Does the belief in eternal hell mean that man is an eternal spirit?

[Guest shiloh357]

The "ultimate outcome" of those not in the book of life is they will be saved (but as Jesus said, those who teach to break the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom, not eternally lost). The "lake of fire" is better understood as "harbor of purification". The word "fire" in greek is pur, which we get words like purify, purity, purification, perfection, etc. It has an ultimate purpose for good, not evil.

You are teaching the heresy of "Universalism." That teaching is not received on this board, just so you know.

[EricH]

The "ultimate outcome" of those not in the book of life is they will be saved (but as Jesus said, those who teach to break the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom, not eternally lost). The "lake of fire" is better understood as "harbor of purification". The word "fire" in greek is pur, which we get words like purify, purity, purification, perfection, etc. It has an ultimate purpose for good, not evil.

This is actually a form of a linguistic fallacy called the "root fallacy". Basically this fallacy holds that the meaning of every word is tied up in its etymology (etymology is the study of how a word developed over time).

An example of this in modern linguistics is our word "nice". It comes form the latin "nescius" meaning ignorant. We would not say that everytime someone uses the word "nice" it carries with it the connotation of ignorance. The conclusion you have arrived at here is even more concerning. You have deduced that because the greek word for fire "pur" is part of the etymology of modern words such as "purification", that the meaning of those modern words can now be read back onto the meaning for the original greek "pur", and that every time "pur" is used it carries that meaning. This just does not follow. You cannot read the meaning of something that occurs later in etymological development back onto one of the word's root components

[brad_religion]

Grace to you,

Hell is a very definate place that todays Church would rather not talk about. It doesn't fit nicely into the way we have Dressed Jesus up. It does not matter if we paint Him a certain way. His atributes change not. His Righteousness demands Justice.

Before I respond to your other posts, I wanted to quickly address what you say here. The fact is that most of the "church" still teaches hell as a doctrine (even though people in those churches don't necessarily believe it anymore). If there is a church that doesn't talk about hell, it is because they are on the path to light. The attributes of Jesus are compassion, love, mercy, kindness, loving ones enemies, forgiving whether a person repents or not, joy, peace, longsuffering. The doctrine of hell is the opposite of all those things. His righteousness demands justice. That justice was paid for on the cross because he died for the sin (singular) of the world. Paul said that Jesus Christ reconciled the world to himself, NOT imputing their trespasses against them. Surely if they don't have their sins counted against them, then to say "His righteousness demands justice" and make it refer to the teaching of hell just isn't in the bible.

We have had the doctrine of hell in the churches since the 6th century. It was inserted as a dogma of the catholic church and that is when the dark ages began (it isn't a coincidence). Since the doctrine of hell has come into the church, has the church shown the fruits of the Spirit or rather the works of the flesh? Historically, the church is responsible for almost every work of the flesh, primarily because of this teaching of hell. Nothing good has come of it, except that people can see how ridiculous it really is and they search for the truth. Let's see what the teaching of hell has caused in this world - depression, hopelessness, doubt, hatred, variance, strife, murder, torture, rape, robbery, lies, deceit, condemnation, idolatry, abominations, etc. Why do you think that is?

Now, imagine a person teaches God reconciled the world to Himself through Jesus Christ. They don't teach about hell, because it isn't in the bible's original language. They teach God loves all men and will save all men. How do they behave in contrast to the hell teachers? Well, since they believe God loves all men, they have no problem to loving all men either. They can love their enemies, because they know God loves His enemies. It is not an obligation to love their enemies. However, if one believes in hell (and most people will go there), then they realize God does NOT love His enemies, but rather will torture his enemies forever in a fire. It would be very hard to love someone you know God himself does not love. Because it would be futile to waste your time and love on them (since they are most likely going to hell).

I have to say I have been in the eternal torment camp (hell) and the annihilation camp (death) and both fall short of the victory in Christ the bible speaks about. Not only that, when I believed in hell, I felt like God hated me and I was no good and I was going there, because my church gave me "rules" to follow in order to not go there (and I could not do it). It turned me from a loving Christian boy into a hateful, angry, bitter prick. I lived how I wanted because I figured I was going to hell anyway, so I might as well enjoy my way there. I didn't know how much God loved me. I know from experience (as do MILLIONS OF PEOPLE), that the doctrine of hell is contrary to everything our Father in heaven is about. God himself said in Jeremiah that the very concept of hell (even temporarily) had NEVER ENTERED HIS MIND. If burning your own children temporarily was called an abomination and it never entered your mind, then certainly doing it for all eternity would definitly not enter your mind.

I know what I believe is way better than what I did believe. I have the fruits of the Spirit in my life now. I am at peace. I can love others. I can love God again. This sadistic doctrine of hell does NOTHING for anyone, except bring them into more religious hypocrisy and bondage. Jesus said the truth would set us free. Just look at the fruit. The doctrine of hell creates bad people, the doctrine of reconciliation creates new creatures who love all men. Which would Jesus teach?

Religious Brad,

I wanted to adress the errors in just your first paragraph.

The "Devil" represents something

Jas 2:19

You believe that there is one God; you do well: the demons also believe, and tremble.

Mt 8:29

And, behold, they cried out, saying, What have we to do with you, Jesus, you Son of God? have you come here to torment us before the time?

1Pe 5:8

Be sober, be vigilant; because your adversary the devil, as a roaring lion, walketh about, seeking whom he may devour:

Eph 6:12

For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places.

Your Doctrine is in deep error and may cause problems for you. As you are unprepared to defend yourself against the devil and his wiles.

The devil doesn't just represent something. he is very real.

The first problem is you seem to be taking "1 verse charlies" and inserting your own interpretation into the text. James does indeed say "devils" or "demons", but remember, "evil spirits" came from God, not some "devil" - see 1st Samuel 16:14.

As far as Matthew 8:29, the evil spirit said Jesus was there to afflict them "before the time". What time? Well, Hebrews 2:14 says Jesus came to destroy him who had power over death, that is the devil. Paul said in Romans 16:20 that Satan would be shortly crushed under their feet. It obviously was a time that would happen in the lifetime of those Paul spoke to.

As far as 1st Peter 5:8, that just proves my belief that satan was "cast down" and deceiving the nations like Revelation 20 says. The term "devil", "satan", "serpent" and "dragon" was used describing human beings, not some super angel (as our traditions have made satan to be). The word "satan" is not a name, it is a word that was left untranslated. It should have been consistently translated as "adversary". It usually referred to people, and even God himself (see Numbers 22:22 and 1st Chronicles 21:1/2nd Samuel 24:1). Jesus called other people "serpents" and a "devil" and "satan". Who tempted Jesus in the wilderness? Was it some super fallen angel or was it a group of human beings? Did not the pharisees and sadducees go into the wilderness to John? Would it be impossible to believe that the "devil" who tempted Jesus was the pharisees? Did not Jesus say the pharisees tempted him and didn't they say "if thou be the son of God"?

And lastly, Ephesians 6:12 does say they should prepare for a battle against "the devil". However, look at the context - against principalities (which means "chief" in greek - an authority), and against rulers of "this age". What age was being ruled at that time? Jesus only mentioned 2 of them. "This age and the age to come". What age was Jesus living in? The MOSAIC age of the old covenant. What was the age to come? The new covenant age! So, the context of Ephesians 6:12-15 is NOT about fighting some supernatural fallen angel, but against fighting the ever vanishing old covenant rulers. Not only that, it says to the EPHESIANS, they need to be able to stand in the "evil day". I'm not a rocket scientist, but that either means the "evil day" has not happened yet and there are 2000 year old Ephesians living in the world OR it means the "evil day" that was "this age" was in THEIR lifetime. This also proves my point that "satan" and "demons" would be destroyed in their lifetime. I don't need to "prepare" myself against any "devil" because the "Devil" is DESTROYED. Unless Jesus failed?

What does death look like?

It looks like everything that doesn't look like Jesus. It looks like the throne upon which man has placed himself and sits and reigns in his own heart.

Could you show me a scripture that says that? Jesus isn't separate from "Death" in regards to us. For example, Paul said "I die daily". Yet, Paul was in Christ totally.

The devil has been in rebellion against Gods Throne for some time. he desires Gods Throne for his own. he tricked man into believing a lie. That man himself could be like God the Most High. Thus thrusting all of humanity into this rebellion. This rebellion is defeated and ultimately will be crushed. God will not share His Glory with any other. Thus if you are striving to enter into heaven by any means other than Jesus Christ and His atoning Blood? You will not enter and be cast out with those in the rebellion. Simply because you wear the wrong garment. You do not wear the Garment of Righteousness that is seamless in Christ. You wear the garment of an averse king who desires his own Throne.

I don't know if you are saying I personally am not wearing a garment of righteousness in Christ or you are talking about people in general. If you mean me, how can you make a judgment call with someone you don't even know? I don't wear a garment of anyone who desires my own throne. I base my righteousness on Jesus Christ, not myself. There is NO SCRIPTURE that says "the devil has been in rebellion against God's throne for some time". You are addressing several things that have nothing to do with each other. It appears you believe God had no control over this "rebellion" as you call it. But the bible says God does as He pleases and He has planned all this from the very beginning. Nobody will go to heaven without Christ and the bible says EVERY knee will bow and EVERY tongue will confess Christ is Lord. So, all men will eventually go through Christ. As far as the "garment" idea, that had to do with the destruction of Jerusalem (see Matthew 22). If a person was wearing the wrong garment, it was because they didn't heed the call of the wedding properly. Being "cast into outer darkness" was referring to being killed and cast into gehenna (the valley of hinnom where garbage was burning). In other words, those who didn't heed the warning of Jesus to be ready for the wedding did NOT escape Jerusalem like he said and they were BOUND hand and feet and thrown into the valley of hinnom just like the parable says.

What does death look like? It looks like you and me minus Jesus Christ.

Peace,

Dave

We are all on our own path in Christ, but one thing must remain contant - love for one another. We may even disagree vehemently, but if we have not love, it is worthless.

Godbless

[brad_religion]

The "ultimate outcome" of those not in the book of life is they will be saved (but as Jesus said, those who teach to break the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom, not eternally lost). The "lake of fire" is better understood as "harbor of purification". The word "fire" in greek is pur, which we get words like purify, purity, purification, perfection, etc. It has an ultimate purpose for good, not evil.

You are teaching the heresy of "Universalism." That teaching is not received on this board, just so you know.

That is interesting you call universalists "Heretics", that is exactly what the religious pharisees called Paul for preaching universalism! I didn't come to universalism because I follow the Koran, Vishnu or 8 fold path of buddhism. I found it plainly written in the scriptures that you claim to follow!

You need to PROVE universalism is a heresy firstly. It is so easy to call people a heretic for disagreeing with you. It is much more difficult to prove it. Do you say Jesus is the saviour of the world, but not really believe it? Do you say God loves the world, but not really believe it? I could give countless examples of your view (whether free will or calvinistic) and how they fall short of God's love and power.

If you wish to call me a heretic, that is fine, Paul was called one too If you wish to prove I am a heretic, then I challenge you to show me in the SCRIPTURES where any of the apostles or Jesus called a person a heretic for believing what they themselves wrote and preached (That Jesus would reconcile the world to God).

The fact is that unless a person believes in Universal Reconciliation, they have NO ASSURANCE in God's love. Why? Because if calvinism is true, then God only loves a few people (the elect) and hates the majority of people. You may say that a person who is elect can have that assurance, yet even in that, there is no assurance, because one must "prove" their election to make it sure. And there are a variety of views on how to do that. If the other side (free will arminian) teaching is true, then it means God loves all people (but it is very conditional and weak love). It is the kind of love that a hypocrite shows (only loves those who love him). It is not reliable. So, if you believe in the free will gospel, then you still cannot have that assurance in God's love because your "free will" which consistently fails is the only way God can love you back (which means it is almost impossible).

In either case, calvinism or arminianism do not give anyone true hope in God's love. The true gospel DOES produce hope in a person.

One more thing, I noticed below your response, you say a few things about Israel and the Palestinians. You dare call me a heretic, yet you are a racist? You obviously believe zionism is a Christian philosophy (hmm, so I guess it is okay to HATE Palestinians and support jews who persecute Christians?) You need to study the issue of the middle east and dispensationalism. I can see now why you are so mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you. Until God puts His love in you, you will continue to hate palestinian people (including fellow Christians). That is another topic for another day. However, it does show me where your heart is right now (care more about a political philosophy (zionism) than the kingdom of God).

Is it any wonder the world thinks Christians are the most gullible people in the world?

Edited December 8, 2005 by brad_religion

[brad_religion]

Thanks CarlineS. Thats exactly why everlasting torment in the lake of fire can not be included for those humans not found in Jesus. Thanks very much for encouraging my belief in this area.

Jamie, I notice you believe Jesus won't save people, yet your scripture below your post says " Phillipians 2:5-11

5Your attitude should be the same that Christ Jesus had. 6Though he was God, he did not demand and cling to his rights as God. 7He made himself nothing; he took the humble position of a slave and appeared in human form. 8And in human form he obediently humbled himself even further by dying a criminal

Edited December 8, 2005 by brad_religion

[Guest shiloh357]

You need to PROVE universalism is a heresy firstly.

Universalism is a heresy, because it denies the finished work of Christ on the cross. How so?

Because Universalism teaches that people will be "purged" by fire and end up being saved even if they rejected Christ in this life.

In other words, Jesus death was not really necessary. It provides a way out of trusting Christ for salvation, by allowing us to live in sin because, eventually even the worst sinner who rejected Christ will get saved anyway, whether he wanted to or not.

It provides another plan, another way of salvation, and THAT makes it a heresy, and a "false gospel." We do not receive these kinds of teachings on this board. It is sloppy theology, and is not based upon sound, scriptural research.

One more thing, I noticed below your response, you say a few things about Israel and the Palestinians. You dare call me a heretic, yet you are a racist? You obviously believe zionism is a Christian philosophy (hmm, so I guess it is okay to HATE Palestinians and support jews who persecute Christians?) You need to study the issue of the middle east and dispensationalism. I can see now why you are so mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you. Until God puts His love in you, you will continue to hate palestinian people (including fellow Christians). That is another topic for another day. However, it does show me where your heart is right now (care more about a political philosophy (zionism) than the kingdom of God).

I am a Zionist because God is a Zionist. Zionism is biblical. It is not based on hating the Palestinian people. I do not hate the Palestinian people. It is based upon the right of the Jewish people to live on their Land which was given to them by God. It based upon the promises of God which cannot be negated by any kind of theology. I support the nation of Israel because they are in a war for their survival, not against the Palestinians, but against 22 Arab nations who long for Israel's destruction. Israel possesses the moral high ground in their struggle for survival in the midst of the Islamic world, and I will stand with Israel against the maniacal enemies that long to see every Jew exterminated in the Middle East.

BTW I know and know of several Arab Christians who stand with me in support of Israel. Maybe one of these days you might actually know what you are talking about when it comes to Israel, but it will not be THIS day!

[EricH]

The "ultimate outcome" of those not in the book of life is they will be saved (but as Jesus said, those who teach to break the least of the commandments will be least in the kingdom, not eternally lost). The "lake of fire" is better understood as "harbor of purification". The word "fire" in greek is pur, which we get words like purify, purity, purification, perfection, etc. It has an ultimate purpose for good, not evil.

You are teaching the heresy of "Universalism." That teaching is not received on this board, just so you know.

That is interesting you call universalists "Heretics", that is exactly what the religious pharisees called Paul for preaching universalism! I didn't come to universalism because I follow the Koran, Vishnu or 8 fold path of buddhism. I found it plainly written in the scriptures that you claim to follow!

You need to PROVE universalism is a heresy firstly. It is so easy to call people a heretic for disagreeing with you. It is much more difficult to prove it. Do you say Jesus is the saviour of the world, but not really believe it? Do you say God loves the world, but not really believe it? I could give countless examples of your view (whether free will or calvinistic) and how they fall short of God's love and power.

If you wish to call me a heretic, that is fine, Paul was called one too If you wish to prove I am a heretic, then I challenge you to show me in the SCRIPTURES where any of the apostles or Jesus called a person a heretic for believing what they themselves wrote and preached (That Jesus would reconcile the world to God).

The fact is that unless a person believes in Universal Reconciliation, they have NO ASSURANCE in God's love. Why? Because if calvinism is true, then God only loves a few people (the elect) and hates the majority of people. You may say that a person who is elect can have that assurance, yet even in that, there is no assurance, because one must "prove" their election to make it sure. And there are a variety of views on how to do that. If the other side (free will arminian) teaching is true, then it means God loves all people (but it is very conditional and weak love). It is the kind of love that a hypocrite shows (only loves those who love him). It is not reliable. So, if you believe in the free will gospel, then you still cannot have that assurance in God's love because your "free will" which consistently fails is the only way God can love you back (which means it is almost impossible).

In either case, calvinism or arminianism do not give anyone true hope in God's love. The true gospel DOES produce hope in a person.

One more thing, I noticed below your response, you say a few things about Israel and the Palestinians. You dare call me a heretic, yet you are a racist? You obviously believe zionism is a Christian philosophy (hmm, so I guess it is okay to HATE Palestinians and support jews who persecute Christians?) You need to study the issue of the middle east and dispensationalism. I can see now why you are so mean-spirited to anyone who disagrees with you. Until God puts His love in you, you will continue to hate palestinian people (including fellow Christians). That is another topic for another day. However, it does show me where your heart is right now (care more about a political philosophy (zionism) than the kingdom of God).

Is it any wonder the world thinks Christians are the most gullible people in the world?

Actually, the Pharisees called Paul a heretic for proclaiming Jesus to be the Messiah. They did not call Paul a heretic for preaching universalism. He did not preach universalism

[Fiosh]

It is clear to me from Scripture that eternal life refers to an existence in the Presence of God, in the kingdom of heaven.

Eternal punishment refers to an eternity apart from God, in torment.

I don't want to believe it; I don't like to believe it; but that's what the Bible says.

Matthew 25: 46

I brought this "up to the top" because I honestly don't see why this is even a question.

Matthew 25: 46 clearly states "eternal punishment". That pretty much sews it up for me.

[WillingToDie]

It is clear to me from Scripture that eternal life refers to an existence in the Presence of God, in the kingdom of heaven.

Eternal punishment refers to an eternity apart from God, in torment.

I don't want to believe it; I don't like to believe it; but that's what the Bible says.

Matthew 25: 46

I brought this "up to the top" because I honestly don't see why this is even a question.

Matthew 25: 46 clearly states "eternal punishment". That pretty much sews it up for me.

Yes but Mathew 10:28 clearly says nothing about eternal punishment, but instead says that God can (and implies that he is willing to) destroy the soul.

So you see how it can be muddled.

[EricH]

It is clear to me from Scripture that eternal life refers to an existence in the Presence of God, in the kingdom of heaven.

Eternal punishment refers to an eternity apart from God, in torment.

I don't want to believe it; I don't like to believe it; but that's what the Bible says.

Matthew 25: 46

I brought this "up to the top" because I honestly don't see why this is even a question.

Matthew 25: 46 clearly states "eternal punishment". That pretty much sews it up for me.

Yes but Mathew 10:28 clearly says nothing about eternal punishment, but instead says that God can (and implies that he is willing to) destroy the soul.

So you see how it can be muddled.

But it does not say He will. It only describes God has having the power to do so, if He so chose