SermonIndex Audio Sermons
Image Map
Discussion Forum : Scriptures and Doctrine : Scripturess support the teaching of an eternal hell

Print Thread (PDF)

Goto page ( Previous Page 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 Next Page )
PosterThread
rainydaygirl
Member



Joined: 2008/10/27
Posts: 742


 Re:

by MrBillPro on 2014/3/3 11:08:48

Quote:
just-in.....I cannot say I have ever met a born-again child of God who hopes the condemned suffer eternal torment.


+1--


i can say the same, know of none that are truly saved and hope for the condemned to suffer.
----
Blaine posted;The scriptures tell us now is the day of salvation. Now is the time of God's favor. Let us not fall into this lie into thinking that hell is not an eternal place of torment. Let us be about the task of evangelizing they lost so that they will not go into an eternity without Jesus Christ. And suffer eternal torment and the flames of an everlasting hell.---

i agree with this as well. hold firm to the truth the Bible tells us clearly those who reject God will suffer eternity apart from Him. for all those who reject Jesus and go on to suffer in hell they do so at their own hand and choosing.God has given the Way but men reject His way for their own and it leads them to destruction.

rdg

 2014/3/3 11:21Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5420
NC, USA

 Re:

Bear---

I hate to have to accuse you of being purposefully obtuse but I guess I am going to have to.

You continue to state that the position of universal reconciliation is that God is only love and would never pour out his wrath on anybody.

I have repeatedly written that this is not the case so you are either not reading what I have written or you simply refuse to acknowledge it and simply keep on repeating your plain misrepresentation on what proponents of that view actually hold.

It is not possible to discuss this when you use this tactic. But perhaps that is your goal... To staunch all discussion of the issue. That is fine but I thought this was a discussion forum.

I would encourage you to visit a site like tentmaker.org which will fully explain what UR actually means. You will find very well reasoned scriptural answers for any question you might have. Of course you do not have to accept their explanations. Why not study it for yourself? What are you afraid of?

I have also repeatedly stated that I am not convinced of the truth of UR. But one thing I cannot stand is to see a view purposefully maligned and misrepresented. To summarize (once again):
1) UR states there is a hell of torment
2) unbelievers will go there and be tormented
3) hell's purpose is remedial
4). Post mortem repentance is possible and inevitable
5). God reconciles all things to himself
6) God wins, satan loses


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/3 11:39Profile
noone
Member



Joined: 2008/3/17
Posts: 75
United States

 Re:

I have not even considered the UR position, but thanks TMK for your definition of it. I will check that website out in my studies.

This 3 part series is very interesting as well concerning
Annihilationism and raises some valid points imo.

http://www.heavensfamily.org/ss/e_teachings/the-hell-debate-annihilationism


_________________
Tina

 2014/3/3 12:00Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5420
NC, USA

 Re:

From Wikipedia:

"Straw Man
-----------
The straw man fallacy occurs in the following pattern of argument:
1.Person 1 has position X.
2.Person 2 disregards certain key points of X and instead presents the superficially similar position Y. The position Y is a distorted version of X and can be set up in several ways, including:
1.Presenting a misrepresentation of the opponent's position.
2.Quoting an opponent's words out of context—i.e., choosing quotations that misrepresent the opponent's actual intentions (see fallacy of quoting out of context).
3.Presenting someone who defends a position poorly as the defender, then denying that person's arguments—thus giving the appearance that every upholder of that position (and thus the position itself) has been defeated.
4.Inventing a fictitious persona with actions or beliefs which are then criticized, implying that the person represents a group of whom the speaker is critical.
5.Oversimplifying an opponent's argument, then attacking this oversimplified version.

3.Person 2 attacks position Y, concluding that X is false/incorrect/flawed.

This reasoning is fallacious because attacking a distorted version of a position does not address the actual position."
_______________

We ought not to use Straw Men when we are discussing on these forums.


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/3 12:04Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5420
NC, USA

 Re:

Noone wrote:

"This 3 part series is very interesting as well concerning
Annihilationism and raises some valid points imo.
"

I actually lean more toward Conditional Immortality (annihilationism) than UR because I believe it has slightly more scriptural support.

Greg Boyd has written an excellent article on this topic with all the scriptural support- it can be found here:

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/3 12:07Profile
Lordoitagain
Member



Joined: 2008/5/23
Posts: 600
Monroe, LA - USA

 Re:

Quote:
I have also repeatedly stated that I am not convinced of the truth of UR. But one thing I cannot stand is to see a view purposefully maligned and misrepresented. To summarize (once again):
1) UR states there is a hell of torment
2) unbelievers will go there and be tormented
3) hell's purpose is remedial
4). Post mortem repentance is possible and inevitable
5). God reconciles all things to himself
6) God wins, satan loses



I believe that the greatest difficulty in this discussion is that those of us who study the Bible are aware of the fact that points 3-4 are a figment of someone's imagination and are simply not found in the Bible.

Any of us could dream up what appears to us to be a good and fair way for God to handle the eternal destiny of wicked people, but regardless of how good our plan sounds to human ears, we CANNOT have faith in such a plan if it cannot be validated in scripture.

We realize that the UR position includes suffering and torment ... but it is obviously the same pipe dream that some pope came up with when purgatory was invented. It is just not found in the Bible!


_________________
Michael Strickland

 2014/3/3 13:37Profile









 Re:

I do not see that universal reconciliation or conditional immortality have any scriptures support from the new Testament.

I agree with Lorddoitagain that hell being remedial and purgative is drawn more from Catholic teaching. Also Jesus teaches in Luke 16 there are no second chance in hell. For a person who does not know Jesus the time for them to repent is now. Not waiting and hoping they can do it from hell.

Blaine Scogin

 2014/3/3 13:51
Lordoitagain
Member



Joined: 2008/5/23
Posts: 600
Monroe, LA - USA

 Re:

Quote:
I actually lean more toward Conditional Immortality (annihilationism) than UR because I believe it has slightly more scriptural support.

Greg Boyd has written an excellent article on this topic with all the scriptural support- it can be found here:

http://reknew.org/2008/01/the-case-for-annihilationism/



TMK, if you are willing to base your beliefs about eternity on the works of such a misguided and uninformed "scholar" as Greg Boyd, you are to be pitied! Look at his flimsy argument against the plain reality of Rev. 14:11:

Quote:

Responding to Objections
1) Tormented Day and Night. The most difficult passages for annihilationists to explain are Revelation 14:10-11 and 20:10. These passages speak of the wicked being tormented “day and night forever and ever.” However, these passages are not as decisive against the annihilationist’s view as they might initially seem. The phrase “forever and ever” can be translated “for ages upon ages” which implies an indefinite, but not necessarily unending, period of time. Even more fundamentally, it’s important to keep in mind that Revelation is a highly symbolic book. Its apocalyptic images shouldn’t be interpreted literally. This is particularly true of the phrase “forever and ever” since similar phrases are used elsewhere in Scripture in contexts where they clearly cannot literally mean “unending” (e.g. Gen 49:26; Ex 40:15; Nu 25:13; Ps 24:7).



First of all, he rejects its literal truth simply because it is in the book of Revelation "apocalyptic", while on other issues he accepts the LITERAL interpretation of passages in that apocalyptic book. He is simply picking and choosing what "shouldn't be interpreted literally"!

Than, he uses comparison examples from the ENGLISH word "forever and ever" (out of the Old Testament) to substantiate his argument (that forever does not mean forever). Anybody who knows very much about the Bible knows that the New Testament is written in Greek. The Greek word used there is:

G165
αἰών
aiōn
Thayer Definition:
1) for ever, an unbroken age, perpetuity of time, eternity
2) the worlds, universe
3) period of time, age
Part of Speech: noun masculine
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from the same as G104
Citing in TDNT: 1:197, 31


He should have taken his comparison from the 129 cases (listed below) in the New Testament where that GREEK WORD was used if he wanted to retain ANY credibility with people who really study the Bible.



G165
αἰών
aiōn
Total KJV Occurrences: 129
ever, 72
Mat_6:13, Mat_21:19, Mar_11:14, Luk_1:33, Luk_1:55, Joh_6:51, Joh_6:58, Joh_8:35 (2), Joh_12:34, Joh_14:16, Rom_1:25, Rom_9:5, Rom_11:36, Rom_16:27, 2Co_9:9, Gal_1:5 (2), Phi_4:20 (2), 1Ti_1:17 (2), 2Ti_4:18 (2), Heb_1:8 (2), Heb_5:6, Heb_6:20, Heb_7:17, Heb_7:21, Heb_7:24, Heb_13:8, Heb_13:21 (2), 1Pe_1:23, 1Pe_1:25, 1Pe_5:11 (4), 2Pe_3:17-18 (2), 1Jo_2:17, 2Jo_1:2, Jud_1:13, Jud_1:25, Rev_1:6 (2), Rev_4:9-10 (4), Rev_5:13-14 (4), Rev_7:12 (2), Rev_10:6 (2), Rev_11:15 (2), Rev_14:11 (2), Rev_15:7 (2), Rev_19:3 (2), Rev_20:10 (2), Rev_22:5 (2)
world, 37
Mat_12:32, Mat_13:22, Mat_13:39-40 (2), Mat_13:49, Mat_24:3, Mat_28:20, Mar_4:19, Mar_10:30, Luk_1:70, Luk_16:8, Luk_18:30, Luk_20:34-35 (2), Joh_9:32, Act_3:21, Act_15:18, Rom_12:2, 1Co_1:20, 1Co_2:6-8 (4), 1Co_3:18, 1Co_8:13, 1Co_10:11, 2Co_4:4, Gal_1:4, Eph_1:21, Eph_3:9, Eph_3:21, Eph_6:12, 1Ti_6:17, 2Ti_4:10, Tit_2:12, Heb_6:5, Heb_9:26
never, 8
Mar_3:29, Joh_4:14, Joh_6:35, Joh_8:51-52 (2), Joh_10:28, Joh_11:26, Joh_13:8
evermore, 3
2Co_11:31, Heb_7:28, Rev_1:18
ages, 2
Eph_2:7, Col_1:26
end, 2
Eph_3:21 (2)
eternal, 2
Eph_3:11, 1Ti_1:17
worlds, 2
Heb_11:2-3 (2)
course, 1
Eph_2:2



_________________
Michael Strickland

 2014/3/3 14:17Profile
TMK
Member



Joined: 2012/2/8
Posts: 5420
NC, USA

 Re:

lorddoitagain-

thanks for your posts. i would much rather see a reasoned argument than simply a reiteration of what has already been said and misrepresenting the other side's position. You have given the reasons why eternal (Aion) can mean "forever and forever." A proponent of UR simply says that it doesn't HAVE to mean forever and ever, but it can.

As for Greg Boyd's article, I certainly don't get my theology from him; I rarely visit his website. The only book I have read of his is "Letters to a Skeptic." But his article (whether you agree with it or not) is a good summary of what Annihilationism actually is and gives all the scriptural support for same. By the way, in the article he himself says he is not convinced that this view is correct but rather that it is worthy of consideration.

That being said, I am not sure how helpful it is to call a brother that we happen to disagree with on some points "misguided" or "misinformed." You can disagree with him without resorting to such terminology.

An even better and more thorough exposition of the view of Conditional Immortality (Annihilationism) is Edward Fuddge's "The Final End of the Wicked" in the Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society (JETS):

http://www.edwardfudge.com/JETS_final_end_wicked.pdf


_________________
Todd

 2014/3/3 14:38Profile
MrBillPro
Member



Joined: 2005/2/24
Posts: 3268
Texas

 Re:

Quote:
TMK...That being said, I am not sure how helpful it is to call a brother that we happen to disagree with on some points "misguided" or "misinformed." You can disagree with him without resorting to such terminology.



I would even take that to another level, I think we all at some point have been in the shoes of the "misguided" or "misinformed, unless you were born with the gift of all knowledge.


_________________
Bill

 2014/3/3 15:07Profile





©2002-2020 SermonIndex.net
Promoting Genuine Biblical Revival.
Affiliate Disclosure | Privacy Policy