Hell Needs Clarification

[Ezra]

And I repeat my point that you have not and cannot find a scripture that says all the dead (believing and unbelieving are raised from the dead in the same way with eternal bodies.

And I already pointed out that it is NOT in the same way. At the same time the whole person (body, soul, and spirit) is cast into the Lake of Fire. And if torment is eternal, it follows that those individuals remain in an eternal state as people, not spirit beings.

 The verse only states the word of God can divide soul and spirit and body parts. This disproves nothing I have posted.

The verse implies that the Holy Spirit can distinguish ("dividing asunder") between the soul and the spirit, even though they are so close to each other that only God knows the dividing line.

[gdemoss]

I have watched and seen many arguments boil down to both sides trying to win based upon word usage and such the like.  My question is can anyone show me anywhere in the entire bible where we are instructed to or shown by example that this is the proper method of disclosing the truth about biblical interpretation?  Please enlighten me.

[Guest shiloh357]

Shiloh and Openly Curious

Peter 3:12-13 is  as a purging of the old heaven and earth.

 

The catastrophe is comparable to Noah's flood as that too was a purging and not a destruction of the planet. 

 

This provides a continuity and fulfillment of the purposes God began in the original creation and has now been brought to completion. 

 

Matthew 19:28, argues for refreshing rather than a complete replacement.

 

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

 

 JESUS  used the word Palingenesia which means "renewal, " not replacement.

 

Christ's incarnation and the believer's resurrection body provide further analogies, the Bible teaches that the resurrection is a transformation of the same bodies we had on earth, a renewal, the same is said for the new heaven and new earth, a transformation, a resetting, a refreshing not a destruction and something completely replaced.

 

It is the restoration of a thing to its pristine state, it is a renovation because what God created was good, there's no need to destroy it....it just needs to be cleansed

 

100% wrong.   It is the destruction of the old earth and heavens.   The language Peter uses is pretty clear on that point. That's the only correct way to read and understand it.

[Kan]

I'm lost for words

 

Edited October 19, 2015 by Kan

[OldSchool2]

Hell is where God is not present; what further "clarification" is needed?              

[Guest shiloh357]

I have watched and seen many arguments boil down to both sides trying to win based upon word usage and such the like.  My question is can anyone show me anywhere in the entire bible where we are instructed to or shown by example that this is the proper method of disclosing the truth about biblical interpretation?  Please enlighten me.

Word usage is very important.  I don't know why people ask for Scripture verses they know don't exist.    This is about basic hermeneutics that we employ every single day in other contexts.   For some reason, people think that it should be discarded when reading the Bible.   Understanding how words are used keeps us from false doctrine and people making up wacky ideas based on how "spiritual"  they think they are.

Any schmuck can hop on here and say, "The Holy Spirit told me such and such"   and they do that to pull the rug out from under anyone who  will challenge what they think they got from God.   I am not under any obligation to accept that anyone hears from God and I actually encouraged by scripture to test such claims.

Hermeneutics is one of the best ways to challenge false claims.   By looking at how words are used in Scripture and understanding their historical and cultural contextual usage, we get a glimpse into how the original audiences would have understood received what the author was saying.

Tell me this Gary...  What if I decided to ignore how you use words and fill up your words what I decide you meant?   Would you appreciate me doing that to you?  If you don't like being treated that way, why would it be appropriate to take God's words and ignore word usage?

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Matthew 19:28, argues for refreshing rather than a complete replacement.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

When Matthew wrote this, he already knew one of the twelve would betray Jesus, and when Jesus spoke these words, I know He already knew who.  So Jesus prophesied to eleven of the twelve and one other who the Apostles would choose as a replacement later.  Interesting verse.  At this time, Jesus withheld the prophesy concerning Judas.

Renewal can come in different ways.  One way is to start over from scratch (replacement).  Another way is to keep what you can use, and discard what you can't and renew what needs to be changed (refreshing).  I don't believe this one verse proves the point you're trying to make.

 

[Ezra]

 

The concept of the old earth and old heaven to be destroyed is more Gnostic apocalypse undertones than Jewish apocalypse.

I don't believe that it is necessary for Christians to introduce either Gnostic or Jewish ideas into what is plainly stated in Scripture. In fact most Christians would not even know about those beliefs.

Rather, we should be comparing Scripture with Scripture to establish every truth. There is absolutely no question that 2 Peter 3:10-13 is a summation of numerous Scriptures which reveal that this globe of the earth and the surrounding atmospheric heaven will experience a total scorching and fiery destruction before the New Heavens and the New Earth come into existence. When Peter speaks of the elements melting and dissolving through intense ("fervent") heat, that is a Divine revelation of an unimaginable catastrophe.

We already know that there will be numerous cataclysmic cosmic events during and after the Great Tribulation which will affect the atmosphere, the sun, moon, stars, etc. along with great earthquakes and fiery judgments.  So the burning up of the earth will be the final judgment on a sin-cursed earth and atmosphere (which is as polluted as the earth) before a clean and righteous earth comes into existence.  This is similar to farmers burning off stubble to regenerate their fields.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

 

The concept of the old earth and old heaven to be destroyed is more Gnostic apocalypse undertones than Jewish apocalypse.

I don't believe that it is necessary for Christians to introduce either Gnostic or Jewish ideas into what is plainly stated in Scripture. In fact most Christians would not even know about those beliefs.

Rather, we should be comparing Scripture with Scripture to establish every truth. There is absolutely no question that 2 Peter 3:10-13 is a summation of numerous Scriptures which reveal that this globe of the earth and the surrounding atmospheric heaven will experience a total scorching and fiery destruction before the New Heavens and the New Earth come into existence. When Peter speaks of the elements melting and dissolving through intense ("fervent") heat, that is a Divine revelation of an unimaginable catastrophe.

We already know that there will be numerous cataclysmic cosmic events during and after the Great Tribulation which will affect the atmosphere, the sun, moon, stars, etc. along with great earthquakes and fiery judgments.  So the burning up of the earth will be the final judgment on a sin-cursed earth and atmosphere (which is as polluted as the earth) before a clean and righteous earth comes into existence.  This is similar to farmers burning off stubble to regenerate their fields.

I agree with respect to gnostic literature.  But let us remember that the Hebrew OT is our OT.  What Peter wrote is true, but I'm not sure he fully understood what the Holy Spirit was conveying.  For example, at that time I do not believe the concept of a spherical earth was understood.  But in what he and the other inspired writers wrote, I'm not sure it makes any difference.  It can be understood no matter what the reader's understanding of earth means.

[SavedOnebyGrace]

Matthew 19:28, argues for refreshing rather than a complete replacement.

Jesus said to them, "Truly I tell you, at the renewal of all things, when the Son of Man sits on his glorious throne, you who have followed me will also sit on twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of Israel.

When Matthew wrote this, he already knew one of the twelve would betray Jesus, and when Jesus spoke these words, I know He already knew who.  So Jesus prophesied to eleven of the twelve and one other who the Apostles would choose as a replacement later.  Interesting verse.  At this time, Jesus withheld the prophesy concerning Judas.

Renewal can come in different ways.  One way is to start over from scratch (replacement).  Another way is to keep what you can use, and discard what you can't and renew what needs to be changed (refreshing).  I don't believe this one verse proves the point you're trying to make.

 

 

 What seems to be forgotten is we are stewards over this created world (Gen 2:15–25).  This leaves us with an ethical standpoint.

 

If this earth on which we live is going to be completely destroyed, then we have little more responsibility to it than to act as good stewards of the resources God has given us.

 

But if this world has a future in God’s plan, being renewed rather than being destroyed and completed made a new one, then perhaps we have a much greater responsibility than to merely act as good managers.

 

This responsibility has not diminished, even though sin permeates the world and all things in it. But if it does have a future existence, and if God feels strongly enough about saving it, it does become part of his eternal plan of redemption.

 

It is hard to imagine that God is dispassionate about anything, especially about something he plans to redeem.

 

Scripture teaches quite clearly that the objects of his redemption are also the objects of his love. Certainly God loves those created in his image. But it seems apparent that his love extends even to the minutest of creatures and objects. God loves all his handywork.

 

Why would God destroy it as apposed to  purging it?

 

Romans 8:18-25

For the creation waits in eager expectation for the children of God to be revealed. 20 For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope 21 that[a] the creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the freedom and glory of the children of God.

 

Creation is to be liberated from bondage not destroyed from itself.

 

With that in mind 2 Peter 3:3–13 is the primary passage used to support the view of total obliteration.

 

Yes Peter uses language that depicts a violent end to the old heavens and the old earth in preparation for the new heaven and new earth.

 

However the primary contrast between the new creation and the old in peter and john does not appear to focus on material substance. Instead the focus is upon the evil that dwells within the “ungodly” (2 Pet 3:7).

 

If what those say that the old heaven and new earth must be destroyed, then the cosmos is in principle evil. See the problem?

 

The description of the burning fire as all-consuming may be purposefully exaggerated to highlight the fact that nothing will escape God’s holy fire of judgment.

 

While not detracting from the reality of the judgment, even in its physical intentions, the comprehensiveness would then be more indicative of the fact that it is unavoidable and impending rather than merely destructive.

 

The reference to the flood may simply be a reference to the only real judgment that Peter’s audience has known of such magnitude.

 

However Peter is pointing to that judgment and saying, “Future judgment will be like that.” Just as purifying water once covered the world, so fire will once again expose and destroy all unrighteousness.

 

Instead of hearing Peter’s promise of the coming day as a condemnation of the entire material creation, including the physical existence of Christians, his audience understood it as a promise of the removal of all unrighteousness and every appearance of sin. “The day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men” (3:7) is coming. The “mockers” will mock no longer (3:3–4).

 

This would have been a strong message of hope, and would have given Peter’s audience a compelling reason to diligently persevere until that day.

 

2 Pet 3:10–13 Particular points arise as critical for this interpretation.

The elements will be destroyed with intense heat” (v. 10). The elements are usually understood to be the natural elements that are part of the physical creation.

 

But the word used here for elements (stoicheia) is used in other places in the NT to mean things set in order, such as the alphabet or ceremonial regulations (Heb 5:12; Gal 4:3; 5:1; Col 2:8, 20).

 

While it certianly appears that physical substance may be the more likely object of burning by intense heat, it cannot be ruled out that Peter, like John, may

be speaking here of the disappearance of this world order (cf. 1 Cor 7:29–31; 1 John 2:15–17) or of the order that guides the processes of nature.

 

Peter goes on to say that “the earth and its works will be burned up.” “The earth,” however, may once again be a comprehensive reference to everything in the world instead of the physical earth itself.

 

There is continuity in all of this, which can be brought up right from the fall of man to going back to Eden like conditions with the millennium going into completion of the new heaven and new earth. Continuity of the purge with the flood to that of the purge by fire. Continuity in our resurrection and that of the cosmos. Continuity of Matthew 19:28 of what Jesus spoke about renewal.

 

What we should all agree on is that it is sin, the primary target that is to be destroyed. For the cosmos to be destroyed in principle makes the cosmos evil.

 

The concept of the old earth and old heaven to be destroyed is more Gnostic apocalypse undertones than Jewish apocalypse.

 

It seems like you're spiritualizing something that should be taken literally.  There is decay in the cosmos as it exists now.  Is this the natural order of things as God created them or are they the result of sin?  So if decay exists in the cosmos, it must be remade, a new Heaven and a new earth, without decay.