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]

Checkpoint wrote:

We will either be given eternal life, or lose temporary life by being put back to sleep, this last time, permanently, in eternal death, which is The Second Death.

Pinseeker responded:

Nope. "Lose temporary life"? That doesn't even make sense. I guess that's a sneaky way of saying those on Jesus's left cease to exist, and that's surely not the case.

It makes sense when Jesus says it..

Luke 9:

24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

And you think He was talking about the first death there? Or the second? Surely not; neither is the case.

Grace and peace to you.

[PinSeeker]

It's so simple and logical.

I agree; it is simple and logical. But the problem is, when it's elements are inadvertently twisted/contorted into something entirely other than what they are, the simple and logical result (conclusion drawn) that is... entirely other than what it really is.

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

[Checkpoint]

Checkpoint wrote:

We will either be given eternal life, or lose temporary life by being put back to sleep, this last time, permanently, in eternal death, which is The Second Death.

Pinseeker responded:

Nope. "Lose temporary life"? That doesn't even make sense. I guess that's a sneaky way of saying those on Jesus's left cease to exist, and that's surely not the case.

It makes sense when Jesus says it..

Luke 9:

24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?

And you think He was talking about the first death there? Or the second? Surely not; neither is the case.

Grace and peace to you.

It is but it isn't. It isn't but it is.

It makes sense and is relevant to our discussion.

Grace and peace.

[myth-one.com]

It's so simple and logical.

I agree; it is simple and logical. But the problem is, when it's elements are inadvertently twisted/contorted into something entirely other than what they are, the simple and logical result (conclusion drawn) that is... entirely other than what it really is.

Grace and peace to you, myth-one.

But that is exactly what you do!

You twist and contort the simple and logical words of God!

The best example of this is your false belief regarding the fate of nonbelievers.

God defines the wages of sin as death.

That's simple, logical, and understandable!

But after your twisting and contorting it becomes the following:

The wages of sin is everlasting conscious torment.

Then you must continue to twist and contort to justify that nonbiblical belief with other Bible verses -- such as "God is Love."

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

The good news of the scriptures is that man can gain everlasting life by believing in Jesus as their Savior.

Your claims do not logically equate with the good news as proclaimed by the Gospel.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 295 by PinSeeker]

either figurative or literal. It is portrayed graphically as just the opposite by Jesus in Luke 16, and stated graphically in Daniel, Ezekiel, Isaiah, Matthew, Revelation... all the places I have mentioned. It is, however, a separation to a place of "outer darkness" -- and this separation is both spiritual and physical -- from those who were on Jesus's right at the Judgment, and the New Heaven and New Earth.

What is graphically portrayed and/or stated, refers to what is termed "eternal judgment", and its negative outcome for those rejected and excluded, "eternal punishment".

The differences we have in this ongoing debate, I suggest, stem from our fundamentally different starting points, one in Genesis 1 and the other in Genesis 2. These inform us and color how we read and interpret later Scriptures such as those you summarised.

Hence, for example, your explanation of "separation" outlined here, differs markedly from what we would say.

What passages did you have in mind from Ezekiel and Isaiah?

The Lord bless you always, Pinseeker.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 277 by PinSeeker]


Checkpoint wrote:

What is "punishment" in a court judgment setting, after all? It is a judicial court judgment duly carried out, such as the one Rome gave to Jesus, which sentenced him to death.

Pinseeker replied:

Death in God's infinite, eternal view is different than death in man's finite, temporal view in the sense that it is a separation rather than a cessation of existence. I've said it many times -- because God says it in His Word -- and will continue if necessary.

Death, in both cases, is such that it brings about both separation and cessation.

But yes, they do differ.

The first death is temporary, and separates from this world and its people. The second is eternal, and separates from God's world and its people.

Death is the cutting off, the ending, of life, without which man is no more..

"What is your life? You are a mist that appears for a little while and then vanishes". James 4:14.

Grace and peace.

[onewithhim]

[Replying to post 265 by Charles]

Psalm 9:17 does not mean that people will go back to the grave from whence they originally came. The meaning is more accurately portrayed by the following translation:
"The wicked will retreat toward the Grave, all the nations who forget God."
Big difference. The only translation that makes sense.

Changing return to to read to retreat to is only reasonable if your theology demands such an eisegetical interpretation to bolster its failings.

Rather than a "change," the meaning is more clearly presented with the word "retreat." Let's use our power of reason and look at the word "return." How can a human being "return" to the grave? No amount of philosophizing can really convince us that we were once in the grave and somehow escaped it. To "retreat" to the grave makes much more sense. At least to my own power of reason.


.

[brianbbs67]

[Replying to post 265 by Charles]

Psalm 9:17 does not mean that people will go back to the grave from whence they originally came. The meaning is more accurately portrayed by the following translation:
"The wicked will retreat toward the Grave, all the nations who forget God."
Big difference. The only translation that makes sense.

Changing return to to read to retreat to is only reasonable if your theology demands such an eisegetical interpretation to bolster its failings.

Rather than a "change," the meaning is more clearly presented with the word "retreat." Let's use our power of reason and look at the word "return." How can a human being "return" to the grave? No amount of philosophizing can really convince us that we were once in the grave and somehow escaped it. To "retreat" to the grave makes much more sense. At least to my own power of reason.


.

This is where it's good to look at the Hebrew. JPS has "Let the wicked be in Sheol"(the dirt) with a footnote that some say "return to" dirt. The reason is that we are Nephesh(dirt and the breath of God). So we die and God's breath returns to him and we become dirt, again. Its not a place where we exist as a spirit but the dirt from whence God raised us. Root of sheol is seol which is where the whole "soul" thing came from originally. Hopefully this helps here.

[Checkpoint]

[Replying to post 277 by PinSeeker]

The better example -- if you want to liken the temporal to the eternal -- is life imprisonment. That is the apples-to-apples comparison. Those under the finished judgment of the court of law live out their temporal, physical lives under this judgment, in punishment, and away from free society (imprisoned)... And it is a torment to them, even a flame, their worm that does not die. And this is justice satisfied, and not "hate."

In no way is this apples-to-apples.

We are talking about life and death, not imprisonment.

Eternal punishment is not imprisonment, it is death, the wages of sin.

Eternal imprisonment in torment is in no way "justice satisfied"; capital punishment is what God needed for that, and it will be carried out.

The Lord give you His peace, Pinseeker.

[tam]

Peace to you,

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.

It is not just my opinion that the things you stated proved to be untrue. You had originally stated that if annihilation were true, that would make God a murderer. But upon closer examination of your claim - which is why I asked the questions I asked, so as to dig deeper into certain claims - even you agreed that God would not be a murderer.


So that original claim was shown to be untrue (when examined more closely).

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.

(bold and highlighting in your quote, mine)

Was I casting blame, Pinseeker? Or just asking for clarification of the teaching? At this point, I am not sure if you are saying they (the non-elect) do or do not have the ability to choose.

Now. What you really don't want to believe or understand -- the real crux of the problem -- is the 'T' in the "TULIP" acronym.

That is not the issue here. I have certainly accepted hard teachings, Pinseeker. What matters to me is what is true. Not what is easy. Truth is simple but that does not mean truth is easy. Seeing the truth about oneself (and one's sins) is rarely, if ever, easy, including for myself.


So perhaps you could spend less time trying to tell me what you think my issue is with Calvinism, and more time just answering the question I asked?

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 have tended to skip over some things in this thread, but went back and checked, and I have not seen anywhere where you have answered these questions (to anyone):


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 think you have answered the above, simply by stating that it is from love, but that does not explain HOW it is from love. What about it is love? And for the sake of moving forward, if you are going to respond, perhaps you might just answer the (b) portion of that question?


I even borrowed your analogy of a parent punishing their child, and posed the following question:

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?






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