Hell and everlasting punishment

[ahimsaman72]

john doran:

i have no idea why that should be surprising: what does one have to do with the other?

that article wasn’t written by “the Church”; it was written by an individual expressing his own socio-theological opinion.

do you actually believe that? i assume you’re being serious, but it’s difficult to imagine that anyone would really, seriously propose this as a piece of sound reasoning.

It’s a credibility issue. The Church says it knows certain aspects of the reality of hell, but cannot tell me even where it is located. I thought the Church had the total deposit of faith. I’m not saying this to be critical. I’m just answering your question.

This person who wrote it is definitively saying “the church this…the church that…” He should be told he is wrong if such is not the case.

 

[Trelow]

ahimsaman72:

The Church says it knows certain aspects of the reality of hell, but cannot tell me even where it is located. .

Well ****, the same could be said of Heaven.
So by the same logic who’s to say it exist’s or even gasp it’s eternal!

Aim small, miss small.

 

[Trelow]

ahimsaman72:

The Church says it knows certain aspects of the reality of hell, but cannot tell me even where it is located. .

Well fiddlesticks! The same could be said of Heaven.
So by the same logic who’s to say it exists or even gasp it’s eternal!

Aim small, miss small.

Also, we have no idea the scope of God’s mercy.
Everlasting punishment? Yes.
Does God desire all men to Know and love Him? Yes.
Will He give them every opportunity to come Home? Yes!

He is his attributes. Therefore He is mercy. But He is also justice.

Until our time comes we have no clue what process is undertaken. We have to error on the side of caution, lest we loose souls due to our negligence.

 

[mercygate]

Hell (or Heaven) and eternity: Here’s where we fold in a little Greek philosophy. If God is eternal, then his love and wrath are eternal. Whether they are “places” or “states” they are part of himself and if our destiny is God, then we have to deal with both aspects of his character. It can equally be said of his love and of his wrath that they are righteous, just, perfect, true – and eternal. Our question is what does that mean?

I read somewhere that the Ecclesiastes (Qoh 3:11) is the first mention of the concept of “eternity” known to man occurs Old Testament writings (rather hard to imagine considering the age of Vedic texts which must have some idea of it – though possibly that cyclical element is an excluder). It, thus stands to reason that the full development of the idea should occur later – say, in the New Testament period.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

Well fiddlesticks! The same could be said of Heaven.
So by the same logic who’s to say it exists or even gasp it’s eternal!

Aim small, miss small.

Also, we have no idea the scope of God’s mercy.
Everlasting punishment? Yes.
Does God desire all men to Know and love Him? Yes.
Will He give them every opportunity to come Home? Yes!

He is his attributes. Therefore He is mercy. But He is also justice.

Until our time comes we have no clue what process is undertaken. We have to error on the side of caution, lest we loose souls due to our negligence.

“hell” - grave, underworld etc is always said to be down, whereas heaven is always referred to as up.

The New Jerusalem itself comes down out of heaven. Sheol, Hades and Tartarus are referred to as underneath - the underworld. So, there are some references for this. It’s just weird that the Catholic Church hasn’t proclaimed hell as being down, but has sufficient evidence to declare that it is eternal and tormenting - especially given the fact that it is the true church. Shouldn’t it know this?

In reality, there are some things about God which we will never fully grasp or understand. I admit that. We do know what He has revealed through the prophets and writings given to us, though. So, we must go with what has been revealed.

I have to come back to your claim of
“Everlasting punishment? Yes”

There is only one time in which those two words are used in conjunction with each other. The Greek is “kolasin aionion” which should be translated “correction age-during” literally. Aionion is a period of time. It comes from the root word aion transliterated aeon or eon. It means an age. Kolasin means correction, punishment. That’s exactly why I started this thread - to dispel the myth of eternal or everlasting punishment and the concept of a fiery, tormenting hell which lasts forever and ever and ever and ever and ever and ever. You get my drift.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

Hell (or Heaven) and eternity: Here’s where we fold in a little Greek philosophy. If God is eternal, then his love and wrath are eternal. Whether they are “places” or “states” they are part of himself and if our destiny is God, then we have to deal with both aspects of his character. It can equally be said of his love and of his wrath that they are righteous, just, perfect, true – and eternal. Our question is what does that mean?

I read somewhere that the Ecclesiastes (Qoh 3:11) is the first mention of the concept of “eternity” known to man occurs Old Testament writings (rather hard to imagine considering the age of Vedic texts which must have some idea of it – though possibly that cyclical element is an excluder). It, thus stands to reason that the full development of the idea should occur later – say, in the New Testament period.

Once sin is destroyed I can see no purpose for God’s wrath.

God will make all things new - as Revelation 21:1 “And I saw a new heaven and a new earth: for the first heaven and the first earth were passed away; and there was no more sea”

This chapter goes on to say that there will be no more tears or death.

“And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away”

All things will be made subject unto Him - sin will be destroyed - and we will live with our Maker throughout all ages.

God is said to experience all manner of emotions, just like we do. He gets angry, sad, happy. He loves, hates, etc. etc. I wouldn’t begin to tell you I know all about God’s character. We know a lot, but not all. I look forward to learning more and more once we go to be with Him.

A couple things that stick out in my mind:

Matthew 5:44

1. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you

Matthew 6:14-15

1. For if ye forgive men their trespasses, your heavenly Father will also forgive you:
2. But if ye forgive not men their trespasses, neither will your Father forgive your trespasses.

Now, if we are expected to love and forgive our enemies, what does that say about God? Won’t He do the same? He wouldn’t tell us to love and forgive if He wasn’t willing to do the same for His creation.

Remember also, for thousands of years - from Adam throughout the rest of the OT the people God has created have not been told that they could die and spend eternity in a fiery hell. So that means that God will exact a penalty upon the Old Testament people that they were not aware existed.

It is clear that in the OT, laws were given and the penalties for breaking laws were also given. You commit X, the effect will be Y. You kill a man - you will be killed by your community. You commit adultery - you will be stoned to death. God did provide that temporal penalty. But, it would be a terrible injustice for God to exact a penalty like everlasting punishment upon an individual without their knowledge that such a penalty existed.

 

[Trelow]

CCC 1035
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell,** “eternal fire.”**617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

emphasis mine

There is no discussion.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

CCC 1035
The teaching of the Church affirms the existence of hell and its eternity. Immediately after death the souls of those who die in a state of mortal sin descend into hell, where they suffer the punishments of hell,** “eternal fire.”**617 The chief punishment of hell is eternal separation from God, in whom alone man can possess the life and happiness for which he was created and for which he longs.

emphasis mine

There is no discussion.

Thanks for your post. :banghead:

God bless…

 

[mercygate]

ahimsaman72:

Thanks for your post. :banghead:

God bless…

I know you’ve addressed Revelation 20:10 & 14, but when taken together with verse 15, I don’t see how you can dismiss them as not being in some way indicative of an eternal fire into which SOME of us will be cast:

1. and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
2. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, thelake of fire;
3. and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

(Italics and emphasis mine)

 

[Trelow]

Ah, didn’t pick up that you are not Catholic. My mistake.​

And it’s come to this? A Southern Baptist not believing in fire and brimstone?

Surely the end times are near!

---

The most wonderful sermons on eternal torment I have heard from the pulpit in a Southern Baptist church.

Anyway, don’t worry about wither or not it is eternal, unless you plan on visiting. And surely don’t try to lead Christ’s flock into believing that it isn’t or your soul may pay the forfeit for their ignorance. And that my fried is scriptural. (Well so is the authority of the Church, but there are plenty here better suited at pointing that out for you. )

Peace brother, it’s suppertime.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72,

Thomas B. Thayer (a Univeralist) wrote a book entitled …

Thomas B. Thayer says that aionios can mean endless. So you still haven’t shown why it does not mean endless in the case of the lake of fire spoken of in Revelation. You state that with God, it “naturally” is interpreted as endless. I agree. But how do you know? You seem to start with a premise: God is everlasting, then interpret *aionios *based upon that already accepted premise. How about starting with the premise that hell is everlasting, then interpret the usage of aionios in the same manner, hmmmmm?

The usage is no different grammatically speaking as the usage referring to the lake of fire. I’ll give you another example. Another universalists I debated with insisted that the reign of Christ was not endless. Is he correct? If he is incorrect, can you show me why from Scripture? Grammatically, St. John describes the reign of Christ in exactly the same manner as he describes the lake of fire. If you disagree that Christ’s reign will come to an end, then why do you assert the lake of fire will? That’s the inconsistency I’m hoping that you will see.

The universalist claim is attempting to add a chapter to Revelation, the one where the lake of fire ceases to exists, and all those purified by it are restored in heaven. I keep checking Scripture and this chapter is still missing.

Wishful thinking does not change what Scripture actually teaches as Christian doctrine.

 

[ahimsaman72]

mercygate:

I know you’ve addressed Revelation 20:10 & 14, but when taken together with verse 15, I don’t see how you can dismiss them as not being in some way indicative of an eternal fire into which SOME of us will be cast:

1. and the devil who had deceived them was thrown into the lake of fire and sulphur where the beast and the false prophet were, and they will be tormented day and night for ever and ever.
2. Then Death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. This is the second death, thelake of fire;
3. and if any one’s name was not found written in the book of life, he was thrown into the lake of fire.

(Italics and emphasis mine)

Well, you have raised a good question here. It certainly seems we are talking of a literal fire to begin with. The Greek word, “pur” is the word “fire”. Strong’s Concordance renders the definition as “to purify”. I imagine it’s the same place where you get the wrod “purgatory”. So, we have to keep the meaning of the word itself in mind. The same word is also used of non-literal fire in the following verses:

Matt. 3:11 Luke 3:16 Mark 1:49 Acts 2:3, Acts 7:30, Rom 12:20, I Cor. 3:13,15 Heb. 1:7 Heb. 10:27 Heb 12:29 James 3:5,6 James 5:3 I Peter 1:7 Rev 1:14 Rev. 2:18 Rev. 3:18 Rev. 10:1 Rev. 11:5 Rev. 19:12

Of course the same word is also used to explain what we can only imagine as a literal fire. So, we must look at context and subject matter. And - remember the original meaning of the word to start with. “Pur” means to purify. You could also extend that as “purge”. I would posit this is a figurative fire based on the context, the meaning of the word itself and other verses which support this view.

Even if the fire is literal - there are some other things I want to point out. Even if it is literal - it would only be for a time - not endlessly. Consider the phrase - day and night for ever and ever.
Well, remember Jonah is said to have been in the belly of the whale *for ever. (Jonah 2:6) *He obviously was only there three days (as Jesus affirmed in the NT).

The Greek for ‘for ever and ever is’: aion aion (ages and ages). It is for a time period, not eternally or without end. An age has a beginning and end.

So, we have the Devil, beast and false prophet, those whose names are not written in the book of life, and death and hades all “thrown into the lake of fire”. Surely, death and hades can’t be physically thrown into a fire, yet all of the above is said to be thrown into the lake of fire. So, even if we conclude the lake of fire is a literal, burning fire and if we were to also conclude that it is “eternally and without end”, we still couldn’t figure out how people and things can be physically thrown into a lake of fire together.

The truth is that this is a figurative fire which is a picture of God purging man, the devil, angels, and death itself until it is “destroyed” or consumed and made holy and fit for God’s kingdom.

There’s three obstacles to get to the conclusion of literal people in literal fire for eternity in torment. Even if you figure out one, you have to figure out the other two. And, given the figurative nature of the majority of the book of Revelation itself - this is an even harder task.

The book of Revelation is filled with symbols and metaphors which help to comprehend the truths contained in it. Sometimes, symbolism has to be used because our finite minds cannot truly understand the meanings of the truths themselves.

Hope this helps.

 

[ahimsaman72]

Trelow:

Ah, didn’t pick up that you are not Catholic. My mistake.​

And it’s come to this? A Southern Baptist not believing in fire and brimstone?

Surely the end times are near!

---

The most wonderful sermons on eternal torment I have heard from the pulpit in a Southern Baptist church.

Anyway, don’t worry about wither or not it is eternal, unless you plan on visiting. And surely don’t try to lead Christ’s flock into believing that it isn’t or your soul may pay the forfeit for their ignorance. And that my fried is scriptural. (Well so is the authority of the Church, but there are plenty here better suited at pointing that out for you. )

Peace brother, it’s suppertime.

No problem, brother.

I know, I know - a Southern Baptist who doesn’t believe in eternal fire is a real oxymoron. Believe me, I’ve heard the hell fire and brimstone sermons all my life!!!

No, I certainly don’t plan on visiting anyway. I trust God with my life. And if God is the judge (which He is) then His judgement upon me will be justified and correct. So, how can I argue with that?

God bless…

 

[ahimsaman72]

itsjustdave1988:

ahimsaman72,
Thomas B. Thayer says that aionios can mean endless. So you still haven’t shown why it does not mean endless in the case of the lake of fire spoken of in Revelation. You state that with God, it “naturally” is interpreted as endless. I agree. But how do you know? You seem to start with a premise: God is everlasting, then interpret *aionios *based upon that already accepted premise. How about starting with the premise that hell is everlasting, then interpret the usage of aionios in the same manner, hmmmmm?

The usage is no different grammatically speaking as the usage referring to the lake of fire. I’ll give you another example. Another universalists I debated with insisted that the reign of Christ was not endless. Is he correct? If he is incorrect, can you show me why from Scripture? Grammatically, St. John describes the reign of Christ in exactly the same manner as he describes the lake of fire. If you disagree that Christ’s reign will come to an end, then why do you assert the lake of fire will? That’s the inconsistency I’m hoping that you will see.

The universalist claim is attempting to add a chapter to Revelation, the one where the lake of fire ceases to exists, and all those purified by it are restored in heaven. I keep checking Scripture and this chapter is still missing.

Wishful thinking does not change what Scripture actually teaches as Christian doctrine.

The subject matter (as Thayer points out) determines the usage of the word (the context). Aionios is only used to describe God twice (I think - I’ll have to go back and check) in all of Scripture. We would all agree that God actually transcends time. He is the God of the ages and ages. We know that He is the God of the living, not the dead. He is the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Can we say the same about ourselves?

I don’t pretend to know all the nooks and crannies of this theology. Many other men before me have studied and documented their work. I couldn’t begin to explain it or defend it as well as they.

I just posted a response on the Revelation passage to mercygate. Please go there and you will see my explanation.

I’m not sure about what you would consider the “reign of Christ”. Are you speaking of His earthly reign, millenial reign, heavenly reign? I would have to know to answer correctly.

We still know that “aion” and aionios are age and ages respectively. That’s their meaning. That’s the original language. Possibly there is some meaning lost in translation.

Peace…

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The truth is that this is a figurative fire which is a picture of God purging man, the devil, angels, and death itself until it is “destroyed” or consumed and made holy and fit for God’s kingdom.

I presume from the above that you do assert the devil and his angels will be restored in heaven. Is this correct?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The subject matter (as Thayer points out) determines the usage of the word (the context).

Actually, Thayer’s presuppositions determines the usage.

He doesn’t believe in everlasting punishment, so in those instances when aionios is used to describe punishment, it is temporal. Even if it is used differently in the same verse, as in Matt 25:26. If don’t find this very compelling, though. As it does not rely upon the internal evidence, which is grammatically equivalent to the usage relating to Christ’s reign.

Yet, other Universalists, as I have discovered, dispute the everlasting nature of Christ’s reign. At least they are consistent. “Context” ought not to be a codeword for ones “theological presuppositions.”

You cannot prove Christ’s reign is everlasting using Scripture alone, can you?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

We would all agree that God actually transcends time. He is the God of the ages and ages.

Sure, and the lake of fire will last ages and ages. Why do you believe ages and ages is “endless” for God, but not for the lake of fire.

I used to take foundational theological doctrines such as this for granted, but when discussing doctrines with others, especially those that question other such foundational doctrines as the everlasting punishment of the damned, I don’t think simply stating this as a premise is scholastically acceptable. Why do we agree to the endlessness of God but not the endlessness of the lake of fire? I believe this because it is a doctrine of Catholcism. You seem to require more proof than that.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

ahimsaman72:

I’m not sure about what you would consider the “reign of Christ”.

The reign of Christ described by St. John as lasting **for ever and ever (*****eis aion aion) ** just as the lake of fire and the torment (basanismos) of those cast into it is described as lasting for ever and ever (eis aion aion). [Note: According to Thayer, this double plural form of aion is used to denote the “endless future.” In Thayer’s lexicon, he lists Rev 11:15 along with Rev 20:10 as having the same meaning of this double plural form of aion).

The reign of Christ …

KJV Rev 11:15 "And the seventh angel sounded; and there were great voices in heaven, saying, The kingdoms of this world are become [the kingdoms] of our Lord, and of his Christ; and he shall reign **for ever and ever. **(cf. Rev 1:6, 4:9, 4:10, 5:13)

**Compared the above to the torment of the damned which also lasts for ever and ever… **

KJV Rev 20:10 “And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet [are], and shall be **tormented day and night for ever and ever.” **(cf. Rev 14:11).

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Even if it is literal - it would only be for a time - not endlessly.

This assertion of yours seems rather uncompelling to me. Thayer himself describes in his lexicon that the double plural form of aion, found only in the NT, to be an expression of “future endlessness.” Sorry, but Jonah 2:6 does not use this expression, so as an lexical example, it is unconvincing.

The Greek for ‘for ever and ever is’: aion aion (ages and ages). It is for a time period, not eternally or without end. An age has a beginning and end.

Thayer asserts otherwise. By what scholastic authority do you make this claim? If this same expression is used to describe Christ’s reign (Rev 11:15), and Thayer describes it’s meaning here and in Rev 20:10 to express “endless future”, (see blueletterbible.org/cgi-bin/words.pl?book=Rev&chapter=11&verse=15&strongs=165&page=1&flag_full=1), then why should we go by your say so that this double plural form of aion doesn’t mean future endlessness? Is there another Greek lexicon that you can cite which gives a convincing argument for the double plural form of aion as meaning something different than “future endlessness” as Thayer asserts?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

From another well-respected lexical source, Vine’s Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words:

[aionios] "describes duration, either undefined but not endless, as in Rom 16:25; 2Ti 1:9; Tts 1:2; or undefined because endless as in Rom 16:26, and the other sixty-six places in the NT. "The predominant meaning of aionios, that in which it is used everywhere in the NT, save the places noted above, may be seen in 2Cr 4:18, where it is set in contrast with proskairos, lit., ‘for a season,’ and in Phm 1:15, where only in the NT it is used without a noun. Moreover it is used of persons and things which are in their nature endless, as, e.g., of God, Rom 16:26; of His power, 1Ti 6:16, and of His glory, 1Pe 5:10; of the Holy Spirit, Hbr 9:14; of the redemption effected by Christ, Hbr 9:12, and of the consequent salvation of men, Hbr 5:9, as well as of His future rule, 2Pe 1:11, which is elsewhere declared to be without end, Luk 1:33; of the life received by those who believe in Christ, Jhn 3:16, concerning whom He said, ‘they shall never perish,’ Jhn 10:28, and of the resurrection body, 2Cr 5:1, elsewhere said to be ‘immortal,’ 1Cr 15:53, in which that life will be finally realized, Mat 25:46; Tts 1:2.

to be continued …