DarrenJClark

Most traditionalists argue that the lake of fire of Rev 20:10 symbolizes what happens in hell. It is worth noting that the KJV translated four separate words as hell - Gehenna, Sheol, Tartarus, and hades. In Rev 20:14-15 it is Hades and Death that are thrown into the fire, not hell per se. In this passage it is the personification of Death and Hades (the grave or the underworld holding place of the dead) that are being being cast into the lake of fire. That does not mean the lake of fire cannot be considered hell (the final destiny of the wicked). That is how most traditionalists I have debated would respond.

So that is a no, you do not hold to the traditional view of hell.

So, are you saying you deny the traditional doctrine of hell held as the majority view on the final fate of the wicked in the church throughout most of church history? That is the first option.

There are three main views of hell in Evangelicalism. There is the view that God will punish the wicked in hell forever (I will call this the eternal conscious punishment, or ECP view), there is the view that when God punishes the wicked in hell it will destroy or kill them (I will call this conditional immortality, or CI), and there is the view that God will refine the wicked in hell so as to ensure all are purified and eventually saved (I will call this purgatorial universal reconciliation, or PUR). This by no means a comprehensive descriptions of these views of hell. I am a conditionalist. I am wondering if people would please identify which view of hell they currently follow and list the single strongest argument for that view. I like to talk about how and why people hold to the doctrines they do rather than simply argue with them so I hope I can learn something new about these various views on hell. Thankyou.

Not that I am disagreeing about the importance of the virgin birth, but your qualification on why it is important is very interesting. The assumption seems to be that the virgin birth means Christ did not obtain his humanness from Joseph therefore he did not obtain human sin. Am I correct? If so, there are a few questions I have for you.

Wow, there is a lot going on in this post. I have a question. You seem to take all the language about hell literally. I have in mind statements like "Hell “fire” is real “fire” because the same Greek word (pur) for fire is used for both." Am I correct?

Hey all. For much of my life I have believed that the traditional views of the Trinity, the dual natures of Christ, and the death and resurrection of Christ are essential doctrines of Christianity. The early church came to understand that misunderstanding these doctrines can lead to corruption of core Christian truths. What other doctrines do you think are essential in this sense?