[quote author="New Mexico"]We debate about the various words used elsewhere, but the final doctrinal position must support this verse which teaches us that “God is love.” If anyone can logically argue that tormenting people for ever and ever is an act of love, be my guest.

It amazes me how many former-SDAs have gone so far over to the other side on this matter, that they make Jonathan Edwards look Adventist. Good night people, the SDA church must have SOME truth to their doctrines!

It also amuses me how many non-SDAs are beginning to believe that eternal torment is unbiblical and incompatible with a God of love.

For want of sounding like an uber-SDA, I can’t fathom how so many are turning away from the truth they had for orthodoxy when so many orthodoxists are coming to the truth in this matter.

For me, more than any other doctrine that the SDA church believes, this is one where abandoning the doctrine for orthodox Christian beliefs is a complete step in the wrong direction. They have gone from a God of love that only wants to put sin and sinners out of their misery to a God who resides over an ever burning Auschwitz solely for the reason of ‘punishing’ wrong doers.

It just doesn’t make any sense.

New Mexico and Guibox,

Thanks for your observations about hell.  I have not studied this issue as in depth as some, but I think it is important to acknowledge that hell is a real place.  Time and again in Scripture we are warned by the apostles and Jesus about the terrible reality of it, whether or not we believe it is finite.

You will not find a disagreement with me that God is a God of love, however, I think we can’t assume that the mere existence of hell is incompatible with God’s love.

Here are just a few examples where Jesus and the apostles were very clear on the existence of a literal hell:

“Whoever causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him if a great millstone were hung around his neck and he were thrown into the sea. And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, ‘where their worm does not die and the fire is not quenched.’” -Mark 9:42-48 ESV

“This is evidence of the righteous judgment of God, that you may be considered worthy of the kingdom of God, for which you are also suffering–since indeed God considers it just to repay with affliction those who afflict you, and to grant relief to you who are afflicted as well as to us, when the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with his mighty angels in flaming fire, inflicting vengeance on those who do not know God and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus. They will suffer the punishment of eternal destruction, away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might, when he comes on that day to be glorified in his saints, and to be marveled at among all who have believed, because our testimony to you was believed.” -2 Thess. 1:5-10 ESV

“For if God did not spare angels when they sinned, but cast them into hell and committed them to chains of gloomy darkness to be kept until the judgment; if he did not spare the ancient world, but preserved Noah, a herald of righteousness, with seven others, when he brought a flood upon the world of the ungodly; if by turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them to extinction, making them an example of what is going to happen to the ungodly; and if he rescued righteous Lot, greatly distressed by the sensual conduct of the wicked (for as that righteous man lived among them day after day, he was tormenting his righteous soul over their lawless deeds that he saw and heard); then the Lord knows how to rescue the godly from trials, and to keep the unrighteous under punishment until the day of judgment, and especially those who indulge in the lust of defiling passion and despise authority.” -2 Peter 2:4-10 ESV

Leaving the Adventist vs. non-Adventist debate aside, are you guys comfortable affirming the reality of hell coexisting with a God of love?

Greg

[quote author="Greg"]

Leaving the Adventist vs. non-Adventist debate aside, are you guys comfortable affirming the reality of hell coexisting with a God of love?

Greg

As far as death as a punishment, I am comfortable with it. Ultimately, God is a god of love. Nothing should trump this. Just this fact alone should negate the concept of an eternally burning hell.

But wouldn’t it negate a ‘hell’ period?

It wouldn’t because part of God’s attributes are justice and mercy as well. Both of these are part of the hell process but are completely absent in eternal torment.

Sin deserves punishment. By eradicating the ‘earth and the works therein’, sin is receiving it’s ‘cleansing by fire’ due. Sinners because they have chosen to go down with the ship will suffer the same effects. Hence, torment is a secondary and not a primary motive.

Justice demands punishment and eradication for it is only in this doing away with sin that God’ complete victory is finalized. Mercy because God still loves the sinner but respects the choice and allows them to go down with sin but allows them to suffer the full wages of sin which we all would have suffered had Christ not come to give us the alternative. Those wages are death.

Leaving the Adventist vs. non-Adventist debate aside, are you guys comfortable affirming the reality of hell coexisting with a God of love?

It all depends upon your definition of “hell.” If “hell” means there are real consequences to decisions we make in this life after we pass, the answer is yes.  If “hell” is a literal place in three diminsional space where people will be tortured in literal fire, I’m not convinced such a place exists. 

I understand “hell” to be a metaphor for separation from God.  Even if one takes an extremely literalistic approach they have to deal with texts like this:

Matt 22:13-14
13 “Then the king told the attendants, ‘Tie him hand and foot, and throw him outside, into the darkness, where there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.’

14 “For many are invited, but few are chosen.”
NIV

Jude 12-13
12 These men are blemishes at your love feasts, eating with you without the slightest qualm-shepherds who feed only themselves. They are clouds without rain, blown along by the wind; autumn trees, without fruit and uprooted-twice dead. 13 They are wild waves of the sea, foaming up their shame; wandering stars, for whom blackest darkness has been reserved forever.
NIV

Rev 14:9-12
9 A third angel followed them and said in a loud voice: “If anyone worships the beast and his image and receives his mark on the forehead or on the hand, 10 he, too, will drink of the wine of God’s fury, which has been poured full strength into the cup of his wrath. He will be tormented with burning sulfur in the presence of the holy angels and of the Lamb. 11 And the smoke of their torment rises for ever and ever. There is no rest day or night for those who worship the beast and his image, or for anyone who receives the mark of his name.” 12 This calls for patient endurance on the part of the saints who obey God’s commandments and remain faithful to Jesus.
NIV

2 Thess 1:9-10
They will be punished with everlasting destruction and shut out from the presence of the Lord and from the majesty of his power
NIV

Here the Bible says the wicked will be in blackest darkness forever and at the same time they will be burned forever in a literal fire.  They will suffer for eternity in the presence of the Lamb while at the same time they will be forever shut our from the presence of the Lord.  So if we take this literally we have to believe there is a type of fire similar to burning sulphur with smoke implying oxygen and an atmosphere, in which the supposedly “dead” people will still be “alive” to suffer.  Further more they will be in complete darkness while in God’s God’s direct presence for eternity.

At the same time, if we take this literally, we have to believe

Isa 65:17-18
7 “Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
18 But be glad and rejoice forever
in what I will create,
NIV

Rev 21:1-5
21:1 Then I saw a new heaven and a new earth, for the first heaven and the first earth had passed away, and there was no longer any sea. 2 I saw the Holy City, the new Jerusalem, coming down out of heaven from God, prepared as a bride beautifully dressed for her husband. 3 And I heard a loud voice from the throne saying, “Now the dwelling of God is with men, and he will live with them. They will be his people, and God himself will be with them and be their God. 4 He will wipe every tear from their eyes. There will be no more death or mourning or crying or pain, for the old order of things has passed away.”

5 He who was seated on the throne said, “I am making everything new!” Then he said, “Write this down, for these words are trustworthy and true.”
NIV

So we will have a new heavens and a new earth and yet will continually see other people suffering.  At the same time we are supposed to believe this eternal torment is by a “loving” God.

Try explaining that to someone who has questions about the validity of the Bible to begin with.

Thanks everyone for your comments on this very controversial topic.

New Mexico,

You quoted from the passage Revelation 21:1-8 but cut it off at verse 5, but if you keep reading:

6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
-----------------------------------------------------------

It seems that this passage is quite literal. And on the basis of this passage and several others I have to conclude that the lake of fire is literal.

However, those who believe in eternal torment do say that this passage is symbolic, and not literal.

I say that if the text is taken literally, and the lake of fire is truly the second death, then I think that the force of this statement would not only deter evil in this world, but also drive people to the cross of Christ.

When I was an SDA, I used to have nightmares reading Great Controversy about the Lake of fire where the wicked will burn in proportion to the sins they have committed, and that this was literal fire. I knew I would burn a long time because my sins were so great.

When I discovered the true gospel of grace, I was relieved to know that I would never have to face such a terible ending.

Stan

Forgive the length of this post…

It amazes me the assumptive lengths many will go to to defend such an unbiblical and horrific doctrine. In looking at FAF and participating on another Christian forum, I have come across arguments that don’t hold any water simply because many traditionalists just don’t want to consider that perhaps there is more than one side to the coin. As Stan has pointed out, there are many scholars (some who do support eternal torment) who feel that annihilation cannot be fully ruled out as a biblical alternative.

And yet so many ‘laymen’ insist that this doctrine is ‘false doctrine’ or ‘cultic’ and go to great lengths to defend a doctrine that has no love, justice or mercy shown by God in it. I fail to see how Christians who are a people who are supposed to show God’s love can berate those who can prove that this is exactly what the Bible shows by God annihilating the wicked and not tormenting them for eternity.

Here are the basic facts that the traditionalist cannot explain that are crucial in this debate:

1) They cannot prove that the wicked are raised immortal to be tormented for eternity. The Bible is silent specifically in mentioning and it makes it abundantly clear that it is only the righteous that ‘have eternal life’ that ‘inherit everlasting life’ and are raised in body ‘incorruptible and immortal’ The wicked are shown in direct contrast to ‘perish’, experience ‘death’ and ‘destruction’ and are raised to suffer the ‘second death’

2) They completely ignore that all the words used in the NT are used throughout the scriptures to denote complete annihilation and destruction. The words of Revelation 14, 20 and Mark 9 are used in both the OT and NT to denote temporary actions with eternal effects using the exact same languagethat many use to support eternal torment. Rather than admit this, the tradtionalist either glosses over it with contradictions or completely ignores it to continue claiming that these NT words denote eternal torment. This is like saying that even though the word ‘blue’ is used in the OT to say ‘the sky is blue’ the same phrase in the NT ‘the sky is blue’ is saying that ‘blue’ really means ‘red’ so ‘the sky is blue’ means that the sky is indeed ‘red’.

3) By basing nearly their entire theology on apocalyptic passages, they cannot explain the myriad of contradictions that occur. For example:

* How can the wicked be tormented for eternity in the presence of the lamb when wicked man cannot see God without death and when the Bible also says that they will be put away from the presence of God?

* How can the lake of fire be eternal and literally burning the wicked for eternity when death and Hades (both concepts) are also cast into the lake of fire. Someone said that this might mean that the inhabitants are transferred from Hades to the lake of fire, but Revelation 20 makes this plain that this has already happened BEFORE death and hell are cast in “And death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them’

* If ‘death’ means ‘eternal torment’ as the traditionalist says, and the ‘second death’ is eternal torment, how do they explain the truth that ‘death is the last enemy to be destroyed’? Logically, the lake of fire would cease to exist. By making ‘destroy’ mean ‘eternal torment’ then they would have to logically say that the ‘second death’ experiences itself (????) Which brings me to #4

4) They cannot fully explain how the words ‘destroy’, ‘death’ ‘destuction’ ‘perish’ all contrasted with eternal life, are never used in the Bbile to denote ‘eternal concious punishment’ and that the figurative use of the word is dependant on the literal meaning. Stan has posted before the words of R.F Weymouth, Greek translator saying the same thing:

“"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misrepresentation of language than when five or six of the strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses,
signifying to destroy or destruction, are explained to mean `maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence.’ To translate black as white is nothing to this.”

5) They cannot get around the clear bible teaching that
God’s enemies are compared to combustible materials (way too many bible texts to mention here) and that they will be ompletely wiped off the face of the earth and cease to exist (Malachi 4:1-3; Psalm 37; 2 Peter 2:6; Obadiah 1:15-16)

It is clear that the weight of evidence favors annihilation. Many scholars are coming to this conclusion and many traditionalists worth their salt say that annihilation cannot be ruled out…

So here is the million dollar question…

If it could go both ways, let’s say 50/50 (I believe that that is being generous to the view of eternal torment). Why in the world would people choose to believe a God who created hell for no other purpose but to punish sinners and allow His children that He came to die for due to his unfathomable love, to suffer trillions of years of fiery torment?

Is it some sense of sadism in them, a desire for ‘revenge’ that sinners deserve? The fact is, is we ALL deserve it. Nothing separates you from the worst sinner on earth but the blood of Christ. Were it not for His imputed righteousness, you would still be like them.

So why the desperate need to cling to something if not for some sadistic reason?

Why if it could go either way are traditionalists so hell-bent on calling annihilation ‘false gospel’, ‘doctrines of demons’ and even call someones’s salvation into question?

Guibox,

Thanks for taking the time to enumerate your concerns about the traditional or othodox Christian teaching on hell.  I don’t have a point-by-point response for you because this is an area I don’t consider myself knowledgeable in.

I will say that I believe so-called “traditionalists” are just as earnest in defending eternal hell as you and Stan are in your belief of annihilationism.  I don’t think anyone adopts a belief in eternal hell out of sadism, but rather out of a sincere desire to be true to Jesus’ and the apostles teaching on the subject.  We can debate whether they have biblical support for this, but I would not characterize them as sadistic, as this enters the realm of an ad hominem argument.  Granted, there are people on the other side of the debate who are just as lacking in grace.

I think we need to be careful with this doctrine because as you have implied, there are texts in Scripture that can be used to support both views.  Either way, hell is a terrible reality and we should not minimize it.  I sometimes get the sense that those who are uncomfortable with eternal hell may also be uncomfortable with a finite hell.

In the final analysis, hell is probably worse than any of us can imagine and we should do whatever we can to pull those who are not saved from the fire (Jude 23).

Greg

I don’t think anyone adopts a belief in eternal hell out of sadism, but rather out of a sincere desire to be true to Jesus’ and the apostles teaching on the subject. We can debate whether they have biblical support for this, but I would not characterize them as sadistic, as this enters the realm of an ad hominem argument. Granted, there are people on the other side of the debate who are just as lacking in grace.

If one truly takes a step back and logically and rationally looks at this belief on can really come to no other conclusion. Many make no bones about the fact that they believe ‘sinners deserve it’. They also attack annihilation as God being ‘to soft’ on sin, and it not being enough of a deterrent for sinners to reject God. Just these two arguements together warrant such an opinion of revenge and sadism.

Couple that with the ignoring of clear texts of annhilation and that the ‘wages of sin is death’, and the rabid opposition to the belief that God is too loving to allow sinners to burn eternally, and one gets the opinion that some would seem to be disappointed if annhilation were true.

Greg, you’d not believe the vindictive reasoning and slanderous accusations I have experienced in promoting annihilation. I have been called a ‘follower of your father, the devil’, I have been called a promoter of a ‘doctrine of demons’ and even an ‘imp of Satan’.

With all of the above arguments together, I have no doubt that so many strongly desire the reality of eternal torment for sinners. The problem is that they twist the Bible to try and make God to be on their side.

I think we need to be careful with this doctrine because as you have implied, there are texts in Scripture that can be used to support both views.

Hold on, now. I said that ‘even if’ the evidence could be 50/50. IMO, there really are only three texts that could be interpreted strongly as such taken in isolation. However, there are also texts that seem to support mass genocide and even the killing of infants in the Bible too. One must look at all the evidence and compare and contrast. Where does the weight of the evidence fall? What is the context linguistically and/or culturally? All these things must be looked at.

Taking a text like Revelation 14 in isolation while ignoring the same metaphorical language used elsewhere in the Bible to denote annhilation, as well as the clear texts on the fate of the wicked, and deriving that the Bible teaches eternal torment is just as negligent as gleaning 1844 judgement strictly from Daniel 8:14.

Either way, hell is a terrible reality and we should not minimize it. I sometimes get the sense that those who are uncomfortable with eternal hell may also be uncomfortable with a finite hell.

The traditionalist would not have you think so.  They say that annihilation is not a severe enough punishment to properly make non-believers concerned for their salvation and having a relationship with Christ. The problem with this is that (despite their protests), their arguments basically are ‘fear mongering’ arguments to ‘win’ people to Christ. It is basically the tactics of the midieval Catholic Church to ‘convert’ people. Put the fear of God into them and let them know that if they don’t choose God, He will allow them to be tortured.

I appreciate both Guibox’s and Greg’s concerns above.

Unfortunately SDA annihilationists are now on record as saying that there is no literal torment in the lake of fire even for a finite period of time. Dan Smith in a recent sermon said that the lake of fire will not burn the wicked alive--thereby contradicting Revelation 21:8.

It is unfortunately true that some who teach annihilation are also theological liberals, and they also go down the road to other false doctrines. When this happens, then the legitimate annihilation position of Philip Hughes, John Stott, and Edward Fudge are then discredited.

But of all the Biblical doctrines that make up evangelicalism, I just don’t understand the dogmatism on this topic of eternal conscious torment.

Doctrines such as salvation by grace alone are taught in the entire Bible. The doctrine of eternal conscious torment is taken from out of context passages in Revelation and the synoptic gospels where if you check the OT references which Jesus was quoting, then suddenly these texts all start lacking their support for eternal torment.

One example is the Mark 9:48 quote about the fire and the worms--this is a clear refernce back to Isaiah 66:24 where it talks about the worms feeding on dead corpses.

The two texts which the traditionalists rely on most are Matthew 25:46 and Revelation 14:11.

In Matthew 25:46 Jesus was likely talking in broad principles. I can’t for the life of me figure out the logic that just because Jesus equates eternal life and eternal punishment, that it has to logically follow that the torment part is eternal, but it is clear that the effects are eternal.

The synoptic gospels were also apocalyptic for the fall of Jerusalem in AD 70, and Josephus even mentions the fire pits of Gehenna (the word for hell that is used only ten times in the NT, and Gehenna was known as a firepit that burned trash,) where dead bodies and worms feeding existed.

It is interesting that the book of John doesn’t speak of Gehenna, or even hint at an eternal burning hell to torment humans for eternity.

Acts doesn’t even hint at an eternal conscious hell, and Paul’s sermon on Mars Hill only mentioned a coming judgment, but there was no hell fire sermons preached by Paul or Peter.

Then the epistles don’t really define any clear doctrine of eternal torment. Paul got his gospel directly from jesus, so don’t you think if Jesus thought eternal hell an important emphasis, then why not mention it in the didactic teachings of the New Testament?

Revelation 14:11 is another favorite text of the traditionalist, but notice it speaks of the smoke of their torment rising forever and ever, and all this is going on in the presence of the Lord Jesus. If we are to take this text literally, then the word torment actually means “painful torture”. Does anyone believe that sinners will be literally painfully tortured for trillions upon trillions of years in the presence of the lamb and his holy angels? This has to be symbolic. And look at Isaiah 34 where there is the same picture of smoke rising forever and ever with regard to destruction of Edom.

Sodom and Gomorrah is the real example of what the lake of fire means. The cities were totally annihilated, and even the ground was burnt. 2 Peter 2:6 is the strongest text in the epistles for annihilation.

But, the clincher for me is if you look at both Malachi 4:1-6 and compare it with Revelation 21:1-8.

What could be a more wonderful clear comparison?

Malachi speaks of the wicked being left without root or branch, and reduced to ashes.

Revelation 21 has a completely different tone and setting to it. This is where all sinners will have their part in the lake of fire, and death and hades is thrown in the lake of fire, and this is the second death.

It makes total sense to me now. I have spent literally several months studying as much evidence as possible. I am totally convinced that the Reformation isn’t finished until as John W. Wenham (who defended inerrancy and wrote the greek textbook) said ‘until this hideous and unscriptural doctrine is done away with’.

Also, I have read books from both sides on this. It is amazing how deceptive Robert Morey is in his book “Death and the Afterlife”. He leaves out key evidence, and his logic is full of holes. It is so clear that it is the conditionalists such as Fudge, Wenham, Stott, and Hughes exhibit much more of the fruits of the spirit that those trying to defend the doctrine of eternal torment.

Stan

Stan Ermshar said:

You quoted from the passage Revelation 21:1-8 but cut it off at verse 5, but if you keep reading:

6 And he said to me, “It is done! I am the Alpha and the Omega, the beginning and the end. To the thirsty I will give from the spring of the water of life without payment. 7 The one who conquers will have this heritage, and I will be his God and he will be my son. 8 But as for the cowardly, the faithless, the detestable, as for murderers, the sexually immoral, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars, their portion will be in the lake that burns with fire and sulfur, which is the second death.”
Stan Ermshar said:

It seems that this passage is quite literal. And on the basis of this passage and several others I have to conclude that the lake of fire is literal.

However, those who believe in eternal torment do say that this passage is symbolic, and not literal.

I say that if the text is taken literally, and the lake of fire is truly the second death, then I think that the force of this statement would not only deter evil in this world, but also drive people to the cross of Christ.

First off, I didn’t cut it off to try to hide anything but you always have to cut off quotes somewhere.  I’m not defending this doctrine, the death of the wicked, because of any lingering love for the SDA church but because it is the only position which makes sense to me.  If you wish to take these statements literally, let’s try this one on for size:

Luke 16:19-31
19 “There was a rich man who was dressed in purple and fine linen and lived in luxury every day. 20 At his gate was laid a beggar named Lazarus, covered with sores 21 and longing to eat what fell from the rich man’s table. Even the dogs came and licked his sores.
22 “The time came when the beggar died and the angels carried him to Abraham’s side. The rich man also died and was buried. 23 In hell, where he was in torment, he looked up and saw Abraham far away, with Lazarus by his side. 24 So he called to him, ‘Father Abraham, have pity on me and send Lazarus to dip the tip of his finger in water and cool my tongue, because I am in agony in this fire.’
25 “But Abraham replied, ‘Son, remember that in your lifetime you received your good things, while Lazarus received bad things, but now he is comforted here and you are in agony. 26 And besides all this, between us and you a great chasm has been fixed, so that those who want to go from here to you cannot, nor can anyone cross over from there to us.’
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my father’s house, 28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”
NIV[

According to “traditionists” this is a literal description of the state of the dead.  In other words the people in hell will be able to see heaven and be close enough to the people in heaven they will have conversations with them.  Indeed, this occurs even before the judgment since the rich man was begging to be able to tell his brothers who were still alive of the terrible consequences of dying in sin.  When people insist on taking what is meant to be figurative literally, what blatant contradictions we find in the Bible.  You haven’t explained my other text which said exactly the opposite.

Isa 65:17
17 “Behold, I will create
new heavens and a new earth.
The former things will not be remembered,
nor will they come to mind.
NIV

So according to the “traditionists” we will have conversations with the damned and yet won’t remember why they are there.  I’m sure watching God torture people forever would certainly make people afraid of God and would “drive them to the cross,” but it wouldn’t make them love God.  And the first and great commandment is to love God supremely.  How can you force people to love you by threatening to torture them eternally if they don’t?  That type of “love” is called “traumatic bonding” and is the basis for the “Stockholm syndrome,” not exactly a psychologically healthy relationship.

Matt 22:37-40
37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.”
NIV

In addition, in the passage you quoted, you and other “traditionists” have a new definition of “death.” Death is now “life,” in hell.  The Bible says:

Rom 6:22-23
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves to God, the benefit you reap leads to holiness, and the result is eternal life. 23 For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
NIV

The “traditionists” don’t take the Bible literally either, they just choose to take it literally when talking about a fiery eternal torment.  However when it comes to statements that the end result of sin is “death” they take that symbolically and say “death” actually means “eternal ruine,” not death in the literal sense.  So far as I can tell, the “traditionist” position doesn’t come from the Bible at all, but comes from Greek philosophy. 

Here is how the U.S. News & World Report states it in their October 23, 2006 edition p.63

Within religion itself there is also fresh thought about the implication of the new science of the mind for core relgious principles and beliefs.  Malcolm Jeeves, an honorary professor of psychology at the University of St. Andrews, is one of many believing scientists who think the Christian concept of the soul should be relieved of its Cartesian and Platonic overlays.  “The immortality of the soul is so often talked about that it is easy to miss that the Jewish view did not support it,” Jeeves says.  “Furthermore, the original Christian view was not the immortality of the soul but the resurrection of the body.” But Platonism did creep in, Jeeves acknowledges, winning over such influential Christian theologians as Augustine and John Calvin.  In Jeeve’s view, the new science of consciousness, by showing the inseparable links between mind and body, restores the original Christian conception of the unity of the person.  As many Christians now say, “human beings do not have souls; they are souls”....

Although, US News is not a peer review religious journal, this paragraph does accurately state where I see the future research heading as we come to understand that Christianity is a branch of Judiasm, not a completely new religion.  One can not ignore the Jewish context in which those statements were made.

One argument I just saw on FAF and one I have encountered many times is the old ‘God is infinite, so sinning against an infinite Being requires an infinite punishment’

Were this really true, the fact remains is that ‘sin’ is ‘rebellion against God’and the ‘wages of sin is death. Man’s beginning to die and remain forever dead ("And dying ye shall die") was the punishment for separation and rebellion. This punishment is directly contrasted (i.e., the exact opposite) to the reward for the righteous. ‘Eternal life’, ‘immortality’, ‘everlasting life’ all are contrasted to ‘destruction’, ‘death’, ‘perishing’ ‘consuming away into smoke’

This is something the traditionalist just can’t seem to accept and insists on making ‘black’ ‘white’.

Nonetheless, lets analyse the belief that sinning against God requires infinite punishment. Such thinking is a throw back to midieval times and the feudal system where rank was of utmost importance. Here is the fundamental question: Do any of us really know who or what God is? Are we not limited in our understanding that we either accept or reject our concept of who God is and not His Infinite Reality? Why would God require infinite punishing from those who really ‘do not know what they are doing’? It is strange that if we are ‘judged by our works’ that all we have done is swept away for one blanket verdict of ‘you have sinned against an infinite being’ be it Hitler or the little sweet lady down the road who lived a good life but chose not to accept Christ. Such a concept does away with the clear scriptures of ‘degrees’ of punishment. Eternal suffering is the punishment for everyone without any degrees. Such a verdict is not fair or just in the least.

Eternal torment has no place in salvation history or is ever considered in the OT and most of the NT as a ‘just punishment for rebellion’. Instead, we see that sin is the problem, Christ is the cure, and the fires at the end of time carry out the executive punishment for rebellion: the wages of sin.

It amazes me the lengths people will go to in trying to twist the scriptures to support proof texts which prove nothing more than God wants to punish sinners for eternity (and no matter how much you want to put the onus on sinners, an eternally tormenting and punishing hell puts the blame strictly on God) Add to this what Stan has pointed out, that if one believes that God has ultimately chosen whom to save and whom will be lost it makes it even more difficult to rationalize eternal torment with a ‘God of love’)

New Mexico, isn’t it sad that a secular journal sees the illogisitics and cultural influences of such a terrible doctrine, but God’s representatives insist on ignoring it to place their Father in such a horrible light? 

[quote author="New Mexico"]
So according to the “traditionists” we will have conversations with the damned and yet won’t remember why they are there.  I’m sure watching God torture people forever would certainly make people afraid of God and would “drive them to the cross,” but it wouldn’t make them love God.  And the first and great commandment is to love God supremely.  How can you force people to love you by threatening to torture them eternally if they don’t?  That type of “love” is called “traumatic bonding” and is the basis for the “Stockholm syndrome,” not exactly a psychologically healthy relationship.

New Mexico, I think you are building a straw man argument here by casting anyone who believes in the doctrine of a literal hell as one who takes every word of the Bible literally.  Clearly the Bible is filled with different literary genres including parables, explicit commands, apocalyptic passages, poetry, etc.  You have pulled two passages out of their contexts and put them side by side, assuming that anyone who believes in the doctrine of hell will also take these passages as strictly literal, thereby “proving” the fallacy of this belief.

Your argument ignores the importance of careful biblical hermeneutics.  Surely there are people who believe in the doctrine of eternal hell who take the parable of the rich man and Lazarus literally, but most scholars understand that Jesus was speaking in a parable.  Even Jonathan Edwards, the famous hellfire and brimstone preacher, believed this passage is a parable (http://www.biblebb.com/files/edwards/warnings.htm).

When the Bible is viewed as a book full of contradictions, we must ask ourselves on what basis do we believe anything found in Scripture?  Assuming you are a Christian, what parts of the Bible can you believe?  How do you know these beliefs aren’t based upon fabricated stories, oral traditions, myths and half-truths?

Far better to respect all Scripture as God-breathed (2 Timothy 3:16) and resolve any apparent contradictions by looking to context and using careful hermeneutics rather than dismissing God’s Word as self-refuting.

Jesus used parables to communicate profound truths.  The parable of the rich man and Lazarus should not be used to quantify the degree of suffering or time spent in hell, but should serve as a warning that there are consequences for sin and for ignoring the Person to whom Moses and the prophets pointed.

As Edwards says, “Let all make use of the means which God hath instituted. They are the best and only means by which we may expect to obtain salvation. We shall be most inexcusable therefore if we neglect them. Let us attend to the Word of God, read and hear it carefully, consider it thoroughly, and daily walk by it. Let us be diligent in this work. The Word of God is a great price put into our hands to get wisdom and eternal salvation.”

Greg

New Mexico

Maybe my comments were misinterpreted. I was responding to your statement that maybe the judgment of the lake of fire would not be literal. But Jesus Himself used terminology that would certainly imply that it was literal. I am actually in agreement with you and Guibox that the lake of fire will not torment sinners eternally, but I do contend that God will exact and inflict His vengeance on the ungodly in exact measured justice and judgment. The wicked will not get off lightly as a lot of liberal SDAs keep saying on http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com It is interesting how at that web site, when I have posted Ellen White’s vivid quotation about the lake of fire in Great Controversy, they get all upset, because even Ellen destroys their view of God as somehow just winking at sin.

Stan

[quote author="Stan Ermshar"]The wicked will not get off lightly as a lot of liberal SDAs keep saying on http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com It is interesting how at that web site, when I have posted Ellen White’s vivid quotation about the lake of fire in Great Controversy, they get all upset, because even Ellen destroys their view of God as somehow just winking at sin.

I first heard this theology about 16 years ago from the camp counselor I was working under. I scratched my head then and still do now. Everybody has their biblical ‘elephants in the middle of the room’ that they conveniently ignore. For traditionalists (and sadly, even some formers now), it is the clear biblical evidence that man’s ‘soul’ or ‘spirit’ doesn’t function on its own and live in heavenly bliss at our physical death but man will awake to eternal life through resurrection,a nd for some SDAs it is the false belief that God will not be the direct influence in the destruction of the wicked.

There is so much biblical evidence throughout scripture to support that even though the punishment of the wicked is not God’s primary focus (eradication of sin is), it is still God who delivers the plagues, it is still God who sends fire from heaven that will result in ‘torment’for a time.

What I have found at heavenly sanctuary is a focus so strongly on God as a God of ‘love’ (which is a good thing), that, however, results in one ignoring the bible to mold God into a step by step image of what we think a God of love would or wouldn’t do.

Many on HS also adhere to the Moral influence theory as well which denies the idea of a substitute and propitiation for sin (of which there is more disputable biblical evidence against their theory then that God wouldn’t punish sinners!)

There is error from both SDAs and formers. It is sad that so many want to adhere to what they think the Bible teaches instead of what it actually does...but then again, aren’t we all guilty of that to some extent?

Hi Darrell,

Welcome back from vacation.

I believe truth a lot of times lies between two extremes.

One extreme is the liberal SDAs who say no punishment for sin exists.

The other extreme is Jonathan Edwards vivid description of literal hell fire torment which causes extreme bodily pain and suffering forever.

I believe that when Paul talks about the wrath of God being poured out on sinners for their deeds in Romans 2 is very real. When Revelation talks about torment in the lake of fire, I believe it is real, and for the likes of Hitler and Saddam Hussein, there may even be a very prolonged period of suffering in the lake of fire, but I believe that torment ends when God’s just judgment is done. I could be wrong on this, but, it is so hard to even imagine the idea of literal bodily torment for trillions of years.

But, nonetheless, the wrath of God is real. Thank God for the gospel to deliver us from this wrath.

Stan