Is there a Hell?

[Guest shiloh357]

I do not wish to continue this discussion if all you are going to say in response is that your view is more valid and therefore you are right and I am wrong. I read the Bible and I see three clear possibilities for the opposite of heaven (I won't call it "hell" since the Bible does not do so). These three interpretations are:

1- eternal punishment in fire and torture

2- eternal sepration from God

3- complete and utter destruction (second death).

After reading the Bible (not based on my own emotional response), I have ruled out the first of these interpretations as not just unbiblical but a complete subversion of scripture. That leaves the 2nd and 3rd options, which both have scriptural support, and hinge on whether you believe the "soul" is eternal naturally, or whether it is only given immortality by God. Considering the views of predestination vs free will, I have looked at the Bible and decided that it supports the third view more than it does the second.

the problem here is that all three mean the same thing. They are three ways of saying the same thing, and the Greek bears that out. The weakness of your position is that you cannot support it from the Greek and my position is supported by the Greek as I have already pointed out. The fact is that destruction is not used in terms of our eternal condition as spiritual annihilation. It is never used that way in terms of man's eternal separation from God. the word "destruction" in English is used in the sense of "perdition" in the Greek, not the sense of annihilation.

Until you can provide some kind of support hermeneutically, you don't really have a strong case to make, just an emotional one.

[BlindSeeker]

I do not wish to continue this discussion if all you are going to say in response is that your view is more valid and therefore you are right and I am wrong. I read the Bible and I see three clear possibilities for the opposite of heaven (I won't call it "hell" since the Bible does not do so). These three interpretations are:

1- eternal punishment in fire and torture

2- eternal sepration from God

3- complete and utter destruction (second death).

After reading the Bible (not based on my own emotional response), I have ruled out the first of these interpretations as not just unbiblical but a complete subversion of scripture. That leaves the 2nd and 3rd options, which both have scriptural support, and hinge on whether you believe the "soul" is eternal naturally, or whether it is only given immortality by God. Considering the views of predestination vs free will, I have looked at the Bible and decided that it supports the third view more than it does the second.

the problem here is that all three mean the same thing. They are three ways of saying the same thing, and the Greek bears that out. The weakness of your position is that you cannot support it from the Greek and my position is supported by the Greek as I have already pointed out. The fact is that destruction is not used in terms of our eternal condition as spiritual annihilation. It is never used that way in terms of man's eternal separation from God. the word "destruction" in English is used in the sense of "perdition" in the Greek, not the sense of annihilation.

Until you can provide some kind of support hermeneutically, you don't really have a strong case to make, just an emotional one.

While I side with you shiloh357 on the topic, I fail to see how you can make the above assessment of ParanoidAndroid. I think these type of comments give credibility to his words concerning your method of refutation -

Feel free to disagree with me, I'm not saying you have to agree with everything I say. I'm as human and fallible as anyone else. But the wording of your post is written such to imply that I have not studied the topic, and am arguing from an emotional standpoint and not a biblical one, and therefore it is unreliable. Since this view is not an accurate reflection of my research, I just want it to be known for the record on this board that my view is thoroughly based in textual understanding of the topic.

You completely ignored his words and asserted your opinion of his stance. Present you case line upon line for his consideration and maybe he'll listen . . . but not this way. Sometimes it takes a while to wean people off of their misplaced convictions.

[Guest shiloh357]

You completely ignored his words and asserted your opinion of his stance. Present you case line upon line for his consideration and maybe he'll listen . . . but not this way

I have already shown him why his postion does not stand up to hermeneutic scrutiny. Instead of actually addressing the points I raise, he avoids addressing that information altogether and then continues on with the same emotional appeal.

I can only assume his position is based not upon genuine research, but an emotional rejection of what the Bible says. He is trying to muddy the waters simply because his emotional sensitivities will not allow Him to accept what is clearly written.

[BlindSeeker]

You completely ignored his words and asserted your opinion of his stance. Present you case line upon line for his consideration and maybe he'll listen . . . but not this way

I have already shown him why his postion does not stand up to hermeneutic scrutiny. Instead of actually addressing the points I raise, he avoids addressing that information altogether and then continues on with the same emotional appeal.

I can only assume his position is based not upon genuine research, but an emotional rejection of what the Bible says. He is trying to muddy the waters simply because his emotional sensitivities will not allow Him to accept what is clearly written.

I am sure you are aware what they say about assuming . . .

Ps 19:13 Keep back thy servant also from presumptuous sins; let them not have dominion over me: then shall I be upright, and I shall be innocent from the great transgression.

[ParanoidAndroid]

I have already shown him why his postion does not stand up to hermeneutic scrutiny. Instead of actually addressing the points I raise, he avoids addressing that information altogether and then continues on with the same emotional appeal.

I can only assume his position is based not upon genuine research, but an emotional rejection of what the Bible says. He is trying to muddy the waters simply because his emotional sensitivities will not allow Him to accept what is clearly written.

I assure you, this is not an "emotional rejection". It took a lot of study. What I think strange is that we have all these words translated as "hell" (hades, gehenna, tartaros in the New Testament), and all three of these words have different meanings and refer to different places. Yet many Christians use the words interchangeably, as if they all refer to the same place/thing. Then they add the "Lake of Fire" from Revelation (a text I hesitate to use to back up any view because of its inherent symbology and apocryphal language) and Christians say that this is the same place as all these other three words in the New Testament.

That's four words/terms/concepts that are used by Christians to all refer to the same place. Add to this, the words for destruction, which you argue refers to "perdition", which is spiritual end for eternity, but it can also refer to physical destruction, which is what I am arguing. We both agree that it depends on the context of the passage, and we both think the context backs up our conclusions (ie, you think the author/s are referring to our spiritual essence, I think the author/s are referring to our physical beings).

Simply restating that my position does not hold up to hermeneutics does not validate that assertion, though by the same token it doesn't invalidate it. You have still fallen back on the "your view is not supported by hermeneutics" position. I did address your points, by the way. My refutation to that was that I think the author's intentions was to convey physical destruction of our bodies. As such, I could just as easily level the same argument to you and suggest that your view does not hold up to hermeneutic scrutiny because you want the passages to refer to spiritual perdition.

I have shown my view. You have shown your view. I'm willing to accept I might be wrong, I stated as much in my last response. I do not think I am wrong, and I think this is solidly backed up through the scriptures, but I am also human and subject to fallibility.

If you wish to see this as an emotional rejection of the Bible, muddying the waters because my emotional sensitivities will not allow me to accept what is clearly written, then so be it. What I think is "muddying the waters", so to speak, is the four Greek words all written in different contexts with different meanings are arbitrarily used by Christians to support hell as a place of punishment, when in many of the cases, the text does not support the view.

[Guest shiloh357]

Simply restating that my position does not hold up to hermeneutics does not validate that assertion, though by the same token it doesn't invalidate it. You have still fallen back on the "your view is not supported by hermeneutics" position. I did address your points, by the way. My refutation to that was that I think the author's intentions was to convey physical destruction of our bodies.

Actually THIS makes my point. The issue about whether or not a person will exist forever separated from God does not pertain to the issue of whether or not the body will exist or not. The issue is not physical annihilation, and I would like you to post the verses you think speak of it.

The issue is spiritual annihilation. If you take the case that sinners will not exist forver eternally separated from God, then it is up to you to show where the Bible says their spirits will be annihilated.

As such, I could just as easily level the same argument to you and suggest that your view does not hold up to hermeneutic scrutiny because you want the passages to refer to spiritual perdition.

The difference is that I have demonstrated what I am saying and you have yet to even provide any meaningful evidence.

What I think is "muddying the waters", so to speak, is the four Greek words all written in different contexts with different meanings are arbitrarily used by Christians to support hell as a place of punishment, when in many of the cases, the text does not support the view.

That is not the issue that was raised. Whether you think all four words can or cannot be used interchangably is not really material to the discussion at this point.

[Guest Honolulu-Dad]

"At this point" the discussion may very well have taken a turn from the original post and, although some are attempting to stick to the actual topic, others have managed to twist things so that the discussion becomes loaded in their advantage.

Remember, there are those who come here for the sole purpose of arguing and debating as was pointed out to me. They come in "the nature of the beast" as opposed to the nature of Christ.

Having a discussion is the last thing they want. They want to stir up strife. Be cautious!!

[ParanoidAndroid]

Actually THIS makes my point. The issue about whether or not a person will exist forever separated from God does not pertain to the issue of whether or not the body will exist or not. The issue is not physical annihilation, and I would like you to post the verses you think speak of it.

The issue is spiritual annihilation. If you take the case that sinners will not exist forver eternally separated from God, then it is up to you to show where the Bible says their spirits will be annihilated.

Physical annihilation is the same as spiritual annihilation! There is no difference. We will die, then be Judged, and "those whose names were not found in the Book of Life will go into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death". Not "second place of eternal punishment and torture", nor even "second place of eternal separation". Why is the "gift of eternal life" called a "gift", if we all have eternal life anyway and it's simply a matter of where that eternity is spent?

As such, I could just as easily level the same argument to you and suggest that your view does not hold up to hermeneutic scrutiny because you want the passages to refer to spiritual perdition.

The difference is that I have demonstrated what I am saying and you have yet to even provide any meaningful evidence.

With all due respect, I went through your posts in this, and the only reference you made to me about this is from this post:

2 Thess. 1:9, Paul does not use the word destruction to mean annihilation, as the rest of the verse indicates (apo prosōpou tou kuriou) Rather, it is used in the sense of an eternal state of separation from God.

The fact that the Bible refers to this as "eternal destruction" would also indicate that it is a continuous state of existence. It is not a metaphor for punishment (again, you are misusing the concept of a metaphor as you seem prone to do) but rather it denotes the nature of the punishment being inflicted.

When taking the term destruction, you need to look at how it is used. In the following verses, it does not mean annihilation (Mat 7:13; 2Th 2:3; Phi 3:19), but an eternal condition of perdition, condmenation and separation from God as indicated by the Greek eis apōleian

That is not a refutation, nor an explanation, and certainly not a "demonstration of what you are saying". You simply stated "this passage, is used in the sense of an eternal state of separation from God", with some vague reference to the rest of the passage. I addressed these passages also. 2 Thessalonians 1, for example, shows no indication that it is referring to spiritual annihilation (eg, the fact that it refers to this as "eternal destruction" does not indicate continuous existence, but rather continuous non-existence). It is speaking of spiritual matters, but that does not by extension mean that it is referring to spiritual condemnation for eternity.

You also in a more recent post referred to the issue of those receiving the Mark of the Beast, from Revelation 14. I guess we have fundamentally different views on this, but I am not a pre-trib or post-trib Rapture believer. I think the Rapture is a non-biblical concept, invented (or perhaps misunderstood) by 19th Century Christians - it did not exist in any Christian writings before this date. My view of Revelation is a symbolic one (and considering the apocryphal language of prophetic books such as Revelation, I think this is a valid set of reasoning to take). I'm sure I'll be accused of ignoring passages here, but my beliefs of Eschatology adhere to what people have come to call "amellenialism" (Source). I believe we are already in the End Times, and that there will not be a literal Beast or anti-Christ. But even if there were, this passage in Revelation 14 only refers to those who bow down and worship said beast. It does not refer to any other group of people. If there is a literal premillenialist act of Rapture, and then False Prophet, etc, then those who worship the Beast are the only ones described as being given the Mark (no one else previously). So how can this then be used to support Hell us torture for everyone else if this is only speaking of a select group of people?

Yes, that then brings in the entire concept of the Lake of Fire from Revelation 20 also, which I'm sure you've noted I have addressed during my discussion. In part, this is the point I am trying to make - I don't think Revelation should be the sole basis for any doctrine, but that we should rather have a bigger picture of the whole of scripture.

That is not the issue that was raised. Whether you think all four words can or cannot be used interchangably is not really material to the discussion at this point.

It is part of the reasoning behind my whole argument against Hell, and hence extremely important to understanding my view on the issue. Part of my framework in understanding the nature of Hell is understanding the words translated as "hell". And since we have three separate words (not including the Lake of Fire) that are translated as "hell", it is perplexing to me that these three words are used interchangeably, and then taken to refer to the Lake of Fire as if they are again the same thing. As such, this influences my view of "destruction" as being a literal destruction, nothing of punishment or torture. You cannot understand my view of "destruction" without also taking into consideration the textual support (or rather, the lack thereof) of "hell", considering all the different words that seem to be used by Christians as the same thing.

All the best, Shiloh

[Guest shiloh357]

Physical annihilation is the same as spiritual annihilation!

That is not what I asked you. I asked you to post the verses YOU say speak of physical annihilation.

We will die, then be Judged, and "those whose names were not found in the Book of Life will go into the Lake of Fire, which is the second death". Not "second place of eternal punishment and torture", nor even "second place of eternal separation".

Yes, but if you read the Bible, you will see it a place of eternal torment.

And the devil that deceived them was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone, where the beast and the false prophet are, and shall be tormented day and night for ever and ever. And I saw a great white throne, and him that sat on it, from whose face the earth and the heaven fled away; and there was found no place for them. And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works. And the sea gave up the dead which were in it; and death and hell delivered up the dead which were in them: and they were judged every man according to their works. And death and hell were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death. And whosoever was not found written in the book of life was cast into the lake of fire.

(Revelation 20:10-15)

The Bible, also commenting on the fate of those who reject Christ during the tribulation, says that the smoke of their torment will rise ascend forever. It does NOT say the smoke of their annihilation, but that the smoke of their torment.

Spiritual separation from God is an eternal condition with an eternal consequence.

Why is the "gift of eternal life" called a "gift", if we all have eternal life anyway and it's simply a matter of where that eternity is spent?

No we don't all have eternal life. You are misunderstanding the Bible. When the Bible uses the term "Eternal Life" it is not referring to length of time. The Bible teaches that Jesus is eternal life (John 11:25, 14:6, Col. 3:3-4; 1John 1:1-2, 5:11-12). "Eternal Life" refers to the very life of God. It refers to being one with God by virtue of our union with Him in Christ. Eternal life is the result of being spiritually restored back to God. Eternal life is ONLY for those who have received Christ.

Sometimes "eternal" does refer to a length of time, but not when it is used in reference to the spiritual condition of a believer in Jesus.

Everyone will live forever, but they will either live forever in eternal life, or they will live forever eternally separated from God.

QUOTE (shiloh357 @ Jul 14 2008, 04:18 AM)

2 Thess. 1:9, Paul does not use the word destruction to mean annihilation, as the rest of the verse indicates (apo prosōpou tou kuriou) Rather, it is used in the sense of an eternal state of separation from God.

The fact that the Bible refers to this as "eternal destruction" would also indicate that it is a continuous state of existence. It is not a metaphor for punishment (again, you are misusing the concept of a metaphor as you seem prone to do) but rather it denotes the nature of the punishment being inflicted.

When taking the term destruction, you need to look at how it is used. In the following verses, it does not mean annihilation (Mat 7:13; 2Th 2:3; Phi 3:19), but an eternal condition of perdition, condmenation and separation from God as indicated by the Greek eis apōleian

That is not a refutation, nor an explanation, and certainly not a "demonstration of what you are saying". You simply stated "this passage, is used in the sense of an eternal state of separation from God", with some vague reference to the rest of the passage. I addressed these passages also. 2 Thessalonians 1, for example, shows no indication that it is referring to spiritual annihilation (eg, the fact that it refers to this as "eternal destruction" does not indicate continuous existence, but rather continuous non-existence). It is speaking of spiritual matters, but that does not by extension mean that it is referring to spiritual condemnation for eternity.

Well first of all, I never said it is referring to spiritual annihilation. Spiritual annihilation is not what the Bible teaches. In the view of htose who argue that people will simply cease to exist in eternity, they would argue for spiritual annihilation. The Bible does not teach that those who reject Christ will cease to exist at some point in eternity. That is the point I was making.

My point was that annihilation was not the sense in which "eternal destruction" is used. You are trying to use "destruction" solely after the English usage of the word and are you (as always) ignoring the way the author is using it. This goes back to the same tired mistake you seem to continuously make in your approach to the Bible. You ignore the intent of the author and instead choose a more subjective approach. The Bible must be approached objectively to truly understand it. Objectivity includes allowing the author to explain what he means when he uses certain words. The ONLY way to do that, is to examine the context.

Eternal destruction does not refer to the condition of ceasing to exist otherwise it would not be connected to the word "eternal" in this particular case. It refers to a continuous ongoing process. there is not ONE competent scholar in Greek that understands "eternal destruction" the way you are trying portray it.

Now I was simply not going into the nuts and bolts of it all and sparing you a long read by simply getting to the point, but if you want, we can examine it much more in depth and I can show you why, hermeneutically, the none of the texts you think support your postion give it one leg to stand on.

But even if there were, this passage in Revelation 14 only refers to those who bow down and worship said beast. It does not refer to any other group of people. If there is a literal premillenialist act of Rapture, and then False Prophet, etc, then those who worship the Beast are the only ones described as being given the Mark (no one else previously). So how can this then be used to support Hell us torture for everyone else if this is only speaking of a select group of people?

It refers to a spefic group, but it is not exclusive in its reference. It shows one hole in your position and if there is one I can and do find quite a few holes in your position. We already have millions maye billions of people who will receive the mark and being tormented forever, so we can probably find billions more who will also end up in the same condition.

Yes, that then brings in the entire concept of the Lake of Fire from Revelation 20 also, which I'm sure you've noted I have addressed during my discussion. In part, this is the point I am trying to make - I don't think Revelation should be the sole basis for any doctrine, but that we should rather have a bigger picture of the whole of scripture.

Even a cursory reading of Revelation 20 pretty much torpedoes the notion that the unsaved will not live forever separated from God.

My view of Revelation is a symbolic one (and considering the apocryphal language of prophetic books such as Revelation, I think this is a valid set of reasoning to take). I'm sure I'll be accused of ignoring passages here, but my beliefs of Eschatology adhere to what people have come to call "amellenialism" (Source).

Ah yes, the "Revelation is all symbolic" crutch.

Amillenialism eh?? Yeah, if that view were an accurate take on eschatology, the world SHOULD be getting better. The fact that world is getting worse and worse pretty much disproves that view. Amillennialism holds that this is millennium right now. If this is the Millennial reign of Christ, it is the biggest failure in the history of the universe.

[ParanoidAndroid]

Hi Shiloh,

We seem to be at that stage where our spiritual views are completely different and neither of us can change the others mind. We both feel biblically justified in saying what each of us says.

This goes back to the same tired mistake you seem to continuously make in your approach to the Bible. You ignore the intent of the author and instead choose a more subjective approach.

And this goes back to the same tired argument you continually use against me to discredit what I think. I am not ignoring the intent of the author - we have different views as to what the author's intent was. Which is why, as I said at the start of this post, I think it's time I bowed out of this debate. It serves neither of us to continue bickering, and whatever the other believes, I don't see this as an essential doctrine (ie, my salvation is not at stake whether I believe in a literal hell or not), and so I'm happy for you to hold your view, and I will continue to hold mine, which I still think is based on the Bible. I wish you good luck, and may God be with you on your spiritual journey, shiloh

~ Regards, Paranoid Android

P.S - a little off-topic, so I thought I'd just put it as a tag at the end

Ah yes, the "Revelation is all symbolic" crutch.

Amillenialism eh?? Yeah, if that view were an accurate take on eschatology, the world SHOULD be getting better. The fact that world is getting worse and worse pretty much disproves that view. Amillennialism holds that this is millennium right now. If this is the Millennial reign of Christ, it is the biggest failure in the history of the universe.

We're going off-topic with this one, I've made my views on this one made clear in other areas that actually discuss this topic. Please do not deride my position on Amillenialism. I have not made fun of Premillenialism (going by your posts, that is the impression I get from your understanding, though I could be wrong). You disagree with my view of Eschatology (not surprising), but there is no need to be so aggressively attacking it Again, this is another non-essential salvation issue and calling my view of a symbolic book as to be taken in symbolic ways as a "crutch" is just not helpful (perhaps even harmful in some ways).

All the best,