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]

For the third time now, answer your own question, Eloi. And you can answer the one in your last post, too. Tell me what you believe. You say it is clear, and I don't disagree with that in the least. So, let's hear it.

Grace and peace to you.

[Eloi]

I am reminding the forum readers what Scripture says about the state or condition of dead people. Based on that, people can reason in those so-called places where someone goes when they die.

1 Cor. 15:12 Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised up. 14 But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain. 15 Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given witness against God by saying that he raised up the Christ, whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up. 16 For if the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up. 17 Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you remain in your sins. 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in death in union with Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone.
20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.

There is nothing of a living being that is still alive after it dies ... there was not even such thing in the case of Christ.

[PinSeeker]

I would certainly add Revelation 1:18 to the list of Scriptures I alluded two in Post 489 (Acts 2:27 and Hebrews 5:7) in response to you post immediately preceding that. From all three passages (and there are certainly others), it is clear that Jesus experienced death as all human beings have and will continue to until His return.

I am reminding the forum readers what Scripture says about the state or condition of dead people. Based on that, people can reason in those so-called places where someone goes when they die.

Sure. Physically, dead people do not exist in this world, post-death. And, upon the final Judgment, dead people will not exist in the new heaven and new earth. No one disputes the first of these two statements, and no believer of God's Word disputes the second.

1 Cor. 15:12 Now if it is being preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how is it that some among you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If, indeed, there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised up. 14 But if Christ has not been raised up, our preaching is certainly in vain, and your faith is also in vain. 15 Moreover, we are also found to be false witnesses of God, because we have given witness against God by saying that he raised up the Christ, whom he did not raise up if the dead are really not to be raised up. 16 For if the dead are not to be raised up, neither has Christ been raised up. 17 Further, if Christ has not been raised up, your faith is useless; you remain in your sins. 18 Then also those who have fallen asleep in death in union with Christ have perished. 19 If in this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are to be pitied more than anyone. 20 But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep in death.

Certainly, I would add this passage in with the other three.

There is nothing of a living being that is still alive after it dies ... there was not even such thing in the case of Christ.

Again: Sure. Physically, dead people do not exist in this world, post-death. And, upon the final Judgment, dead people will not exist in the new heaven and new earth. No one disputes the first of these two statements, and no believer of God's Word disputes the second. But there is absolutely nothing in any of these passages that speaks to or infers in any way any person's non-existence in eternity.

Grace and peace to you, Eloi.

[Eloi]

If Death was an enemy even for Jesus when he was a human being (and he could only be freed from it by resurrection), Death is an enemy for everyone else as well.

Death (the first one) does not reward good people or punish bad ones. There is not any hellfire for dead bad people as much as there is not a heaven for dead good people. That is the topic, and I am talking about that. I am not interested on answering questions by myself when what the Bible says can help people to reason.

[PinSeeker]

If Death was an enemy even for Jesus when he was a human being (and he could only be freed from it by resurrection), Death is an enemy for everyone else as well.

No doubt true.

Death (the first one) does not reward good people or punish bad ones.

Agreed. But it would not exist if it weren't for Adam's sin and our resulting sinfulness. Therefore it is a temporal judgment on mankind, issued by the One who judges. And we will all experience it.

There is not any hellfire for dead bad people as much as there is not a heaven for dead good people.

But now you're talking about the second death, which is quite different than the first. So you're doing the same thing Checkpoint was doing, which is comparing apples and oranges, as it were. And just to throw this in, your usage of 'bad' and 'good' is apparently very... elementary. But regarding the second death, eternal punishment -- punishment in eternity -- is a very real thing.

That is the topic, and I am talking about that.

Well, which one, Eloi? Which one is the topic? You're talking about two topics here and equating the two. And that cannot be done. It seems that you don't even realize that, although I gotta say, it's very hard to imagine that you don't. At any rate, that just cannot be done.

I am not interested on answering questions by myself when what the Bible says can help people to reason.

Ah, so you're avoiding it (which was abundantly clear from the beginning). Okay, fine. Like I said, there are several different understandings of what the Bible says on these things. And many of them have at least some merit, but only one is right. And the annihilationist understanding is certainly not that "one."

Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

Respectfully, Pinseeker, the answer you gave, and have now repeated, avoids using some words used in the question, by replacing them with another word.

Exactly. And intentionally. Because the wording you used was... misguided. It's not "avoidance," it's correction. Not that I'm correcting you, really, but making a correction to errant verbiage. And that is clear. There was never any avoidance on my part. My perception was -- and continues to be -- that you're using this incorrect verbiage intentionally in an effort lead to an unavoidable conclusion that fits your narrative. I was really always being tactful in my rephrasing, so as to make your beating around the bush untenable.

Such a fascinating mix in there, Pinseeker.

Well that's just it, Checkpoint; the "mixing" -- and thus gross incongruence -- though possibly unintentional, has been all you from the get-go here. Thus, your beating around the bush, because that mixing cannot work. I get that you want it to, but it cannot.

Instead of giving a direct answer, this, in your own words, is what you did...

Yeah, I know exactly what I "did," Checkpoint. See above.

My actual question was not misdirected.

It most assuredly was.

It used terms that, in this discussion, originated with you and yet were replaced by you in your answers.

No, they originated with you, Checkpoint, or at least one in particular, if I remember correctly. Such misdirection, intentional or otherwise, is very common in discussions like this; you can see it in just about every thread on this board in one place or... a hundred. And I corrected it in my answer, even stating why. It was very intentional.

The question was specific, and did not make any comparisons.

Right, but misdirected, as per above.

I am still awaiting a specific direct answer, using the terms used in the question. Please, Pinseeker!

Right, and you may as well quit waiting; you will never get a "specific answer" to your question, not because I just don't want to answer or because of any kind of avoidance, but for the reasons stated above.

There is more, but that is all this time.

I suggest you stop while you're only way, way, way behind.

Grace and peace to you, my friend.

Well done, Pinseeker.

What your post does is confirmation of my claims about what you now refuse to answer directly.

The words I used in my question included this wording: ""have 'existence', 'exist spiritually'."

You now have a problem with the words "exist" and "existence".

These words were introduced into our exchange by you, and that is the only reason I began and continued to use them here.

They are not words I have ever before used on this site, because they have never been in my thinking at all.

The problem you now have with my usage of words you introduced is thus of your own making.

Those words, as you now say, are "errant verbiage"; "incorrect verbiage". I agree, they should have played no part in this thread.

Like I said, you have done it well. Having backed yourself into this corner, you can say little that is not just beating around the bush.

Ah well...

Praise God for the throne of grace, Pinseeker.

May grace and peace be yours.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to PinSeeker in post #495]

Like I said, there are several different understandings of what the Bible says on these things. And many of them have at least some merit, but only one is right. And the annihilationist understanding is certainly not that "one."

This brief paragraph caught my attention in two ways.

1). I suggest it is better not to say "only one is right", Pinseejer.
But I do think you began on a good note, in saying:

"there are several different understandings of what the Bible says on these things. And many of them have at least some merit".

If that is recognised, then surely we can also refrain from making any such bald "right" or "wrong" statements on a controversial doctrine.

2). The annihilationist understanding.

I suggest this description, or naming, of the understanding you have contended with on this thread, also disappear from any posts.

It is not recognised by us, and did not originate from us.

To name the belief and understanding we have, the position we take, it is called, and these days well-known as, Conditional Immortality, or C.I.

Thank you for your consideration of this, to all.

Grace and peace.

[PinSeeker]

Well done, Pinseeker.

Thank you. I'm done with your misdirection. And denial of your own "logic," which itself is misdirection and denial.

You now have a problem with the words "exist" and "existence".

LOL!!!!

The annihilationist understanding... I suggest this description, or naming, of the understanding you have contended with on this thread, also disappear from any posts... It is not recognized by us, and did not originate from us.

But it is what it is. Annihilationism is a well-known heresy. I'm not calling you or anyone else a heretic, but those who have bought into it have bought into a heresy.

Wow. Okay, I'm out, Checkpoint. Grace and peace to you.