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?

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

Really? Since the Lord only used real and known physical realities in parables to represent spiritual realities, then it is apparent that He held that analogies have to use them, not science fiction, for which you have zero precedent.

And if that which represents spiritual realities is fiction, then why believe the spiritual one is real?

When Jesus said “Destroy this temple and it will be raised back in 3 days’ Was He not ‘telling a whopper’ as you contend?

Not at all, as here again the Lord was using a known physical realities in parables to represent a spiritual realities. Why you could see the fallacy of your argument is the question.

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 ...

True, but only as to what the physical reality represented, not because He presented something that did not exist at all. If the Lord said, beware of the leaven of the Romulans, then that would be analogous to the Lord speaking of a postmortem man conscious and in torments when such did not exist.

http://www.christadelphia.org/pamphlet/p_lazarus.htm (Note I do not agree with this site’s idea of ‘soul sleep’,

Close enough. You just deny the rich man suffering postmortem torment because their bodies are in the grave, like they do, and have the Lord teaching science fiction in order to teach a spiritual reality. Sound just like what a cult would teach.

[[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:

And Jude quoted a true part of the book of Enoch, showing that coming from a source that is not wholly inspired does not make it fiction. Paul even quote a pagan prophet.

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-

Nonsense. The sinless Christ would never teach of a place and experience that nowhere existed, esp. as serious as the afterlife, and to use such a fairy tale as representing a spiritual reality impugns the credibility of the latter!

The rest of your attempt to rationalize this is also pathetic

Jesus’ parable was spoken TO these same Pharisees- u

And to His disciples. (Lk. 16:1, 17:1)

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

That is absurd. If that was the case then the Lord would have taught something like that the rich man simply was buried and was tormented, or (if you disallow that) how he later faced the final judgment, But instead, what your examples show is that the Lord corrected false aspects by providing the correct reality, of a man who died but was in torments, in contrast with the elect...

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

Consider the lunacy: Jesus is correcting myths by teaching a modified myth! Are you for real?!

It is not surprising that you invoke a cult.

This exchange is best to be over. May God have mercy on you.

I find it VERY odd that you assert that God ‘could do’ such and such IF He wanted to- but then turn around and make it impossible for Christ to use a myth that was very common in his day and which was used by the very people He was talking to to make a very potent point>? Whatever!

Wrong, as in my case i am only showing how what the Lord taught could easily take place, which would providing additional revelation, which He and Scripture often did, while in your case you have Christ teaching science fiction, which He NEVER did in any of His 45 parables.

And you accuse me of reading into passages? Wow!

Postulating how one could have eyes and a tongue to see and hear since the Lord said he did, is a perfectly reasonable theory, in contrast to asserting the rich man was a a selfish proud irreverent dictator walking in continued disobedience, because he pleaded for just one drop of water, and for his brethren to be brought to repentance and saved from the same torment he was in, and call Abraham "father." Talk about compelled absurdity!

[[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. ]]

Nah- I’ll let Your making it say the dead can speak to those in heave speak for itself

Which is just what Christ described, while Isaiah 65:17 simply does not teach dead People are forbidden from speaking to either the l living or Those in Heaven. Ignorance, carelessness or desperation. Take your pick.

Like I said- you posts are far too long now- After reading just the first few paragraphs it’s clear you are on very shaky ground theologically

Meaning you are engaging in soliloquy.

Daniel, your whoel premise is that because Christ only used ‘real events’ in other parables or analogies, that that means He is prevented from using soemthign that isn’t real to make a point-

I’ve explained several tiems why it was important for Him to use the MYTH of Abraham’s bosom to drive the p oint home to the heretics who taught a false religion, and hwo wre leading people astray-

[[Nonsense. The sinless Christ would never teach of a place and experience that nowhere existed,]]

Sure he would- to those who needed to see that their religion and teachings were false- Nothing about the Pharisees teachings was true- once Again, Christ used their own myth to show how WRONG they were about Heaven and hell-

[[You have Christ affirming a myth.]]

Christ is NOT affirming a myth- No more so than Christ is telling everyone He is a literal vine when he gave the parable of a vine and branches- Is it a ‘reality’ as you put it that Christ is a vine? Of course not- it’s simply an allegorical message to ILLUSTRATE A POINT- Noone in their rightm ind believes the ‘absudity’ as you put it that Christ is a literal vine

IF Christ is able to use NON LITERAL allegories to illustrate a point- then I think He’s able to use non literal myths to drive the point home that the Pharisees were WRONG

[[for which you have zero precedent.]]

Sorry, but the parable of the rich man IS the precedent for the reasons already explained

[[And Jude quoted a true part of the book of Enoch, showing that coming from a source that is not wholly inspired does not make it fiction. Paul even quote a pagan prophet. ]]

You again missed the point- The book describes the myth

There is no ‘Abraham’s bosom’- So the fact that Christ mentions it at all proves He’s doing so only to drive home a point to the Pharisees- As does the FACT that the man in sheol wanted his tongue and lips cooled- Obviously then, since Christ DID use this analogy for a specific purpose already explained, He DID teach by setting a precedent-

There was no ‘holding place’ for those who were bound for heaven, nor one for hell- There is no soul sleep-

There are so many things wrong with the whole parable according to the bible that it MUST be nothing more than a parable using a MYTH to drive a point home

[[That is absurd. If that was the case then the Lord would have taught something like that the rich man simply was buried and was tormented,]]

Now we’re thinking for Christ are we? The facts speak for themselves- There is too much wrong with the parable to be taken as a literal event that took place- or reference to a literal event-

Most bible commentators and theologians conclude that the parable can’t be true because it flies In the face of the rest of the bible’s teachings- Yet some persist in declaring it must be true- despite the evidence to the contrary, and despite the clear fact that the MYTH of Abraham’s bosom, purgatory and paradise is a distinctly Babylonian myth, and NOT a biblical truth

But whatever, like I said- you need to narrow down your points- I’m not sitting here for hours answering a boatload of points-

You main premise seems to be that because Christ never used ‘non-real’ analogies before, He is prevented from ever doing so- I’d like to see a verse that explains this rule-

Your next premise seems to be that He couldn’t possibly use ‘science fiction’ to convince anyone because doing so would be ‘fraud’

Not sure how you come to that conclusion- especially in light of the FACT that He clearly used a false teaching by the Pharisees to show them how wrong their false teaching really is

[[Wrong, as in my case i am only showing how what the Lord taught could easily take place,]]

Sorry- but your continual premise is that this has to be a real event because Christ would never use fiction or something false to convey a story or parable-

But we see Christ saying things that are NOT true in his parables- such as the mustard seed- the mustard seed is NOT the smallest seed around nor does the mustard tree grow to be the largest as suggested by the parable-

[[Sound just like what a cult would teach.]]

Hmm, Christ clearly taught something about mustard seeds which wasn’t true- Does that make- He made a fictitious statement about mustard seeds- He, being God, obviously knew what He said wasn’t true- so did He engage In deception in this parable? He ‘never sued deception before- so by your rules, He can’t possibly be using deception here I nthe mustard seed analogy, yet the fact is He did-

[[while in your case you have Christ teaching science fiction, which He NEVER did in any of His 45 parables.]]

He never had occasion to before- yet in this case He DID have a reason for doing so- a VERY specific reason- as explained over and over again- but which you of course deny- knowing more than scholars who study the issue apparently-

[[Talk about compelled absurdity! ]]

Keep it civil Daniel or I’m done with you- There’s no need for petty insults-

The whole parable is full of figurative symbolism that is not true- and statements like Abraham was far off, yet the man In hell is able to speak to him? Did he have a supernaturally loud voice? Did He have super vision to be able to recognize both Abraham and Lazarus?

Was the rich man supernaturally strong where hellfire wouldn’t reduce him to a squirming incomprehensible ball? Or was this sheol not really hot enough to cause pain so intense one can not talk? (Ever passed a kidney stone? The pain is so bad that it reduces you to incomprehensible babble- literally- Apparently Hell will be less punishment than a kidney stone?

Was Abraham’s bosom and sheol so close people could converse back and forth? If so you have to make the case that Abraham;s bosom was on earth because sheol is in the earth- Where is Abraham’s bosom exactly?

Did you know that ‘eating the crumbs’ was a Jewish term for describing Gentiles? Laying at the gate was also ? Lazarus represents Gentiles, something the Pharisees would have vehemently opposed as being allowed into heaven because they did NOT follow the Jewish laws-

This whole parable is steeped in Jewish customs, sayings, and erroneous teachings for the purpose of using he Pharisees own false teaching against them- they would have been appalled that gentiles were beign depicted in Abraham’s bosom- the Pharisees fictional ‘heaven’

So why didn't Christ correct the 'superstition' or the 'Babylonian myth' that there is conscious existence after death?

When Jesus said, "I am the vine" everyone understands that he was not saying he is made out of wood, but rather that he was using a figure of speech; a metaphor, a sustained metaphor. We understand the difference between literal and figurative.

However, at least a vine is something that actually exists. You are essentially asking us to believe that Jesus used a superstitious myth that is not only supposedly contrary to Biblical teaching, but also purportedly describes a non-existent state of existence; namely, two men in conscious existence after they died.

It is evident from you posts they you have already concluded from what you have been taught by some group (I don't yet know which one - probably some Millerite or Russellite group or offshoot) based on some proof texts that the Bible teaches the annihilation of the wicked, or that there is no conscious existence after a person dies. You then use what you have already concluded that the Bible teaches on the subject as a controlling presupposition when you look at Luke 16.

I do not know what the extent of your knowledge of Scripture but I'm pretty sure nothing I say is going to change what you think the Bible teaches on the subject of conscious existence after death. However, I don't believe it is even possible for you to give a coherent account of

1. what is essentially a contradiction in terms, i.e., a non-existent state of existence
2. and why Christ would even use in the first place the aforementioned contradiction in terms that you claim is a 'superstition' or 'Babylonian myth' that there is conscious existence after death, which you claim he did as a 'precedent', and why he would use such a superstitious myth which is supposedly contrary to Biblical teaching without correcting it.

Cordially,

Wow! another petty insulter gets his jollys by pilng on- way to go ‘brother’

Did you not read anything I wrote-? I also note you ignored the ‘lie’ Jesus apparently told about the mustard seed too- Why didn’t He correct Himself then? Or do you dent He told the people something that wasn’t true then? (I’m sure you’ll have an ‘explanation’ to dismiss that analogy as well)

[[What a disgusting twisted mind your religion has left you with.]]

Well I guess the minds of all the major bible scholars are ‘disgusting and twisted’ too then in your world-

[[without having ALL the facts relevant to making such an astonishing statement.]]

Lol- I have been presenting one fact after another- I note you haven’t bothered addressing ANY of them- more fun to just rip into someone huh?

[[I do not know what the extent of your knowledge of Scripture ]]

On this subject I am giving the accounts of bible scholars on the issue- bible scholars that have far more experience with scriptures than you or I- I listed the reasons why Jesus would have used an analogy that was commonly taught to point out that their false teachings were completely off track.

This parable was actually a VERY deeply Jewish parable, and not simply just an account of three people, the rich, the poor and Abraham-

The poor man rising from the dead to ‘go to the brothers’ was symbolic of Jesus rising from the dead (and you said this parable didn’t reflect anything real? It did- it was a prelude to coming events where even the rising of Christ would not convince the Jewish people that He was the Christ, just as someone raised from the dead would not convince the rich man’s brothers that God is real- so steeped In their sin were they- just like the Jews)

[[1. what is essentially a contradiction in terms, i.e., a non-existent state of existence]]

You need to explain Why Christ would be prevented from using their own teachings against them? They were teaching myth- Christ used their myth against them to show that it was riddled with errors- He turned their myth around to actually use it to give subtle but distinctly Jewish meanings, and to foretell of future events- Paul taught using a pagan myth to illustrate a point- The claim that people In the bible, including Christ, aren’t allowed to use fiction to make a point is simply not true-

[[It is evident from you posts they you have already concluded from what you have been taught by some group]]

no sir, not ‘some group’ by a myriad of bible scholars and theologians regarding this issue- it has been understood that this parable is nothing more than a parable for a very long time- and not just by ‘some group’ - many different denominations who teach salvation through Christ alone have come to this same conclusion for the reasons I’ve posted

[[based on some proof texts that the Bible teaches the annihilation of the wicked,]]

I have never even suggested that the wicked get annihilated not that or that there is no conscious existence after a person dies.- Not sure where you are getting the idea that I did- but you are mistaken if that is the impression you’ve got—

[[but also purportedly describes a non-existent state of existence; namely, two men in conscious existence after they died.]]

That is not the point I’ve made at all- the issue is not about consciousness after death- the issue being discussed is whether or not the rich man parable is a literal event that took place, or a figurative one for the purpose of illustrating a point-

[[So why didn’t Christ correct the ‘superstition’ or the ‘Babylonian myth’ that there is conscious existence after death? ]]

His listeners and Christians then and now realize there is consciousness after death because that is what the bible teaches- the parable’s main points were not about consciousness, but about many things really- It is no mistake that this parable starts off with “And there was a certain man”- “Certain” Was a Jewish term used to describe men of importance- rich people, scholars, etc- The Pharisees fancied themselves to be ‘certain men’- people who were really important- Christ used this opening line to drive home the point although the Pharisees felt they were important, and due honor and respect, they were really nothing, and Christ was warning them that their haughty attitudes were going to lead to their downfall and end up in hell

Christ was a brilliant parable teller- and the more we study the parables, them ore we realize we haven’t even begun to realize just how deep they really were- He didn’t use words and phrases lightly- but used the Jews own customs and false teachings against them - and these false teachings and customs were so Jewish centric that there was no way the Jews could miss the point IF their minds were not so clouded by sin

Even Christ’s miracles were drenched in Jewish customs and teachings so that they could NOT honestly deny He was the Savior- His miracles weren’t just simply acts of supernatural events- They held very specific Jewish meanings and connotations

Mustard seeds actually exist.

---Since the Jews were very familiar with the mustard seed, Jesus referred to what they could understand and appreciate. In their world, where they lived, planted, and harvested, they understood that the mustard seed was the smallest of the seeds they normally planted. And still, it could germinate, take root, and flourish, eventually becoming an eight- to 10-foot tall shrub (Lane, 1974, p. 171).

Similar to how we might say to someone, “everyone knows that two plus two is four,” Jesus told His Palestinian peers that the mustard seed is “the least of all the seeds.” Do most people on Earth likely know that two plus two is four? Yes. But millions of infants are ignorant of this mathematical fact, as are many mentally-ill individuals. Thus, the term “everyone” would be used in a limited sense. Likewise, when Jesus spoke of the mustard seed, He was speaking hyperbolically in a limited sense. The mustard seed “was the smallest usually sown in Jewish fields” (McGarvey, 1875, p. 121, emp. added).
Mustard Seed Mistake or Misunderstanding?
by Eric Lyons, M.Min.

I would add this one as well:

---Please note that Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local, Palestinian farmer might have “sowed in his field,” i.e., a key qualifying phrase in verse 31. And it’s absolutely true that the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world.
It’s also true, as many modern-day encyclopedias will tell you, that the black mustard seed in Israel will typically grow to heights of 3.7 meters, or 12 (twelve) feet—plenty large enough to hold a bird nest.
[snip]
The context of Matthew 13 makes it quite clear that Jesus was addressing a local lay audience, not an international conference of botanists. It seems that no reasonable person would therefore insist for very long that this text provides a viable basis for questioning either Jesus or the Bible, when it comes to getting the facts straight—scientifically, historically, or technically.
Is the mustard seed the smallest of seeds?

Cordially,

I see you haven't yet been answered, so although we've provided ample scriptural support for the once saved-always saved position, I'll respond briefly to your latest two points.

1. Satan's similarity to us
You wrote: "...he was a Holy Angel in Heaven and through disobedience was cast down. Just like we are removed from the Book of Life for unrepentant disobedience."

The two cases are completely different and dissimilar, not "just like." Satan and the other demons were created sinless in heaven and were later cast out after rebelling. We are created sinful here, a way-station to our ultimate destination. We all rebel from the womb, from the instant of our creation ("Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me." Ps. 51:5). But we cannot save ourselves. God saves us by grace and, once saved, He keeps us saved. So just as we cannot save ourselves, so also we cannot "unsave" ourselves, because He is operating in and for us through His Spirit. He invests Himself in us and actively prevents us from renouncing our salvation. (I strongly encourage you to memorize Ephesians 2:8-9 and then meditate on it frequently--as often as the Spirit puts it in your conscious mind--for a year or so, allowing the Holy Spirit to embed and bring alive its vital and encouraging truth in you.)

2. Age of Accountability
I find no scriptural warrant for this strange but popular concept. As above, our spirits rebel from conception onward, and God is able to communicate even with the spirits of fetuses. Since He forces heaven upon no one, if they die in utero or as young children they still will have had the opportunity to make an informed choice of their eternal home and eternal lord.

...His listeners and Christians then and now realize there is consciousness after death because that is what the bible teaches-...

Well, that is the point I have been discussing, so I sincerely apologize for misunderstanding and misinterpreting your statements. If you realize that there is consciousness after death then I have no argument with you on that point. Whatever other truths the passage contains, I just think Luke 16 also confirms the reality of consciousness after death. (Among many other passages, I might add.)

And so, whatever other lessons the passage is teaching, I would disagree with you that the passage is based on a superstitious Babylonian myth, though. That seems so far-fetched and unnecessary to whatever Jesus was illustrating that I cannot presently manage enough suspension of disbelief to entertain it.

Cordially,

the point isn’t whether the mustard seed exists- obviously it does and did- the point is Christ said something that wasn’t true to illustrate a point- I’ve been accused of arrogance and of having a twisted mind for suggesting Christ owed have said something that wasn’t true to illustrate a point- (Because people want to believe Abraham’s Bosom must have been a real place or else Jesus would not have used it in an illustration, and that Had He done so, he ‘certainly would have correcte4d the error)- We can see with the analogy of the mustard Seed that NEITHER of those two statements are true- Christ DID say something untrue, and He did Not correct Himself

[[-—Please note that Jesus was not comparing the mustard seed to all other seeds in the world, but to seeds that a local, Palestinian farmer might have “sowed in his field,”]]

Not sure how we come up with that explanation- Jesus stated that the mustard seed was the smallest of all seeds- He didn’t give the qualifier ‘smallest of Farmer’s seeds’-

IF we want to make the case that He didn’t clarify ‘because the people would have understood that He didn’t literally mean ‘of all seeds’ then we should allow that Jesus didn’t clarify or correct the myth belief that people reside in Abraham’s bosom because His people would have known that it was a myth and that he was just using it to illustrate a point

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.