"Hell doesn't last forever"..God is merciful

[n2thelight]

The offer to receive eternal life as opposed to suffering everlasting destruction is what the gospel of Christ is all about. We see this plainly expressed in this passage:


2 TIMOTHY 1:10
But [God’s grace] has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”


Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel. What exactly is “the gospel?” The gospel literally means “good news.” Its main message is summed up in the famous passage John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Note, once again, what is clearly being contrasted in both of these passages:

In John 3:16 perishis contrasted with the gift of eternal life; in 2 Timothy 1:10death is contrasted with both immortality and life, which are said to be made available through the gospel. If the eternal torture doctrine were true, these verses would be contrasting eternal life and eternal life being tortured, or immortality and immortality in fiery torment. I realize this sounds absurd, but the Bible would certainly speak in such honest, blatant terms if this teaching were true. Do you seriously think that God would be misleading or ambiguous about such an important issue in his Holy Word?

The reason the Bible doesn’t speak in such ludicrous terms is because this doctrine of eternal conscious torment in not a biblical teaching. The above passage, 2 Timothy 1:10, makes it plain that until Jesus was raised for our justification, the power of death was not destroyed and therefore immortality was not available to us — life was not available to us. This is because we are all sinners (see Romans 3:23 and Ecclesiastes 7:20) and consequently all deserve death, “for the wages of sin is death.” God cannot overlook this because he is perfectly just. One person cannot pay the penalty for another because both are sinful and deserve death. The only way we can escape this imminent death penalty is if a sinless person, who does not deserve death, dies in our place.


So what did God do? Because he so loved the world and didn’t want anyone to perish, he gave his Son as a sin sacrifice in order that we may have the gift of eternal life. The difference between wages and a gift is that wages are earned while a gift is free. Jesus paid the death penalty that we’ve all earned so that we can have the free gift of eternal life. The LORD did this so that we could fellowship with him forever instead of reaping the wages of sin, which is death.

This fact that God Himself wants to have a relationship with us explains why the gospel is also referred to as “the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). ‘Reconciliation’ means to turn from enmity to friendship. The gospel is good news indeed because, not only does it grant eternal life to those who accept it, but, more importantly, it enables us to have a relationship with the Creator of the universe!

Notice what John the Baptist declared would happen to those who reject the gospel:

JOHN 3:36
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”


The passage could not be plainer: those who reject the Son “will not see life.” God’s word is absolute, and this is an absolute statement: Those who reject Jesus Christ will not see any life at all. This includes even a sadistic life in roasting agony for all eternity. Such people will be justly-but-mercifully put to death, absolute death, for this is the wages of their actions. But our loving Creator doesn’t want anyone to perish like this; he has provided a way to eternal life through his Son, Jesus Christ.
Do you see the simple, beautiful, clear message of the gospel here? God is just trying to save his beloved fallen creation, humanity, from the wages of sin. Ezekiel 18:32 reveals the heart of God well on this matter: “ ‘For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘Repent and live!’ ”

 

[kerwin]

What rule is there that you cant change from the 3rd person to the first person? C'mon. That is weak, Kerwin. You cant base your argument on the likelyhood that he would not have changed the speakers perspective. You are going to need something a bit more solid than that.

I stated that Paul would not bother make such a useless change not that it is unlikely.

It is also extraneous to my actual point which is:

...

There is not much evidence to support the case that he is speaking of himself behind possible timing and the fact he is boasting up to the end of 2 Corinthians 11. There is definitely things that disagree including the disagreement between the facts in each event and verse 5.

...

Acts 22:1-11American Standard Version (ASV)

22 Brethren and fathers, hear ye the defence which I now make unto you.

2 And when they heard that he spake unto them in the Hebrew language, they were the more quiet: and he saith,

3 I am a Jew, born in Tarsus of Cilicia, but brought up in this city, at the feet of Gamaliel, instructed according to the strict manner of the law of our fathers, being zealous for God, even as ye all are this day: 4 and I persecuted this Way unto the death, binding and delivering into prisons both men and women. 5 As also the high priest doth bear me witness, and all the estate of the elders: from whom also I received letters unto the brethren, and journeyed to Damascus to bring them also that were there unto Jerusalem in bonds to be punished. 6 And it came to pass, that, as I made my journey, and drew nigh unto Damascus, about noon, suddenly there shone from heaven a great light round about me. 7 And I fell unto the ground, and heard a voice saying unto me, Saul, Saul, why persecutest thou me? 8 And I answered, Who art thou, Lord? And he said unto me, I am Jesus of Nazareth, whom thou persecutest. 9 And they that were with me beheld indeed the light, but they heard not the voice of him that spake to me. 10 And I said, What shall I do, Lord? And the Lord said unto me, Arise, and go into Damascus; and there it shall be told thee of all things which are appointed for thee to do. 11 And when I could not see for the glory of that light, being led by the hand of them that were with me I came into Damascus.

Even if he was snatched up into heaven during this event there is no doubt his body was and yet Paul declared he did not know whether the man that was snatched up was snatched up in body or out of body. Not only is there not one word about being snatched up into Paradise he instead states he fell to the ground and heard a voice.

2 Corinthians 12:5American Standard Version (ASV)

5 On behalf of such a one will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses.

He states that though he will glory on behave of the one that was caught up into but not on his own behalf.

If you inserted him as the man then it is "On behalf of myself will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses." The statement disagrees with itself as either he glories on his behalf or he does not.

No one should reach that claim and yet there is many learned scholars that insist that such nonsense is true.

 

[kerwin]

Obviously you did not read the link.

You choose to believe that the words "On behalf of [myself] will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses" make sense and I chose to see them as an untruth. On the other hand Paul's actual words interpreted correctly are the truth. By the choices we make we live or perish.

 

[Born_Again]

You choose to believe that the words "On behalf of [myself] will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses" make sense and I chose to see them as an untruth. On the other hand Paul's actual words interpreted correctly are the truth. By the choices we make we live or perish.

And that being said, the point of speech ie 1st or 3rd person is everything. You are denying the 3rd person perspective based on you think it is unlikely. I still assert that is weak theology. The whole argument is based on that.

 

[StanJ]

You choose to believe that the words "On behalf of [myself] will I glory: but on mine own behalf I will not glory, save in my weaknesses" make sense and I chose to see them as an untruth. On the other hand Paul's actual words interpreted correctly are the truth. By the choices we make we live or perish.

I choose to believe what the Bible says and I don't assume to make it say what I want it to say. That is the big difference between somebody who knows the English language and somebody who purports to know the English language. The context and grammar is very clear to anybody with a grade school education and English. You've been given scholarly commentary that you refuse to accept and as such this only proves that you are unteachable.

 

[Born_Again]

Lets keep this on topic now or I will close it. Unless you two are done and I can close it now.

Thanks!!!

BA

 

[StanJ]

Lets keep this on topic now or I will close it. Unless you two are done and I can close it now.
Thanks!!!
BA

Oh please do so!

 

[kerwin]

Lets keep this on topic now or I will close it. Unless you two are done and I can close it now.

Thanks!!!

BA

I am done as I am convinced the other point of view is nonsense but Stan chooses to stick to it.

I am not sure about closing it since there are other lines of conversation ongoing.

 

[StanJ]

I am done as I am convinced the other point of view is nonsense but Stan chooses to stick to it.
I am not sure about closing it since there are other lines of conversation ongoing.

What you believe is inconsequential to the truth. That you don't understand English is quite obvious.

 

[kerwin]

And that being said, the point of speech ie 1st or 3rd person is everything. You are denying the 3rd person perspective based on you think it is unlikely. I still assert that is weak theology. The whole argument is based on that.

I choose to believe what the Bible says and I don't assume to make it say what I want it to say. That is the big difference between somebody who knows the English language and somebody who purports to know the English language. The context and grammar is very clear to anybody with a grade school education and English. You've been given scholarly commentary that you refuse to accept and as such this only proves that you are unteachable.

I did make an error and that is to pick one point of view out of an area of contention. There is controversy about what Scriptural event in Paul's life is linked to his being caught up into heaven. There should no controversy as there is no evidence to link it to any of them and thus it is speculation. Sorry about my error.

 

[Phoneman777]

It doesn't seem to enter your thinking that when I say that 'my battery died' that it was not annihilated. This week, the oven in our kitchen died. It will not work but it has not ceased to exist. It continues as an oven but is in a state of wretched existence, so much so that my wife bought a new one yesterday and it will be installed by an electrician tomorrow.

Annihilationism is a cheap way out of avoiding exegesis of the Greek text. We know that annihilation is not a biblical doctrine. When we check the context of 2 Thess. 1:7-9 (ESV), it tells us:

• unbelievers will be repaid with affliction;
• In this affliction, God is inflicting vengeance;
• This vengeance is called ‘eternal destruction’;
• And it means being ‘away from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of his might’.

Oz

Sorry to hear about your appliance troubles. Hope you get it fixed on the cheap.
That said, it's really a silly analogy. Is an oven that can't execute all the necessary operations of an oven really an oven or just a pile of useless, dead refuse?

Here's a BETTER analogy, but one which agrees with my point of view:


Bulb + Electric Current = Light

Bulb - Electric Current = Darkness (non-existent Light, not Light that continues to exist on another plane or dimension)

 

[Phoneman777]

The offer to receive eternal life as opposed to suffering everlasting destruction is what the gospel of Christ is all about. We see this plainly expressed in this passage:

Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel. What exactly is “the gospel?” The gospel literally means “good news.” Its main message is summed up in the famous passage John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Note, once again, what is clearly being contrasted in both of these passages:
2 TIMOTHY 1:10
But [God’s grace] has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”


In John 3:16 perishis contrasted with the gift of eternal life; in 2 Timothy 1:10death is contrasted with both immortality and life, which are said to be made available through the gospel. If the eternal torture doctrine were true, these verses would be contrasting eternal life and eternal life being tortured, or immortality and immortality in fiery torment. I realize this sounds absurd, but the Bible would certainly speak in such honest, blatant terms if this teaching were true. Do you seriously think that God would be misleading or ambiguous about such an important issue in his Holy Word?

The reason the Bible doesn’t speak in such ludicrous terms is because this doctrine of eternal conscious torment in not a biblical teaching. The above passage, 2 Timothy 1:10, makes it plain that until Jesus was raised for our justification, the power of death was not destroyed and therefore immortality was not available to us — life was not available to us. This is because we are all sinners (see Romans 3:23 and Ecclesiastes 7:20) and consequently all deserve death, “for the wages of sin is death.” God cannot overlook this because he is perfectly just. One person cannot pay the penalty for another because both are sinful and deserve death. The only way we can escape this imminent death penalty is if a sinless person, who does not deserve death, dies in our place.


So what did God do? Because he so loved the world and didn’t want anyone to perish, he gave his Son as a sin sacrifice in order that we may have the gift of eternal life. The difference between wages and a gift is that wages are earned while a gift is free. Jesus paid the death penalty that we’ve all earned so that we can have the free gift of eternal life. The LORD did this so that we could fellowship with him forever instead of reaping the wages of sin, which is death.

This fact that God Himself wants to have a relationship with us explains why the gospel is also referred to as “the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). ‘Reconciliation’ means to turn from enmity to friendship. The gospel is good news indeed because, not only does it grant eternal life to those who accept it, but, more importantly, it enables us to have a relationship with the Creator of the universe!

Notice what John the Baptist declared would happen to those who reject the gospel:
The passage could not be plainer: those who reject the Son “will not see life.” God’s word is absolute, and this is an absolute statement: Those who reject Jesus Christ will not see any life at all. This includes even a sadistic life in roasting agony for all eternity. Such people will be justly-but-mercifully put to death, absolute death, for this is the wages of their actions. But our loving Creator doesn’t want anyone to perish like this; he has provided a way to eternal life through his Son, Jesus Christ.
JOHN 3:36
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Do you see the simple, beautiful, clear message of the gospel here? God is just trying to save his beloved fallen creation, humanity, from the wages of sin. Ezekiel 18:32 reveals the heart of God well on this matter: “ ‘For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘Repent and live!’ ”

Well said. Why do others insist on investing our Wonderful Savior God with attributes of a sadistic, tyrannical, psychopath - such attributes that best describe the devil, and why do they not see that it is the DEVIL who is ultimately behind this campaign to invest Him with such?

 

[junobet]

What you believe is inconsequential to the truth. That you don't understand English is quite obvious.

Stan, I know it can be hard, but I’m sure you are capable of accepting that another poster does not share your firm convictions about what the Bible says without throwing insult at his intellect or language skills.

 

[n2thelight]

Deleted by me

 

[junobet]

You seem to forget that I cited a NT Greek distinguished exegete, R C H Lenski, who confirmed what "αἰῶνας αἰώνων" (aiwnas aiwnwn = aeons of aeons) means. You seem to have forgotten that he stated it was :

Of course eon won't mean eternity to you because you don't want 'eternal punishment' to mean God punishing unbelievers in hell (Gehenna) forever and ever.

Oz

Oz,
My point was that there are very many “NT Greek distinguished exegetes“ who don’t agree with you and R C H Lenski and that - for all you and I know - one side may be as prone to eisegesis as the other.
I tried to explain at great length why I don’t think the translation of “"αἰῶνας αἰώνων” makes much of a difference to my arguments against the necessity of hell being full to the brim.
One thing I think all scholars agree upon is how to translate “πᾶς, πᾶσα, πᾶν“, which - for example - is repeatedly used in 2.Cor. 15:20-28. If there is a single Greek text in which this word is used in another sense but “all”/”everything” please point me to it. So what do you make of verses like “22 For as in Adam all die, so also in the Messiah will all be made alive.”? or “28 But when everything has been put under him, then the Son himself will also become subject to the one who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all”?

 

[junobet]

The offer to receive eternal life as opposed to suffering everlasting destruction is what the gospel of Christ is all about. We see this plainly expressed in this passage:

Notice that life and immortality are only available through the gospel. What exactly is “the gospel?” The gospel literally means “good news.” Its main message is summed up in the famous passage John 3:16: “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” Note, once again, what is clearly being contrasted in both of these passages:
2 TIMOTHY 1:10
But [God’s grace] has now been revealed through the appearing of our Savior, Christ Jesus, who has destroyed death and has brought life and immortality to light through the gospel.”


In John 3:16 perishis contrasted with the gift of eternal life; in 2 Timothy 1:10death is contrasted with both immortality and life, which are said to be made available through the gospel. If the eternal torture doctrine were true, these verses would be contrasting eternal life and eternal life being tortured, or immortality and immortality in fiery torment. I realize this sounds absurd, but the Bible would certainly speak in such honest, blatant terms if this teaching were true. Do you seriously think that God would be misleading or ambiguous about such an important issue in his Holy Word?

The reason the Bible doesn’t speak in such ludicrous terms is because this doctrine of eternal conscious torment in not a biblical teaching. The above passage, 2 Timothy 1:10, makes it plain that until Jesus was raised for our justification, the power of death was not destroyed and therefore immortality was not available to us — life was not available to us. This is because we are all sinners (see Romans 3:23 and Ecclesiastes 7:20) and consequently all deserve death, “for the wages of sin is death.” God cannot overlook this because he is perfectly just. One person cannot pay the penalty for another because both are sinful and deserve death. The only way we can escape this imminent death penalty is if a sinless person, who does not deserve death, dies in our place.


So what did God do? Because he so loved the world and didn’t want anyone to perish, he gave his Son as a sin sacrifice in order that we may have the gift of eternal life. The difference between wages and a gift is that wages are earned while a gift is free. Jesus paid the death penalty that we’ve all earned so that we can have the free gift of eternal life. The LORD did this so that we could fellowship with him forever instead of reaping the wages of sin, which is death.

This fact that God Himself wants to have a relationship with us explains why the gospel is also referred to as “the message of reconciliation” (2 Corinthians 5:17-21). ‘Reconciliation’ means to turn from enmity to friendship. The gospel is good news indeed because, not only does it grant eternal life to those who accept it, but, more importantly, it enables us to have a relationship with the Creator of the universe!

Notice what John the Baptist declared would happen to those who reject the gospel:
The passage could not be plainer: those who reject the Son “will not see life.” God’s word is absolute, and this is an absolute statement: Those who reject Jesus Christ will not see any life at all. This includes even a sadistic life in roasting agony for all eternity. Such people will be justly-but-mercifully put to death, absolute death, for this is the wages of their actions. But our loving Creator doesn’t want anyone to perish like this; he has provided a way to eternal life through his Son, Jesus Christ.
JOHN 3:36
“Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life, but whoever rejects the Son will not see life, for God’s wrath remains on him.”

Do you see the simple, beautiful, clear message of the gospel here? God is just trying to save his beloved fallen creation, humanity, from the wages of sin. Ezekiel 18:32 reveals the heart of God well on this matter: “ ‘For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone,’ declares the Sovereign LORD, ‘Repent and live!’ ”

Well, you seem to suggest we can reject salvation against God’s will to save us.

Coming from a Lutheran background myself I may be biased in this one, but I think Luther was very much spot on here:

“The Scriptures are like several armies opposed to the idea that man has a “free will” to choose and receive salvation.” (Martin Luther: On the Bondage of the Will; http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913/7643/2893/botw.pdf)

I don’t believe our salvation rests in the hands of our free will. Both from my study of the Bible and my own experience of what it feels like to receive faith, I'd say it’s not us who decide whether we have faith or not. Nor is it us who decide whether we are saved or not. We can’t denigrate God to the mere executioner of our will and human decisions. The allmighty and sovereign God, none of whose purposes can be thwarted (comp.: Job 42:2), can just make us an offer we cannot ultimately refuse.

 

[n2thelight]

Well, you seem to suggest we can reject salvation against God’s will to save us.

Coming from a Lutheran background myself I may be biased in this one, but I think Luther was very much spot on here:

“The Scriptures are like several armies opposed to the idea that man has a “free will” to choose and receive salvation.” (Martin Luther: On the Bondage of the Will; http://www.chapellibrary.org/files/4913/7643/2893/botw.pdf)

I don’t believe our salvation rests in the hands of our free will. Both from my study of the Bible and my own experience of what it feels like to receive faith, I'd say it’s not us who decide whether we have faith or not. Nor is it us who decide whether we are saved or not. We can’t denigrate God to the mere executioner of our will and human decisions. The allmighty and sovereign God, none of whose purposes can be thwarted (comp.: Job 42:2), can just make us an offer we cannot ultimately refuse.

Unless you are one of the elect,it's your choice to choose life(Christ)or death(satan)...

If not us,then who and time here is a waste of time,not to mention cruel...

I say that from the point of view that God dosnt know who we will choose....

 

[StanJ]

Stan, I know it can be hard, but I’m sure you are capable of accepting that another poster does not share your firm convictions about what the Bible says without throwing insult at his intellect or language skills.

It's not an insult, it's the truth, it's exactly what the issue is with this member. There really is no other logical explanation.

 

[StanJ]

I did make an error and that is to pick one point of view out of an area of contention. There is controversy about what Scriptural event in Paul's life is linked to his being caught up into heaven. There should no controversy as there is no evidence to link it to any of them and thus it is speculation. Sorry about my error.

Yes we know you made an error but that was not the only error you made. To Paul the issue was so real that he didn't really know, but with the clarity of the entire New Testament at our disposal we can see that it was indeed a vision/revelation, just as John had on the Isle of Patmos. There is no controversy other than what you yourself brought in.

 

[StanJ]

I say that from the point of view that God dosnt know who we will choose....

Actually he does, and if you read Romans 8:29, you'll see that.
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters.