Welcome chowman to 4TG.

I agree with you. I believe the Biblical evidence says that the wages of sin is death (Romans 6:23). And Revelation 21:8 describes the lake of fire as the second death. The question that those who believe in eternal torment cannot answer to my satisfaction, is how is it if the soul and body are reunited and both soul and body suffer in hell, then how would that not be life eternal? Eternal life, even in misery is not what the Bible teaches. Some of the top Bible translators such as Weymouth and the Reformer William Tyndale all testify as to what the words mean, and they agree also that “dead” or “destroy” means what they say.

Stan

Chowman, welcome to 4TG.  Thanks for sharing your thoughts with us and I look forward to hearing more from you.

My main concern in the hell debate is whether we think that hell is eternal or not, we should acknowledge its reality and not shy away from speaking about it, since Jesus and the apostles did not.

Like the substitutionary atonement, some have described hell as a form of cosmic child abuse.  We certainly have strayed far from the Bible if we deny hell’s existence in an attempt to create a god who meets our expectations.

Greg

I have to agree with Greg on this. There may be differences of opinion between some of us who post on here, and that is fine.

But what concerns me deeply as one who has studied this issue very carefully, and have come to the conclusion that annihilation is the likely eventual end of sinners in the lake of fire is this:

There is the slippery slope argument that because hell is not going to last eternally, then, somehow God is going to wink at sin, and not inflict any physical pain on the wicked at all. I will avoid mentioning names, but I heard with my own ears, a prominent and popular advocate of the moral influence theory of the atonement say that the lake of fire will not be literal, and there will be no physical suffering and pain.

Repeatedly throuout Scripture God speaks of Himself as a God of justice. David in Psalm 94 mentions a God of vengeance. Another place says “Vengeance is mine, I will repay” What is vengeance if the most heinous sinners in history are not punished in proportion to what their sins deserve? If Hitler and Bin Laden are let off scot free just to die peacefully, then what kind of God of justice would that be?

I tried arguing this over on http://www.heavenlysanctuary.com , a website which follows the teachings of the above mentioned teacher. Their reaction is that God of love wouldn’t do this, and they even made comments that I might not be a Christian for believing in even a prolonged, but not eternal period of suffering in the lake of fire. When I quoted Ellen White’s statement from GC on this, they got upset, because she does teach a literal hell.

I think we sometimes forget that sin is such an insult to God, and a stench in his nostrils, that because He is a Holy God, He must bring His wrath on the wicked as Romans 1 so clearly teaches. I heard Maxwell say once that Romans 1 is not talking about literal wrath, but that God just gives man up to their willful sin, and they die as a result of that sin.

Once the penal aspect of the atonement is abandoned, then the penal aspect of the lake of fire and judgment is then minimized. I see this as a real problem. This is why the annihilationists such as John Stott and others get a bad rap, because they are then lumped in with liberals. But the terrible wrath and judgment of God are serious realities. There is a heaven to gain as well as a hell to shun. We are saved from the terrible wrath of God, by believing in His substitute, the Lord Jesus Christ. We only escape the wrath to come by finding our souls safe in Christ. He is the refuge we need. This is because God poured out His wrath on Himself in the person of Christ. Christ experienced the equivalent of the second death for everyone who comes to faith.

Stan

[quote author="Greg"]
My main concern in the hell debate is whether we think that hell is eternal or not, we should acknowledge its reality and not shy away from speaking about it, since Jesus and the apostles did not.Greg

However, I agree with what Stan was saying that Fudge said. Hell is not a credible message when it portrays God as an unjust an cruel tryant. How the message is portrayed and understood will result in different reactions. Though we are all responsible for our own choices (unless you’re a Calvinist ), there is a responsibility on the messenger when the type of response one gets can move them further and further away from God.

It’s like EGW. Is it productive to try and convince others that EGW is a prophet of God when we pass her off as an infallible authority of truth who was verbally inspired? Then when they reject an obvious problematic portrayal, the ‘preachers’ justify it by saying ‘Well! You have just rejected the Prophet! If you reject the Prophet, you are rejecting God’s end time message!’

Is it productive to preach a ‘hell’ simply because it is in the Bible,but in a way that makes it impossible for people to swallow because of the negative light it puts God in? Then claim that God will hold them responsible for their rejection of Him? How is that fair? 

Hi Guibox,

You ask, “is it productive to preach a ‘hell’ simply because it is in the Bible, but in a way that makes it impossible for people to swallow because of the negative light it puts God in?”

If a simple preaching of judgment and punishment of sinners is impossible to swallow, it is because people have no appreciation for God’s holiness and their own unrighteousness.

If everything must pass through a test of whether people will find it palatable or not, we will be forced to homogenize the basic truths of Christianity until they are no longer recognizable as the original product.  Many have tried to preach a cross-less, hell-less, atonement-less, judgment-less, repentance-less Christianity.  What comes out bears no resemblance to the teachings of Jesus or the apostles, but it sure is easier to digest.

For example, can you imagine a modern preacher following the apostle Paul’s example?

“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)

This sermon would indeed be a mighty bitter pill to swallow, but do we flee from such discussion simply because we don’t want to turn people off?

Regarding your allusion to election and God’s fairness, Romans 9 has the answer, but we’ve been down this road before.

Greg

Greg,

I hear and understand that there is a point that what is staring you in the face needs to be accepted and if one can’t deal with it...well, one must consider what they believe Christianity to believe or not.

That Paul has strong words concerning this cannot be denied.

Nonetheless what is there for all to see and accept depends on how it is put forth. One can view hell from a perspective that puts justice and mercy, wrath and love, in the right light. One can understand the necessity for sin to be punished without the need to feel that this must go on for a complete eternity.

When one properly lays out the sin problem, what sin has done and the need for justice, punishment for a time, or even punishment out of necessity (i.e., sin must be eradicated and sinners suffer the fate), that is something that can be understood. However, to bring someone to that point of understanding, but then tell them that only eternal torment without end can satisfy God’s justice, well that is another story.

I believe that mankind’s God given consciences are rightly revolting against such a moral contradiction. The simple fact that annihilation is brought forth as an alternative and not merely universalism, tells me that people understand and accept that there is a need for justice and punishment...surely, however, an eternity of torture flies in the face of a God of love.

Fortunately, the whole of the Bible supports this and is not merely a fabrication because people want a cop-out from the idea of any punishment.

I would like to lighten up the tone on this thread just a little by changing the subject entirely. On FAF today I found this link to you-tube regarding SDA trading cards. This is hilarious, as I needed something to lighten up my own spirit today:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qH2FfQ3lwaU

Stan

Stan,

That is so wrong! How cheesy! LOL! I’m caught in between being insulted as it seems this is a former-SDAs effort at mocking my church, and laughing my butt off as it is absolutely hilarious. I had to send it to my brother. Maybe he can share it with his conservative congregation!

“Ellen White rookie card”

Sorry Guibox to derail the “hell” discussion, but I could not resist. Sometimes we just need to laugh at ourselves.

Stan

Amazing!, he who wants to be blind will make himself blind just as the Scribes n Pharisees did in Christ’s time. Very good questions. God Bless.

How is God meeting man’s expectation? and what is man’s expectation?

Greg, Thanks, so tell me is hell eternal for you?

Stan, thanks for your thoughts. Which Maxwell are u refering to? What is the GC quote?

[quote author="chowman"]Greg, Thanks, so tell me is hell eternal for you?

Chowman, if by hell, we mean “separation from God”, my answer is yes.

If by hell, we mean “conscious torment”, I am less certain, and I can appreciate the biblical arguments on both sides.

Jesus, Paul, Peter and John certainly thought hell was a place to avoid, and this is good enough for me.

Greg

P.S. Chowman, you might want to include quotes in your comments so we can know what you are responding to.

chowman,

I was referring to Graham Maxwell.

The Great Controversy teaching on hell being literal is in the very last chapter which can be read online at http://www.ellenwhite.com

I agree with Greg. Hell is eternal separation from God. So my answer to the question “Is Hell eternal?” is, of course.

However, I believe Malachi 4:1-3 is an unequivocal clear statement of the fate of the wicked, and this is confirmed by the apostle Peter in 2 Peter 2 and 2 Peter 3. These statements seem to be quite clear that the wicked will burn up when the elements melt with fervent heat. I believe Jesus was correct when in Matthew 10:28 when He says that body and soul will be destroyed in hell fire. This text was enough to convince both John Stott and Phillip Hughes that when the New Earth is created anew, that all sin and evil will be eradicated completely from the universe.

I believe Revelation has a lot of symbolic language, so, I think the clearer scriptures help us in this regard. But, there are enough scriptures to also come up with the teaching of eternal torment, and we must respect those who disagree on this issue. There are those on both sides who believe the Bible is inerrant.

Stan