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.

[myth-one.com]

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.

It does matter if you're OK with it, because if you are, it means you have to defend an undefendable position.

=============================================

Can both of the following statements be true?

1) God created a system whereby the unsaved will be eternally tormented.

2) God is Love.

==============================================

Follow up question:

Would it be a better system if nonbelievers simply died?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 197 by PinSeeker]

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.

We are "in denial" but it is of "this doctrine -- this reality-- of hell" that you continue to present as being "the truth about hell" Scripture conveys.

And we say you "are just in denial, really", of "the truth about hell" that Scripture does in fact convey.

Whatever view we or anyone has, it is "quite a fearful thing to ponder".

Pondering, thinking about and wondering, may be helpful in discerning what kind of God would fashion hell this way or that way.

The Lord be with you in that.

Grace and peace to all.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 201 by myth-one.com]

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

It does matter if you're OK with it, because if you are, it means you have to defend an undefendable position.

What position is "undefendable", and why do you say it is?

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 199 by PinSeeker]

myth-one.com wrote:

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

Pinseeker replied:

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.

Not required by whom?

And on what basis?

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 201 by myth-one.com]

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

It does matter if you're OK with it, because if you are, it means you have to defend an undefendable position.

What position is "undefendable", and why do you say it is?

The undefendable position: A loving God created a system whereby nonbelievers are condemned to everlasting torment.

It is indefensible because they are contradictory concepts!

Both cannot be true.

==========================================

God designed the system.

He did not inherit it, or become somehow stuck with it.

==========================================

I've never heard a successful defense. Have you?

So how would you defend those two concepts both being true in this debate?

What's your first argument?

Any ideas?

Thanks in advance.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 194 by myth-one.com]

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.

You say the rich man "is no longer dead", having "been resurrected as a human".

Where is that in this Luke 16 passage?

[myth-one.com]

[Replying to post 194 by myth-one.com]

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.

You say the rich man "is no longer dead", having "been resurrected as a human".

Where is that in this Luke 16 passage?

Both the rich man and Abraham have died long ago.

Today, 3/27/2020, they are resting in their graves, having died their appointed "first" deaths.

And it is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment: (Hebrews 9:27)

But all mankind will be resurrected or awakened from this first death:

For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. But every man in his own order: Christ the first fruits; afterward they that are Christ's at his coming. (I Corinthians 15:22-23)

All of mankind are like the first man Adam in that all die. And every human who ever died, will be resurrected or made alive again.

Jesus Christ was the first to be resurrected or made alive.

The group that will be resurrected next are all dead Christians, they that are Christ's, which will be resurrected at the Second Coming, or at His coming.

Believers (those living and those resting in their graves) will be born again as spiritual bodied beings at the Second Coming.

All dead nonbelievers will be resurrected as mortal humans again a thousand years after the Second Coming:

But the rest of the dead lived not again until the thousand years were finished. (Revelation 20:4)

Those resurrected after the thousand years then face judgment and possibly their "second death."

Since they are capable of dying their second death, they had to be resurrected as mortal humans. It is their second period of life as a human.

=================================================

The Lazarus & rich man parable "occurs" at this point where the rich man is in the process of becoming nonexistent.

Does that answer your question?

[PinSeeker]

Can both of the following statements be true?

1) God created a system whereby the unsaved will be eternally tormented.

2) God is Love.

Yes. I can understand why you are unable to digest that, though. But yes.

Would it be a better system if nonbelievers simply died?

Well, they do die, but just not in the wooden -- or tin -- sense that they are no longer conscious or cease to exist. So this question is really a non sequitur.

Even in this life, we can die on the inside, can we not? Now that's not to be taken in the eternal sense, of course. But we can absolutely -- figuratively speaking -- be dead on the inside.

In a much larger sense, in eternity, unbelievers -- while still existing and conscious, will be dead. They will have experienced the second death -- been finally judged and God's grace will have been fully removed for them. Only that judgment and resulting inescapable condemnation will remain... forever. They will be totally without Jesus, Who Himself is the way, the truth, and the life. In that sense, they will be dead.

And actually, in a far lesser sense (because there is such a thing as common grace; we all live in God's grace right now, but unbelievers don't realize or acknowledge it), that is the case for them now, even as they live and breathe in this life. Spiritually, they are dead. This was the case for all of us, too, at one time, before God called us out of darkness into His marvelous light, as Peter puts it.

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 194 by myth-one.com]

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.

You say the rich man "is no longer dead", having "been resurrected as a human".

Where is that in this Luke 16 passage?

It's not. The very fact that he wants someone to go and warn his brothers so they don't meet the same fate indicates that they have not physically died. So not everyone has experienced the first death yet, which is a prerequisite for the resurrection, the subsequent final Judgment, and subsequent to that the second death. But the rich man has indeed died, physically (the first death); this is Jesus's story (parable), and He says precisely that.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

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.

I am sorry I offended you. It was surely not my intention to do so. Maybe the particular manner in which I said what I said could have been better and/or more diplomatic (even much more so), but in no way do I take back anything I said. Nevertheless, I am sorry.

...we say you "are just in denial, really", of "the truth about hell" that Scripture does in fact convey.

I understand that very well. There would be no debate between us if were not your thinking, right?

Whatever view we or anyone has, it is "quite a fearful thing to ponder".

Agreed.

Pondering, thinking about and wondering, may be helpful in discerning what kind of God would fashion hell this way or that way. The Lord be with you in that.

Much the same to you. And to myth-one. And to all, regardless who they agree with.

May the Lord bless you and keep you.

And you also. Grace and peace to you.