4 Truths About Hell

“There is one very serious defect to my mind in Christ’s moral character, and that is that He believed in hell.” So wrote the agnostic British philosopher Bertrand Russell in 1967. The idea of eternal punishment for sin, he further notes, is “a doctrine that put cruelty in the world and gave the world generations of cruel torture.”

His views are at least more consistent than religious philosopher John Hick, who refers to hell as a “grim fantasy” that is not only “morally revolting” but also “a serious perversion of the Christian Gospel.” Worse yet was theologian Clark Pinnock who, despite having regarded himself as an evangelical, dismissed hell with a rhetorical question: “How can one imagine for a moment that the God who gave His Son to die for sinners because of His great love for them would install a torture chamber somewhere in the new creation in order to subject those who reject Him to everlasting pain?”

So, what should we think of hell? Is the idea of it really responsible for all the cruelty and torture in the world? Is the doctrine of hell incompatible with the way of Jesus Christ? Hardly. In fact, the most prolific teacher of hell in the Bible is Jesus, and He spoke more about it than He did about heaven. In Matthew 25:41–46 He teaches us four truths about hell that should cause us to grieve over the prospect of anyone experiencing its horrors.

On the day of judgment, Jesus will say to all unbelievers, “Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire” (v. 41). This is the same sort of language that Jesus uses elsewhere to describe the final judgment of unbelievers (see 7:23).

To be separated from God is to be separated from anything and everything good. That is hard to conceive because even the most miserable person enjoys some of God’s blessings. We breathe His air, are nourished by food that He supplies, and experience many other aspects of His common grace.

On earth even atheists enjoy the benefits of God’s goodness. But in hell, these blessings will be nonexistent. Those consigned there will remember God’s goodness, and will even have some awareness of the unending pleasures of heaven, but they will have no access to them.

This does not mean that God will be completely absent from hell. He is and will remain omnipresent (Ps. 139:7-8). To be separated from the Lord and cast into hell does not mean that a person will finally be free of God. That person will remain eternally accountable to Him. He will remain Lord over the person’s existence. But in hell, a person will be forever separated from God in His kindness, mercy, grace, and goodness. He will be consigned to deal with Him in His holy wrath.

Jesus says that the eternal fire of hell was “prepared for the devil and his angels” (Matt. 25:41). People were made for God. Hell was made for the Devil. Yet people who die in their sin, without Jesus Christ as Lord and Savior, will spend eternity in hell with the one being who is most unlike God. It is a tragic irony that many who do not believe in the Devil in this life will wind up spending eternity being tormented with him in hell.

Jesus describes it as “fire” (v. 41) and a place of “punishment” (v. 46). Hell is a place of retribution where justice is served through the payment for crimes.

The punishment must fit the crime. The misery and torment of hell point to the wickedness and seriousness of sin. Those who protest the biblical doctrine of hell as being excessive betray their inadequate comprehension of the sinfulness of sin. For sinners to be consigned to anything less than the horrors of eternal punishment would be a miscarriage of justice.

Though some would like to shorten the duration of this state, Jesus’ words are very clear. He uses the same adjective to describe both punishment and life in verse 46. If hell is not eternal, neither is the new heaven and earth.

How can God exact infinite punishment for a finite sin? First, because the person against whom all sin is committed is infinite. Crimes against the infinitely holy, infinitely kind, infinitely good, and infinitely supreme Ruler of the world deserve unending punishment. In addition to that, those condemned to hell will go on sinning for eternity. There is no repentance in hell. So the punishment will continue as long as the sinning does.

The dreadfulness of hell deepens our grateful praise for the salvation we have in Jesus Christ. Hell is what we deserve. And hell is what He experienced on the cross in our place.

Believing the truth about hell also motivates us to persuade people to be reconciled to God. By God’s grace those of us who are trusting Christ have been rescued from this horrible destiny. How can we love people and refuse to speak plainly to them about the realities of eternal damnation and God’s gracious provision of salvation?

[[I do not believe Jesus spoke absurdities that have no basis in reality and that would be contrary to sound doctrine. ]]

So what are you saying? That the passage is talking about a real event? Because everything we know about God’s word show that it oculd not have been a real event- Or are you perhaps suggesting this parable shouldn’t have been included in God’s word?

[[your answer studiously avoids the question as to why Jesus would utter an oxymoronic analogy using things that supposedly do not exist]]

I did not avoid that- I answered why He did such a thing- I also pointed out many reasons why the parable can not be true event-

A parable is nothing ore than an analogy meant to point out a principle- there is no ‘law’ or ‘rule’ that states analogies have to be true or realistic in order to get a principle across

When Jesus said “Destroy this temple and it will be raised back in 3 days’ Was He not ‘telling a whopper’ as you contend? Jesus isn’t a literal temple- nor is He a literal fig tree- it is every bit as ‘absurd’ as you put it to compare Himself to inadamant objects as it is to tell a parable about events that couldn’t happen in order to drive home the point that Greed and uncaring attitudes will take a man to hell because greed and uncaring attitudes become their god and harden their hearts to the point that nothing else matters-

[[Sometimes in the Bible it is obvious when a parable is a parable, and when real events are real events. Sometimes the reader can easily distinguish between things to be taken literally and things to be taken figuratively.

Even Jesus’ own disciples were often confused by his figurative speech and parables. For example on another occasion he told his disciples to “be on your guard against the yeast of the Pharisees and the Sadducees” and they misunderstood, thinking that he was reproaching them for having forgotten to buy bread. ]]

http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_lazarus.htm

(Note I do not agree with this site’s idea of ‘soul sleep’, I give several other reasons why this must be a parable which have nothing to do with ‘soul sleep’ in a previous post-

“This is why I speak to them in parables: ‘Though seeing they do not see, though hearing they do not understand’” (Matthew 13:13)

“Although I have been speaking figuratively, a time is coming when I will no longer use this kind of language but will tell you plainly”. (John16:25)

And just for the record- Jesus was very possibly prophesying about Raising Lazarus from the dead in this parable as well according to some-

[[Another source showing what Jews of Jesus’ day believed is a book called 4 Maccabees, which was probably written by Jews in Egypt about a generation after Christ. In this work of fiction Abraham, Isaac and Jacob receive and welcome Jewish martyrs into the world of the dead:

“After our death in this fashion Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob will receive us and all our forefathers will praise us” (4 Maccabees 13:17). ]]

This parable was to Jews- who would have understood Jesus was using a common cultural superstition in His Parable- something THEY could understand, but something that was not biblical-

This is an important point- Many things in God’s word are misinterpreted because the reader does NOT understand the cultures of the day, nor do they realize that Jesus’ miracles and parables were VERY Steeped in Jewish tradition- and the reason for this was 1: Because Jews were God’s people, and 2: Because After hearing AND Seeing Jesus’ VERY specific miracles, steeped in Jewish Tradition and lore, could NOT turn around and claim they ‘didn’t know He was the Christ’ Because Jesus was fulfilling ALL the Jewish prophesies to the letter-

The Pharisees taught the unbiblical concept that when people died they went to either Abraham’s boson, or to fiery hell-

Jesus’ parable was spoken TO these same Pharisees- using their own words against them and pointing out in stark undeniable terms to them that the law DOES NOT SAVE as evidenced by the rich man in hell

Note, that Jesus was NOT accommodating their myths- He was tearing their Myths apart- pointing out to them that everything they taught was NOT biblical

They taught that the ‘great gulf’ could be crossed in an agnelic boat- Jesus showed by His parable that this was a lie

They taught that the living could pray for those in hades so that the Lord would have mercy- Jesus put the LIE to this teaching in His parable

[[Another contradiction is that in other Jewish myths Abraham is credited with the ability to do what the Rich Man asks (v.27) and resurrect the dead. For example in the 1st Century Jewish fiction The Testament of Abraham the patriarch Abraham pleads for the dead and returns 7,000 to the living.

“Then Abraham arose and fell upon the earth, and [the Angel of] Death with him, and God sent a spirit of life into the dead and they were made alive again.” (Testament of Abraham ‘A’ 18:11).

But Jesus again contradicts the myths, and has Abraham refusing to raise Lazarus:

“They have Moses and the Prophets, let them listen to them” (v.29)

This reflects Jesus’ own condemnation of the Pharisees in John 5:39. ]]

(Same link)

Can man speak from hell to those in heaven? The bible says no I believe-

[[The source for the unusual Hades in Luke 16:23, as with the source for the ‘Bosom of Abraham’ itself, lies outside the Bible in the myths of the 1st Century. Many Jewish myths survive today (eg. in the Apocrypha, Pseudepigrapha, Dead Sea Scrolls, Talmud, etc.). In these works a variety of fantastic pictures of Hades are given that have no connection with the Old Testament. One of the closest to the picture given in Luke 16:23-24 is in a work called The Apocalypse of Zephaniah. ]]

[[and that would be contrary to sound doctrine.]]

As mentioned, there was a reason for this parable- and that reason was to put the LIE to the false teachings of the Pharisees- This parable was VERY Jewish oriented- and not meant specifically for non jews (except to show that greed and uncaring attitudes are bad when you do not have the Lord as Savior- Your works will NOT get you to heaven)

Sorry- but bodies have NOT been resurrected yet- for EITHER side- Yet this man had eyes, tongue, lips- hmmm-

Sorry, this means that for the first and only time, the Lord was teaching science fiction, of a soul being dead yet having a body. Annihilationists have the same problem. as you, but like it or not, this cannot be a parable for the reasons i gave .

I don’t know that that thread states as your posts are so long I’ll not have tiem to read it however- the proof that this IS a parable are many

Then since you will not look at what refutes you then i must supply it again (edited), written for annihilationists but applicable to you.

The Lord did not always teach in parables, contrary to assertions of some, for (1.) in His 46 parables in no place did the Lord name real persons, as He does here with Abraham and Lazarus, while mercifully excluding the name of the 3rd individual.

In addition, parables used known physical realities (pearl, etc,) as corresponding to spiritual realities (the kingdom of God, etc.). But if the Lord was speaking in a parable about a man who died and was in torments, then for the first and only time He would be using science fiction, for according to annihilationists there is no postmortem ongoing conscious torment. While for you God cannot be allowed to provide some sort of existence in a mode with equivalents to a physical body for sensory purposes, distinct from the resurrected one.

Annihilationists and other anti-literalists try to force this account as speaking of Lazarus as representing the Gentiles, and the rich man as being the Jews, but besides Luke rarely mentioning Jews (not simply the Pharisees) like John does, being in torments commencing at death hardly represents annihilation or anything every Jew realizes at death apart from Christ unless this account is literal.

In addition, Abraham's Bosom was just a taste of Heaven, since the blood of animals could not take away sin, and the way into the holy of holies in Heaven was not yet provided. Thus Scripture speaks of Christ that after His death descending into the lower parts and leading captivity captive, and gave gifts unto men, so the.elect who died before went to be with Him in paradise, the third heaven, after His death, thus OT saints appeared to many after His resurrection.

The Bodies of dead people are in their graVEs, NOT in some 1/2 way place of punishment (Job 17:13; John 5:28, 29). As Noted before, the rich man in the PARABLE was begging for water to be put on his tongue and lips.

Job 17:13 refers to all, but unless soul sleep is true, then there is a spiritual aspect to sheol-hades, which the NT reveals. John 5:28, 29 refers to the two resurrections, and while the elect are now with the Lord and will see the resurrection of their bodies, there is no conflict with Lk. 16 for it is not teaching that the rich man was in his physical body that He had on earth, but speaks of some sort of existence in which the entity had equivalents to his earthly body with it sensory aspects.

The parable is about Abraham’s bossom, not heaven (Hebrews 11:8-10, 16)

That is true, as said above. Yet consistent with your rejection of this Lk account as literal due to a perceived conflict, others reject souls being conscious after death due to perceived conflict with texts which say that the dead know nothing, etc.

Dead People are forbidden from speaking to either the l living or Those in Heaven (Isaiah 65: 17)

That God will "create new heavens and a new earth: and the former shall not be remembered, nor come into mind," (Isaiah 65:17) does not speak to that, but perhaps you can make it to.

And while those on earth who consult the dead are cursed, (Deuteronomy 18:10-12) this neither excludes speaking with the departed in transfiguration of Matthew 17:1-8, nor does it not apply to those in the afterlife, as lost will face the saints in the final judgment. (1 Co. 6:2; Jude 1:15)

Moreover, if Lk. 16:19ff is a parable, then you still have the Lord teaching something that does not exist, unlike in parables in which a known physical reality represents a spiritual one.

Saved people get rewards at Chrsit’s second coming , not before (Revelation 22:11, 12)

And how can you imagine that this contradicts what I said? Or do believe in soul sleep? For Lazarus and OT saints being comforted in Abraham' bosom is no more that of being rewarded at the judgment seat of Christ than saints now going to be with the Lord at death is.

Revelation 22:12 refers to the Lord returning and giving specific rewards to His own, "the time of the dead, that they should be judged, and that thou shouldest give reward unto thy servants the prophets, and to the saints, and them that fear thy name, small and great; and shouldest destroy them which destroy the earth. (Revelation 11:18)

But the God-given faith of all believers is rewarded under grace with being with the Lord at death or His return, [cf. 2Cor. 12:4; Rv. 2:7]; Phil 1:23; 2Cor. 5:8 [“we”]; Heb, 12:22,23; 1Cor. 15:51ff'; 1Thess. 4:17) which actual presence OT saints awaited the Lord's resurrection for, (Heb. 9:8; 10:4,19; Eph. 4:8-10; Mt. 27:5) but were comforted in the intern. (Lk. 16:19-31; Heb. 12:)

•Unsaved people are punished AFTER judgement, not before (Matthew 13:40-42).

That is as erroneous as saying the saved are not blessed with being in the Lord's presence until His return. Like texts which speak of the given of specific rewards then, so also texts speak of the lost being sentenced at the final judgment, while other texts speak of believers being with the Lord at death (above), and the lost as being in Hell, from which they are cast into the lake of fire after being specifically arraigned and sentenced for their sins. (Rv. 20:13) In Lk. 16 the Lord is revealing that like as the elect are blessed with being with the Lord at death, so the lost are cursed with being in torment, yet neither have been judged for their rewards.

The parable was nothing more than an allegorical story about God NOT favoring anyone- we all get what we deserve-

Allegorical? Speaking of a non-existent place and experience which represents a spiritual reality? Try to find where the Lord ever did that. Set phasers on stun.

Note also that the man ‘prays to Abraham- calling him ‘father abraham’ - He STILL does not acknowledge GOD as Father Even in sheol-

You are getting desperate. Even Abraham does not mention God as being his father or the one who put them there. What a rebel! Instead, the narrative is simply restricted to the persons present.

This PARABLE was very Jewish in nature- because ‘pious Jews’ of that age, to Whom Jesus was speaking- though God was particularly fond of them because they were so wealthy

Besides the science fiction, this is simply conjecture, while unlike in parables) like the good Samaritan) and other accounts meant to reprove proud complacent Jews, there is nothing said or inferred abut the racial identity of the rich man, except what you see. But the Jews were not the only ones who were rich, and in Luke the Lord targets the love of riches by the rich in general for reproof (Lk 6:24; 12:16-21.)

That is what this PARABLE is about- bot about a man going to hell with a body (when no one else does) and ‘becoming humbled and contrite’ As you claim it is about-

And accordingly then this is about a man in a place that nowhere exists and experiencing at death something that no one has, in contrast with named people in a place that never existed, and which represents something that does exist. Try to find that in any parable.

ALSO- in this PARABLE- Abraham ACCEPTED Reverence that ONLY God is due- in this PARABLE, He ACCEPTED being called the name of God- Father-

That is more desperation. Abraham called him "son" thus you must attack him as well, but though you know it not, Scripture affirms Abraham, Isaac, and of Israel as being ontologically called "fathers" (1Chrn. 29:18) and the Lord did so Himself of Abraham (Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day.. - Jn. 8:56), but not as equating to being one in faith. In that sense (not Lk. 16) Paul himself calls himself a father of sons many times, (1Co., 4:15; Gal. 4:19; Phil. 2:22; 1Tim. 1:2; 2Tim. 1:2; Titus 1:4; Philemon 1:10)

[[Which refutes what i said how??? The fact that something prevents escape to Abraham;s bosom indicates a desire to do so,]]

Oh really? Then people in heaven will have the desire to escape heaven and go to hell?

In compassion, or perhaps vengeance, as a two way trip. Which is reasonable. Note also that souls in Heaven will cry out to God as to when their blood shall be avenged. (Rv. 6:10) But if something does not conform to your predetermined conclusion, then instead of going where the truth leads then you must come up with things like the rich man being a irreverent rebellious dictator.

I’m not playing ping pong with you- it is not I ignoring anything- it is you- You want to talk about reasoning? Then please explain for everyone how there can be any good in a Godless place such as hell as you have claimed-

It is you who has a lot of explaining to do. Among other things, you have the Lord teaching science fiction, and asserting souls in Hell cannot have any positive affections or sentiments, all without any proof. Yet the rich man in Hell pleaded others be warned lest they also come into this "place of torment," which would only add to his torment since he cannot warn them.

It seems that your idea of the depravity of man prevents the lost from even having natural affections on earth, but which is not the case, but instead all fall short and none do good in the in justificatory b the loss of which can be part of stages of moral degeneration. the

[[You just invalidated the Lord’s many attempts motivate souls to want to chose their eternity by warning of torment, and which means that that those who were saved by fear are invalidated.]]

You’re not even making sense any longer- My statement did no such thing-

So you only say, but your argument was that the rich man was evil because "he selfishly wanted God to suspend his punishment for some relief," yet the desire to avoid torment is sensible, vs sadism, and to which basic interest the Lord appealed to, which is a start.

gnashing of teeth is most commonly used to describe extreme anger, rage and cursing

It doesn’t show any oen thing-

You mean "There shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth, when ye shall see Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, and all the prophets, in the kingdom of God, and you yourselves thrust out" (Luke 13:28) does not show what i said?

How something is most often used simply does not mean that is how it is always used, and as shown and you admitted, gnashing of teeth is associated with the realization of what they missed out on in. Why is that so hard to admit?

And since we KNOW Hell is devoid of love, and that there will no longer be ANY restrainer to restrain the hate that man naturally has for God, we KNOW people will be furious in hell

So since your premise is false then so is your conclusion. Where or where does the Bible says there is no manner of love in Hell? So that one cannot be tormented by knowing that loved ones are coming there, and (likely) that is partly your fault, which would add to your torment? Or that souls are raging in anger against God? Where? Reiterating your conception of Hell will not make it true. Having affection for past loved ones does not requires regeneration and is not opposed to torment.

[[Which, along with the rich man’s plea for the repentance of his brethren. refuted your assertion that there nothing “about repentance or wanting to cross into Heaven.” ]]

Nor sir it WOULDN’T even IF the story were real, which it isn’t- The man in torment is NOT thinking aobut hteir salvation, nor about wanting to cross into heaven himself- He is simply thinking only about himself as will be evidenced by Gill’s biblical commentary..from a selfish principle, lest his own torments should be aggravated by their coming

What? You invoke the interpretation of Gill as evidence? The only evidence here is that of a conclusion unwarranted by the texts, but driven by the same unbalanced view of the lost. Lazarus does not plead to send Lazarus to his brethren (or the tribes of Israel) lest they bother him in Hell, but to his "five brethren; that he may testify unto them, lest they also come into this place of torment." And even hopes that if " one went unto them from the dead, they will repent." A man in torments pleading to prevent others from coming to the same, by affecting repentance, conveys care for their souls, not some desire to avoid torment from them. No matter what Gill says and which you consider to be "evidence." Placing such weight on men is like Catholicism

You keep claiming they are ‘humbled’ and ‘contrite’ yet we see no evidence of any such attitudes-

Actually, i only mentioned contrite once, but of course you do not see a man pleading for even one drop of water in his torments, and seeking to warn others of coming to the same as as being humbled or in any way sorrowful for his errors, for despite what is said a wrong view of depravity doctrinally compels construing the damned soul as being a selfish irrelevant dictator walking in continued disobedience.

Man has NO desire to be with God- God is the One that MUST draw such a man- A man in hell has absolutely NO influence by God to draw close to God- Ever! The man in Hell is there in hell because He hates God and because He IGNORED the call of God while on earth

Having a humbled heart and affirming the need for repentance and desiring relief is not the same as desiring God. Nor is cutting off your hand to save yourself from Hell. But the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, and many a soul comes to Christ out of fear of torment in reverence for God's power, to which God appeals, from which they progress.

The rich man in Hell evidenced a humbled heart and affirmed the necessity of repentance, which itself is necessary for salvation, but salvific seeking of God repentant faith is only promised to souls this life.

[[And unregenerate souls even have light of the true God, and thus by nature can do things contained in the law, (Rm. 2:14)]]

They have the holy spirit prompting them to accept God, AND restraining them from pure evil- When the restrainer is taken away in this life, all hell literally will break loose in those who are unsaved- Millions will willingly flock to the beast who previously would not have when the restrainer was around-

Which both presumes that the raging rebellion seen on earth will be seen in Hell, but for which there is zero testimony, and only what is contrary to that in Lk. 16.

[[Besides your premise unleashed and unrestrained sin nature and rage against God being conjecture which is nowhere said, and only the opposite is said,]]

No the oppositie isn’t said- The bible states just what I said- that the restrainer is the only reason people even think of looking to God because He compels them to

It is the extrapolated conclusion that is not supported. For man needing to be drawn by God nor what will occur in the end times simply does not translate into an unleashed and unrestrained sin nature raging against God in Hell. Scripture shows that souls cannot come to Christ unless drawn by God, who opens hearts and grants repentant faith, but that the lost can know God in some sense, (Rm. 1:21) and can resist sin, (Gn. 4:7) and be convicted of what is wrong, (Ex. 9:7) and not be saved. And souls will be convinced of their unGodly deeds and speeches at the final judgment, which indicated the convicting work of the Spirit, but which does not translate into repentant faith.

Right now, Godo and evil coexist- when God gets done after judgment, Good will be separated from evil- In heaven there will be NO evil, in Hell there will be NO good- God will not be there, nor the Holy spirit- and there will be NO reason why a man in the full bloom of Godlessness will desire to cross into heaven as you suggest-

There will be no good experiences in Hell, or the lake of fire, but that a lost soul now or in hell cannot be humbled, and have natural affections and be convinced of their sin is simply not what is taught. And if you want to make Lk.16:19-31 into a parable then it remains that you have the Lord teaching a place and experience that nowhere exists, unlike His stories which always use real and known physical realities which represent spiritual ones.

Whether this subject warrants much more time (takes me hours to type with stiff fingers) is doubtful. That we agree man is a damned and destitute sinner who can only be saved from torment in eternal Hell fire by faith in the Divine Son of God, the risen Lord Jesus, by His sinless shed blood, is what matters most.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.