Thoughts On The Eternity Of Hell

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Jan 17, 2007 9:11 pm

Gracemonger must be a disciple of Jonathan Edwards! Edwards had his sinners dangling like a spider over the pit of everlasting torment.

What must these people believe the character of God to be? A glorified Sadist who takes pleasure in watching people suffer excruciating eternal pain?

One of them said that the greatest delight of those in heaven is to watch those in everlasting hell writhe in pain throughout eternity. When I first read that I was so horrified, I was walking around in a sickening daze for a couple of hours.

The author of this horribly evil statement had the audacity to imagine himself to be a Christian.

Post by **_Benzoic** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:55 pm

Steve wrote:
If it turned out that the lost were not eternally tormented, but (as the “conditional immortality” people say) they were instead given punishment proportionate to their guilt and then annihilated, or (as “evangelical universalists” say) they were to be punished until they were reformed, and then admitted to heaven—would any Christian object to this?

Hello,

I’m certainly no Bible heavyweight, maybe in 40 years, but some Bible verses came to my mind as you wrote that.

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Mt 19:24

If it were true that a person enters heaven at the end of their punishment in hell, why would Jesus make a comment such as that above? It seems as though Jesus is implying there is a probability that a rich man will never enter the kingdom of God. If there is a possibility that a rich man will not enter the kingdom of God, then it follows that there is no hope for those who die without Christ. What do you think?

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3

Is there some other way to be born again while in hell?

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life . . .” John 3:36

It says here that those who refuse to obey Jesus by not believing in Him will not see life. If it were true that people will go to heaven after punishment, why wouldn’t it say something like “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life for awhile.”

Post by **_Paidion** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:11 pm

Again I say to you, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Mt 19:24

This is, of course, a Hebraism, which tells us simply that it is difficult for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God. In another place it is written "not many rich". An English queen once remarked, "I'm glad it says 'not many rich' rather than 'not any rich'."

In any case, it seems that this passage is talking about the difficulty that the rich have in entering the Kingdom of God now, and not in some far off time. Jesus, when speaking to the Pharisees, said the Kingdom of God was among them. A kingdom consists of a king and his subjects. Among the Pharisees stood the King Jesus, and His subjects, the disciples.

Jesus answered and said to him, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God. John 3:3

Jesus seems to be saying that one cannot be part of His kingdom here on earth unless he is regenerated.

Is there some other way to be born again while in hell?

Why do you ask whethe there is some other way? There is no other name under heaven (other than that of Jesus) whereby we may be saved. Those who will be corrected in Gehenna (or "hell" if you prefer) must submit themselves to the authority of Jesus the same as you and I did. It's not that they will "do their time" and then be allowed out. No, they will never get out until they have "paid the last penny".

“He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life . . .” John 3:36

It says here that those who refuse to obey Jesus by not believing in Him will not see life. If it were true that people will go to heaven after punishment, why wouldn’t it say something like “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life for awhile.”

There are people here on earth who don't obey the Son until after many decades of living wickedly here on earth. Does that mean that they "will not see life" even if they repent and submit to the authority of Christ?
If they can repent and submit to Christ, and thereby "see life" why not those who will be in Gehenna? Why should the simple fact that they have died destroy their opportunity?

We don't stop loving a family member after he or she dies. God "loved the world" (John 3:16). Does He stop loving people just because they die?
Does He consign them to a useless, eternal torment, that will never accomplish any purpose except to satisfy His sense of revenge? No, I think that concept does an injustice to the character of God, and is thereby blasphemous.

God will do His best for every person. He has all the time in the Universe! He will wait for the repentance of every person ---- and they will all repent, sooner or later.

...the living God ... is the Savior of all people, especially of those who believe. I Timothy 4:10

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:31 pm

He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life . . .” John 3:36

It says here that those who refuse to obey Jesus by not believing in Him will not see life. If it were true that people will go to heaven after punishment, why wouldn’t it say something like “He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life for awhile.”

Jesus said as long as one does not obey the Son he will not see LIFE. What is life? Eternity in hell would be eternal life would it not? Life means heaven, but why can't one be born again in the lake of fire. Why is it so offensive to so many Christians who are COMMANDED by Christ to love their enemies?
I knew next to nothing about Christ until about six years ago yet when i did hear the gospel message it did make sense to me almost at once. If i would have died a day earlier i would have spent eternity in hell? Can you not see the absurdity in that?
Yes we die once and then the judgement but what is the nature of the judgement, that's the question.

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 1:09 am

Romans 1:16
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.

Is this scripture true? Does the Spirit, by the testimony about Christ, save the lost? The Universalist has a mightier and far more competent power than the Gospel; an infallible power that is able to convert every lost person without fail: Punishment! Enough punishment and they come to love the one punishing them! The life, death, and resurrection of our Lord is reduced to a mere passion play, a mere cipher.

Think of it. Is there a different message preached to those in Hell, other than the Gospel? You say, given enough time and punishment, every last one will accept the Gospel and confess Jesus as Lord. What is it that makes a difference? Any thing other than punishment? Please tell us what it is.

The truth is there is not one statement in all of scripture that positively affirms that after death the wicked will ever be made holy and will enjoy eternal life with the righteous. If you have a scripture that says so, let us have it. I ask again, how are they made holy?

The scriptures speak of the destiny of the righteous and wicked, those who accept Jesus and those who reject Him. On the fate of those who have never heard the Gospel I am silent; they are in God's hands and He is righteous and just.

Why do you ask whethe there is some other way? There is no other name under heaven (other than that of Jesus) whereby we may be saved. Those who will be corrected in Gehenna (or "hell" if you prefer) must submit themselves to the authority of Jesus the same as you and I did. It's not that they will "do their time" and then be allowed out. No, they will never get out until they have "paid the last penny".

Paidion, I must say you go the Romanists one better. You have a universalist purgatory!

I shall refrain from the inflamatory charge of blasphemy

.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:14 am

I knew next to nothing about Christ until about six years ago yet when i did hear the gospel message it did make sense to me almost at once. If i would have died a day earlier i would have spent eternity in hell? Can you not see the absurdity in that?

I repeat my question to which the traditionalist must say"Tough luck you would be in hell forever." You'll be in hell for billions or trillions of years because even though you would have responded had you heard the gospel , it just was'nt your fate.

This type of thinking means Calvinism would have to be true.

And reading Revelation 22 not only does 22.17 suggest it is possible to be saved through the LOF but reading through other verses with an open mind can suggest there is a flip side to every apparent WARNING such as "he who is unjust let him be unjust" can mean the opposite like "He who is JUST, come in because they gates are never shut."
"Blessed are those who do his commandments" 22.14 Who are these verses referring to if Revelation by chap 22 is chronological?

And regarding punishment , scripture never says people are punished in the LOF but we know God chastises everyone He loves and He loves even his enemies.

Post by **_Benzoic** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:15 am

Steve,

No I cannot see the absurdity in that. You would go to hell not ‘just’ because you didn’t hear the gospel. You would go to hell because you broke God’s law, and you would go to hell because you were not righteous. The upright in heaven are not righteous by their own doing. There is no one that is just, and no one that will be admitted into heaven based on their own merit. The righteousness as that of Romans 3 does not speak about a behavioral pattern, but that no one has ever been innately righteous, with the exception of Jesus of course. We need righteousness to get in heaven, which can only be gained through Christ.

I think you’re mitigating your sin, you sound as if you do not think you deserve punishment in hell for your sin. Because I believe in predestination, you would never have died a day to early, as Jesus stated “all that the Father has given me will come to me”. Who are we, destitute man, to tell God he is wrong for putting people in hell for eternity? Who has a better comprehension on what is just, God or us?

A lot of things in the Bible seem like a paradox to us, but God wrote that Bible, and naturally there will be things we can’t fully comprehend. Jesus made it clear that people who do not accept Him go to hell, and he offered no other exceptions. To say people will get in another way is to speculate, Jesus only gave us two ways! Accept Him or reject Him. We cannot go around and tell people, “oh well, you might go to hell, but you’ll probably get out after your time has been paid.” There is absolutely no basis for that claim, and it is certainly not being faithful to what Jesus preached.

“Why is it so offensive to so many Christians who are COMMANDED by Christ to love their enemies?”

There is nothing offensive about that, and just because many adhere to the doctrine of hell does not mean they do not love their enemies. People stick to the doctrine of hell because they believe it is clearly portrayed in scripture, not because they hate their enemies. If I continually witness to people and am persistent about an eternal hell, does that mean I hate the unsaved? If I hated unsaved people, I would not give the energy to witness to them. If I believe something is taught in scripture I will preach it regardless of whether I like it or not.

"Will you really annul My judgment?
Will you condemn Me that you may be justified?" Job 40:8

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:34 am

I think you’re mitigating your sin, you sound as if you do not think you deserve punishment in hell for your sin. Because I believe in predestination, you would never have died a day to early, as Jesus stated “all that the Father has given me will come to me”. Who are we, destitute man, to tell God he is wrong for putting people in hell for eternity? Who has a better comprehension on what is just, God or us?

Well first of all if i am mitigating my sin why did the gospel make sense to me when i heard it?
Second , since you believe in predestination then it would make sense to you that God chooses who shall hear the gospel. And that was my point that most people throughout the history of mankind either never heard the gospel or heard a distorted gospel.
I would have agreed with you except i don't believe Calvinism is biblical but there is another thread for that.
But as a Calvinist you have that problem nailed down.

Post by **_STEVE7150** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:35 am

A lot of things in the Bible seem like a paradox to us, but God wrote that Bible, and naturally there will be things we can’t fully comprehend. Jesus made it clear that people who do not accept Him go to hell, and he offered no other exceptions. To say people will get in another way is to speculate, Jesus only gave us two ways! Accept Him or reject Him. We cannot go around and tell people, “oh well, you might go to hell, but you’ll probably get out after your time has been paid.” There is absolutely no basis for that claim, and it is certainly not being faithful to what Jesus preached.

BTW Ben, A lot of things in the bible do not seem like a paradox to me ,they make perfect sense but if i were a Calvinist i would agree with that conclusion.
And i agree Christ is the only way.

Post by **_Homer** » Thu Feb 15, 2007 12:12 pm

Steve,

I repeat my question to which the traditionalist must say"Tough luck you would be in hell forever." You'll be in hell for billions or trillions of years because even though you would have responded had you heard the gospel , it just was'nt your fate.

I guess I'm not a traditionalist; I do not hold the view expressed in your statement. I thought that would be understood from my last post.

I also agree with you Revelation is not chronlogical. I thought in past posts on this subject you maintained it was.

When asked for scriptures that positively support universalism, all that is presented are scriptures that "suggest" the doctrine, which is built on unnecessary inferences.