God's truth about hell

[Checkpoint]

This thread stems from this short beginning exchange about hell and truth:


Checkpoint wrote:

Hi again, Pinseeker.

What is it that makes them "truths" rather than "untruths", as you see them, in brief ?

What specifically makes them "very hard truths", do you think?

Pinseeker wrote

Hey, Checkpoint.

I guess the only way to answer the first question is, if God says it, it's true.

To the second, I would say "very hard truths" does not mean "very difficult-to-undertand truths." What I mean is, many people do not want to hear about hell, and/or do not want to accept God's truth about hell. It scares them, it offends them, it's obcene to them... etc. Even believers like me just... well, I shudder at it. It... well, it scares the H-E-double-toothpick out of me. But it's important, even vital to our understanding of the Gospel. Take a look at this if you want:

https://www.ligonier.org/learn/series/hell/[/quote]

Checkpoint responded

Ah yes Pinseeker, what you say here raises questions rather than gives answers, in my opinion.

1) Do we really grasp what "God's truth about hell" actually is?

2) In what way is it "important, even vital, to our understanding of the Gospel"?

3) Why is there such strong, even visceral, reaction to "God's truth about hell", so often expressed by both believers and unbelievers?

4) Who, or what, is being questioned here? God, or the Bible, or an interpretation?

Please discuss, debate, and/or give your answer to any of these questions, or just comment or make an observation.

[PinSeeker]

Daniel 12 not only gives no support to "conscious confinement", but in fact gives support to "conditional immortality", and is itself confirmed in John 5:28-29.

Okay, first, I thought we dispensed of the term confinement, because I was the one who first used it and you objected to that because it was not used in the Bible, and I'm good with that. So I would ask that you stop using it. It really seems to me as if you keep doing so in order to present it as an absurdity. Existence and consciousness in a real place is really the only issue being discussed. And what is experienced in that existence/consciousness.

So. Daniel 12:2 says – and I quote:

• “…many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.â€�

It is talking about the resurrection and subsequent Judgment (I think you will agree with me on that...). It speaks of those who have physically died as sleeping -– as Jesus does, by the way -- in the dust of the ground (rather than ceasing to exist). Also, and more relevantly, all these, including the wicked, will become awake -- which is an irrefutably conscious state. And as a result of the subsequent Judgment, “some� (the wicked) will be subject to shame (ESV), disgrace (NASB), and everlasting contempt. “Conditional immortality� is not implied in any shape, way, or form. There is nothing there about “going back to sleep� or being wiped from existence. One cannot be subject to anything if he or she is wiped from existence. One cannot experience shame or disgrace if he or she is wiped from existence. And one cannot experience everlasting contempt if he or she is wiped from existence. What is crystal clear -- and unmistakable -- is that consciousness, once regained at the resurrection by those who have previously experienced the first (physical) death -- both the redeemed and the wicked -- never lose consciousness again.

Thank you for bringing John 5:28-29 back into the conversation. Yes, I agree that what we see in Daniel 12:2 is reiterated by John in these verses. Surely you are aware that the last we hear from John in his Gospel is that those who committed the evil deeds (the unrepentant) are resurrected to judgment. That he mentions nothing further after the resurrection – for either those who did good deeds (believers) or those who committed the evil deeds (unbelievers) – can not imply that the conscious state of one group is different from the other, but only that what one group experiences in this conscious state is different from the other. If one understands annihilation to be the fate of those who committed the evil deeds, he/she is at least inadvertently adding to the text and changing the force of God’s assertion through John in those verses.

Revelation 14:11 adapts and/or mirrors Isaiah 34:8-10, including the smoke. The smoke going up and the fire that "will not be quenched" mean the judicial decision that anguishes those so judged, is final and will never be changed or reversed, but will stand forever.

Wholeheartedly agreed. This is exactly what I have said several times in this thread. And the anguish in this figurative flame never ceases, as in Jesus's parable concerning the dead rich man in Luke 16,

(Revelation 14:11) says nothing about consciousness or confinement.

Again, you really should stop with the use of “confinement.� It’s disingenuous of you at best. Regardless of that, here again, the eternal consciousness of the unrepentant is crystal clear and irrefutable (emphasis added):

• â€�…the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; they have no rest day and night, those who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name."

Their torment never ends (this is their “worm� that will not die), and one cannot be tormented endlessly – and cannot have no rest day or night – if he/she is not forever conscious, much less wiped from existence.

Revelation 20:10 and 15 say more than, or less than, or other than, what may have been assumed.

Agreed. It is perfectly consistent – God is consistent; imagine that – with what He has said in Daniel 2 and Revelation 14 (and John 5:28-29). See above.

But we do know, we do agree, that the lake of fire is not literal, it is figurative.

This is well established several times over now.

Only in Revelation does the lake of fire appear, and only in Revelation does its specific literal meaning, appear, which is "The Second Death". So, "the lake of fire" that is so often mentioned, is actually a figure of the real and the literal, Second Death.

It's just as real, and just as literal, as our first death.
The second death is, for sure. And no one will be wiped from existence as a result of the second death, just as will have been the case for all with the first.

If "the lake of fire" is not literal, why do we tend to take literally what is said about some who are "cast into" it? Consider this verse:

• 14 Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death.

What is it, then, to be literally "cast into" it?

Now these, Checkpoint, are excellent questions. Not that other questions you have asked are not excellent; I just… well, I’m thanking you for asking them is all. Okay. So:

The lake of fire is properly understood as a realm. Death (Sheol in the Old Testament) and Hades, as mentioned in Revelation 20, are the realm of the dead (unrepentant sinners) before the Judgment. The Final Realm where the wicked will reside (with the devil, the beast, and the false prophet – the unholy trinity -- in torment day and night forever and ever [Rev. 20]) is – symbolically speaking – the lake of fire. All unrepentant sinners are cast into it, along with the previous – “lesser,� or penultimate – realm of the wicked. The torment is from being cut off from the blessedness of the presence of God and from His grace. As such, It can be thought of as outside of and wholly opposite two the new heaven and new earth. And those in that realm will be just as conscious as you and I and all other believers in the new heaven and new earth – which are not separate but one.

This last little bit... this is a lot, really, in just a few words…

Grace and peace to you, Checkpoint.

[PinSeeker]

Yes, settled as to duration, but not settled as to specific application when used; for example, eternal fire, eternal punishment, eternal life.

Not sure I understand this... I agree, I think, if in "not settled" you mean in this life and before the resurrection and the Judgment. Until then, the final Judgment has not been made -- even though at the point of the first death (and before, for those who are born again of the Spirit) it is certain. And from the perspective of God's sovereignty, it is always certain.

So you would maintain that eternal is a different length of time than eternal life? If so, why? How do you justify that, both logically and using Scripture?

Not regarding a different length of time ("settled as to duration"); meaning the same length of time as in "eternal life".

Okay, that's fine with me...

By "application" I meant you choose your application of what "eternal" is connected with and, because my choice of that differs, what we conclude or assume, also differs, markedly.

I... think I follow this... but with all due respect, it doesn't make much sense; eternity is eternity. The difference is in how/where one experiences that eternity (the age to come, that will have no end).

That results in me, as I see it, applying "eternal" to fire, punishment, and life, but, as I see it, your application of "eternal" is to ever-burning fire, punishing, and living. To you, as you see it, that may well be unfair and unwarranted, and if so I apologize, but whatever, it is what it is.

Yeah that doesn't seem fair at all. I would state how I see it the same way you did (applying "eternal" to fire, punishment, and life). But honestly, I see no difference between the two applications; they seem to be one and the same.

Grace and peace to you, Checkpoint.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 192 by PinSeeker]


Checkpoint wrote:

Yes, settled as to duration, but not settled as to specific application when used; for example, eternal fire, eternal punishment, eternal life.

Not sure I understand this... I agree, I think, if in "not settled" you mean in this life and before the resurrection and the Judgment. Until then, the final Judgment has not been made -- even though at the point of the first death (and before, for those who are born again of the Spirit) it is certain. And from the perspective of God's sovereignty, it is always certain.

I don't think you do understand either, for I don't even get what you said in this reply!

Checkpoint wrote:

By "application" I meant you choose your application of what "eternal" is connected with and, because my choice of that differs, what we conclude or assume, also differs, markedly.

I... think I follow this... but with all due respect, it doesn't make much sense; eternity is eternity. The difference is in how/where one experiences that eternity (the age to come, that will have no end).

Checkpoint wrote:

That results in me, as I see it, applying "eternal" to fire, punishment, and life, but, as I see it, your application of "eternal" is to ever-burning fire, punishing, and living. To you, as you see it, that may well be unfair and unwarranted, and if so I apologize, but whatever, it is what it is.

Yeah that doesn't seem fair at all. I would state how I see it the same way you did (applying "eternal" to fire, punishment, and life). But honestly, I see no difference between the two applications; they seem to be one and the same.

I really don't think either of us made any progress on this aspect, and that it is best to leave it at that, at least for now.

Grace and peace.

[myth-one.com]

STATEMENT 2: Regarding the word 'conscious,' even the most superficial of understandings of Jesus's parable in Luke 16 -- though this is a parable and thus fictitious but an illustration and a realistic portrayal of a future event -- would concede that the dead rich man is obviously conscious.

No dead man is "obviously conscious."

The rich man is conscious because he is no longer "dead."

He had previously died his appointed first physical death, been resurrected as a human, faced judgment, and is or will soon be cast into the lake of fire to suffer his "second" and everlasting second death.

[Checkpoint]

Checkpoint wrote:

Daniel 12 not only gives no support to "conscious confinement", but in fact gives support to "conditional immortality", and is itself confirmed in John 5:28-29.

Okay, first, I thought we dispensed of the term confinement, because I was the one who first used it and you objected to that because it was not used in the Bible, and I'm good with that. So I would ask that you stop using it. It really seems to me as if you keep doing so in order to present it as an absurdity. Existence and consciousness in a real place is really the only issue being discussed. And what is experienced in that existence/consciousness.

My apology for using that expression. "Place" etc. will do just fine.

So. Daniel 12:2 says – and I quote:

• “…many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.â€�

It is talking about the resurrection and subsequent Judgment (I think you will agree with me on that...). It speaks of those who have physically died as sleeping -– as Jesus does, by the way -- in the dust of the ground (rather than ceasing to exist). Also, and more relevantly, all these, including the wicked, will become awake -- which is an irrefutably conscious state. And as a result of the subsequent Judgment, “some� (the wicked) will be subject to shame (ESV), disgrace (NASB), and everlasting contempt. “Conditional immortality� is not implied in any shape, way, or form. There is nothing there about “going back to sleep� or being wiped from existence. One cannot be subject to anything if he or she is wiped from existence. One cannot experience shame or disgrace if he or she is wiped from existence. And one cannot experience everlasting contempt if he or she is wiped from existence. What is crystal clear -- and unmistakable -- is that consciousness, once regained at the resurrection by those who have previously experienced the first (physical) death -- both the redeemed and the wicked -- never lose consciousness again.

There is also nothing there about a continuing existence or any consciousness of the wicked after judgment.

There is nothing there about going back to sleep and nothing there about not going back to sleep.

All that is said is that their legacy will be everlasting contempt. As will be, and already is, the legacy of Hitler. Whether he is existent or conscious of it is irrelevant, and not needed.

Thank you for bringing John 5:28-29 back into the conversation. Yes, I agree that what we see in Daniel 12:2 is reiterated by John in these verses. Surely you are aware that the last we hear from John in his Gospel is that those who committed the evil deeds (the unrepentant) are resurrected to judgment. That he mentions nothing further after the resurrection – for either those who did good deeds (believers) or those who committed the evil deeds (unbelievers) – can not imply that the conscious state of one group is different from the other, but only that what one group experiences in this conscious state is different from the other. If one understands annihilation to be the fate of those who committed the evil deeds, he/she is at least inadvertently adding to the text and changing the force of God’s assertion through John in those verses.

As with the Daniel 12 passage, what is said in John 5 has nothing about the existence or consciousness of the wicked, or of their lack, after judgment.

The Lord make His face to shine upon you, Pinseeker.

[Checkpoint]

STATEMENT 2: Regarding the word 'conscious,' even the most superficial of understandings of Jesus's parable in Luke 16 -- though this is a parable and thus fictitious but an illustration and a realistic portrayal of a future event -- would concede that the dead rich man is obviously conscious.

No dead man is "obviously conscious."

The rich man is conscious because he is no longer "dead."

He had previously died his appointed first physical death, been resurrected as a human, faced judgment, and is or will soon be cast into the lake of fire to suffer his "second" and everlasting second death.

Interesting.

It seems you are taking this Luke 16 parable as Pinseeker is, as "an illustration and a realistic portrayal of a future event".

Remarkable because it is so rare, that the three of us basically agree on this. I call it real progress!

But I think we will founder, as per usual, on the details.

[PinSeeker]

Responding to you both here, and consolidating...

Daniel 12:2 says – and I quote:

• “…many of those who sleep in the dust of the earth shall awake, some to everlasting life, and some to shame and everlasting contempt.â€�

It is talking about the resurrection and subsequent Judgment (I think you will agree with me on that...). It speaks of those who have physically died as sleeping -– as Jesus does, by the way -- in the dust of the ground (rather than ceasing to exist). Also, and more relevantly, all these, including the wicked, will become awake -- which is an irrefutably conscious state. And as a result of the subsequent Judgment, “some� (the wicked) will be subject to shame (ESV), disgrace (NASB), and everlasting contempt. “Conditional immortality� is not implied in any shape, way, or form. There is nothing there about “going back to sleep� or being wiped from existence. One cannot be subject to anything if he or she is wiped from existence. One cannot experience shame or disgrace if he or she is wiped from existence. And one cannot experience everlasting contempt if he or she is wiped from existence. What is crystal clear -- and unmistakable -- is that consciousness, once regained at the resurrection by those who have previously experienced the first (physical) death -- both the redeemed and the wicked -- never lose consciousness again.

There is also nothing there about a continuing existence or any consciousness of the wicked after judgment.

Not explicitly, but explicitness is not needed. One cannot be subject to shame or disgrace if he does not exist or is not conscious. To experience shame, disgrace, and contempt -- to experience anything at all -- one must exist and be conscious. My goodness.

There is nothing there about going back to sleep and nothing there about not going back to sleep.

Hmmm. I’m just going to say I agree and… let this go… Wow.

All that is said is that their legacy will be everlasting contempt. As will be, and already is, the legacy of Hitler. Whether he is existent or conscious of it is irrelevant, and not needed.

Checkpoint, who’s now using a word (“legacy�) that’s never used in Scripture (much less in any of the passages we’re talking about)? I’m fine with talking about a legacy -- being remembered by folks -- in this life, but we read in Job:

• “...those who rebel against the light, who are not acquainted with its ways, and do not stay in its paths… are no longer rememberedâ€� [Job 24:20]

Unbelievers are no longer remembered by the redeemed in the life to come. God says the same thing through the prophet Ezekiel, says the same thing:

• â€�…the profane wicked, whose day has come, the time of their final punishment… I will judge you. And I will pour out my indignation upon you; I will blow upon you with the fire of my wrath, and I will deliver you into the hands of brutish men, skillful to destroy. You shall be fuel for the fire. Your blood shall be in the midst of the land. You shall be no more remembered, for I the LORD have spoken.â€� [Ezekiel 21:29-32]

I really don't think either of us made any progress on this aspect, and that it is best to leave it at that, at least for now.

Sure, we can do that (leave it here). No worries. I think, though, Checkpoint -- with all due respect -- this is a cop-out. I think you’ve come to the realization that you can’t answer my questions without assenting to what I’ve been saying and (at least to some extent) disavowing what you’ve been saying. I’ve backed you into a corner that you can’t get out of -- which I never intended to do, by the way; I have way too much respect for you personally to do that -- that you can’t get out of.

STATEMENT 2: Regarding the word 'conscious,' even the most superficial of understandings of Jesus's parable in Luke 16 -- though this is a parable and thus fictitious but an illustration and a realistic portrayal of a future event -- would concede that the dead rich man is obviously conscious.

No dead man is "obviously conscious." The rich man is conscious because he is no longer "dead." He had previously died his appointed first physical death, been resurrected as a human, faced judgment, and is or will soon be cast into the lake of fire to suffer his "second" and everlasting second death.

Interesting. It seems you are taking this Luke 16 parable as Pinseeker is, as "an illustration and a realistic portrayal of a future event". Remarkable because it is so rare, that the three of us basically agree on this. I call it real progress!

While certainly interesting, I think it’s neither remarkable nor rare, really. Such is often the case with the Word of God. Most, especially among believers, will agree, but some will deny, at least to a certain extent. Such has been the case here. Myth-one is still denying here that while the rich man certainly has physically died (which Jesus is explicit in saying), the dead rich man is very much conscious with all his senses and emotions functioning well, a fact very evident because he is:

• 1. "in torment" and thus "in anguish"
  
  2. in conversation with Abraham and seeing Abraham and Lazarus "afar off" and across the "great chasm fixed" in between.

I call it real progress! But I think we will founder, as per usual, on the details.

Progress? Hopefully so. Continue to founder? Only if the denial persist...

No dead man is "obviously conscious."

Well not to you and me, or anybody in this life. Not physically/temporally...

The rich man is conscious because he is no longer "dead."

LOL! That must be why Jesus says he is dead. LOL!

He had previously died his appointed first physical death...

This much is quite obvious; I agree. This is what Jesus is saying. But he -- the dead rich man -- is obviously no longer in the physical realm and therefore no longer in his physical body.

...been resurrected as a human, faced judgment, and is or will soon be cast into the lake of fire to suffer his "second" and everlasting second death.

Well, this will be the case with all the unrepentant (unbelievers), but as a complete group, all at one time. All those on Jesus's left will go away into eternal punishment at once, where their torment will last forever, as clearly presented in Daniel 2:2, Matthew 7:21-23, Matthew 25:41-46, Revelation 14:11, and Revelation 20:10 and 20:15.

The dead rich man -- and he is physically dead, as Jesus says -- is verbally imploring -- a most assuredly conscious act -- Abraham to send Lazarus (who has also physically died but is now seated and being comforted -- and obviously conscious -- at Abraham's side) to his brothers... who have not yet physically died, so that he might warn them not to do (or not do) what he did and therefore follow him into "this place of torment" (hell). The final Judgment is not yet in view in Jesus's parable in Luke 16.

___________________________________________________________

You guys (and all those who might agree with you) are just in denial, really. And quite frankly, that's an understandable reaction. This doctrine -- this reality -- of hell is (to put it mildly) quite a fearful thing to ponder.

Grace and peace to you both. And all.

[myth-one.com]

The final Judgment is not yet in view in Jesus's parable in Luke 16.

So you're OK with nonbelievers entering into everlasting torment upon their first physical death -- even though they have never faced the judgment and been found guilty of anything?

The scriptures state that God is just and true:

Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints. (Revelation 15:3)

Starting the punishment prior to one's being found guilty does not seem to be just and true.

Once again, you seem to be in conflict with the scriptures.

It also conflicts with that "God is Love" thing again.

[PinSeeker]

So you're OK with nonbelievers entering into everlasting torment upon their first physical death -- even though they have never faced the judgment and been found guilty of anything?

It doesn't matter whether I'm "OK with it" or not. Luke 16 is clear.

Once again, you seem to be in conflict with the scriptures.

It may seem that way to you, but no, that's not the case.

It also conflicts with that "God is Love" thing again.

Mere opinion. I've answered that before. It's not the case, and rather an affirmation that God is love. Your satisfaction with that explanation is not required.

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 196 by Checkpoint]

Checkpoint wrote:

I really don't think either of us made any progress on this aspect, and that it is best to leave it at that, at least for now.

Pinseeker wrote:

Sure, we can do that (leave it here). No worries. I think, though, Checkpoint -- with all due respect -- this is a cop-out. I think you’ve come to the realization that you can’t answer my questions without assenting to what I’ve been saying and (at least to some extent) disavowing what you’ve been saying. I’ve backed you into a corner that you can’t get out of -- which I never intended to do, by the way; I have way too much respect for you personally to do that -- that you can’t get out of.

You are so kind...to yourself...in what you think.

My suggestion that we leave "this aspect(Daniel 12:1-2)" at that, has not only been rejected and you have gone on in your merry way, but has been labeled as "a cop-out".

But that was not enough. For you could not contain yourself but instead had the nerve to explain why as you did.

Thanks, but no thanks, Pinseeker.

May the Lord bless you and keep you.