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.

[tam]

Peace to you,

Peace to you,

[Replying to post 271 by PinSeeker]

In this life, God disciplines us. He disciplines everybody, actually, believer or not (at least to some extent and in different ways). And sometimes, He places us under judgment; sometimes it is necessary for God to place judgments upon us rather than blessing. I would suggest to you that this is also love. Love is not always warm and fuzzy, so to speak; sometimes He expresses His love by allowing us to go through heavy trials and tribulation, even great suffering. We believe it's all for our good, don't we (Romans 8:28)? And because of this, we are to count all our trials and tribulations as joy, (James 1:2-4), right? Yes, that's right. Sometimes it's really hard to believe, for sure, but it's true. I would argue this is just as much His love as, well, giving us what we would consider to be really good things, or causing really great things to happen for us.

With that in mind, let's switch to the age to come, eternity. I would argue that, as hard as it is to get into our heads (because it's really impossible to grasp things from God's perspective; His thoughts are higher than ours, His ways not our ways -- Isaiah 55:8-9), that placing people under His judgment for eternity and punishing them in this manner -- even eternally -- is love. Just as much as what He will do for us, glorifying us, placing the wicked under eternal judgment in this place of "outer darkness" is a full manifestation -- to them as well as to us -- of His love. It's just a different manifestation of His love than the one we will experience.

No, these do not compare at all, Pinseeker.

Absolutely they do. Read on...

You're just rephrasing your words, Pinseeker. How then would mine be different in response?

Discipline comes from love.

You have yet to show that punishment (eternal conscious punishment from which there is no escape, a million trillion years and a person would be no closer to relief than they were at minute one)... is from love.


You use a lot of jargon, but you're not explaining how that is from love. You can't.

Love does discipline... but discipline has a purpose: to refine us, to train us, to teach us, to correct us. So that we may learn and do better; learn to choose the right and reject the wrong.

For believers and unbelievers in this life, yes. His discipline -- and judgment -- is a kindness... a grace and indeed a love... meant to lead us to repentance from sin (Romans 2:3-4)

We have established that discipline is from love. No one is arguing against that.

In eternity, though, for believers, there will be no sin, so no need for repentance, and so no longer any need for that particular grace. For unbelievers, however, there will no longer be any grace, but only God's justice, which requires this eternal punishment, even death, which, again, is understood correctly as a separation (rather than annihilation, extinction, or cessation of existence).

So again, all you have done is repeat yourself. And we are back to the original question - how does God justice require this eternal punishment (as YOU describe it)?


Discussing that in the first place led to the following post (which you did not respond to, and which according to your words to Checkpoint, must mean that you cannot answer):

viewtopic.php?p=1005247#1005247

For unbelievers, it's true also, but only in this life. So there is indeed love in discipline.

Again this is not an answer. No one has argued that there is no love in discipline.

But eternal punishment (as you describe it) is not discipline.

But if there is no hope or even chance of a person ever being refined, corrected, etc (such as in your second scenario with eternal punishment), then there is no point to the discipline of such a person. There is no longer any love in it.

Not the case at all, with either of your assertions here. See above.

See above what?

You have not shown that there is love in eternal punishment (as you describe it).

When a parent disciplines/punishes his/her child, their may be a righteous anger (this is always the case with God), but a full and enduring love should also be present (which, again, is always true with God).

This is referring to discipline.

If a parent punished their child without relent, today, without any chance of that child being able to repent or be free of their torment, would you truly say that the parent is doing this out of love for their child?



(I don't want to distract from the point, but I will make the comment that this is even worse in Calvinism, because the person who is being punished for all eternity - as you describe it - never had a chance or a choice to repent or change to begin with.)

As I said to Checkpoint, you're buying this is not required... by me. And, even in the case of the Lord, it is not required for obtaining salvation or being a Christian. But it is most assuredly true.

It is not true, Pinseeker. You have repeated your assertion, but you have not explained how that kind of punishment is from love, nor have you explained how God's justice requires that kind of punishment. The explanations you gave (in our earlier discussion, the last part of which is linked above) were untrue. What does that say then about the conclusion?

Grace and peace to you.

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

(edited to fix quote marks 2021/04/21)

[myth-one.com]

God's Word is clear.

What God's Word clearly states is that the unsaved will perish:

...the wages of sin is death; (Romans 6:23)

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)

John 3:16 indicates that the unsaved will perish.

You claim that the unsaved live forever, like those who are saved.

Therefore, what you teach is clearly a contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

You have both the saved and the unsaved gaining everlasting life.

No response necessary.

Anyways, now you know.

[PinSeeker]

You're just rephrasing your words, Pinseeker.

That's right, in response to your're misunderstanding what I had previously written. Actually, I feel certain that the issue, really, is that you just don't want to. What you keep saying -- in rephrased ways -- that I keep responding to -- in rephrased ways -- is really just denial.

How then would mine be different in response?

Right; that's the problem. It would be pretty simple. But acceptance is sometimes very hard. That's understandable.

You have yet to show that punishment (eternal conscious punishment from which there is no escape, a million trillion years and a person would be no closer to relief than they were at minute one)... is from love. You use a lot of jargon, but you're not explaining how that is from love. You can't.

Oh, I certainly can, and like I said, I have, many, many times. But I will again now, just for you. It's quite simple. Sometimes, love is not pleasant. Sometimes love hurts, figuratively speaking. But it is, in the final analysis, still love. Acceptance on your part or that of anyone else is not required. But nevertheless, it is true.

...eternal punishment (as you describe it) is not discipline.

Accepted. But it is satisfying of God's justice, which is defined by God Himself, and which is exacted and executed because of love.

I don't want to distract from the point...

Yes you keep doing so, time and again... You're not the only one avoiding it.

... but I will make the comment that this is even worse in Calvinism, because the person who is being punished for all eternity - as you describe it - never had a chance or a choice to repent or change to begin with.)

This is most assuredly not the case regarding Calvinism. It is the wrong-headed assumption many times, but not the case. I would be a little curious to know why you think that of Calvinism. My guess is that you are (perhaps inadvertently) referring to what's known as Hyper-Calvinism, which is not Calvinism at all but rather a terrible distortion of it.

Grace and peace to you, Tam.

[PinSeeker]

What God's Word clearly states is that the unsaved will perish.

Absolutely. So the problem, myth-one, as I have said many, many times now, is your incorrect understanding of what it means to perish.

You claim that the unsaved live forever, like those who are saved.

Again (and again and again and again), this is not the case. They are permanently separated from true life, which is in the grace of God the Father and the presence of Jesus Christ, Who Himself is life. In this way, the unsaved are just that, not saved, and are truly dead. But they are not unconscious, and they are not non-existent.

Therefore, what you teach is clearly a contradiction to what the Bible teaches.

In your opinion. I know.

You have both the saved and the unsaved gaining everlasting life.

In your opinion. I know.

No response necessary.

If you keep misstating my position, I'm going to respond. Putting words in another's mouth is terribly uncool. And quite unloving.

Anyways, now you know.

Yes, I now know quite a bit about you. But that's been the case for a while.

Grace and peace to you.

[myth-one.com]

But they are not unconscious, and they are not non-existent.

Here are some more characteristics of your eternally "dead" nonbelievers:

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

So if you are correct, then humans undergoing their second death will be:

1. conscious
2. existent
3. Know nothing
4. Have no reward
5. And there will be no memory of them.

[tam]

Peace to you,

You're just rephrasing your words, Pinseeker.

That's right, in response to your're misunderstanding what I had previously written.

What exactly did I misunderstand?

Actually, I feel certain that the issue, really, is that you just don't want to.

I do not understand because what you are describing is not understandable. The explanations you provided in our earlier conversation (which you have not replied TO), were untrue.

What you keep saying -- in rephrased ways -- that I keep responding to -- in rephrased ways -- is really just denial.

I tend to deny things that I know are untrue. But I have asked specific questions about the things you are saying, and you have not responded to many of those questions. I have to assume that you cannot - and that you are doing the very thing you are accusing me of doing.

How then would mine be different in response?

Right; that's the problem. It would be pretty simple. But acceptance is sometimes very hard. That's understandable.

Yes, but perhaps these words are best spoken to a mirror.

You have yet to show that punishment (eternal conscious punishment from which there is no escape, a million trillion years and a person would be no closer to relief than they were at minute one)... is from love. You use a lot of jargon, but you're not explaining how that is from love. You can't.

Oh, I certainly can, and like I said, I have, many, many times. But I will again now, just for you. It's quite simple. Sometimes, love is not pleasant. Sometimes love hurts, figuratively speaking.

Indeed, you are describing discipline. But I am not asking you about discipline.

I am asking you about eternal conscious torment (something you have agreed is not discipline)?


How is eternal conscious punishment (from which there is no escape, a million trillion years and a person would be no closer to relief than they were at minute one)... a) from love, and b) from love for that person being punished?


You also didn't answer my earlier question so allow me to repeat it:

If a parent punished their child without relent, today, without any chance of that child being able to repent or be free of their torment, would you truly say that the parent is doing this out of love for their child?

...eternal punishment (as you describe it) is not discipline.

Accepted. But it is satisfying of God's justice, which is defined by God Himself, and which is exacted and executed because of love.

You have yet to explain how this is so. Your explanations thus far do not make sense. This is why I am digging deeper into your explanations by questioning you about them.

I don't want to distract from the point...

Yes you keep doing so, time and again... You're not the only one avoiding it.

Asking questions about your explanations is not distracting from the point. Those are exactly on point.

Commenting on Calvinism was the only distraction from the point.

... but I will make the comment that this is even worse in Calvinism, because the person who is being punished for all eternity - as you describe it - never had a chance or a choice to repent or change to begin with.)

This is most assuredly not the case regarding Calvinism. It is the wrong-headed assumption many times, but not the case. I would be a little curious to know why you think that of Calvinism. My guess is that you are (perhaps inadvertently) referring to what's known as Hyper-Calvinism, which is not Calvinism at all but rather a terrible distortion of it.

I think that of Calvinism because Calvinism asserts predestination - not just of some who are the elect, but of every person (the elect are saved; the non-elect are not saved). Is that incorrect?


From the U and L of TULIP:

Unconditional Election - asserts that God has chosen from eternity those whom he will bring to himself not based on foreseen virtue, merit, or faith in those people; rather, his choice is unconditionally grounded in his mercy alone. God has chosen from eternity to extend mercy to those he has chosen and to withhold mercy from those not chosen.

Limited Atonement - asserts that Jesus's substitutionary atonement was definite and certain in its purpose and in what it accomplished. This implies that only the sins of the elect were atoned for by Jesus's death.

**


But the comment on Calvinism was a distraction from the point. If you say that only some parts of Calvinism assert what I suggested, I am willing to accept that in this thread, for the sake of keeping on point.

Grace and peace to you, Tam.

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

[PinSeeker]

For the living know that they shall die: but the dead know not any thing, neither have they any more a reward; for the memory of them is forgotten.

I've said several times that Ecclesiastes 9 -- and Ecclesiastes in general -- is written about and for people this life and not eternity. Life is fleeting, like a breath, vanity. Eternity is not in view. Read the verse, myth-one. You even quoted it:

FOR THE LIVING KNOW THAT THEY WILL DIE...
(obviously, these are the ones who know they will die and are in need of salvation)

...BUT THE DEAD KNOW NOT ANY THING...
(obviously, this is in contrast to the first group, which can only be done if this group is in the same physical state -- conscious -- as the first group, the living).

So unbelievers -- though they are walking around and breathing and very much conscious -- in this life are very much dead in their sin. They are separated from God -- dead -- because of their sin. And they know nothing of their need for God, or Jesus, or salvation itself. They think it's all foolishness. Which is exactly what Paul says in multiple places in the New Testament.

So if you are correct, then humans undergoing their second death will be:

1. conscious
2. existent
3. Know nothing
4. Have no reward
5. And there will be no memory of them.

Well I am correct, but again, what we read in Ecclesiastes 9 (and Ecclesiastes in general) is not about the second death at all, or even the first. It's about THIS LIFE. The writer of Ecclesiastes is concerned with imparting wisdom and knowledge -- it is included with the Psalms, Proverbs, and Song of Solomon as the "Wisdom literature" of the Bible -- to the people of God and teaching them to fear the Lord.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

I do not understand because what you are describing is not understandable.

This I totally believe. But my job is to proclaim, not to cause to understand. With man this is impossible, but with God, all things are possible.

The explanations you provided in our earlier conversation (which you have not replied TO), were untrue.

In your opinion. I understand. I most certainly did reply, just not to your satisfaction. This I understand also.

I think that of Calvinism because Calvinism asserts predestination - not just of some who are the elect, but of every person (the elect are saved; the non-elect are not saved). Is that incorrect?

Yes, actually, that is correct. The Bible does in fact say (in Romans 9) that some he created for noble use (these are the Elect) and some He created for common use (these are not members of the Elect). But that's God talking (through Paul), not John Calvin, or me, or anyone else. But still, this does nothing to trample upon members of the latter group and their ability to have chosen other than what they did. That you think it does is what's an incorrect assumption/deduction. If you're going to blame anyone for anyone's "lack of opportunity to choose," then you should point your finder at Adam, who brought on this human condition. And since Adam and Eve are our first parents and Adam the federal (representative) head of the human race, you are in a very real sense pointing the finger at yourself, at me, and every other mere human being who ever lived, lives, or will live.

Now. What you really don't want to believe or understand -- the real crux of the problem -- is the 'T' in the "TULIP" acronym. You're really not fully understanding -- for one reason or another our total depravity, the result of which is that none of us, even those who are Elect, are deserving of salvation and in fact deserving of the opposite. If you were to totally accept that -- and it's true, regardless of what you or I do -- then the rest would follow. We are, by nature, all at enmity with God. It is our very nature, the natural human condition. That's where it starts. So I can understand that for you, it never gets off the ground. But that's the fault of no one but the self, really. That's always the problem. One will say:

• * "Nah, I can't possibly be THAT bad off. Surely I can do something. After all, I'm smart, and I'm a good person, and..."

I'm being a little facetious, but this is pretty much always the case. Scripture even gives us examples:

• * "Surely I have done all these things from my youth..."
  
  * "God, I thank you that I am not like other men, extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even like this tax collector. I fast twice a week; I give tithes of all that I get...’

I answered your questions, Tam. I assume you have been following along even when not directly involved in the conversation, and as such, you are not asking any questions different at their core than those of Checkpoint, myth-one, and others, and those not just once but over and over and over again. I get, loud and clear, that my answers were and are contrary to your opinions and therefore unsatisfactory to you. I regret, for your sake, that that is the case, but am fine with leaving it there.

Grace and peace to you.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to PinSeeker]


Checkpoint wrote:

Yes, He could have done it the way you present it. But no, if that was His choice, He would have never mentioned eternal punishment; instead calling it eternally punishing.

Pinseeker responded:

LOL! Checkpoint! My goodness. Eternal punishment is eternally punishing. Oh, my.

Yea, whatever will be next from Checkpoint...

Go Pinseeker, on your merry way!

Grace and peace.

[brianbbs67]

Here is what is wrong with this: No man knows the true path to God. Yet some say it must be their way or eternal punishment. Beware of those.