Christian Conditionalism vs Traditionalism (Rethinking Hell)

[LuftWaffle]

23 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

I believe that Scripture teaches that everyone will exist forever, either in Heaven with Christ or in the Lake of Fire with Satan. It does make a difference because if those who aren't saved believe that they will not spend eternity in Hell but cease to exist, then they can feel that they really have nothing to lose; even if they do believe that those who are saved will live forever.

But surely you can agree that we should believe what the bible teaches and not what is most scary to unbelievers? Do you believe that all human beings are immortal? If so then why does Paul state that we are perishable and mortal and that we must put on immortality through Christ

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
(1Co 15:53)

If both groups are already immortal and imperishable, wouldn't that go against what Paul is teaching here?

 

[Omegaman 3.0]

1 hour ago, shiloh357 said:

I didn't know that hawkeye started a new thread on that topic.   The other thread is about whether or not hell is real, not the conditionalism vs. traditionalism.  I just thought this deserved its own thread.

Not saying, it does not deserve it's own thread, just pointing out, that at least one exists:

and unless you have an objection to it, I think maybe the threads can be combined. Seems like this is a doctrinal issue, not a general one anyway. Unless you have some objection, I'd like to unite the two threads, while this one is still young.

[LuftWaffle]

Just now, Yowm said:

I'm not at my computer, but for now...

Revelation 14:10-11 KJV
[10] The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: [11] And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

 

Hi Yowm,

Firstly let me ask, doesn't it surprise you that most of the proof texts for the literal eternal torment of the wicked is pulled from the book of the bible that has the most symbolism in it, whereas the verses I've offered for my view barring psalms are not? 

Now in terms of the smoke rising up for ever and ever, this is a figure of speech which is also found here:

And the streams of Edom shall be turned into pitch, and her soil into sulfur; her land shall become burning pitch. Night and day it shall not be quenched; its smoke shall go up forever. From generation to generation it shall lie waste; none shall pass through it forever and ever.
(Isa 34:9-10)

Smoke rising forever seems to mean utter destruction, not a place where people are kept alive and tormented eternally.

 

Likewise unquenching fire refers simply to a fire that cannot be put out until it has burned up everything in its way.

Ezekiel 20:47  Say to the forest of the Negeb, Hear the word of the LORD: Thus says the Lord GOD, Behold, I will kindle a fire in you, and it shall devour every green tree in you and every dry tree. The blazing flame shall not be quenched, and all faces from south to north shall be scorched by it.

These images of worms not dying, of smoke rising forever and unquenchable fire are figures of speech which is being taken from the book of Revelation which is full of symbolism to make a case for a literal eternal torment, while one can draw scripture upon scripture from the historical narrative in the gospels, to the letters of the apostles to make a case that the wages of sin isn't living forever in torment but death. That the those who do not believe will perish and die.

Would you at least be willing to grant that if the proposition that the wicked will die is true, that the verses I quoted would support such a view? I'll add some more verses, because this is really the essence of the issue. Is the bible a book about God giving life to those who deserve death, or is the entire biblical story about spending eternity in a place of bliss rather than a place of misery?

And this is the testimony, that God gave us eternal life, and this life is in his Son. Whoever has the Son has life; whoever does not have the Son of God does not have life.
(1Jn 5:11-12)

How easily have we become accustomed to apply a filter to the bible and to autoreplace life with heaven and death with hell. All I'm saying is that perhaps the filter should be abandoned. Perhaps life should just mean life, and death should just mean death.

 

[Guest shiloh357]

1 hour ago, LuftWaffle said:

Chairs exist, but they aren't alive. Square-circles neither exist nor are they alive. So there's an obvious distinction between existing and living. The focus on cessation of existence places the burden of proof on me to show that the unsaved will vanish, but I hold a more modest view, which is merely that the unsaved will not live.

If we take John 3:16 then it seems to teach that one group, the saved, will inherit eternal life, and those who do not believe will perish and die. I take this at face value. Does that make sense?

 

That is a valid argument.  But, don't we treat physical death as non-existence?   I mean, George Washington no longer exists.  The molecules of his body are still in the ground, but in regular parlance wouldn't we view him as not existing?

I think the way we use the concept of existence with respect to human life is different than how we speak of inanimate objects existing in the realm of human experience.  Don't you?

 

[LuftWaffle]

Just now, Yowm said:

No. Jesus spoke more of hell than He did of heaven.

This is a theological apherism which assumes the traditionalist view. There are about 10 prooftexts for the traditional view and virtually all of them support the conditionalist view better when interpreted in light of scripture. The verses however describing the ultimate fate of the wicked using words like death, destruction and perish are in the hundreds. Likewise whenever the bible refers to everlasting life this is only ever in reference to the saved. The traditional view however claims that both the saved and the unsaved are immortal.

Quote

If you start allegorizing things that make you uncomfortable or goes against reason, then there is no end  to that hermeneutic and  you will end up denying the essentials and  those things that you don't agree with.

Now, you're attributing motive to me, which is unfortunate. You're pretending that I'm allegorising things because I'm somehow uncomfortable with verses. All I'm asking is that we try and be good exegetes. If I argue that Jesus has a sword for a tongue you'll point out to me that it's a symbol from Revelation and isn't meant to be taken literally. Why does this rule not apply when the shoe is on the other foot. Why are we reinterpreting the gospels' words like death and destruction according to a literal interpretation of images seen by John in Revelation?

Quote

Too much  has been taught on hell and it's torment than to start allegorizing or symbolizing it.

Appealing to tradition will not work. I am well aware that my view isn't traditional, which is why I've done my homework. This is not an argument.

Quote

That is a tool of the theological liberals that I don't buy...it runs the same old approach of "Hath  God said?"

Namecalling and guilt by association! Not cool brother.

Why is it that I am the one being accused of doubting scripture while I'm trying my best to offer scriptural backing for my beliefs? If we can together agree that scripture should be the authority when why am I holding that end of the deal and you're resorting to appeals to tradition, namecalling and attributing motive to me?

I'm going to ask you a third time and then I'll give up:

Suppose the ultimate fate of the wicked was death/perishing and the ultimate fate of the saved is everlasting life, would you grant that the many verses I've cited support that proposition? This is really an uncontroversial question but the fact that it's so difficult to answer demonstrates that there's not even a willingness to give the proposition a fair look.

 

 

[Guest shiloh357]

54 minutes ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

Not saying, it does not deserve it's own thread, just pointing out, that at least one exists:

and unless you have an objection to it, I think maybe the threads can be combined. Seems like this is a doctrinal issue, not a general one anyway. Unless you have some objection, I'd like to unite the two threads, while this one is still young.

I have no problem with that. 

 

[Willa]

I hold to the position that we are composed of spirit, soul and body.  The spirits of the unsaved are already dead unless they repent.  In heaven the spirits of the saved return to the Father of spirits, but the soul or self is saved and is immortal., it will receive a spiritual or imperishable body and live in eternal bliss with Jesus the Creator

.  In death the body of the unsaved shall decay and for all our purposes shall cease to exist, but their souls shall be in torment forever;  I didn't take physics, but I remember something about matter never truly ceases to exist but changes into another form such as gases or energy.  The torment would be eternal separation of the soul from light and all that is good, from God, and being numbered with darkness, pain and sorrow, all that is evil and destructive energy.

 

[Guest]

1 hour ago, LuftWaffle said:

But surely you can agree that we should believe what the bible teaches and not what is most scary to unbelievers? Do you believe that all human beings are immortal? If so then why does Paul state that we are perishable and mortal and that we must put on immortality through Christ

For this perishable body must put on the imperishable, and this mortal body must put on immortality.
(1Co 15:53)

If both groups are already immortal and imperishable, wouldn't that go against what Paul is teaching here?

 

Our souls are immortal during this age, not our bodies. After this age, during eternity, GOD will give us all immortal bodies to go with our immortal souls; it is with these that we will spend eternity in either Heaven or the Lake of Fire.

[LuftWaffle]

1 minute ago, shiloh357 said:

That is a valid argument.  But, don't we treat physical death as non-existence?   I mean, George Washington no longer exists.  The molecules of his body are still in the ground, but in regular parlance wouldn't we view him as not existing?

I'm happy assuming death as non-existence for the sake of argument and I agree physical bodies eventually disintegrate, but I don't wanna get bogged down with the cessation of existence business. For me the key issue is the language of death and destruction.

I suppose you can see it as a cumulative case. On one hand you have the conditionalist argument that states that only the saved will have eternal life. The unsaved therefore will die. This makes no claim about what's left when they die. Only that they die.

Then a futher case can be make that nothing will be left over, but that is a seperate argument which I have no interest in. Does it really matter if whether I believe there'll be corpses left over after the second death or nothing? Or how long the corpses will remain?

Quote

I think the way we use the concept of existence with respect to human life is different than how we speak of inanimate objects existing in the realm of human experience.  Don't you?

Well, hang on, your language here is a little loaded because, when you're saying "existence with respect to human life" you're talking about human life and it's existence, which is obviously not true for inanimate objects. Existence proper, however is just being. Things that are in the world exist, but not all things that are in the world are alive. So existence cannot possibly be identical to alive.

I mean, suppose you asked a doctor to check whether a person lying in a hospital bed is alive, will he point at the human body resting on the bed and say, "well he is there, so he must be alive", or is being alive different from merely being here, i.e. existing? Would consciousness for instance be a sufficient condition for the doctor to say the person is alive?

[LuftWaffle]

12 minutes ago, Rick_Parker said:

Our souls are immortal during this age, not our bodies. After this age, during eternity, GOD will give us all immortal bodies to go with our immortal souls; it is with these that we will spend eternity in either Heaven or the Lake of Fire.

Are there any scriptures that led you that conclusion?