12 reasons why hell is not eternal conscious torment

[Butch5]

[SIZE=14pt]That may be true to some extent, however, that doesn’t mean one can just assume that because someone isn’t a scholar any contradiction they see is invalid.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]That is true. However, the methodology used in identifying the alleged contradiction might be invalid due to lack of training. And that is what I have addressed and attempted to explain the error in the method.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]To no avail, unfortunately.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Every time someone says something you disagree with you claim they’re not a scholar.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]That is not accurate. I have asked on several occasions why I should accept the conclusion of an untrained person over that of an expert in the field like Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]No one has answered that question.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Do you extensively research every person you read to make sure they are a qualified scholar in the particular area in which you are studying?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Do you think I need to do that for people like [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. or can I safely assume that they are experts?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]If the Bible can only be understood by the Scholarly then there isn’t much hope for anyone else.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I never said that was the case. I have pointed out that the “proofs” that have been offered are seriously inadequate due to lack of training.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]How then can anyone other than the Scholars be saved? If everyone else is ignorant then how can they be saved? [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Again, I never suggested anything like that.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]there’s nothing like that in the Scriptures. The sinners prayer isn’t in the Scriptures.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]So what is your point?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]There are those who have degrees in both Arminian and Reformed theology and these systems teach opposing doctrines from the same Scriptures.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I have encountered neither of those gentlemen in any forum. We’re not talking about them.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I have encountered quite a few people with no where near the education of either Calvin or Arminius, proclaiming totally crackpot notions and having no clue as to what their talking about or how to “rightfully divide the scripture.” But that doesn’t stop them from telling everyone else that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I have repeatedly asked why I should accept some crackpot opinion about “soul sleep” and similar nonsense that is contrary to everything that had been taught for almost two thousand years. No one ever answers that question. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]You seem to be saying that a theological education is of no advantage in understanding scripture. If that is your point, your are wrong. It is a great advantage. It isn’t necessary for salvation but it is an extremely valuable tool in understanding scripture and a good defense against all the “winds of doctrine” with which untrained people are so easily enchanted. (Look how wealthy televangelists can get preaching ear-tickling tripe!)[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I’m fed up with ignorant people wanting to straighten me out on how Jesus is Michael the Archangel and similar nonsense. I’ll respond to such a person who poste to me once or twice and then, if I can’t get through to them, I’ll follow Paul’s advice and have nothing to do with such divisive people. ([/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Tit 3:10http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tit&c=3&v=10&t=NIV#s=1132010[/SIZE])

[SIZE=14pt]I have no need to accept the babbling of some ignoramus as being of equivalent authority to the teaching of the Cappadocians or Athanasius or Gregory Palamas or Seraphim of Sarov etc. That notion is pure rubbish. Just as I am not capable of discussing quantum mechanics with a physicist, not everyone I encounter is qualified to discuss theology with me. And there are many, many theologians that I do not discuss anything with; I just shut up, listen attentively, and take notes.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Everyone has the right to speak his mind. Some would do well to remain silent.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Pro 17:28 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Even fools are thought wise if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]That may be true to some extent, however, that doesn’t mean one can just assume that because someone isn’t a scholar any contradiction they see is invalid.[/SIZE]

That is true. However, the methodology used in identifying the alleged contradiction might be invalid due to lack of training. And that is what I have addressed and attempted to explain the error in the method.To no avail, unfortunately.

[SIZE=14pt]Yes, it “Might” be invalid, however, I haven’t seen where you’ve looked at that. It seems to me that you’ve just dismissed anyone who doesn’t hold a degree in theology as ignorant. Have you questioned me as to my methodology? I don’t recall you doing so.[/SIZE]

That is not accurate. I have asked on several occasions why I should accept the conclusion of an untrained person over that of an expert in the field like Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc.No one has answered that question.

[SIZE=14pt]Have you established these as experts? Have you explained why anyone should accept the words of these men over anyone else? Personally, I don’t believe that Luther was scholar. Neither do I believe that Spurgeon had a good grasp of the Scriptures. Luther followed Augustinianism and Spurgeon later in life headed that way also. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]It seems to me that you’ve simply accepted these men as experts and expect everyone else to because you have.[/SIZE]

Do you think I need to do that for people like Moody, Spurgeon, Luther, Athanasius, Gregory of Nyssa, etc. or can I safely assume that they are experts?

[SIZE=14pt]I guess that answered my question above. My answer is yes. I think if you’re going to hold everyone else to that standard these men should be too. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Again, why should anyone accept the words of these men simply because of their name?[/SIZE]

I never said that was the case. I have pointed out that the “proofs” that have been offered are seriously inadequate due to lack of training. Again, I never suggested anything like that.

[SIZE=14pt]No, you didn’t suggest that Jim, but that seems to me to be the logical conclusion of what I’m hearing.[/SIZE]

So what is your point?

[SIZE=14pt]My point is, you’re telling us that we should listen to those who have degrees. You have a masters in Theology and yet you’re telling us something that is not found in the Bible. If you, having a degree, are telling us something that is not in the Bible why shouldn’t we question others, who have a degree, who tell us things that aren’t in the Bible?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]When Jesus brought the Gospel He could have gone to the Temple and gotten 12 scribes (scholars) to make His disciples, yet He didn’t . Instead He found 12 everyday men who He could train to do things His way. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]We can look at church history and see what the “Scholars” have done. We can look at the Catholic church who had almost sole authority of the Scriptures in the west for about a thousand years and see what those “Scholars” did with the word. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I’m not against education, I think all Christians should study the background and history of the Bible. I also agree that Biblical illiteracy runs amuck in the church. However, I don’t agree that just because someone lacks a few letters after their name they’re incompetent.[/SIZE]

I have encountered neither of those gentlemen in any forum. We’re not talking about them.

[SIZE=14pt]No, we’re not talking about them. However, they make my point. Both sides have men who have degrees in their theology. The two systems teach opposing doctrines from the same Scriptures. The law of noncotradiction states that opposing statements cannot both be true in the same sense at the same time. Thus, the Scriptures cannot prove both systems as true. That means that one side has men who have degrees and those men are in error.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]So, if we are to listen to those who have degrees, let me ask. Do we listen to the men who have degrees who tell us that we can lose salvation or do we listen to the men with degrees who tell us we can’t lose salvation?[/SIZE]

I have encountered quite a few people with no where near the education of either Calvin or Arminius, proclaiming totally crackpot notions and having no clue as to what their talking about or how to “rightfully divide the scripture.” But that doesn’t stop them from telling everyone else that they are right and the rest of the world is wrong.

[SIZE=14pt]I have too. However, that doesn’t mean everyone I’ve encountered is that way.[/SIZE]

I have repeatedly asked why I should accept some crackpot opinion about “soul sleep” and similar nonsense that is contrary to everything that had been taught for almost two thousand years. No one ever answers that question.

[SIZE=14pt]What has been taught for two thousand years should only be believed if it aligns with Scripture. Purgatory has been taught for about 1500 years do you believe that?[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Have studied the early church and early church history? I ask because you made the statement about what has been believed for 2000 years. Quite a bit of what is considered orthodoxy today was not believed in the beginning and there are doctrines in the church today that would have been called heresy in the beginning. Just because something has been believed for a long time doesn’t necessitate that it is true. Take the Penal model of the atonement. It’s a doctrine that is almost universally accepted in Western Christianity today yet only has been around in its present form since the Reformation and in its prior form as the “Satisfaction” theory since around 1100 AD. However, it was not in the church prior to that. The Satisfaction/Penal model has been round for about a thousand years, however, it’s not what was taught by Jesus and the apostles. Not only that but when held up to the Scriptures and logic it fail miserably. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]So going back to those with a degree, why should I listen to some whose belief system doesn’t make sense?[/SIZE]

You seem to be saying that a theological education is of no advantage in understanding scripture. If that is your point, your are wrong. It is a great advantage. It isn’t necessary for salvation but it is an extremely valuable tool in understanding scripture and a good defense against all the “winds of doctrine” with which untrained people are so easily enchanted. (Look how wealthy televangelists can get preaching ear-tickling tripe!)

[SIZE=14pt]Not at all. I think a theological education is of great advantage. However, it’s only as good as its source. Personally I think having a PHD in an evolutionary field is useless simply because I don’t believe in evolution. If evolution is wrong then what good is the PHD? It’s just like I said with Reformed and Arminian theologies. One of them has to be wrong, what does that say about the degree in that theology? That’s not to say everything in either theology is wrong. However, since doctrines build on one another in theological systems it does leave the entire theology suspect.[/SIZE]



[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]

I’m fed up with ignorant people wanting to straighten me out on how Jesus is Michael the Archangel and similar nonsense. I’ll respond to such a person who poste to me once or twice and then, if I can’t get through to them, I’ll follow Paul’s advice and have nothing to do with such divisive people. (

[SIZE=10pt]Tit 3:10http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tit&c=3&v=10&t=NIV#s=1132010http://www.blueletterbible.org/Bible.cfm?b=Tit&c=3&v=10&t=NIV#s=1132010[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt])[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Again, you’re dismissing someone simply because they don’t have letters after their name. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]I’ll bet that you are aware of the difference between intelligence and education. Just because someone does not have degrees in a certain area doesn’t mean they can’t teach you something. It seems to me that you are hurting yourself by rejecting someone simple because they don’t have letters after their name.[/SIZE]


[SIZE=14pt][/SIZE]

I have no need to accept the babbling of some ignoramus as being of equivalent authority to the teaching of the Cappadocians or Athanasius or Gregory Palamas or Seraphim of Sarov etc. That notion is pure rubbish. Just as I am not capable of discussing quantum mechanics with a physicist, not everyone I encounter is qualified to discuss theology with me. And there are many, many theologians that I do not discuss anything with; I just shut up, listen attentively, and take notes.

[SIZE=14pt]Everyone has the right to speak his mind. Some would do well to remain silent.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Pro 17:28http://biblia.com/bible/hcsb/Pro 17.28 [/SIZE][SIZE=14pt]Even fools are thought wise[/SIZE] [SIZE=10pt]if they keep silent, and discerning if they hold their tongues.[/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]Again, it seems you’ve elevated certain ones to a particular status simply based on name. [/SIZE]

[SIZE=14pt]It’s a shame you dismiss others so easily. Since you have a masters you probably could educate us and if you listened you could learn a thing or two. I can tell you one thing, my positions are logically sound.[/SIZE]

 

[Phoneman777]

Weymouth weighs in:

"My mind fails to conceive a grosser misinterpretation of language then when the five or six strongest words which the Greek tongue possesses, signifying 'destroy,' or 'destruction,' are explained to mean maintaining an everlasting but wretched existence. To translate black as white is nothing to this." Dr. R. F. Weymouth, Life in Christ, pp. 365

"The use in the N. T. of such words as “death”, “destruction”, “fire”, “perish” to describe Future Retribution point to the likelihood of fearful anguish followed by extinction of being.” Dr. R. F. Weymouth, The New Testament in Modern Speech, pp. 560

"Whosoever hateth his brother is a murderer: and ye know that no murderer hath eternal life abiding in him." 1 John 3:15

 

[Keeth]

The bottom line is that those who believe in eternal torment, and those who do not, worship two very different God's. It is only fitting that those who worship a God that would torture countless billions of beings throughout the endless ages of eternity, also believe the first lie he ever told humanity.

Gen 2:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

 

[ATP]

Good point Keeth.

 

[Phoneman777]

Necessary changes to Scripture in order to establish Eternal Torment:

“He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not on the Son shall not see life,” (John 3:36 KJV) must be changed to:
"...he that believeth not on the Son was born with everlasting life and will see his everlasting life in Hell."

“But strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leadeth unto life and few there be that find it,” (Matthew 7:13-14 KJV) must be changed to:
“But strait is the gate and narrow is the way that leads to life in Heaven which is why most will see life in Hell for all eternity.”

“...that whosoever believeth on Him should not perish but have everlasting life,” (John 3:16 KJV) must be changed to:
“...that all already have everlasting life, either in Heaven or in Hell.”

“...even He Who is able to save and to destroy,” (James 4:12 KJV) must be changed to:
“...even He Who is able to save alive in Heaven or save alive in Hell.”

“For he that soweth to his flesh shall of the flesh reap corruption: but he that soweth unto the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life everlasting,” (Galatians 6:8 KJV) must be changed to: “Both shall reap life everlasting, either everlasting life in Heaven or everlasting life in Hell.”

“For the wages of sin is death, but the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord,” (Romans 6:23 KJV) must be changed to:
“For the wages of sin is an eternal torment in Hell for those who were born with eternal life, but the gift of God is an eternity without torment through Jesus Christ our Lord for those who were also born with eternal life.”

“Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it,” (Luke 17:33 KJV) must be changed to:
“Whosoever shall seek to save his life shall preserve it in Hell; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it in Heaven.”

 

[ATP]

Good point 777. Wow.

 

[StanJ]

The bottom line is that those who believe in eternal torment, and those who do not, worship two very different God's. It is only fitting that those who worship a God that would torture countless billions of beings throughout the endless ages of eternity, also believe the first lie he ever told humanity.

Gen 2:1 ¶ Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? 2 And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: 3 But of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die. 4 And the serpent said unto the woman, Ye shall not surely die: 5 For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil. 6 ¶ And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof, and did eat, and gave also unto her husband with her; and he did eat.

Did Eve not die Keeth?

 

[Phoneman777]

<<We are all affected one way or another by our traditions Jim, even Biblical language experts.>>

That's very true, IMO. And that's why I go back to the earliest teaching I can find to see what was taught by the people who were closest to the apostles and their immediate disciples.

You should know that the "earliest" teaching on the subject of the Restrainer by those who were "closest to the apostles and their intermediate disciples" - the Early Church Fathers - is their remarkably unanimous testimony that Paul meant the identity of the Restrainer to be none other than the Roman Empire. Protestants from the time of Luther until this day have seen clearly that when the Caesars vacated the throne in Rome, the Antichrist was finally able to arise in the very place that was previously occupied by them.

 

[StanJ]

The following link would be a good study to undertake for those who haven't. Can't say it will help any who have already been deceived by false teaching or a lack of understanding.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/commentaries/revelation/related-topics/who-is-the-restrainer.html

 

[ATP]

2 Tim 4:3-4 NIV For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

 

[Butch5]

2 Tim 4:3-4 NIV For the time will come when people will not put up with sound doctrine. Instead, to suit their own desires, they will gather around them a great number of teachers to say what their itching ears want to hear. 4They will turn their ears away from the truth and turn aside to myths.

I believe that day is here.

 

[ATP]

I believe that day is here.

lol. indeed it is.

 

[Phoneman777]

One thing is for sure, the crowd has never been right. In Eden, Adam chose the philosophy shared by his wife and the serpent. In Noah's day, the crowd drowned. In Lot's day, the crowd burned up with fire and brimstone. In Elijah's day, the crowd worshiped Baal. In Jesus' day, the crowd crucified Him. During the Dark Ages, the crowd persecuted true followers of Christ who refused their blasphemous unBiblical errors. And so it shall be that at the end of time, the crowd will accept the Mark of the Beast and persecute those who refuse, all the while thinking that they are doing God's service.

 

[ATP]

One thing is for sure, the crowd has never been right. In Eden, Adam chose the philosophy shared by his wife and the serpent. In Noah's day, the crowd drowned. In Lot's day, the crowd burned up with fire and brimstone. In Jesus' day, the crowd crucified Him. During the Dark Ages, the crowd persecuted true followers of Christ who refused their blasphemous unBiblical errors. And so it shall be that at the end of time, the crowd will accept the Mark of the Beast and persecute those who refuse, all the while thinking that they are doing God's service.

Did you know also that God is going to use fire and brimstone during the Ez 38-39 war? Pretty wild stuff.

 

[Phoneman777]

One of the greatest tragedies of Scripture is that of the Antediluvians. They all drowned in the Flood and their next conscious thought will be when they awaken to judgment in the Second Resurrection and then be cast into a Lake of Fire and burned up.

 

[JimParker]

You should know that the "earliest" teaching on the subject of the Restrainer by those who were "closest to the apostles and their intermediate disciples" - the Early Church Fathers - is their remarkably unanimous testimony that Paul meant the identity of the Restrainer to be none other than the Roman Empire. Protestants from the time of Luther until this day have seen clearly that when the Caesars vacated the throne in Rome, the Antichrist was finally able to arise in the very place that was previously occupied by them.

<<Protestants from the time of Luther until this day have seen clearly that when the Caesars vacated the throne in Rome, the Antichrist was finally able to arise in the very place that was previously occupied by them.>>

Sure. The pope's the anti-Christ, blah...blah....blah....blah.

Pure crap.

 

[Phoneman777]

<<Protestants from the time of Luther until this day have seen clearly that when the Caesars vacated the throne in Rome, the Antichrist was finally able to arise in the very place that was previously occupied by them.>>

Sure. The pope's the anti-Christ, blah...blah....blah....blah.

Pure crap.

Just thought I'd point out what the "earliest" known teaching for the identity of the Restrainer, is all.

 

[JimParker]

Just thought I'd point out what the "earliest" known teaching for the identity of the Restrainer, is all.

That the Emperor was the restrainer was an accepted view for a long time. When Rome fell to the German tribes, the Emperor in Constantinople was assumed to be the restrainer. When Constantinople fell, the duty fell to the Tzar (Russian for "Caesar"). After the Tzar was assassinated by atheist communists, the spread their anti-Christian Communist dogma around the world bringing about half its population under their atheist, materialist, rule, in the following 50 years by means of bloody revolutions. It would seem that the early church may have had a good handle on who the restrainer was.

Those who, without Biblical sanction, separated themselves from the Church which Jesus had established in order to "re-form" it according to their own, personal tastes, used a wide range of propaganda to convince their uneducated peasants that there was good reason to do so. That the pope was the anti-Christ was one of the propaganda "talking points" of the so-called "re-formers." Many people who are still in that re-formed tradition hold to the tradition of making a point to go out of their way to insult the bishop of Rome by calling him the anti-Christ. (As you have done in a semi-stealthy manner)

 

[logabe]

That's not the purpose of the Great White Throne. After all we've discussed, we're back to square one?

What is the purpose of the G.W.T.?

It is designed just like the earthly courts. It is a Divine Court where judgment is passed down to the
criminal or in this case the sinner. The books are open and the sinner is judged according to the
Divine Law. Depending on his crime or sin determines how long he will stay in jail or in this case the
second death, which is, the Lake of Fire.

The Lake of Fire is designed to purify the sinner while doing his or her sentence that was passed
down by the judge @ the G.W.T. We are experiencing the same thing in the 1st death, but we have
Jesus as our lawyer. The sinner will have Jesus as their lawyer when they accept Jesus @ the G.W.T.
and they will go through their purifying process just as we are doing today.

God will give them the gift of faith, just as he has given us as Christians the gift of faith in this present age,
because we used the faith that God has given us. They will believe when they see Him, but we believe in
Him without seeing Him and we know what Jesus told Thomas. My point is, some ask why would God raise
them back up just to torment them. The answer is, He's not raising them up to torment them, but to purify
them through fiery trials that will be used to change them.

Jesus told the people of Jerusalem that He would have protected them as a mother hen protects her young
ones, but they wouldn't allow Him to change them during His time upon the earth. What does that do? It
causes them to go around and around the wilderness or stay in the second death, until they have paid their
last debt.

What do they lose?

They lose the ability to live in the Tabernacles Age as a king and priest and they will have to await the 2nd
resurrection before they can begin their sanctification process, so they can enter into the Kingdom of God.
They will take the long way around instead of believing God now, which is, much better.

I know this sounds strange to the average Christian, but check it out for yourself. Be a Berean and search
the scriptures daily to see if what you are reading is truth (Acts 17:11). Don't take my word for it, but take the
time to prove me wrong. We're just not taught this Truth of the Kingdom, so when a person is exposed to this,
they immediately think that it is not what they have been taught, so it can't be true.

Tell me... is this good news? Most people I talk to tells me "I hope you are right". Why? Because what Jesus
really done is GOOD NEWS!

What a God! What a Plan!

Logabe

 

[ATP]

The sinner will have Jesus as their lawyer when they accept Jesus @ the G.W.T.

Not biblical logabe. They are already dead, the time of salvation has come and gone brother. Nonbelievers are not granted eternal life after the GWT. There is a reason why they call in the second death. Either you're written in the book of life or not. (Rev 20:12 NIV The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.)

Rev 20:11-15 NIV Then I saw a great white throne and him who was seated on it. The earth and the heavens fled from his presence, and there was no place for them. 12And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books. 13The sea gave up the dead that were in it, and death and Hades gave up the dead that were in them, and each person was judged according to what they had done. 14Then death and Hades were thrown into the lake of fire. The lake of fire is the second death. 15Anyone whose name was not found written in the book of life was thrown into the lake of fire.