My Case for eternal Hell

[Ambassador791]

I apologize to Ambassador for hijacking his thread.

Use it as you wish, I moved and have much less internet access, so I wont be able to participate as much now.

Amb,

I agree with you that this is an allusion to the lake of fire but where we differ is that if the sinner even could pay his sin debt then that does not make him righteous, it makes him debt free but he still has a criminal record. He is still not justified or righteous , he simply is paid up but that record still exists on the books. Repentance and receiving Christ as Lord and Savior is still needed to obtain righteousness and wipe away the record from the book of life.

Well, he may not be justified, but he is justifing himself by paying for his own sins. Luke 12 says he will "pay every last penny": all that must be paid in order to become justified is charged to his account, not Jesus'. I agree that he is not yet rightous.For him to be rightous, his account must be cleared of sin and that sin applied to Jesus' account. The thing that makes him unrightous (not right standing) is his sin, the very thing that he must pay all of. Here is the problem: his punishment is to pay for all his own sins recorded in the book of life. I think you are confusing one thing as two. The payment of sins is the clearing of his name (the justifing of himself) in the books.The books just record OUR works, good and bad. What we need is Jesus' rightous work to be place over top (and blot out) our unrightous work.

Col 1/"21 Once you were alienated from God and were enemies in your minds because of your evil behavior. 22But now he has reconciled you by Christ's physical body through death to present you holy in his sight, without blemish and free from accusation"


Christ gave his physical body so that there would be no accusation against us. People who go to the second death, have not been saved from accusation through Christs body.They have been accused and then condemned. Steve asked before if there is just one time that Jesus' sacrifice is applied. This tells us were it is applied.

Col 2/ 13-15 "He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us; he took it away, nailing it to the cross. 15And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross."

What did Jesus triumph over on the cross?: "sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us"

We cannot relitivise what Jesus died for. He clearly paid for our sins , so that we would not. His scrifice was to clear us of all accusation, in order to prevent us from paying for ANY sin. He took our place. If we pay, he is not our savior. If we pay for our own sins, then go to heaven, this is a back door into heaven with out the SAVIOR THAT SAVES FROM SINS.

Here is another passage that says that the one that is not forgiven will pay for all his sins, not half or a quarter:

Math 18/28
"But when that servant went out "(after the King had forgiven him)", he found one of his fellow servants who owed him a hundred denarii. He grabbed him and began to choke him. 'Pay back what you owe me!' he demanded.

29"His fellow servant fell to his knees and begged him, 'Be patient with me, and I will pay you back.'

30"But he refused. Instead, he went off and had the man thrown into prison until he could pay the debt. 31When the other servants saw what had happened, they were greatly distressed and went and told their master everything that had happened.

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I canceled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed.

[steve7150]

We cannot relitivise what Jesus died for. He clearly paid for our sins , so that we would not. His scrifice was to clear us of all accusation, in order to prevent us from paying for ANY sin. He took our place. If we pay, he is not our savior. If we pay for our own sins, then go to heaven, this is a back door into heaven with out the SAVIOR THAT SAVES FROM SINS.



Amb,

As i said when an unbeliever dies there is an unsatisfied sin debt and when this sinner is resurrected to judgment he is judged by his works. As far as i can see the "works" have something to do with the existing unsatisfied sin debt that justice still demands must be satisfied. The sinner can not get himself into heaven but he will be in the presense of the lamb for addressing his debts. IMHO there probably will be some point where most if not all sinners in the lake of fire will get an opportunity after their judgment to receive Christ. Just because hell may not be eternal does not mean justice will not be served or mean Christ is any less of a Lord , only that his mercy will be more clear to everyone. It's true that Christ paid our debt so we don't have to but until he is your Lord you will have to pay even to the last penny but that still does'nt make you righteous. The fact that Christ made the statement "until you have paid the last penny" suggests that it is a finite debt that actually can be paid,
Christ in dying for the sins of the world i think actually overpayed for each individual person. Anyway the sinner not benefiting in this life from Christ's sacrifice for his sins is certainly not getting into heaven by any back door.
I'm not really explaining myself well but i think the sinner paying for his sin debts is not the same as Christ's payment, the first is for justice and the second is for righteousness IMO.

[Ambassador791]

It's true that Christ paid our debt so we don't have to but until he is your Lord you will have to pay even to the last penny but that still does'nt make you righteous.quote]

let me quote myself here:

I agree that he is not yet rightous.For him to be rightous, his account must be cleared of sin and that sin applied to Jesus' account. The thing that makes him unrightous (not right standing) is his sin, the very thing that he must pay all of. Here is the problem: his punishment is to pay for all his own sins recorded in the book of life. I think you are confusing one thing as two. The payment of sins is the clearing of his name (the justifing of himself) in the books.The books just record OUR works, good and bad. What we need is Jesus' rightous work to be place over top (and blot out) our unrightous work.

I realize that you say that even with the sin having been paid for, Jesus still needs to qualify the sinner in another way.I believe that there is another work: regenerating of the spirit. Of corse this work produces rightous living in us. But, The bible really only indicates the need for salvation from sins to avoid wrath. Yes we must be sanctified, but santification is apart from salvation, it is not the same thing. You don´t want to make it one in the same, as some Catholics do. I agree that God wants us regenerated, but this is not salvation itself, it is the result of it. It is the fruit of salvation. Like I said in my last post, the regeneration is the work of the spirit, but we cannot exclude the roll of the need for the work of the lamb that clears our names from sin, as if we can satisfy Gods wrath on our own.

It's true that Christ paid our debt so we don't have to but until he is your Lord you will have to pay even to the last penny but that still does'nt make you righteous.

I think that you see Christ clearing people of sin even after entering judment.

I, personally am not against this, if fact I wish it were so.

But, As I showed in my last post, the definition of what Jesus paid for on the cross makes it hard for me to see you view in the scripture, I think that your view runs itself up against at least two clear, unavoidable truths:

One,

"He forgave us all our sins, 14having canceled the written code, with its regulations, that was against us and that stood opposed to us"

So, the sacrifice was for sins, no doubt. And to free us from "accusation"

(Up to this point, I could see how you might think that this could still go for those that have entered the second death, and are not saved from their sins yet, the fact that they are ACTUALLY paying for their sins proves that, you might say, they still need a savior and remain under accusation.)

Two, (this point is why I can´t agree with you)

"I tell you, you will not get out until you have paid the last penny."

"In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed".

If I treat you to lunch and say that I will pay, and then when the bill comes, you pay for the whole thing while I am in the bathroom, what is left for me to pay?

That example may be overly simple... but that is how simple I think this is once we see theses two very simple points I have just laid out. This, I believe, is the gospel: simple. Jesus pays...we don´t.

The fact that Christ made the statement "until you have paid the last penny" suggests that it is a finite debt that actually can be paid,

I sure does look that way, but this may just be symbolic to say that the sinner will pay all on his own. Why do I say that?

First, Jesus asked the father if there was another way and to take the cup from him. I don´t think that the sinner is able to sacrifice himself for his own sins. God required a holy sacrifice. We are Dirty, a dirty sacrifice of ourselves under wrath will never satisfy Gods wrath. If a unholy man could reach the very end of the payment of sins, why was a holy man only acceptabe before God?

If the sinner pays for all sin with out a savior, then he managed to solve the sin problem without Jesus. This runs itself up against what we know as Jesus as the only door. How is Jesus the door? His sacrifice clears the sinner of the accusation that would require the sinner to pay for all his own sins.


The purpose of the sacrifice was to clear us of accusation and free us from the payment of sin.If we are accused, condenmed to pay for all our sin on our own and then freed, whatever way you want to charactarize what Jesus MIGHT do for us at that point, Jesus´work on the cross that clears us of sin and accusation was not credited to our account in order to qualify us for heaven. Whatever other thing you say he does to qualify us, other than saving from sins, does not seem to be part of the Gospel as I know it.

[steve7150]

The purpose of the sacrifice was to clear us of accusation and free us from the payment of sin.If we are accused, condenmed to pay for all our sin on our own and then freed, whatever way you want to charactarize what Jesus MIGHT do for us at that point, Jesus´work on the cross that clears us of sin and accusation was not credited to our account in order to qualify us for heaven. Whatever other thing you say he does to qualify us, other than saving from sins, does not seem to be part of the Gospel as I know it.





Amb,

I'll try again. If Christ is not our Lord a sin debt exists, correct? It still is owed by the sinner and IMO after death he must pay it, not for salvation, not for righteousness, not for justification, but simply because he owes it and it's a real debt owed to a creditor. The sinner will be in the presense of the Lamb while he is in the lake of fire. I ask you why that would be? Is Christ a sadist or is he there for a more noble reason? Think about why he would be there.

[Ambassador791]

The sinner will be in the presense of the Lamb while he is in the lake of fire. I ask you why that would be? Is Christ a sadist or is he there for a more noble reason? Think about why he would be there.

Of corse this just comes down to our interpretation here (as to exactly what Jesus is doing in the lake of fire) , It looks to me as if the sinners are thrown into the second death in the presence of the one that is condmning them to that death.I am not sure that this is meant to induce the passive image of Jesus with his hands out waiting to bring the sinner home as he stands by. I see it more as a angry God that is there as he unleashes his wrath.

According to scripture, this is the Jesus that will be known to those that are not on his side.They regected the meek and mild Jesus.

Luke 12/58,59 "As you are going with your adversary to the magistrate, try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or..."

There is an "or" here. You can be reconciled...or. I think this means that it is not both. Let the scripture speak for itself: "try hard to be reconciled to him on the way, or"

This is why I can´t see Jesus´presence there as a companion or a sholder to cry on. He offered that sholder before the judgment. This same Jesus that is standing by is the one that offered reconsiliation before...but now will not. That is the point of this passage in Luke 12.

If the sinner is to never be truly left on his own (having lost the chance of reconciliation), then there is no real danger of ever being lost (reflect on this last statment.)

[steve]

The danger of being lost is loss. Loss of what? Eternal life is not the only thing of value I can think of. There is loss of valuable time, when you could have been living a life pleasing to God; loss of the fulfillment of the purpose for which you were born; loss of the joy and satisfaction of walking with God and of opportunities to influence others to do do, loss of the status one might have enjoyed in the next life; loss of the exemption from hell (whatever that may entail) that God would have granted...

But these things only speak of the loss to the sinner himself. Being lost is not to be seen from the side of the loss incurred by the lost object, but as the loss incurred by the rightful owner of the lost object. The loss that the Bible directs us to be concerned with is the loss suffered by God when the sinner does not repent—the Shepherd's loss of His sheep; the Woman's loss of her coin; the Father's loss of His prodigal son...

On another point:

What is there in Luke 12:58-59 that makes you think it has something to do with life after death? Is there any reason not to simply take it as being about reconciliation, the courtroom and the prison? I think it is an appeal for justice in life, not a teaching about the afterlife.

[Ambassador791]

I havent written in a while, so I will spend some time with you here... I wouldnt want to disappoint.

What is there in Luke 12:58-59 that makes you think it has something to do with life after death? Is there any reason not to simply take it as being about reconciliation, the courtroom and the prison? I think it is an appeal for justice in life, not a teaching about the afterlife.

Nice to see you back Steve,

Of coarse Jesus would teach us to be reconciled but, I think that if Jesus just wanted to give a general teaching on reconciliation he would not have to give us the threat of being brought before a judge. You say that the judge here represents having to judge for ourselves, but I think that Jesus could have made that point without having to talk about a judge, jailer, and payment for all. It seems to me that this is a teaching that lets us know that what we must receive reconciliation for is not just for any general offence, but a offence that deserves judgement and jail time. Not all people will be brought before a judge during their lives, but there will be a time when all will be at the final judgment. It seems to make more sense to take it this way.

Also, look at all the talk in this chapter that cannot be seen as anything but judgment from God.

To add to that we have Mat 18 that says almost the same thing:

32"Then the master called the servant in. 'You wicked servant,' he said, 'I cancelled all that debt of yours because you begged me to. 33Shouldn't you have had mercy on your fellow servant just as I had on you?' 34In anger his master turned him over to the jailers to be tortured, until he should pay back all he owed. 35"This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless you forgive your brother from your heart.

Yes this is a parable, but it says that "This is how my heavenly Father will treat each of you unless..."

Again, this tells us that we need to make things right before we fall under judgment of the Father. This time the sin is: not reconciling others to ourselves.

Being lost is not to be seen from the side of the loss incurred by the lost object, but as the loss incurred by the rightful owner of the lost object. The loss that the Bible directs us to be concerned with is the loss suffered by God when the sinner does not repent—the Shepherd's loss of His sheep; the Woman's loss of her coin; the Father's loss of His prodigal son...

I am sure that these points also come into play but I believe that the loss if much more profound.The fact that the word death is used to discribe the loss seems to indicate that.

I know that we don´t want to say that there is a point of no turning back. We would like to be able to say that God will never completely leave anyone alone to pay ALL of his sin. It would be nice to say that no man will be left alone, having not been saved: saved meaning salvation from sins. But, that is what this says.

If you are not reconciled, or if you do not allow others to be reconciled to yourselves, whichever you want, you will not be reconciled to God, you will not be forgiven.

In Mat 18, the man that is judged in the end, did not forgive the debt that the other servant owed him. He wanted to make him pay. If he ever got the chance to make him pay the whole debt, could we still some how say that he forgave that man? No! That is the point, he did not forgive him in virtue of requiring the man to pay. Note the parallel of God requiring any man to pay for any amount of sin. Even though the man did not get the chance to collect what was owed to him Jesus considered that not forgiving. God will collect ALL. Once he has collected, can we say that he has forgiven. Looking at it this way, I don´t think that you can say that you can have any man pay for any number of sins and still be considered forgiven, at any point .In virtue of trying to charge what is owed to the guilty´s account, forgivness has not occured, according to Jesus.

Either way, we know that the sinner will pay for all he owes.

Jesus died so that we could be forgiven of our sins. If we pay for all of them, what in Jesus ´name, are we forgiven of? Absolutely nothing! If I am made to pay for all the debt that I owe, I have not been forgiven because I have paid.

So, the question remains: if I am not forgiven on account of the sacrifice of the lamb, in what way have I partaken in Jesus in order to go to heaven …apart from my own merit of paying for my own sin?

[steve7150]

If the sinner is to never be truly left on his own (having lost the chance of reconciliation), then there is no real danger of ever being lost (reflect on this last statment.)






Firstly i see the sinner in the lake of fire being in the presense of the lamb as symbolic of the fact that despite everything, Jesus has not abandoned them. God's will is that none should perish and Jesus prayed that God's will be done and Jesus thanked God for always hearing his prayer.
Jesus himself was in effect lost on the cross when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" as he was actually spiritually separated from his Father unto death yet after death he was reconciled. All things are possible with God.

[Ambassador791]

Jesus himself was in effect lost on the cross when he said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" as he was actually spiritually separated from his Father unto death yet after death he was reconciled.

I am not sure of exactly what we can say occured on the cross in this regard. I don´t think any of us would say that Jesus ACTUALLY became a sinner. I can pay for my friend´s debt without ACTUALLY having, or ending up with bad credit as I do it. The fact that I not only have have good credit, but the fact that I am rich with a surplus in the area that my friend falls short, enables me help him. I can take his debt on myself, pay it and still be in good standing with the bank.

While I sign the cheque for money I personally do not owe, it would look like I am bailing myself our of bad standing with the bank.

Clearly Jesus saw a type of forsakeness between himself and the father, but don´t believe that it was the exactly same as ours. He saw himself cursed on a tree. The curse of death that is meant for a sinner would cause him to say why?... when he was actually rightouss. The curse looked like bad standing with the father, but was Jesus truly abandoned? I believe that he took our punishment upon his flesh, but his soul did no become sinful like ours. He was not "reborn in to a sinful nature" like we are reborn into a rightouss nature. If that notion of Jesus´soul becoming sin stained interests anyone, the word of faith movement has lots of materials based on this idea that you can check out. I would advise you not to go there.

I don´t see this as an example of how a true sinner is separated and then reconciled. If Jesus soul was sin stained on the cross like ours is, who will clean him? Will someone have to die for him? Theses are the problems that this argument brings up.

i see the sinner in the lake of fire being in the presense of the lamb as symbolic of the fact that despite everything, Jesus has not abandoned them.

What about the presence of the Son and the angles when the sinner gets thrown into the lake of fire? Is it a supportive presence?

Luke 12, 9 "anyone who denies me here on earth will be denied before God’s angels"

You say that this presence is "symbolic of the fact that despite everything, Jesus has not abandoned them". Homer, in a past post gave the biblical responce that everyone is not Gods´son, but in fact many are the sons of Satan. Here, the sinner is abondoned, he is denied in the presence of the angles and lamb, just as Rev says. This supports what I said in a past of this presence being the Son, doing away with the ones he has rejected with the angles present, not the Son standing by as a sholder to cry on.

This brings me to look at something Steve said many posts ago:

When you say that a person under wrath should not expect undeserved grace, I have to ask what condition you and I were in before we came to Christ? Were we not "children of wrath, even as others"? Yet we were encouraged to hope in the grace of God and we received it.

On earth, if any man repents God will accept him. He will not be denied. Here we see that a point is coming, at time in which God will not treat people as we were treated when we were under wrath. There will be new conditions. Like in Luke 12, before the judement we had the oppertunity to repent a receive forgiveness, but a time is coming when some will not be forgiven. This is a new condition. When we turned to God, he did not deny us. A time is comming when people will be denied.

You may say, "oh, but they will be denied like we were, until they repent, like we did." Don´t you think that these people in the presence of the Son and angles are trying to repent? The problem is not if they are willing to repent, the problem has to do with their rejection from the Lamb:

Luke 13/25, 28 “Once the owner of the house gets up and closes the door, you will stand outside the house pleading, sir open the door for us”….”there will be weeping there and gnashing of teeth.”

I know you would like to believe that the condemned sinner will be treated just as we were when WE were in our sin, with the same oppertunity to repent...but it is just not so, this proves it.

Looking at Luke 12, Mat 18 and what we have just read from Luke 13, we see that after death, for the sinner there is 1 unforgivness, 2 actualized wrath, 3 the denial of them upon the seeking exceptance and, 4 they must pay for all of their sins. These conditions will pin the sinner into a place that no created man had ever experinced. None of these things were present when we repented. When we sought the Lord, he opened the door and there was forgivness for us. We see another set of rules after the Judgment.

You see, the scripture makes it impossible to relitivize Jesus´sacrifice, what it is for, and when it is to be applied.We DO see a line in which the human may cross where he will not be able to have the scrifice that forgives of sin applied to him, he will pay for all his sins with out forgivenes, having been denied.

The sinner is in the Son´s presece, but when entrance is sought, the Son closes the door.

[Homer]

Ambassador wrote:

I am not sure of exactly what we can say occured on the cross in this regard. I don´t think any of us would say that Jesus ACTUALLY became a sinner.

To which I must agree. How could it possibly be so when an animal sacrifice had to be without spot or blemish? As Peter wrote:

1 Peter 1:18-20 (King James Version)

18. Forasmuch as ye know that ye were not redeemed with corruptible things, as silver and gold, from your vain conversation received by tradition from your fathers;

19. But with the precious blood of Christ, as of a lamb without blemish and without spot:

20. Who verily was foreordained before the foundation of the world, but was manifest in these last times for you,