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]

God does not make the decision about everyone's eternity.

Well, this statement is absolutely contrary to what Scripture tells us in numerous places. For example Paul offers the following:

• "Is there injustice on God’s part? By no means! For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.â€� So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, 'For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' So then He has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills." [Romans 9:14-18, emphasis mine].
  
  "Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us in Christ with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places, even as He chose us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and blameless before him. In love He predestined us for adoption to himself as sons through Jesus Christ, according to the purpose of his will, to the praise of his glorious grace, with which he has blessed us in the Beloved." [Paul, Ephesians 1:3-6, emphasis mine]

But hold on...

Each person will make their own choice between everlasting life and death...

This is true; I absolutely agree. We all have a choice to make. But this does not nullify the Scriptural fact that, as pointed out above, who is saved and who is not -- even who makes this choice correctly and who does not -- depends not, ultimately, on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. But that assertion does nothing to diminish the fact that everyone makes their own choice, as you say, or the necessity of our doing so.

If one chooses death, then after they die the second death, they never live again -- as the punishment lasts for all eternity.

Agreed; I have never, ever disagreed with this. The only disagreement is, as I said to Tammy previously, concerns your mistaken understanding of what Biblical death really is. It is a permanent separation of the person from God's redeemed and made-very-good-again (renewed) creation, the New Heaven and New Earth, and from God's life-giving grace, and is the sending away of the person into this this place/realm of "outer darkness" and under His judgment, devoid of His life-giving grace; this is their eternal punishment, and it is a torment (their worm that will not die) and a metaphorical "fire" to them from which they cannot escape.

Even the memory of their existence is gone.

Yes, the memory of their existence on the right side of glory is gone, but not their existence. Read on...

Likewise, if one chooses life, then they live forever and ever, and can never exit life.

For sure. But read on...

That's what the scriptures state -- not just my opinion:

For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him, should not perish, but have everlasting life. (John 3:16)

So interesting that you bring John 3:16 up here. Excellent! We can also cite in parallel what Paul says in Romans 10:11-12 (emphasis mine) --

• "For the Scripture says, 'Everyone who believes in him will not be put to shame.' For there is no distinction between Jew and Greek; for the same Lord is Lord of all, bestowing his riches on all who call on him. For 'everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.' â€�

John and Paul are both referring to what the prophet Joel says in the Old Testament:

• "And it shall come to pass that everyone who calls on the name of the LORD shall be saved." [Joel 2:32, emphasis mine]

But what Joel writes in the very next verse is VERY IMPORTANT:

• "For in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem there shall be those who escape, as the LORD has said, and among the survivors shall be those whom the LORD calls" [Joel 2:33, emphasis mine]

Thus, Paul's statement, again, that "it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy." [Romans 9:16, as cited above, emphasis mine]

[PinSeeker]

In what way is what I said above "pure and unadulterated rationalization"?

You're differentiating between Genesis 1 and 2 and calling chapter 2 your "starting point."

The importance of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is not in question, and is not in competition.

But you're saying -- perhaps inadvertently -- that Genesis 2 is somehow more important than Genesis 1. I think... well, I feel certain... that you would agree that all Scripture is of equal importance, in accord with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. But you are at least inadvertently discounting Genesis 1, and/or elevating Genesis 2 above Genesis 1 in order to make your point. I'm saying, Checkpoint, although this is not (at least I hope not) your intention, this is in effect what you are doing. And this is rationalization.

What is in question, what is in competition, in this debate concerning "the truth about hell", is their suitability as a reliable start point.

Well, that question is yours, not mine. In my view, there is no question or competition." Concerning "the truth about hell" (and everything else, really), there is no difference, and thus no "competition" between the two. You do, and that's a rationalization.

It makes sense and is relevant to our discussion.

Okay, I'll bite. How so?

Luke 9:24 -25 is quite clearly about the choices we make in this life that will determine our future Judgment decision gain or loss. This connection is absolutely confirmed in the very next verse, 26.

Yes, absolutely it's clearly about the choices we make in this life. Paul says exactly this in chapter 1 of his letter to the Romans:

• "For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." [1:16]

Obviously, Paul has chosen wisely, and exhorts us to do the same. But that's the point: Jesus, in those verses (23-27) is talking about what we should do in this life, which is to take up our cross and follow Him -- to walk in His footsteps. Neither the first nor the second death are in view here.

As always, grace and peace to you, Checkpoint.

[PinSeeker]

[Replying to post 330 by tam]

There's a lot to offer in correction of your most recent post concerning Scripture -- and even my understandings of it. The same is true regarding your understandings and/or lack thereof concerning various things. Here are two cases in point, with my clarification:

1. "I know, you think 'biblical death' does not refer to actual death (where a person is dead and buried). But a person being dead and buried is written of in the bible as well."

No, I merely distinguish between:

• a. physical death (a person being dead and buried) and
  
  b. spiritual death (separation from God), which is both
  • i.) temporal (in this life) and
    
    ii.) possibly eternal (in eternity).

And I make that distinction only because Scripture does.



2. "You seem to be accepting the description of people being "dead" ONLY as a separation from God (but still being conscious and living)... all the while ignoring death where a person is dead and buried."

No, not at all; I ignore nothing. Both are realities:

• a. one being temporal/physical, yet still a separation:
  • i.) from the temporal for all and unconscious -- a "sleep" -- regarding the physical body, but also
    
    ii.) from God due to lack of repentance and very conscious regarding the spirit
  b. the other being eternal, also a separation, but permanent, and very conscious regarding both the physical body and the spirit, which are coexisting again post-resurrection and post-Judgment.

At the risk of offending you in any way, which is certainly not my with or intention, I'm going to gracefully withdraw, as many (if not most) of the things I have said would apply yet again. There are only so many ways to answer your objections, which are themselves very repetitive, and you are apparently frustrated and/or irritated when I repeat what I have already said. Which is quite understandable, actually. This is surely not to say that I will never respond to or address you again, or that I would ignore anything you might offer going forward.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[tam]

Peace also to you Pinseeker,

[Replying to post 330 by tam]

There's a lot to offer in correction of your most recent post concerning Scripture --

I think if that were true, you could just do it.

and even my understandings of it.

This may be so, at least when it comes to your understanding. You do not answer my direct questions with direct answers, so yeah, I could be misunderstanding what you believe. It would help me to understand your beliefs, if you answered the actual questions I ask you.

But, at the risk of offending you in any way, which is certainly not my with or intention, I'm going to gracefully withdraw, as many (if not most) of the things I have said would apply yet again.

I am not offended by your withdrawal. Not all that surprised though either.

There are only so many ways to answer your objections,

You could always try a direct answer to the actual and direct questions I asked...

which are themselves very repetitive,

Perhaps because your responses avoid answering the questions I asked, and I have not 'let you off the hook' when you do that. If you answered the actual questions, there would be no need for me to repeat them.

and you are apparently frustrated and/or irritated when I repeat what I have already said.

Repeating a question (that did not get answered) - or pointing out where you have avoided answering those questions - is not a sign of frustration or irritation.


But if we are at an impasse, then we are at an impasse.

Which is quite understandable, actually. This is surely not to say that I will never respond to or address you again, or that I would ignore anything you might offer going forward.

No worries, and same to you.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

Peace also to you,
your servant and a slave of Christ,
tammy

[PinSeeker]

I think if that were true, you could just do it.

That's just it; I have. You just don't accept it.

You do not answer my direct questions with direct answers, so yeah, I could be misunderstanding what you believe. It would help me to understand your beliefs, if you answered the actual questions I ask you.

I have been very clear. Not to compare myself to Jesus, of course, but many said the same thing to Him concerning the things He said that you are saying here concerning the things I have said.

I am not offended by your withdrawal. Not all that surprised though either.

This says more than you even know, I think.

You could always try a direct answer to the actual and direct questions I asked...

I did. But of course now I'm repeating myself again...

Perhaps because your responses avoid answering the questions I asked...

I have avoided nothing.

... and I have not 'let you off the hook' when you do that.

I am on no "hook," be it literal or figurative... (See what I did there? )

If you answered the actual questions, there would be no need for me to repeat them.

No, if you had only realized the misguided nature of your questions (which was evident in the answers I gave), then there would be no need for you to repeat them.

Repeating a question (that did not get answered) - or pointing out where you have avoided answering those questions - is not a sign of frustration or irritation.

But repeating a question only because you want a different answer is surely a sign of frustration and/or irritation.

But if we are at an impasse, then we are at an impasse.

I agree; thus my previous statement.

Grace and peace to you, Tammy.

[tam]

[Replying to post 335 by PinSeeker]

Lol, Pinseeker! You know, if you responded line by line like that with some of my previous posts (including to the questions in those posts), we might be able to move forward...



Peace again to you!

[PinSeeker]

Lol, Pinseeker! You know, if you responded line by line like that with some of my previous posts (including to the questions in those posts), we might be able to move forward...

Somehow, I doubt it. You would have responded in much the same ways, I'm sure.

Good to know what your preferences are, though (because preferences differ from poster to poster). Note to self regarding Tammy...

Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

In what way is what I said above "pure and unadulterated rationalization"?

You're differentiating between Genesis 1 and 2 and calling chapter 2 your "starting point."

The importance of Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 is not in question, and is not in competition.

But you're saying -- perhaps inadvertently -- that Genesis 2 is somehow more important than Genesis 1. I think... well, I feel certain... that you would agree that all Scripture is of equal importance, in accord with 2 Timothy 3:16-17. But you are at least inadvertently discounting Genesis 1, and/or elevating Genesis 2 above Genesis 1 in order to make your point. I'm saying, Checkpoint, although this is not (at least I hope not) your intention, this is in effect what you are doing. And this is rationalization.

What is in question, what is in competition, in this debate concerning "the truth about hell", is their suitability as a reliable start point.

Well, that question is yours, not mine. In my view, there is no question or competition." Concerning "the truth about hell" (and everything else, really), there is no difference, and thus no "competition" between the two. You do, and that's a rationalization.

I do, and you think you don't.

Let's discuss Genesis 1, particularly verses 26-27.

What you have conveyed to me is that being made in the image and likeness of God includes being made with innate "eternality" or self-existence.

Please quote where this is plainly and clearly stated in Genesis 1.

Or explain how and why you have drawn that conclusion from what Genesis 1 says.

Grace and peace.

[PinSeeker]

I do, and you think you don't.

You do and think I don't what, Checkpoint? Ah, no matter really. Answer if you want.

Let's discuss Genesis 1, particularly verses 26-27.

Okay. I thought we had, but let her rip.

What you have conveyed to me is that being made in the image and likeness of God includes being made with innate "eternality" or self-existence.

Mmmm... Well, I don't like your use of the term "self-existence," really. But maybe that's neither here nor there; if you mean that in the same way as you would "existence," then okay.

Please quote where this is plainly and clearly stated in Genesis 1.

I think this is asking for too much, Checkpoint. There is no "quote," as in "those exact words," but that doesn't then mean it's not clearly there in verses 26 and 27 of chapter 1. And in Genesis 2:7, by the way. Perhaps that's not what you mean.

Or explain how and why you have drawn that conclusion from what Genesis 1 says.

This, however, is reasonable and fair. As I explained before, I believe our eternity-future existence is a direct result of our having been created in God's image. Being created in God's image entails many things, but this is one of them. Again, I said this before, so that shouldn't be new information to you.

I'll add to that here, though. What is often unclear in one Bible passage is made clearer in or by (or both) another, or in/by several other passages collectively. I think you agree with that. Perhaps not, but to that end:

In 2 Corinthians, Paul speaks of the “outward� man and the “inward� man (4:16). These two expressions contrast the physical body with the spirit. And in the same context, the Paul distinguishes between that which is temporal and that which is eternal. The implication is clearly that the “inward man,� i.e., the spirit, is eternal. Not that it has existed forever, as is the case with God the Father (and the Son, and the Holy Spirit), but rather, from the commencement of its creation, it partakes of the nature of an everlasting entity in the image of God. Paul also says:

• "For we know that if the tent that is our earthly home is destroyed, we have a building from God, a house not made with hands, eternal in the heavens." [2 Cor. 5:1]
  
  "Now may our Lord Jesus Christ himself, and God our Father, who loved us and gave us eternal comfort and good hope through grace..." [2 Thess. 2:16]

All of this is directly a result of being created in His image. Now, you may say, "But PinSeeker, Paul is only talking about believers in both of those places!" Well, yes, he is. But all men were and are created in His image. And I would answer that objection in much the same way as I explained that when the crucified Christ said to the thief on His right, "Truly, I say to you, today you will be with me in paradise," He was not by implication saying to the thief on His left that he would no longer exist, but rather that he would not be with Him in paradise but still existing in the same manner as the one on His right but... somewhere else.

Perhaps it's incumbent upon you to explain why your conclusion is correctly drawn from Genesis 1... or Genesis 2. Or, alternatively, to explain why you believe my conclusion is incorrectly drawn from Genesis 1... or Genesis 2. Hey, you might convince me. I doubt it, but I encourage you to give it the old college try.

Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 332 by PinSeeker]

Checkpoint wrote:

It makes sense and is relevant to our discussion.

Pinseeker wrote:

Okay, I'll bite. How so?

Checkpoint answered:

Luke 9:24 -25 is quite clearly about the choices we make in this life that will determine our future Judgment decision gain or loss. This connection is absolutely confirmed in the very next verse, 26.

Pinseeker replied:

Yes, absolutely it's clearly about the choices we make in this life. Paul says exactly this in chapter 1 of his letter to the Romans:

"For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes..." [1:16]
Obviously, Paul has chosen wisely, and exhorts us to do the same. But that's the point: Jesus, in those verses (23-27) is talking about what we should do in this life, which is to take up our cross and follow Him -- to walk in His footsteps. Neither the first nor the second death are in view here.

Both are indeed in view in these three verses put together as the unit they are.

But yes, he is talking about what we should do in this life, but that is for the very purpose of making it count for eternity - ours to gain or to lose.

Not just what we should do, but what we must do - or else.


The Lord make His face to shine on you, Pinseeker, and give you His peace.