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born unto them,
> 
>  That the* sons of God* saw the daughters of men that they were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose





> There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the *sons of God* came in unto the daughters of men,* and they bare children to them*, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown.





> Now there was a day when the *sons of God* came to present themselves before the Lord, and Satan[b] also came among them. 7 The Lord said to Satan, “From where have you come?” Satan answered the Lord and said, “From going to and fro on the earth, and from walking up and down on it.”


No la la land.. but scripture.

You would also be wise to read the Books that Jude quoted,, from the prophet Enoch. It expands on the subject.




> 1. The words of the blessing of Enoch, wherewith he blessed the elect ⌈⌈and⌉⌉ righteous, who will be living in the day of tribulation, when all the wicked ⌈⌈and godless⌉⌉ are to be removed. 2. And he took up his parable and said--Enoch a righteous man, whose eyes were opened by God, saw the vision of the Holy One in the heavens, ⌈which⌉ the angels showed me, and from them I heard everything, and from them I understood as I saw, but not for this generation, but for a remote one which is for to come. 3. Concerning the elect I said, and took up my parable concerning them:


Jude quoted from the mentioned parable.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am not offended.. I expect such.
> No la la land.. but scripture.
> You would also be wise to read the Books that Jude quoted,, from the prophet Enoch. It expands on the subject.
> Jude quoted from the mentioned parable.



What I see often from you is you take portions of scripture that are not clear, and are very mysterious, and then you get so confident about their meaning and go off on them.

But the way a student of the Bible reads the Scripture is that when the Bible is clear on something, then we are clear.  When the Bible is vague on something, then we are vague.

The Bible speaks clearly who children of the devil are.  



> *
> 1 John 3:10
> 
>  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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 
> 
> John 8:44
> 
> You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.*


They are sinners who follow the desires of their father, the devil.  For example, all who believe in unlimited atonement are followers of the devil.

----------


## pcosmar

> What I see often from you is you take portions of scripture that are not clear, and are very mysterious, and then you get so confident about their meaning and go off on them.


And you take a very few scriptures and try to build a doctrine,, that is contradicted by many other scriptures that you ignore.

And end up with a distorted view,, and a false doctrine.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And you take a very few scriptures and try to build a doctrine,, that is contradicted by many other scriptures that you ignore.
> 
> And end up with a distorted view,, and a false doctrine.


Here are two verses that directly talk about the children of the devil.  Neither of these verses mention angel/giant hybrids who roam the earth:




> *
> 1 John 3:10
> 
> 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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister. 
> 
> John 8:44
> 
> You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.*

----------


## pcosmar

Woe unto you.




> But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 
> 
> "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.…





> "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.

----------


## PaulConventionWV



----------


## Sola_Fide

> Woe unto you.






> But woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you shut off the kingdom of heaven from people; for you do not enter in yourselves, nor do you allow those who are entering to go in. 
> 
> "Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites, because you travel around on sea and land *to make one proselyte; and when he becomes one, you make him twice as much a son of hell as yourselves.… 
> 
> *
> "Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people's faces. You yourselves do not enter, nor will you let those enter who are trying to.



Great verse!  There is another verse that shows that _people_ are the children of the devil.

----------


## Brett85

Philippians 3: 18-19

"For many walk, of whom I often told you, and now tell you even weeping, that they are enemies of the cross of Christ, 19 *whose end is destruction*, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things."

Destruction is *their end.*  Their life ends.  They don't live forever.

----------


## pcosmar

> Great verse!  There is another verse that shows that _people_ are the children of the devil.


Some are,, some are not.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

The real meaning of 'aion' and 'aionos':

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Some are,, some are not.


Yes, that's true.  People are either children of God or children of the devil.

----------


## AuH20

> *This is true,, but I'm not sure if you understand the truth of it.
> Adam was a child of God.. and his offspring. Noah was one as well,, as many more.
> 
> But not all are. Fallen angels had sex with women and produced offspring. Those Godless creatures are not Children of God.
> 
> The land of Canaan was full of such.. and the people of God failed to remove them. (which caused untold problems)
> They mixed with them and were corrupted by them..
> 
> Not everyone is a child of God. Some are children of devils.  
> ...


I think you are closer to the truth. I was always annoyed how the old testament was casually cast aside by some of the Jesus freaks in my high school. And this theory would explain the Great Flood in greater context. Corrupted DNA that had to be expunged.

----------


## pcosmar

> Yes, that's true.  People are either children of God or children of the devil.


Then be careful who and how you accused and judge.




> "Do not judge so that you will not be judged. 2"For in the way you judge, you will be judged; and by your standard of measure, it will be measured to you. 3"Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?…





> "With the measure you use, it will be measured to you--and even more.

----------


## AuH20

I know this may be going off tangent, but this is a very important discovery. Prayer/meditation can affect DNA. Ergo, there is an opportunity for redemption. 

http://drdavidhamilton.com/harvard-s...n-impacts-dna/

----------


## Brett85

Matthew 7: 13-14

"Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to *destruction*, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to *life*, and there are few who find it."

The two options are life and destruction, not eternal life and eternal torture.  God says to us "choose life."

----------


## AuH20

> John 8:44
> 
> *You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.*


What if the serpent imparted more than knowledge to Eve? This passage would lead you to believe so.

----------


## Brett85

Hebrews 10: 26-27

"If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire *that will consume* the enemies of God."

It's a consuming fire, not a tormenting fire.  It's a fire that burns things up and reduces them to ashes.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Matthew 7: 13-14
> 
> "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to *destruction*, and there are many who enter through it. 14"For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to *life*, and there are few who find it."
> 
> The two options are life and destruction, not eternal life and eternal torture.  God says to us "choose life."


That verse doesn't say eternal life, so why do you believe in eternal life?

----------


## Brett85

2 Timothy 1: 10

"But now has been revealed by the appearing of our Savior Christ Jesus, who abolished death and brought life and immortality to light through the gospel."

We can only gain immortality through the gospel, through believing in what Jesus did for us on the cross.  We aren't born with an immortal soul which lives forever.  We rely on God for our very existence, and apart from Christ we can't live forever.  We can only live forever by trusting in what Christ did for us on the cross.

----------


## pcosmar

> That verse doesn't say eternal life, so why do you believe in eternal life?


Do you not believe in eternal Life?

Or are you just attempting to muddy the waters?

----------


## Brett85

> That verse doesn't say eternal life, so why do you believe in eternal life?


I'll respond to you if you want to have a civil and respectful conversation.  Otherwise I'll just put you back on ignore or just stay away from the Religion sub forum all together.

I believe in eternal life because it's taught throughout the Bible.  There's verse after verse in the Bible which teaches that the life that Christians will receive will be eternal.

----------


## Brett85

Matthew 10: 28

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to *destroy* both soul and body in hell."

This verse is pretty self explanatory.  We're to fear God because he's the one who's able to destroy both body and soul and end our existence entirely, rather than fearing the one who can only kill the body.  Someone can kill our body, but as long as we believe in what Christ did for us on the cross, we'll be saved and receive eternal life.  But God has the ability to permanently end our existence, and we should fear him.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I'll respond to you if you want to have a civil and respectful conversation.  Otherwise I'll just put you back on ignore or just stay away from the Religion sub forum all together.
> 
> I believe in eternal life because it's taught throughout the Bible.  There's verse after verse in the Bible which teaches that the life that Christians will receive will be eternal.


There's verse after verse that say the punishment is eternal:

*Matthew 25:46 

And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”*

----------


## Sola_Fide

Punishment is eternal:

*Revelation 20:10

and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.*

----------


## Brett85

> There's verse after verse that say the punishment is eternal:
> 
> *Matthew 25:46 
> 
> And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.”*


And I've said time after time that I agree with you that the punishment is eternal.  We just disagree on the nature of the punishment.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And I've said time after time that I agree with you that the punishment is eternal.  We just disagree on the nature of the punishment.


Yeah, this is the nature of the punishment:

*Revelation 20:10

 and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.*

----------


## AuH20

What does everyone think about Limbo?

----------


## Brett85

> Punishment is eternal:
> 
> *Revelation 20:10
> 
> and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.*


Even if you take that 100% literally (which you shouldn't, because almost the entire book of Revelation is symbolic imagery not meant to be taken literally) that still doesn't prove anything.  All it says is that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented for all eternity, not all of the unsaved.  There are some annihilationists who believe that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented for all eternity, but everyone else will be annihilated.

----------


## wizardwatson

> What does everyone think about Limbo?


More fun on rollerskates.

----------


## Brett85

> Yeah, this is the nature of the punishment:
> 
> *Revelation 20:10
> 
>  and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.*


Daniel 7: 11

"Then I kept looking because of the sound of the boastful words which the horn was speaking; *I kept looking until the beast was slain, and its body was destroyed and given to the burning fire.*"

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Even if you take that 100% literally (which you shouldn't, because almost the entire book of Revelation is symbolic imagery not meant to be taken literally) that still doesn't prove anything.  All it says is that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented for all eternity, not all of the unsaved.  There are some annihilationists who believe that the devil, the beast, and the false prophet will be tormented for all eternity, but everyone else will be annihilated.


Wrong. The people who worship the beast and receive the mark are tormented and they have no rest day or night.

*Revelation 14:10-11 

The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.* 


The purpose of the fire and brimstone in Revelation 14:10 is NOT to end one's existence, but to torment.  Annihilationism is not Biblical.

----------


## Brett85

> Wrong. The people who worship the beast and receive the mark are tormented and they have no rest day or night.


Again, the book of Revelation is almost entirely symbolic.  Don't you yourself believe that the 1,000 years isn't meant to be taken literally?  If so, then you have no room to argue that these verses have to be taken 100% literally.  The phrase "the smoke of their torment rises forever" comes from the book of Isaiah which describes the destruction of Edom.  That's where that imagery comes from.  Do you believe that Edom is still burning?

Isaiah 34: 8-10

For the LORD has a day of vengeance, A year of recompense for the cause of Zion. 9Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch. 10It will not be quenched night or day; *Its smoke will go up forever*. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Again, the book of Revelation is almost entirely symbolic.  Don't you yourself believe that the 1,000 years isn't meant to be taken literally?  If so, then you have no room to argue that these verses have to be taken 100% literally.  The phrase "the smoke of their torment rises forever" comes from the book of Isaiah which describes the destruction of Edom.  That's where that imagery comes from.  Do you believe that Edom is still burning?
> 
> Isaiah 34: 8-10
> 
> For the LORD has a day of vengeance, A year of recompense for the cause of Zion. 9Its streams will be turned into pitch, And its loose earth into brimstone, And its land will become burning pitch. 10It will not be quenched night or day; *Its smoke will go up forever*. From generation to generation it will be desolate; None will pass through it forever and ever.


That verse from Isaiah is symbolic too.

Yes, and what we have in the Old Testament is often a temporal sign of a future eternal reality.  This is why in the next chapter in Isaiah 35, the land of Zion is described.  Is Zion just an earthly place?  No.  It is a temporal sign of an eternal reality. 

In eternity, smoke will go up forever because time will not end.

----------


## Brett85

> That verse from Isaiah is symbolic too.
> 
> Yes, and what we have in the Old Testament is often a temporal sign of a future eternal reality.  This is why in the next chapter in Isaiah 35, the land of Zion is described.  Is Zion just an earthly place?  No.  It is a temporal sign of an eternal reality. 
> 
> In eternity, smoke will go up forever because time will not end.


And it will go up "day and night" forever and ever, even though there will be no more night on the new earth?

Revelation 22:5

"*And there will no longer be any night*; and they will not have need of the light of a lamp nor the light of the sun, because the Lord God will illumine them; and they will reign forever and ever."

----------


## wizardwatson

Sola_Fide,

If someone doesn't believe in eternal hell are they eternally damned?

Another question,

If someone doesn't ___________________ are they eternally damned?

If your answer to either of these questions is NOT equal to "i don't know" then you have a serious problem.  Even Christ doesn't judge on such things.  It is the Father who takes in his hand the sword that is Christ and separates the sheep from the goats.

You seem to be perfectly comfortable taking that sword in your hand and leaving the Father tied up in the basement.

You are locked in a self-reinforcing delusion.  "This is the truth revealed to me.  Since it is truth and it is revealed to me then I am saved and anyone who rejects this truth 'probably' isn't.  If they disagree with me then it only shows me who they are.  I will carry on though in case some bystander is looking on.  It is a struggle but if you speak about Christ the world will hate you, so it's a win-win."

I doubt you will, but if you accept the OBVIOUS fact that there is NO WAY for you to form ANY objective condition that can help you or anyone else divine the eternal state of another beings soul THEN WHY DO YOU THINK IT IS WORTHY OF DISCUSSION?

What can I learn from this teaching that helps me understand and love God or my neighbor?

I am learning but it isn't from you it's about you.

Your attempts to teach only make transparent the fact that you must defend eternal hell because that's the "truth" by which you are measuring the faith of others.  If you give even an inch like, "well, maybe I'm wrong", then your entire 1000's-of-posts-diatribe becomes meaningless.

Just move on to something else simpler.  God's final judgement is something I still struggle with trying to understand almost daily.  It's hard.  There are a lot of aspects that can't be so easily generalized.  Not saying I'm smarter than you, but when I see someone throwing around "hell" and "damnation" and are completely wrong about for instance, God and Jesus being two separate temporal persons, I can't help but assume that in this particular subject I am.

You cannot anchor yourself to an intellectual interpretation.  You make it into an idol.  

*"In order for a proposition to be capable of being true it must also be capable of being false." - Ludwig Wittgenstein*

There is a seed of doubt/alternative possibility in all things intelletual concerning "factness".  You can't even be certain that you aren't in the Matrix or that your hand doesn't actually have 6 fingers.  Being 100% certain about the fact of eternal hell is dubious and only shows the reasons I described above of why you can't resist defending it.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola_Fide,
> 
> If someone doesn't believe in eternal hell are they eternally damned?
> 
> Another question,
> 
> If someone doesn't ___________________ are they eternally damned?
> 
> If your answer to either of these questions is NOT equal to "i don't know" then you have a serious problem.  Even Christ doesn't judge on such things.  It is the Father who takes in his hand the sword that is Christ and separates the sheep from the goats.
> ...



I think I've explained the theological reasons that annihilationism is a heresy.  Annihilationism asserts that there is something other than Christ that satisfies (ends) the wrath of God against a man.  But the gospel is that Christ alone saves His people.  Paul says that if even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you than the true gospel, he is anathema.

----------


## Brett85

> Paul says that if even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you than the true gospel, he is anathema.


I'm not a pastor.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I think I've explained the theological reasons that annihilationism is a heresy.  Annihilationism asserts that there is something other than Christ that satisfies (ends) the wrath of God against a man.  But the gospel is that Christ alone saves His people.  Paul says that if even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you than the true gospel, he is anathema.


Thank you for paraphrasing exactly what I said, and no thank you for refusing to actually comment on my assessment.

Paul, Paul, Paul....What did all those poor Christian souls do before Paul showed them the Way!!!

The NT says women shouldn't cut their hair.  Am I anathema if I say ladies can cut their hair however they want?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> There's verse after verse that say the punishment is eternal:
> 
> *Matthew 25:46 
> 
> And these will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.*


And still you ignore my posts about "aionas/aionios".  The word does NOT mean eternal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Punishment is eternal:
> 
> *Revelation 20:10
> 
> and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulfur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night forever and ever.*


Did you not see my post about the phrase "forever and ever"?  Revelation 20:10 completely disproves the idea of eternal torment. 

Stop and think about it for just a second.  The phrase used in Rev. 20:10 is "aionios ton aionios".  Does this mean there are two forevers?  That is logically impossible.  What does the phrase "forever and ever" even mean?  That only makes sense if you're talking to a 5-year-old.  "Forever and ever" is a redundant and self-contradictory phrase.  It makes much more sense when you translate it as ages instead of eternities because you can have more than one age, but you cannot have more than one eternity.  

Watch the video I posted in post #733 for more evidence of what I'm saying.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And I've said time after time that I agree with you that the punishment is eternal.  We just disagree on the nature of the punishment.


Is everyone just going to ignore my posts about the word "aionios"?  Are you all just going to turn a blind eye to what is plainly before you as evidence against your ideas?  I encourage you to reconsider these ideas.  Watch the videos and ponder whether you're motivated by love or by fear.  Love cannot be fearful.  If you are making your decision out of fear, then you are doing it wrong.




> 1 John 4:18
> 
> There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Wrong. The people who worship the beast and receive the mark are tormented and they have no rest day or night.
> 
> *Revelation 14:10-11 
> 
> The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of His indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascends up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receives the mark of his name.* 
> 
> 
> The purpose of the fire and brimstone in Revelation 14:10 is NOT to end one's existence, but to torment.  Annihilationism is not Biblical.


The purpose of fire and brimstone was to destroy Jerusalem, not torment it forever.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think I've explained the theological reasons that annihilationism is a heresy.  Annihilationism asserts that there is something other than Christ that satisfies (ends) the wrath of God against a man.  But the gospel is that Christ alone saves His people.  Paul says that if even an angel from heaven preaches a different gospel to you than the true gospel, he is anathema.


Did Paul ever talk about Hell?  You would think that was kind of important, and he said he didn't leave anything out, so... did he?

----------


## Brett85

> Is everyone just going to ignore my posts about the word "aionios"?  Are you all just going to turn a blind eye to what is plainly before you as evidence against your ideas?  I encourage you to reconsider these ideas.  Watch the videos and ponder whether you're motivated by love or by fear.  Love cannot be fearful.  If you are making your decision out of fear, then you are doing it wrong.


I'm not.  I'm just not sure how to respond to it as I haven't researched the issue as much as I should've.  I've asked Sola several times how he responds to your argument, and he seems to just be ignoring both of us.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I'm not.  I'm just not sure how to respond to it as I haven't researched the issue as much as I should've.  I've asked Sola several times how he responds to your argument, and he seems to just be ignoring both of us.


I don't think he can.  The video I posted is a good place to start if you want to find out more about it, though.  I'm beginning to think the early church was actually universalist or at least did not consider it heresy until later when it was corrupted.  I haven't studied a lot of the history, but that is a compelling point that I haven't actually heard before.  Watch the video for more about that.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes, God is the righteous author of sin.  He uses sin for His own good purpose: to glorify His justice.


You believe that.  The Bible doesn't teach that.  And if it was true (it isn't) then God loves sin the same way that English fox hunters love foxes.  "Oh the glory of another fox hunt!  Let's make sure there are more foxes for next years hunt!  Let's not destroy all of the foxes or we won't have the glory of hunting them!"  It's sadistic.





> God's anger last only for a moment_ toward His elect_, who He chastises but ultimately saves.  Toward the vessels of wrath, His wrath is never placated because there is no atonement for their sin.


Yeah...the Bible doesn't say that.  For someone who *claims* to be into what the Bible says you often take liberalities with it and go so far as to rest your "biblical" arguments on extra biblical sources like the Westminster Confession. 




> Jesus destroyed the works of the devil.  And not only did He conquer death, but also at the end of time, the devil and His followers will be punished for their evil.  God is JUST to punish evil.


That's not what you actually believe.  You believe the works of the devil go on and on forever.  And that's because you believe the works of the devil are actually the works of God.  So Jesus *can't* destroy the works of the devil in your belief system because that would be going against God.

----------


## wizardwatson

> I'm not.  I'm just not sure how to respond to it as I haven't researched the issue as much as I should've.  I've asked Sola several times how he responds to your argument, and he seems to just be ignoring both of us.


I wouldn't sweat it.  I haven't got any response outside his "you can't be saved if you don't believe this cuz Paul said" stuff. 

Mt current hypothesis is that he's a "tomato can" for those here pretending to be here.

----------


## Ender

> God loves His children, but not every person is a child of God.
> 
> *Wrong. EVERY person is a child of God.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


God loves all of us- we are all his children. Eternal punishment is GOD'S punishment- it is not forever.

Again, my God is the God of Love.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You believe that.  The Bible doesn't teach that.  And if it was true (it isn't) then God loves sin the same way that English fox hunters love foxes.  "Oh the glory of another fox hunt!  Let's make sure there are more foxes for next years hunt!  Let's not destroy all of the foxes or we won't have the glory of hunting them!"  It's sadistic.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah...the Bible doesn't say that.  For someone who *claims* to be into what the Bible says you often take liberalities with it and go so far as to rest your "biblical" arguments on extra biblical sources like the Westminster Confession. 
> 
> 
> 
> That's not what you actually believe.  You believe the works of the devil go on and on forever.  And that's because you believe the works of the devil are actually the works of God.  So Jesus *can't* destroy the works of the devil in your belief system because that would be going against God.


Does the devil have power that God doesn't have?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> God loves all of us- *we are all his children.* Eternal punishment is GOD'S punishment- it is not forever.
> 
> Again, my God is the God of Love.


Read these two verses:



> *1 John 3:10
> 
> 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 God's child, nor is anyone who does not love their brother and sister.
> 
> John 8:44
> 
> You belong to your father, the devil, and you want to carry out your father's desires. He was a murderer from the beginning, not holding to the truth, for there is no truth in him. When he lies, he speaks his native language, for he is a liar and the father of lies.
> *


Now.  Is every person God's child?  Yes or no?

----------


## Brett85

Sola, I'm still interested to hear how you respond to Paul's argument that "aionios" doesn't mean "eternal."  I've heard this argument brought up before by universalists and don't know how to respond to it.  Can you address that issue and give your view on it?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sola, I'm still interested to hear how you respond to Paul's argument that "aionios" doesn't mean "eternal."  I've heard this argument brought up before by universalists and don't know how to respond to it.  Can you address that issue and give your view on it?


This entire video is great, but if you want the answer, go to 9:50 to 11:20:



"These will go Iinto eternal punishment,  but the righteous will go into eternal life".  If ainiois doesn't mean eternal punishment, then aonios doesn't mean eternal life.  My Greek is horrible,  I admit it, but I am learning.  The Greek of these new universalists is just downright shameful.  This also proves that punishment is eternal, as life is, also.  So it disproves Annihilationism too.

----------


## Brett85

> This entire video is great, but if you want the answer, go to 9:50 to 11:20:
> 
> 
> 
> "These will go Iinto eternal punishment,  but the righteous will go into eternal life".  If ainiois doesn't mean eternal punishment, then aonios doesn't mean eternal life.  My Greek is horrible,  I admit it, but I am learning.  The Greek of these new universalists is just downright shameful.  This also proves that punishment is eternal, as life is, also.  So it disproves Annihilationism too.


Thanks for the video, but no, it doesn't disprove annihilationism.    I agree with you that the punishment is eternal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Thanks for the video, but no, it doesn't disprove annihilationism.    I agree with you that the punishment is eternal.


How is the punishment eternal?  You are saying the punishment ends in a point in time.  How is that eternal?

----------


## Brett85

> How is the punishment eternal?  You are saying the punishment ends in a point in time.  How is that eternal?


Nope.  The punishment is death, and the punishment of death lasts for all eternity.  The unsaved will never be resurrected a second time and allowed to enter heaven.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Nope.  The punishment is death, and the punishment of death lasts for all eternity.  The unsaved will never be resurrected a second time and allowed to enter heaven.


The Greek says the PUNISHMENT never ends, just as the LIFE never ends.

----------


## moostraks

> The Greek says the PUNISHMENT never ends, just as the LIFE never ends.


Your English is not that good either if the point Brett has made is still flying right over your head...

----------


## Brett85

> The Greek says the PUNISHMENT never ends, just as the LIFE never ends.


And I've repeatedly said that I agree with that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your English is not that good either if the point Brett has made is still flying right over your head...


That's a snippy response, but it doesn't show an understanding of the verse that we are talking about.  Study the verse, and then let's have a conversation.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And I've repeatedly said that I agree with that.


What?  You say that a person is annihilated out of existence.   That means the punishment ends.  The verse says the punishment doesn't end, just like eternal life doesn't end.

----------


## Brett85

Sola, you're interpreting Matthew 25: 46 as "eternal punishing," not "eternal punishment."  I believe in eternal punishment, just not "eternal punishing."  "Punishment" is a result oriented word.

----------


## Brett85

> What?  You say that a person is annihilated out of existence.   That means the punishment ends.  The verse says the punishment doesn't end, just like eternal life doesn't end.


The "punishing" is the act of killing the person, the "punishment" is the result of the "punishing," the fact that that person will never again see life.

----------


## moostraks

> That's a snippy response, but it doesn't show an understanding of the verse that we are talking about.  Study the verse, and then let's have a conversation.


Get over yourself and climb down off your god pedestal. How's your apology going? Figured out how to do it yet?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> The "punishing" is the act of killing the person, the "punishment" is the result of the "punishing," the fact that that person will never again see life.


That's is not what the Greek says!   It says the punishment itself does not end, just as the eternal life does not end!  As we see with all of these blasphemous viewpoints, they always redefine the words and they never interact with the original languages. 

The theological basis of all of this is blasphemy:  Christ's sacrifice is not the only thing that can end punishment.  This is a false gospel.  Christ ALONE is the basis of the end of God's wrath against sin.  Anyone else who says it's something else, even if it is an angel from heaven, is a minister of Satan.

----------


## Brett85

> That's is not what the Greek says!   It says the punishment itself does not end, just as the eternal life does not end!


I've repeatedly agreed with you that the punishment never ends.  As Romans 6: 23 says, the eternal punishment is death, not eternal life in hell.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I've repeatedly agreed with you that the punishment never ends.  As Romans 6: 23 says, the eternal punishment is death, not eternal life in hell.


You are saying the punishment of death is endlessly symbolic.  The text says the _punishment itself_, _kolasin_, never ends.  You don't understand the Greek.  You've probably never checked a critical commentary of the Greek (like I just have).  You want this to be true because you are an unrepentant sinner who denies the justice of God against sin, and rejects the propitiatory sacrifice of Christ.

----------


## DamianTV

How do you make Holy Water? You boil the Hell out of it!

(couldnt resist the urge...)

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How do you make Holy Water? You boil the Hell out of it!
> 
> (couldnt resist the urge...)


Zinger!  Way to insult these fundies!  (By the way, there's no such thing as holy water).

----------


## wizardwatson

> Sola, you're interpreting Matthew 25: 46 as "eternal punishing," not "eternal punishment."  I believe in eternal punishment, just not "eternal punishing."  "Punishment" is a result oriented word.


This thread is eternal punishment.

Hell < eternal punishment < this thread

----------


## Sola_Fide

> This thread is eternal punishment.
> 
> Hell < eternal punishment < this thread


I agree with this.  The natural man in his sins will supress the truth of Hell with all of his being (Romans 1).  From the beginning of time, man has rejected the justice of God against sin because he knows in his heart it condemns him.

----------


## Brett85

> The text says the _punishment itself_, _kolasin_, never ends.


You're just being intentionally obnoxious and repeating talking points.  I've agreed over and over again that the punishment itself never ends.  The punishment of death never ends.  You're just intentionally obnoxious for the sole purpose of provoking people.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> You're just being intentionally obnoxious and repeating talking points.  I've agreed over and over again that the punishment itself never ends.  The punishment of death never ends.  You're just intentionally obnoxious for the sole purpose of provoking people.


There, you just said it again.  "The punishment of death" never ends.  That is not what the Greek says.  It says the punishment itself, _kolasin_, never ends!  That's a "talking point"???  No, it's the Greek words which you do not accept because of your prior rejection of Christ.  It's not the symbology of death that is eternal, it is _the punishment of sin_ that is eternal.

----------


## moostraks

> I agree with this.  The natural man in his sins will supress the truth of Hell with all of his being (Romans 1).  From the beginning of time, man has rejected the justice of God against sin because he knows in his heart it condemns him.


Romans 1:And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Know them by their fruits...

----------


## Brett85

> There, you just said it again.  "The punishment of death" never ends.  That is not what the Greek says.  It says the punishment itself, _kolasin_, never ends!


I believe that death is "the punishment itself."  You seem to have a hard time understanding that.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I believe that death is "the punishment itself."  You seem to have a hard time understanding that.


You don't believe what that verse says.  It says the punishment of sin never ends.  You believe the punishment of sin ends!

----------


## Brett85

> You don't believe what that verse says.  It says the punishment of sin never ends.  You believe the punishment of sin ends!


No, that's false.  I believe the punishment of sin never ends.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Romans 1:And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, 30 slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, 31 without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; 32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.
> 
> Know them by their fruits...


Great verse!  Thanks for posting.   The entire chapter expands on how the natural man supresses the truth of God's justice against sin.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, that's false.  I believe the punishment of sin never ends.


No you don't.   God cannot punish something that doesn't exist anymore.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No you don't.   God cannot punish something that doesn't exist anymore.


Can someone be conscious when they're dead?

----------


## Brett85

> No you don't.   God cannot punish something that doesn't exist anymore.


Sure he can.  When someone receives the death penalty, we don't measure the punishment that that person receives as the minute or two that it takes for that person to die, but the fact that that person is forever removed from the community of the living.  The people who have been put to death here in America are still being punished for what they did.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Can someone be conscious when they're dead?


Yes.  Man is a never-dying soul...he is a "living soul". So man's soul never dies in the sense that it ceases to exist.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Sure he can.  When someone receives the death penalty, we don't measure the punishment that that person receives as the minute or two that it takes for that person to die, but the fact that that person is forever removed from the community of the living.  The people who have been put to death here in America are still being punished for what they did.


What a twisted piece of logic that is!  The text says the punishment of sin doesn't end.  You insert "death" into the text when it's not even there.

I want to thank you for bringing this topic up TC, because a I really needed to have a Biblical theology of Hell, and you have really caused me to dig deep into the Scriptures to find it.

----------


## moostraks

> Great verse!  Thanks for posting.   The entire chapter expands on how the natural man supresses the truth of God's justice against sin.


It is interesting how you can look at the Word and feel no remorse or shame, but always manage to talk with such a syrupy, arrogant tone...

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is interesting how you can look at the Word and feel no remorse or shame, but always manage to talk with such a syrupy, arrogant tone...


Ma'am,  you need to actually read the verses you post.

Please,  post some more.

----------


## Brett85

> Yes.  Man is a never-dying soul...he is a "living soul". So man's soul never dies in the sense that it ceases to exist.


The Bible says otherwise.  You believe a false gospel.

Ezekiel 18: 20

"The soul that sinneth, it shall die."

Matthew 10: 28

"Do not fear those who kill the body but are unable to kill the soul; but rather fear Him who is able to destroy both soul and body in hell."

----------


## Brett85

> The text says the punishment of sin doesn't end.


And I completely agree.  The punishment of sin doesn't end.

----------


## moostraks

> Ma'am,  you need to actually read the verses you post.
> 
> Please,  post some more.


Arrogant, insolent, boastful, untrustworthy, filled with strife, deceit, malice, slanderers...yeah, how is that apology of yours going by the way? 

I read the verses but it is as though you find the Word to merely be a weapon for you to turn upon others because none of issues pertain to you. You can act as much of a scoundrel as you choose and you are covered.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> This entire video is great, but if you want the answer, go to 9:50 to 11:20:
> 
> 
> 
> "These will go Iinto eternal punishment,  but the righteous will go into eternal life".  If ainiois doesn't mean eternal punishment, then aonios doesn't mean eternal life.  My Greek is horrible,  I admit it, but I am learning.  The Greek of these new universalists is just downright shameful.  This also proves that punishment is eternal, as life is, also.  So it disproves Annihilationism too.


Your Greek is horrible, but not so horrible that you can't call others' Greek "shameful"...

Any secular person who knows Greek will tell you that "aion" means "age", and even Strong's Concordance says that it can mean either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time, but that translating it as such would require extending its basic meaning.  We still have the word "eon" today and it does NOT mean eternal in any sense unless it is used in a specific way.  I have given several passages that demonstrate clearly that the punishment in Revelations 20:10 cannot mean "eternal" because "forever and ever" as it is translated, is a nonsensical term.  It is absolutely absurd to think that the Bible would use such a redundant phrase while apparently telling us that there is another eternity in addition to the first eternity.  The word "age" makes way more sense there.  

The fact that the same word is used to refer to life does not mean the word has to mean eternal.  The passages in which it is used that way is simply speaking in the context of the same age that it is referring to.  Some will go to age-lasting life and others will go to age-lasting punishment.  This does not suggest, in any way, that life cannot be eternal, but the fact that all things are saved and will be restored does not rely on the translation of that word, as the concept of "eternal punishment" does.  

Strong's Concordance says this:



> “aion: from the same as 104 [aei, ‘continued duration’]; prop. an age; by extens. perpetuity (also past); by impl. the world; spec. (Jewish) a Messianic period (present or future).”


So "aion" means age, but could be extended beyond its *basic* meaning to mean "perpetuity", but as I have demonstrated, it is not used this way in Rev. 20:10.  




> In other words, according to Strong’s Concordance, aion properly means “an age,” but he says that by extension it means “perpetuity.” Thus, he says that it can mean either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time. But to make it an unlimited period of time requires extending its basic, usual meaning, which is limited.


http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/




> Dr. Bullinger, in his Appendix 129 to The Companion Bible, says:
> 
> “aion = an age, or age-time, the duration of which is indefinite, and may be limited or extended as the context of each occurrence may demand.
> 
> *“The root meaning of aion is expressed by the Heb. olam . . . which denotes indefinite, unknown or concealed duration; just as we speak of ‘the patriarchal age’, or ‘the golden age’, etc. Hence, it has come to denote any given period of time, characterized by a special form of Divine administration or dispensation.*
> 
> “In the plural we have the Heb. olamim and Gr. aiones used of ages, or of a succession of age-times, and of an abiding from age to age. *From this comes the adjective aionios . . . used of an unrestricted duration, as distinct from a particular or limited age-time. These age-times must be distinct or they could not be added to, or multiplied, as in the expression aions of aions.*
> 
> “These ages or age-times were all prepared and arranged by God (see Heb. 1:2; 11:3); and* there is a constant distinction in the New Testament between ‘this age’ and the ‘coming age’* (see Matt. 12:32; Heb. 1:2; Eph. 1:21).”


Thus, we can see that a translation of "eternal" is the *exception* to the general rule.  However, let's pretend that you're right.  I *challenge* you to support the idea of eternal judgment with a passage that does NOT use 'aionios' or 'olam'.  The simple truth is that you have no case because your entire argument rests upon these verses.  Even if you are right about that particular word, my case is not diminished because Scripture teaches the Restoration of All Things from Genesis to Revelation without relying on the word 'aionios'.  Your case, however, does rely on that term, and that term alone.  You cannot support your case with any other parts of Scripture.  




> We can prove that God will save all men by showing that the divine law mandates a Jubilee, which is a limit to all judgment. We do not need to rely upon the word aionios.
> 
> We can prove that God will save all men by the passages in the New Testament where Jesus came to save not only us, but “the whole world” (1 John 2:2). We do not need to rely upon the word aionios. We rely instead upon the phrase “the whole world.”
> 
> We can show it by Paul’s writings, who said that all things (ta panta, “the all”) were created by Christ and will be reconciled to him as well (Col. 1:16-20). In this, we rely upon the phrase, ta panta, which is defined by the context as meaning the created universe.
> 
> We can show it again in Paul’s writings, when he said that “as in Adam all die, even in Christ will all be made alive” (1 Cor. 15:22). Even as ALL die in Adam, so will ALL be made alive in Christ. We do not need to use aionios to prove this.


http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/

Curious that Paul mentions a lot about how ALL are saved but NEVER mentions "Hell" even once.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> And I completely agree.  The punishment of sin doesn't end.


How does God continue to punish a soul that doesn't exist?  The verse says that kolasin, torment, is aionios, eternal. 

The torment is eternal to the goats. You insert the word "death" into the verse when it doesn't exist in the verse.  You have nothing but non-answers.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What a twisted piece of logic that is!  The text says the punishment of sin doesn't end.  You insert "death" into the text when it's not even there.


In no way does it say that as I have demonstrated time and again.  You are inserting your bias because the word 'aionios' does not imply "no end" in any way, shape, or form.  You just can't get "no end" out of those passages.  Even if you could, though, I would expect you to be able to support your case with something other than this verse alone.  




> I want to thank you for bringing this topic up TC, because a I really needed to have a Biblical theology of Hell, and you have really caused me to dig deep into the Scriptures to find it.


I'm afraid you're doing nothing but reaffirming your own pre-conceived ideas about theology rather than taking this opportunity to actually learn opposing viewpoints and question why you hold your beliefs.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Your Greek is horrible, but not so horrible that you can't call others' Greek "shameful"...
> 
> Any secular person who knows Greek will tell you that "aion" means "age", and even Strong's Concordance says that it can mean either a limited period of time or an unlimited period of time, but that translating it as such would require extending its basic meaning.  We still have the word "eon" today and it does NOT mean eternal in any sense unless it is used in a specific way.  I have given several passages that demonstrate clearly that the punishment in Revelations 20:10 cannot mean "eternal" because "forever and ever" as it is translated, is a nonsensical term.  It is absolutely absurd to think that the Bible would use such a redundant phrase while apparently telling us that there is another eternity in addition to the first eternity.  The word "age" makes way more sense there.  
> 
> The fact that the same word is used to refer to life does not mean the word has to mean eternal.  The passages in which it is used that way is simply speaking in the context of the same age that it is referring to.  Some will go to age-lasting life and others will go to age-lasting punishment.  This does not suggest, in any way, that life cannot be eternal, but the fact that all things are saved and will be restored does not rely on the translation of that word, as the concept of "eternal punishment" does.  
> 
> Strong's Concordance says this:
> 
> 
> ...



PaulWV,

Is life eternal (aionios)?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> And I completely agree.  The punishment of sin doesn't end.


Well, I'm afraid you're both wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> How does God continue to punish a soul that doesn't exist?  The verse says that kolasin, torment, is aionios, eternal. 
> 
> The torment is eternal to the goats. You insert the word "death" into the verse when it doesn't exist in the verse.  You have nothing but non-answers.


Post #811.  'Aionios' does NOT mean eternal.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> PaulWV,
> 
> Is life eternal (aionios)?


When life is referred to using that term, it is used in the context of the age it is referring to.  Some go to age-lasting life and others go to age-lasting punishment, but that in no way implies that we are not saved, as I can demonstrate throughout Scripture with verses that do not rely on the word 'aionios' as your argument does.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In no way does it say that as I have demonstrated time and again.  You are inserting your bias because the word 'aionios' does not imply "no end" in any way, shape, or form.  You just can't get "no end" out of those passages.  Even if you could, though, I would expect you to be able to support your case with something other than this verse alone.  
> 
> 
> 
> I'm afraid you're doing nothing but reaffirming your own pre-conceived ideas about theology rather than taking this opportunity to actually learn opposing viewpoints and question why you hold your beliefs.


PaulWV,

Does eternal life (aionios) mean that life never ends?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> When life is referred to using that term, it is used in the context of the age it is referring to.  Some go to age-lasting life and others go to age-lasting punishment, but that in no way implies that we are not saved, as I can demonstrate throughout Scripture with verses that do not rely on the word 'aionios' as your argument does.


"these go to eternal punishment, and the righteous go to eternal life".

How is the kolasin _not_ eternal in the first part of the passage, and the aionion the the second part of the passage eternal?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> "these go to eternal punishment, and the righteous go to eternal life".
> 
> How is the kolasin _not_ eternal in the first part of the passage, and the aionion the the second part of the passage eternal?


Neither of them mean eternal because they are speaking only in the context of that age, which Dr. Stephen E. Jones refers to as "The Messianic Age."  There are multiple ages and multiple resurrections.  




> 2 Peter 1:10-11
> 10 Therefore, brethren, more earnestly endeavor to make your calling and election sure; since by these things you will never fall; 11 for thus richly will be furnished to you the entrance into the aionian kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.


In other words, strive to be in the First Resurrection for the over-comers who will reign with Christ for the thousand-year period.  I'll admit that my understanding of the Ages is incomplete, but my link provides tons of information on that.  There is nothing to suggest that life is not eternal just because it is referred to in the same 'age-lasting' context as the opposite is, which is only to show there is one of two ways you can go for that particular age, but it does not refer to ages to come.

For more on the Eonian judgment of the ages:

http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Neither of them mean eternal because they are speaking only in the context of that age, which Dr. Stephen E. Jones refers to as "The Messianic Age."  There are multiple ages and multiple resurrections.  
> 
> 
> 
> In other words, strive to be in the First Resurrection for the over-comers who will reign with Christ for the thousand-year period.  I'll admit that my understanding of the Ages is incomplete, but my link provides tons of information on that.  There is nothing to suggest that life is not eternal just because it is referred to in the same 'age-lasting' context as the opposite is, which is only to show there is one of two ways you can go for that particular age, but it does not refer to ages to come.
> 
> For more on the Eonian judgment of the ages:
> 
> http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/



Jesus is referring in that passage to the sheep and the goats.   In other words, the final judgment.   Are you saying that aionios is eternal and kolasin isn't?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Jesus is referring in that passage to the sheep and the goats.   In other words, the final judgment.   Are you saying that aionios is eternal and kolasin isn't?


What is kolasin?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> What is kolasin?


Torment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Jesus is referring in that passage to the sheep and the goats.   In other words, the final judgment.   Are you saying that aionios is eternal and kolasin isn't?


I found 'kolasin' in the link I referred you to.  The passage says basically the same thing I have told you:




> This concept of the eons, or ages, is obscured by translating* zoen aionion* as life everlasting and *kolasin aionion* as everlasting punishment. (Matthew 25:46). The fact is that neither is everlasting. Certainly, immortality itself is life that never ends. But age-during life points specifically to AN AGE when some believers will enjoy the blessings of immortal life. And age-during judgment points specifically to AN AGE of judgment for unbelievers.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Torment.


Ah, I see.  The more correct word for that is "punishment".  Torment implies cruelty.  This is demonstrated in my last post.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I found 'kolasin' in the link I referred you to.  The passage says basically the same thing I have told you:


Your link is ridiculous.   If life is eternal in the passage, then torment must be as well.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Your link is ridiculous.   If life is eternal in the passage, then torment must be as well.


NEITHER of them are eternal!  They are referring to that specific age!

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Ah, I see.  The more correct word for that is "punishment".  Torment implies cruelty.  This is demonstrated in my last post.


Kolasin means both punishment and torment.  And in the passage both mean never-ending.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> NEITHER of them are eternal!  They are referring to that specific age!


No they aren't.  Jesus is talking about the sheep and the goats...the final judgment

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Kolasin means both punishment and torment.  And in the passage both mean never-ending.


No, they don't.  I've already showed you how.  You can either ignore it, refute it, or admit you are wrong.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> No they aren't.  Jesus is talking about the sheep and the goats...the final judgment


Saying it doesn't make it true.  I've given you my evidence and all you have is assertions.




> The believers will be “saved, yet so as through fire,” receiving either few stripes or many stripes. The unbelievers will be cast into the lake of fire and will serve their sentence until the great Jubilee sets all creation free.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, they don't.  I've already showed you how.  You can either ignore it, refute it, or admit you are wrong.


Kolasin means both punishment and torment.   Please check a Greek lexicon.  (I have, have you?)

----------


## Brett85

> Torment.


It's punishment.  That's how it's translated in every single English translation.  There's a reason why no English translator translated it "torment."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Saying it doesn't make it true.  I've given you my evidence and all you have is assertions.


Is Jesus not talking about the final judgment where the sheep and goats are divided in that passage?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It's punishment.  That's how it's translated in every single English translation.  There's a reason why no English translator translated it "torment."


Strong's Concordance:



> Kolasin:  chastisement, punishment, *torment*, perhaps with the idea of deprivation.


I'm intentionally not giving you all the answers so you both can study the Greek.  Please do it.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Is Jesus not talking about the final judgment where the sheep and goats are divided in that passage?


I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.

----------


## Brett85

> Strong's Concordance:
> 
> 
> I'm intentionally not giving you all the answers so you both can study the Greek.  Please do it.


It can mean that, but it doesn't have to.  Again, every single English translation translates it "punishment" in that verse.  It depends on the context in which it's used.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Strong's Concordance:
> 
> 
> I'm intentionally not giving you all the answers so you both can study the Greek.  Please do it.


Oh, so now you're the Greek expert?  Please demonstrate your non-horrible Greek to us and tell us why you think it must be "torment" in those passages and not "punishment."

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I don't see how that contradicts anything I said.


You said it was age dependent.  Jesus is talking about the very end of the age.   That is why both kolasin and anonion are eternal in the passage.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You said it was age dependant.  Jesus is talking about the very end of the age.   That is why both kolasin and anonion are eternal in the passage.


So is it an age or not?  What "age" are you referring to?  The passage is at the end of the current age, but is discussing the terms in the context of the *age to come,* which is a concept that Jesus refers to multiple times as in "age to come," which implies that there is more than one.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Oh, so now you're the Greek expert?  Please demonstrate your non-horrible Greek to us and tell us why you think it must be "torment" in those passages and not "punishment."


It can be translated as both.   Whether you are punished for sin, or tormented for sin, the kolasin is eternal.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> So is it an age or not?  What "age" are you referring to?  And what makes you think it is at the end of it?


Because the context of the passage is the final judgment.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> It can be translated as both.   Whether you are punished for sin, or tormented for sin, the kolasin is eternal.


You keep asserting that, but you never show why.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Because the context of the passage is the final judgment.


It is at the end of the current age, but the terms are used in the context of the *age to come*, which is a concept that Jesus refers to multiple times.  "The age to come" implies that there is more than one of them, so they cannot be eternal.




> The Cambridge Bible Commentary, by A. W. Argyle, has this to say about Matthew 25:46,
> 
> “46. eternal punishment, i.e., punishment characteristic of the Age to come, not meaning that it lasts for ever.
> 
> “eternal life, i.e., the life that belongs to the Age to come, the full abundant life which is fellowship with God.”
> 
> Argyle recognizes that the term aionios refers to “the Age to come” rather than eternity as such. In our next section we will have more to say about “The Age,” that is, the Messianic Age. This is the key to understanding how aion and aionios were defined when the Bible was written—and for many years afterward.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> It is at the end of the current age, but the terms are used in the context of the *age to come*, which is a concept that Jesus refers to multiple times.  "The age to come" implies that there is more than one of them, so they cannot be eternal.


Yes.  Both kolasin and anonion speak of the age to come (after the final judgment).  So why are you saying one ends and the other doesn't end?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yes.  Both kolasin and anonion speak of the age to come (after the final judgment).  So why are you saying one ends and the other doesn't end?


Which one am I saying doesn't end?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Which one am I saying doesn't end?


You are saying kolasin ends.  You are saying anonion doesn't end.  Why?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You are saying kolasin ends.  You are saying anonion doesn't end.  Why?


I am not saying aionion doesn't end.  Where did you get that idea?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I am not saying aionion doesn't end.  Where did you get that idea?


What?  God doesn't give men eternal life??  Their "eternal life" ends?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> We have already shown that the Bible speaks of more than one age to come. Revelation 20 makes it clear that there are at least two future ages that run concurrently. The first is the Messianic Age that was commonly believed to be the seventh millennium from creation—the Creation Sabbath. After that age was the Judgment Age of unknown duration—at least no one in those days claimed to know.


http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/

Peter, like most of the other New Testament writers, exhorted the believers to make their “calling and election sure,” that is, press on to being overcomers that will inherit the first resurrection. These will inherit “the aionian kingdom,” that is, they will receive their reward of immortality at the beginning of that thousand-year reign of Christ. *Revelation 20:6 says that these will “reign with him a thousand years.” This does not mean that the kingdom lasts only a thousand years, nor even that their reign is limited to a thousand years. But that phase of the kingdom is limited to a specific age; hence it is aionian.*

----------


## Sola_Fide

> http://www.gods-kingdom-ministries.n...nian-judgment/
> 
> Peter, like most of the other New Testament writers, exhorted the believers to make their “calling and election sure,” that is, press on to being overcomers that will inherit the first resurrection. These will inherit “the aionian kingdom,” that is, they will receive their reward of immortality at the beginning of that thousand-year reign of Christ. Revelation 20:6 says that these will “reign with him a thousand years.” This does not mean that the kingdom lasts only a thousand years, nor even that their reign is limited to a thousand years. But that phase of the kingdom is limited to a specific age; hence it is aionian.


After the final judgment, when man is given eternal life, does man's eternal life end?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> After the final judgment, does man's eternal life end?


Read the post you just quoted.  What does it say?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> What?  God doesn't give men eternal life??  Their "eternal life" ends?


How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of *CONTEXT*.  'Aionion' is used in the context of the age.  The age ends, but there are other ages.

I quote from an earlier post of mine:



> We can prove that God will save all men by showing that the divine law mandates a Jubilee, which is a limit to all judgment. We do not need to rely upon the word aionios.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> How hard is it for you to grasp the concept of *CONTEXT*.  'Aionion' is used in the context of the age.  The age ends, but there are other ages.
> 
> I quote from an earlier post of mine:



You won't accept the context.   The context is the final judgment where the Judge of the universe, Jesus, divides the sheep and the goats.

Does man's eternal life end after he receives it?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You won't accept the context.   The context is the final judgment where the Judge of the universe, Jesus, divides the sheep and the goats.
> 
> Does man's eternal life end after he receives it?


No, because the Law of Jubilee limits judgment.  Sin is "debt" in the Bible, and all debts will be repaid in full.  If some are judged for eternity, then their debts can never be repaid.  




> The bottom line is that the law of Jubilee mandates by law a limit on liability for all debt—and sin, in the Bible, is reckoned as a debt. The Lord’s prayer says in Matthew 6:12 says,
> 
> 12 And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors.
> 
> In Luke 11:4 it is rendered this way:
> 
> 4 And forgive us our sins; for we also forgive every one that is indebted to us.





> Luke’s account specifically equates sins with debts. The same is true in a number of Jesus’ parables, such as the one found in Matthew 18 about the debtor who owed ten thousand talents. A “talent” of gold in those days weighed 131 pounds, or 2096 ounces of gold per “talent.” Ten thousand talents would equal 20,960,000 ounces of gold. At the price of $400 per ounce, this today would represent (literally) a debt of $8,384,000,000.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> No, because the Law of Jubilee limits judgment.  Sin is "debt" in the Bible, and all debts will be repaid in full.  If some suffer for eternity, then their debts can never be repaid.


That is ridiculous. What about the parable of the debtor in which Jesus says the debtors debts will never be rescinded?   The jubilee laws were fulfilled in the ELECT only.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> That is ridiculous. What about the parable of the debtor in which Jesus says the debtors debts will never be rescinded?   The jubilee laws were fulfilled in the ELECT only.


Quote the passage and I'll show you.  The Elect, by the way, are the ones in the First Resurrection.  They are the overcomers.  They are not the only ones who are saved, though, as you erroneously believe.  What you have done is you have taken Jesus' sacrifice and twisted it so that "all" doesn't really mean "all" but "all of some".  You take "The Elect" and you apply it to something that it was never supposed to apply to.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Quote the passage and I'll show you.  The Elect, by the way, are the ones in the First Resurrection.  They are the overcomers.  They are not the only ones who are saved, though, as you erroneously believe.


... 


> "Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished*ato settle accounts with his servants.7*24*When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him*bten thousand*ctalents.8*25*dAnd since he could not pay, his master ordered himeto be sold, with his wife and*fchildren and all that he had, and payment to be made.*26*So the servant9*gfell on his knees, imploring him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.’*27*And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and*dforgave him the debt.*28*But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred*hdenarii,10*and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, ‘Pay what you owe.’*29*So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, ‘Have patience with me, and I will pay you.’*30*He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.*31*When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place.*32*Then his master summoned him and said to him, ‘You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.*33*iAnd should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?’*34*jAnd in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,11*kuntil he should pay all his debt.*35*lSo also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother*mfrom your heart.”

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> ...


I already covered that in the post you had just responded to.  Here it is again in more detail:




> Luke’s account specifically equates sins with debts. The same is true in a number of Jesus’ parables, such as the one found in Matthew 18 about the debtor who owed ten thousand talents. A “talent” of gold in those days weighed 131 pounds, or 2096 ounces of gold per “talent.” Ten thousand talents would equal 20,960,000 ounces of gold. At the price of $400 per ounce, this today would represent (literally) a debt of $8,384,000,000.
> 
> In the parable, the debtor was forgiven his huge, unpayable debt. But he, in turn, refused to forgive the small debt that his neighbor owed him. So his huge debt was put back upon him. The final verse of the parable is Matthew 18:35,
> 
> 35 So shall My heavenly Father also do to you, if each of you does not forgive his brother from your heart.
> 
> This does not mean that believers can lose their salvation and go to hell. It means that believers may lose the blessing of the first resurrection and will be “saved, yet so as through fire” at the general resurrection of the dead. Forgiveness is the primary requirement to be an overcomer, because forgiveness is the way in which we live and breathe the principles of the Jubilee.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I already covered that in the post you had just responded to.  Here it is again in more detail:


Where does it say that Jesus the debt for every man head to head?  The Bible says Jesus paid the debt only for His elect:

Revelation 5:9



> And they sang a new song, saying: "You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

In view of the law of Jubilee, where all debts are cancelled, it is not difficult to see that the time of aionios kolasis (eonian judgment) must of necessity be limited. To make it never-ending would be a violation of biblical law, regardless of our view of its actual nature. That is to say, whether we believe the fire is literal or symbolic of the divine law, it must be of limited duration.

This reinforces everything I've been saying about how "eternal" punishment is inconsistent with justice.  You can't have an eternal judgment for an earthly sin.  You've seen it in plain, obvious logic, and now you've seen it in Scripture as well.

----------


## Ender

> Read these two verses:
> 
> 
> Now.  Is every person God's child?  Yes or no?


Absolutely- the children of the devil are those that forsake the Law of Love and torment their fellowman for their own glory.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> In view of the law of Jubilee, where all debts are cancelled, it is not difficult to see that the time of aionios kolasis (eonian judgment) must of necessity be limited. To make it never-ending would be a violation of biblical law, regardless of our view of its actual nature. That is to say, whether we believe the fire is literal or symbolic of the divine law, it must be of limited duration.
> 
> This reinforces everything I've been saying about how "eternal" punishment is inconsistent with justice.  You can't have an eternal judgment for an earthly sin.  You've seen it in plain, obvious logic, and now you've seen it in Scripture as well.


Sin doesn't end in Hell.  It only ends in Heaven.  We all know the verse that says there will be no more sin in Heaven.   Where does it say that about Hell?

----------


## Sola_Fide

> Absolutely- the children of the devil are those that forsake the Law of Love and torment their fellowman for their own glory.


Huh?  "Absolutely"?  Does the Bible say there are children of the devil?  You said it didn't. You said everyone is God's child.   Do you now say it does?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Sin doesn't end in Hell.  It only ends in Heaven.  We all know the verse that says there will be no more sin in Heaven.   Where does it say that about Hell?


You're assuming that Hell is a real place in your question, so I reject the whole premise.

Why don't you look up the Greek and Hebrew words used for Hell?  I think you'll find that the words translated as "Hell" in the Bible really have nothing to do with eternal punishment, torment, or judgment.

Besides, what you're saying is still a violation of the Law of Jubilee.  If sin never ends, then the debts are never repaid.

----------


## Ender

> Huh?  "Absolutely"?  Does the Bible say there are children of the devil?  You said it didn't. You said everyone is God's child.   Do you now say it does?


I was talking about the scripture that YOU posted about children of the devil. I answered you and now you are trying to play your little Sola_Fide mind games.

Get over yourself.

----------


## Sola_Fide

> I was talking about the scripture that YOU posted about children of the devil. I answered you and now you are trying to play your little Sola_Fide mind games.
> 
> Get over yourself.


So now you say there are children of the devil, right?  All people are not God's children, right?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

Hopefully that answers your questions, Brett.

----------


## Ender

> So now you say there are children of the devil, right?  All people are not God's children, right?


You LOVE to misquote and misunderstand, don't you. 

All people are God's children; those that have been chastised as children of the devil, are those who know better and fall away from God for their own self interests and egos.

----------


## Brett85

> Hopefully that answers your questions, Brett.


Yeah, good conversation.  I would say that it appears as if the word "aionios" can mean "eternal," but it doesn't have to.  I would like to know how you interpret a verse that I cited earlier.  This particular verse says that destruction is "the end" of the unsaved.  How can the unsaved ever enter heaven and live for all eternity if destruction is "their end?"

Philippians 3: 19

"Whose *end is destruction*, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things."

----------


## jmdrake

> That is ridiculous. What about the parable of the debtor in which Jesus says the debtors debts will never be rescinded?   The jubilee laws were fulfilled in the ELECT only.





> ...
> _"Therefore the kingdom of heaven may be compared to a king who wished*ato settle accounts with his servants.7*24*When he began to settle, one was brought to him who owed him*bten thousand*ctalents.8*25*dAnd since he could not pay, his master ordered himeto be sold, with his wife and*fchildren and all that he had, and payment to be made.*26*So the servant9*gfell on his knees, imploring him, Have patience with me, and I will pay you everything.*27*And out of pity for him, the master of that servant released him and*dforgave him the debt.*28*But when that same servant went out, he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred*hdenarii,10*and seizing him, he began to choke him, saying, Pay what you owe.*29*So his fellow servant fell down and pleaded with him, Have patience with me, and I will pay you.*30*He refused and went and put him in prison until he should pay the debt.*31*When his fellow servants saw what had taken place, they were greatly distressed, and they went and reported to their master all that had taken place.*32*Then his master summoned him and said to him, You wicked servant! I forgave you all that debt because you pleaded with me.*33*iAnd should not you have had mercy on your fellow servant, as I had mercy on you?*34*jAnd in anger his master delivered him to the jailers,11*kuntil he should pay all his debt.*35*lSo also my heavenly Father will do to every one of you, if you do not forgive your brother*mfrom your heart._


LOL.  Sola_Fide you hypocrite!  In one post you said this parable was "mysterious" and couldn't be understood.  Then you said, repeatedly, that it has nothing to do with salvation.  And now you are quoting it to talk about salvation?  Man you are all over the freaking map.

But if you want to now use this parable to talk about salvation you must accept the fact that the unforgiving debtor's *debt had been forgiven* and then *it was reinstated*!

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> Yeah, good conversation.  I would say that it appears as if the word "aionios" can mean "eternal," but it doesn't have to.  I would like to know how you interpret a verse that I cited earlier.  This particular verse says that destruction is "the end" of the unsaved.  How can the unsaved ever enter heaven and live for all eternity if destruction is "their end?"
> 
> Philippians 3: 19
> 
> "Whose *end is destruction*, whose god is their appetite, and whose glory is in their shame, who set their minds on earthly things."


Does destruction necessarily have to be understood in an eternal context there?  I see people every day whose end I could say was "destruction", but I don't necessarily take that to mean they will no longer exist.

----------


## jmdrake

> Yes.  Man is a never-dying soul...he is a "living soul". So man's soul never dies in the sense that it ceases to exist.


Satan: _Gen 3:4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die_

God: _Eze 18:4 Behold, all souls are mine; as the soul of the father, so also the soul of the son is mine: the soul that sinneth, it shall die_

Any questions?

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> LOL.  Sola_Fide you hypocrite!  In one post you said this parable was "mysterious" and couldn't be understood.  Then you said, repeatedly, that it has nothing to do with salvation.  And now you are quoting it to talk about salvation?  Man you are all over the freaking map.
> 
> But if you want to now use this parable to talk about salvation you must accept the fact that the unforgiving debtor's *debt had been forgiven* and then *it was reinstated*!


Exactly.  Thanks for pointing that out.

----------


## wizardwatson

> Originally Posted by wizardwatson
> 
> 
> This thread is eternal punishment.
> 
> Hell < eternal punishment < this thread
> 
> 
> I agree with this.  The natural man in his sins will supress the truth of Hell with all of his being (Romans 1).  From the beginning of time, man has rejected the justice of God against sin because he knows in his heart it condemns him.


So you'll see my mockery and raise me a damnation, eh?

You don't agree with that.  You are sarcastically proclaiming that I am in a damned position.  You think your precious knowledge is a divining rod to separate the sheep from the goats.  You don't know from which tree you eat perhaps.

Maybe you're right, or maybe you're just feeding your delusion off people's natural inclination not to want another living thing to be tormented forever.  Who can say?

I don't know about all this eternal damnation stuff to be honest.  Sounds kind of scary.  I kind of hope all that about demons preying on us and lakes of fire is symbolic or just meant to scare us and keep us safe like in that movie The Village.  But if it is real, maybe you can stand by the gates of hell as a day job testifying to the passersby how God's perfect justice is glorified there and every ten years you can take a census of all those souls who aren't in the Book of Life so that everyone is assured that God doesn't lie and we have an ongoing eyewitness to their perpetual torment.  You seem to have a stomach for that sort of thing.  I doubt we'll bump into each other that often as I'll be finding opportunities to find testaments to His mercy.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> So you'll see my mockery and raise me a damnation, eh?
> 
> You don't agree with that.  You are sarcastically proclaiming that I am in a damned position.  You think your precious knowledge is a divining rod to separate the sheep from the goats.  You don't know from which tree you eat perhaps.
> 
> Maybe you're right, or maybe you're just feeding your delusion off people's natural inclination not to want another living thing to be tormented forever.  Who can say?
> 
> I don't know about all this eternal damnation stuff to be honest.  Sounds kind of scary.  I kind of hope all that about demons preying on us and lakes of fire is symbolic or just meant to scare us and keep us safe like in that movie The Village.  But if it is real, maybe you can stand by the gates of hell as a day job testifying to the passersby how God's perfect justice is glorified there and every ten years you can take a census of all those souls who aren't in the Book of Life so that everyone is assured that God doesn't lie and we have an ongoing eyewitness to their perpetual torment.  You seem to have a stomach for that sort of thing.  I doubt we'll bump into each other that often as I'll be finding opportunities to find testaments to His mercy.


Amen.  

Fear drives him.  He can't accept the irrationality of his position because he's afraid of what he thinks might happen if he's wrong.

----------


## Brett85

> Does destruction necessarily have to be understood in an eternal context there?  I see people every day whose end I could say was "destruction", but I don't necessarily take that to mean they will no longer exist.


I think it does since it says that their "end" is destruction.  It doesn't say that they'll be destroyed and then resurrected again.  And it doesn't make any sense that it would be talking about what happens in this life, since everyone is ultimately destroyed in this life.

----------


## jmdrake

> Exactly.  Thanks for pointing that out.


You're welcome.  Thanks for the thread.  I've actually learned a few things.  I'm sorry that the last time we had this discussion I came down pretty hard on you.  While I still don't quite see things your way, my actions were immature.  And you've given a lot of food for thought.

The debtor parables, both this one and the one Jesus told at the house of Simon the leper where the debtor who was forgiven much loved the most, illustrate another point.  God doesn't treat all sin the same.  If he did then all debtors in the parables would owe the same amount.  And the Bible talks about how each man is judged "according to as his works shall be."  Now it's true that the saved are judge according to Jesus.  But the lost?  It seems self evident that their works are judged differently.  Some would believe that the Buddhist monk who burned himself alive to protest the Vietnam war will burn for the same amount of time as Pol Pot.  That makes no sense.  Others believe that hell will be "really bad for some" and "not so bad" for others.  It's the "Dante's inferno" view of hell.  Problem is, that's not even close to Biblical.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> I think it does since it says that their "end" is destruction.  It doesn't say that they'll be destroyed and then resurrected again.  And it doesn't make any sense that it would be talking about what happens in this life, since everyone is ultimately destroyed in this life.


There are many ways in which "destruction" could be understood.  You would have to provide me with context to show how that interpretation is valid.

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> You're welcome.  Thanks for the thread.  I've actually learned a few things.  I'm sorry that the last time we had this discussion I came down pretty hard on you.  While I still don't quite see things your way, my actions were immature.  And you've given a lot of food for thought.
> 
> The debtor parables, both this one and the one Jesus told at the house of Simon the leper where the debtor who was forgiven much loved the most, illustrate another point.  God doesn't treat all sin the same.  If he did then all debtors in the parables would owe the same amount.  And the Bible talks about how each man is judged "according to as his works shall be."  Now it's true that the saved are judge according to Jesus.  But the lost?  It seems self evident that their works are judged differently.  Some would believe that the Buddhist monk who burned himself alive to protest the Vietnam war will burn for the same amount of time as Pol Pot.  That makes no sense.  Others believe that hell will be "really bad for some" and "not so bad" for others.  It's the "Dante's inferno" view of hell.  Problem is, that's not even close to Biblical.


Very true.  I see people making vivid descriptions of Hell, but what they don't seem to realize is that it's all coming from their imagination because they can't find it in Scripture.  Nowhere does the Bible say how Hell is just or how it will be different for some than others, as if we're supposed to just imagine our worst case scenario and accept that as Biblical truth.  

How could Hell be different for some than it is for others, anyway?  We've already established that the Hell doctrine teaches they will all be punished for the same amount of time, so is it like a stove that's hotter for some?  The idea of a just Hell is just implausible.

ETA: It's all good about our last discussion.  I don't even really remember that much of it.  As I recall, it didn't last long.

----------


## Brett85

> There are many ways in which "destruction" could be understood.  You would have to provide me with context to show how that interpretation is valid.


The word destruction comes from the Greek word _apollumi._  The vast majority of the time that word is used in the Bible, it literally means "death," that whoever is destroyed simply won't be around anymore.

Matthew 8: 25- So the disciples came and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to *die*!" 

Matthew 12: 14- But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might *destroy* Him.

Matthew 21: 41- They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable *death* and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”

Matthew 22: 7- The king was enraged. He sent his army and *destroyed* those murderers and burned their city.

Matthew 26: 52- Put your sword back in its place," Jesus said to him, "for all who draw the sword will *die* by the sword.

Matthew 27: 20- But the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowds to ask for Barabbas and to put Jesus to *death.*

----------


## PaulConventionWV

> The word destruction comes from the Greek word _apollumi._  The vast majority of the time that word is used in the Bible, it literally means "death," that whoever is destroyed simply won't be around anymore.
> 
> Matthew 8: 25- So the disciples came and woke Him up, saying, "Lord, save us! We're going to *die*!" 
> 
> Matthew 12: 14- But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, as to how they might *destroy* Him.
> 
> Matthew 21: 41- They said to him, “He will put those wretches to a miserable *death* and let out the vineyard to other tenants who will give him the fruits in their seasons.”
> 
> Matthew 22: 7- The king was enraged. He sent his army and *destroyed* those murderers and burned their city.
> ...


I think it has something to do with the different Ages found in Revelations.  In Rev. 4:6, it mentions the First Resurrection, in which the overcomers and the righteous are resurrected and rule with Christ for a thousand year period, or age (notice it doesn't say forever because it is referring to a specific age), after which the unrighteous will undergo the Second Death.  It says, however, that the Second Death "has no power" over the righteous, for they have been called into God's Kingdom.  




> 4Then I saw thrones, and they sat on them, and judgment was given to them. And I saw the souls of those who had been beheaded because of their testimony of Jesus and because of the word of God, and those who had not worshiped the beast or his image, and had not received the mark on their forehead and on their hand; and they* came to life and reigned with Christ for a thousand years.*
> 	5	*The rest of the dead did not come to life until the thousand years were completed. This is the first resurrection.*
> 	6	Blessed and holy is the one who has a part in the first resurrection;* over these the second death has no power*, but *they will be priests of God and of Christ and will reign with Him for a thousand years.*


Like I said, though, I'm still not convinced that the kind of destruction you're referring to necessarily even has to do with judgment.  However, there is absolutely nothing inconsistent with what I'm saying.

----------

