J
What is your view of Hell and the Lake of Fire? Is it Loving?
- Thread starter Jason0047
- Start date
-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
Fire and salt have nothing to do with eternal torment. Jude 1:7 says Sodom and Gomorha suffered the vengeance of eternal fire. The fire is eternal but that does not equate with their punishment in that fire being eternal. As I mentioned before, a king can give one of his knights a magic sword that is eternal. Yet, if that knight were to slay his enemies with that sword, it does not mean the knight was slaying his enemies eternally. Yes, Lot's wife was preserved as a pillar of salt. But there is no indication that she was suffering as a pillar of salt. Such a miracle suggests that she was now dead and gone. In fact, in 2 Peter 2:6, it says the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha were turned into ashes (Which is an example to those who live ungodly). Destruction was their example; Not eternal concious torment.
Now there is a fire that purifies which is in contrast to the fire that can consume (Mark 9:49-50). Peter addressed Christians (1 Peter 4:12), and he admonished them to not think it strange concerning the "fiery trial" that they faced. This was their "salting with fire." Those persecutions which they suffered were their discipline of affliction so as not to fall into temptations, (with their eyes, their hand being cast into Hell fire); That is, he who surrenders what is dear to him (Which is of the flesh) for the sake of Christ is going to go thru the discipline of self sacrifice, which is often painful, and severe, but nevertheless purifying. He is salted by fire thru the preserving power of God.
Source Used:
Pulpit Commentary.
Yeah, I just find the use of such a word to be impersonal (if you don't know the person);
But it's all good.
Peace, love, and blessings be unto you.
Last edited:
Not sure what this topic has to do with my personal Soteriology. For I am not aware that a person has to believe in a certain view of Hell in order to be a saved Christian. I repented of my sins and accepted Christ and was born again spiritually by the power of God in 1992. I later renewed my faith in 2010 and rededicated my life to Him.
I wish you would discuss this in your own words. i don't appreciate having websites thrown against the wall. Isaiah 65:6 to the end of the book is yet to be fulfilled.
From that quote the worshipers will pass by monthly observing carcasses in hell. Then they switch to cremated remains, which are not carcasses, but ashes.
Mark 9:45-46 (KJV)
[SUP]45 [/SUP] And if thy foot offend thee, cut it off: it is better for thee to enter halt into life, than having two feet to be cast into hell, into the fire that never shall be quenched:
[SUP]46 [/SUP] Where their worm dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.
They say Jesus was referring to the city dump. I doubt anyone took it that way. Who would rather pluck out an eye than be tossed into the city dump? Jesus drew big crowds because people recognized truths.
This little debate on here is interesting. It appears there are two types of believers here.
The first group are those who believe anything God says or does is just and good, not necessary because they can prove the actions are just and good, but merely because God does them. God can call for the murder of babies or whole people groups (which he sorta did in the OT a couple times), or he could decide to punish a young street orphan, who died at 12 years old, to an eternity of everlasting torment. God could do anything really, and this first group of people will blindly accept it as good and just, solely because it is God that is doing it. I personally belief this viewpoint is dangerously naïve. I mean, you could be worshiping a moral monster and you wouldn't even care. You just become mindless sheep.
The second group of people are those who believe that being just and being good are actions that mean something in it of themselves. God is good and just because His actions are good and just, not just because He says He is. For these people, the idea of eternal torment is troubling. What good, loving, and merciful God would send a 12-year old street orphan to a place of eternal torment, especially if the boy never heard of Jesus or God at all in his short miserable life. How is this just? A hell of eternal torment is simply not compatible with a loving, merciful, and just God. As was previous mentioned, an infinite penalty for a finite crime is unfathomable.
I obviously side with the second group of people here.
The first group are those who believe anything God says or does is just and good, not necessary because they can prove the actions are just and good, but merely because God does them. God can call for the murder of babies or whole people groups (which he sorta did in the OT a couple times), or he could decide to punish a young street orphan, who died at 12 years old, to an eternity of everlasting torment. God could do anything really, and this first group of people will blindly accept it as good and just, solely because it is God that is doing it. I personally belief this viewpoint is dangerously naïve. I mean, you could be worshiping a moral monster and you wouldn't even care. You just become mindless sheep.
The second group of people are those who believe that being just and being good are actions that mean something in it of themselves. God is good and just because His actions are good and just, not just because He says He is. For these people, the idea of eternal torment is troubling. What good, loving, and merciful God would send a 12-year old street orphan to a place of eternal torment, especially if the boy never heard of Jesus or God at all in his short miserable life. How is this just? A hell of eternal torment is simply not compatible with a loving, merciful, and just God. As was previous mentioned, an infinite penalty for a finite crime is unfathomable.
I obviously side with the second group of people here.
Yes, I would be more in the category of the 2nd Group. God's actions are always good and just and can be shown to be good.
However, for clarification on the point of OT violence (including the taking of young lives) on the 1st Group you mentioned:
Well, the church is forbidden in taking life. They are commanded by God to love their enemies and to pray for them. We are to bless those that curse us. Jesus said to turn the other cheek if somebody smites you. We are not to repay evil for evil but we are to conquer evil with good. For believers today are under a New Covenant with God in Jesus Christ. Israel was a political power or nation where God was to be their King. This nation was literally supposed to be the arm of God.
The church is not a political power or nation like the Israelite Nation during the Old Testament times. Yes, it is true. God did command the Israelites to wipe out children. But you have to understand the context and situation, though. God did not just tell them to kill only children. No doubt many of these children were damaged by the horrible sinful ways of their parents. These children no doubt would have corrupted the Israelites with the sin that they had learned from their parents. These children also probably carried many diseases like the animals because many of them were sexually abused in horrible pagan rituals to false gods, too. So the health of the Israelites was at risk. Also, some of these tribes attacked the Israelites in a cowardly fashion from behind (Where the woman and children stayed). No doubt, the Israelites children were probably killed at times during these battles. Can you imagine if your child was killed by evil people? What if your best friend's child was killed, too? How would you feel?
For example: What if a bunch of children today had let loose a deadly virus inside a mountain and if one of them had gotten out, they would in effect put the whole world at risk in being killed. Would the nearby containment team be wrong for shutting them inside the mountain? Would the President of the United States be wrong for ordering a missile strike against that mountain if he knew that one of those children was about to get out (Thereby killing most everyone on the planet)?This is similar to what God was doing with the Israelites. Except the deadly disease was sin and infection that would lead the hearts of the Israelites away from God and put at risk the line of the Messiah which was to save all mankind by dying on the cross for man's sins.As for God taking life: Again, you have to understand that God taking life is not the same as a man taking life. They are in no way the same thing. God created all life. Man did not create all life. God owns all of creation. Man does not own all of creation. God decides who ultimately lives and who dies in this life. Man does not ultimately decide who lives and dies within this life. For even believers die. However, they go to be with God, though. Whereas the unbeliever is placed in a prison and is eventually destroyed in the Lake of Fire.
Also, I have to add two other potential reasons why God told His people to wipe out the children along with everyone else, too. What are those reasons? Well, some of the children might have been indoctrinated (by their parents) to hate and kill the Israelites, too. Today, in Africa, there are children who are brain washed into killing others with guns, etc. In addition, some of these children, could have desired to want to take revenger of their parent's death later on after they reached a certain age, as well. These types of children would have been a direct threat to the very people of Israel (i.e. God's people) and a threat to the line of the Messiah.
Furthermore, all children (Who have not reached the age of accountability of knowing right and wrong yet), go to Heaven when they die. So death is not some cruel end for them; For all innocent children who die go to be with God. So it is a release from this dark world and an embrace into the loving arms of our good and loving Lord. Not some cruel vicious finality. For not all things are as they seem in this world. For this life is but a stage; And the body is just a shell (with life being temporary).
Last edited:
Ah, a well-written defense for divinely commanded genocide. See, the difference between the first group and the second group is that the first group doesn't see any need to justify God commanding genocide. He said to do it. So it's good and just. The second group looks for reasons why the command could be good or just, which you did a fairly good job at doing.
One thing I am curious about though is your last paragraph. You hint to an age of accountability for children. Many Christians believe in this ideology one way or another but there is virtually no Scripture to back up this claim. There is no doctrine that I know of that is more widely accepted than the Age of Innocence or Age of Accountability doctrine that has such little Scriptural backing.
We say the only way to heaven is through Christ, yet there is this backdoor exception. If you are too young, or some have even included the extremely mentally handicapped, then you get a free pass. Where is the line drawn for the age of accountability? How mentally handicapped does someone have to be? What about someone who gets into an accident that leaves them severely handicapped or in a coma? Who knows? All I know is I'd hate to be the kid who died just after he passed that imaginary line.
This doctrine has always struck me as conscious insurance. We all would feel a whole lot better knowing that babies and toddlers aren't going to hell in masses. But is there really enough Scripture to merit believing in this. And how old are we going here? 5? 7? 9? Apparently you'd go as far as 12 if you were referring to the orphan boy in my analogy. But it doesn't seem like age is necessarily the factor here, but rather the ability to be able to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No matter how old a severely mentally handicapped person gets, they will never be able to do this. So people often include that group among those that get the free pass. One could even argue that people that have never heard of Jesus or God should get the free pass as well. I'd really be interested to here someone expound on this mysterious doctrine, using Scripture as backing.
One thing I am curious about though is your last paragraph. You hint to an age of accountability for children. Many Christians believe in this ideology one way or another but there is virtually no Scripture to back up this claim. There is no doctrine that I know of that is more widely accepted than the Age of Innocence or Age of Accountability doctrine that has such little Scriptural backing.
We say the only way to heaven is through Christ, yet there is this backdoor exception. If you are too young, or some have even included the extremely mentally handicapped, then you get a free pass. Where is the line drawn for the age of accountability? How mentally handicapped does someone have to be? What about someone who gets into an accident that leaves them severely handicapped or in a coma? Who knows? All I know is I'd hate to be the kid who died just after he passed that imaginary line.
This doctrine has always struck me as conscious insurance. We all would feel a whole lot better knowing that babies and toddlers aren't going to hell in masses. But is there really enough Scripture to merit believing in this. And how old are we going here? 5? 7? 9? Apparently you'd go as far as 12 if you were referring to the orphan boy in my analogy. But it doesn't seem like age is necessarily the factor here, but rather the ability to be able to accept Jesus Christ as your personal savior. No matter how old a severely mentally handicapped person gets, they will never be able to do this. So people often include that group among those that get the free pass. One could even argue that people that have never heard of Jesus or God should get the free pass as well. I'd really be interested to here someone expound on this mysterious doctrine, using Scripture as backing.
G
Gadget
Guest
I choose other based on the premise of what i know. A father ( God) who loves his children (us) wpuld correct his children; to help the learn, understand, and grow. This would make more sense with a loving god. So for those who dont choose jesus i believe thete will be a punishment. But not destruction.
Case in point of the little girl killed example. Would it be better to destroy him? Will this bring the girl back? Or would it be better that the man learn and grow to come to repentence in which would make him a better person and posdibly even save a child later on down the road?
Besides the whole complete destruction doesnt make sense to me. A punishnent so sever should be givin the utmost fairness to warrent. The reason si many dont choose jesus is becase of a number if factors. The feuit if his followers are rotten. People as being of a physical mindset dont see much evidence of tge spiritual. In order for that punishment to warrent you would have to make a full educated decission. Which means that thete would have to be as much physical evidence, which is what people pay attention too, of gods existence as there is proif that there isnt. Only then can someone truely choise God or dwath.
Case in point of the little girl killed example. Would it be better to destroy him? Will this bring the girl back? Or would it be better that the man learn and grow to come to repentence in which would make him a better person and posdibly even save a child later on down the road?
Besides the whole complete destruction doesnt make sense to me. A punishnent so sever should be givin the utmost fairness to warrent. The reason si many dont choose jesus is becase of a number if factors. The feuit if his followers are rotten. People as being of a physical mindset dont see much evidence of tge spiritual. In order for that punishment to warrent you would have to make a full educated decission. Which means that thete would have to be as much physical evidence, which is what people pay attention too, of gods existence as there is proif that there isnt. Only then can someone truely choise God or dwath.
S
sveinen
Guest
had burning. really not nice. "assorted pains." you don't last 10 seconds.
surely, a lively throw keeps you alive, though
"different occasion outside.." -"left without life" -unnatural, bitter pain. and down. just remembering just the last one kinda scares dead my inside.
"doors Put."
whatever you are, you want to be with christ.
surely, a lively throw keeps you alive, though
"different occasion outside.." -"left without life" -unnatural, bitter pain. and down. just remembering just the last one kinda scares dead my inside.
"doors Put."
whatever you are, you want to be with christ.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
rev 20: 10 The devil, who deceived them, was cast into the lake of fire and brimstone where the beast and the false prophet are. And they will be tormented day and night forever (Aoin)and ever (aion).
14 Then Death and Hades were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.[d] 15 And anyone not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire.
Jesus drew big crowds of Jews who didn't hold Greek philosophical ideas about the afterlife.
Aion doesn't mean forever. These same passages keep getting posted over and over but they don't mean forever, that is a faulty translation.
Hi nogard,
I would submit that there may not be a certain age for everyone and you may be correct in that it is more about one's ability to know God. However, I do believe there is Scriptural support for the idea as Paul tells us that where there is no law sin is not imputed. Paul said,
7 What shall we say then? Is the law sin? God forbid. Nay, I had not known sin, but by the law: for I had not known lust, except the law had said, Thou shalt not covet. {lust: or, concupiscence}
8 But sin, taking occasion by the commandment, wrought in me all manner of concupiscence. For without the law sin was dead.
9 For I was alive without the law once: but when the commandment came, sin revived, and I died.
10 And the commandment, which was ordained to life, I found to be unto death.
11 For sin, taking occasion by the commandment, deceived me, and by it slew me.
12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.
13 Was then that which is good made death unto me? God forbid. But sin, that it might appear sin, working death in me by that which is good; that sin by the commandment might become exceeding sinful.
14 For we know that the law is spiritual: but I am carnal, sold under sin.
15 For that which I do I allow not: for what I would, that do I not; but what I hate, that do I. {allow: Gr. know}
16 If then I do that which I would not, I consent unto the law that it is good.
(Rom 7:7-16 KJV)
Paul says that he was alive once without the Law. I understand this to mean that before he understood the Law it did not condemn him. However, once he was able to comprehend the Law he became guilty of sin under the Law. He said, where this is no Law sin is not imputed.
12 Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned: {for that: or, in whom}
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.
14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. (Rom 5:12-14 KJV)
This suggests to me that those who are not able to comprehend what is and is not sin would fall under this statement.
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
Aion was written twice. it means age after age, ie forever.
We are told satan will burn age after age, and told those not written in the book of life will be there with him.
If you do not like the truth. maybe you want it to be just a small time?
Again, Being separated by God will be hell. I believe the burning will be internal. (weeping and nashing of teeth)
E
eternally-gratefull
Guest
romans 1 destroys this theory.
All men know write from wrong, God writes it in our dna, thats why people who were never given the law, do things in the law.
And it is quite clear what God says about those who try to make an excuse.
18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
Then I guess you'll have to tell Paul he was wrong. Who is without excuse? Read verse 18, men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness. In order to suppress the truth one must know the truth.
I guess you'll have to tell Paul that this statement is wrong.
13 (For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law. (Rom 5:13 KJV)