Why Hell is not a place of eternal conscious torment.
- Thread starter Skovand1075
- Start date
-
Welcome to Christian Forums, a Christian Forum that recognizes that all Christians are a work in progress.
You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
So the question would be--Why would a loving God allow this?
I would submit to you that not the whole world is going to be saved, and can give you more quotations, but you have made your mind up, even if this is not what stands written in Scriptures--and goes contrary to what you believe Scripture is NOT saying.
Not to belittle you, you gave ONE verse, and built a whole doctrine on it--a heteron doctrine--not considering what goeth before-and what followeth after.
Shalom
J.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
The scripture I quoted says "the gospel" was proclaimed. Is that not direct enough?
In reference to a "second chance", nothing is left to chance.
You are assuming that everyone in this lifetime has a "chance'. Not true.
Ephesians 4:8-10
This is why it says: “When he ascended on high, he took many captives and gave gifts to his people.” 9 (What does “he ascended” mean except that he also descended to the lower, earthly regions? 10 He who descended is the very one who ascended higher than all the heavens, in order to fill the whole universe.)
Last edited:
1Pe 3:19 in which also to the spirits in prison having gone he did preach
By which also he went and preached unto the spirits in prison. Various are the senses given of this passage: some say, that Christ, upon his death, went in his human soul to hell; either, as some, to preach to the devils and damned spirits, that they might be saved, if they would; and, as others, to let them know that he was come, and to fill them with dread and terror; but though hell may be meant by the prison, yet the text does not say that he went unto it, or preached in it; only that the spirits were in it, to whom he sometimes went, and preached; nor is his human soul, but his divine nature meant, by the Spirit, by which he went and preached to them: and as for the ends proposed, the former is impracticable and impossible; for after death follows judgment, which is an eternal one; nor is there any salvation, or hope of salvation afterwards; and the latter is absurd, vain, and needless.
Others, as the Papists, imagine the sense to be, that Christ, at his death, went in his human soul, into a place they call "Limbus Patrum", which they suppose is meant by the prison here, and delivered the souls of the Old Testament saints and patriarchs from thence, and carried them with him to heaven; but this sense is also false, because, as before observed, not the human soul of Christ, but his divine nature, is designed by the Spirit; nor is there any such place as here feigned, in which the souls of Old Testament saints were, before the death of Christ; for they were in peace and rest, in the kingdom of heaven, in Abraham's bosom, inheriting the promises, and not in a prison; besides, the text says not one word of the delivering of these spirits out of prison, only of Christ's preaching to them: add to all this, and which Beza, with others, observes, the apostle speaks of such as had been disobedient, and unbelievers; a character which will not agree with righteous men, and prophets, and patriarchs, under the former dispensation: others think the words are to be understood of Christ's going to preach, by his apostles, to the Gentiles, as in Eph_2:17 who were in a most miserable condition, strangers to the covenants of promise, and destitute of the hope of salvation, and sat in darkness, and the shadow of death, and, as it were, at the gates of hell; were in the bonds of iniquity, and dead in sin, and had been for long time past foolish and disobedient, serving divers lusts and pleasures, to which they were in bondage.
This is, indeed, a more tolerable sense than the former; but it will be difficult to show, that men, in the present state of life, are called "spirits", which seems to be a word that relates to the souls of men, in a separate state from their bodies; and especially that carnal and unconverted men are ever so called; and besides, the apostle is speaking of such who were disobedient in the times of Noah; and therefore not of the Gentiles, in the times of the apostles: add to which, that the transition from the times of the apostles, according to this sense, to the days of
Noah, is very unaccountable; this sense does not agree with the connection of the words: others are of opinion, that this is meant of the souls of the Old Testament saints, who were εν φυλακη, "in a watch", as they think the phrase may be rendered, instead of "in prison": and said to be in such a situation, because they were intent upon the hope of promised salvation, and were looking out for the Messiah, and anxiously desiring his coming, and which he, by some gracious manifestation, made known unto them: but though the word may sometimes signify a watch, yet more commonly a prison, and which sense best suits here; nor is that anxiety and uneasiness, which represents them as in a prison, so applicable to souls in a state of happiness; nor such a gracious manifestation so properly called preaching; and besides, not believers, but unbelievers, disobedient ones, are here spoken of; and though it is only said they were sometimes so, yet to what purpose should this former character be once mentioned of souls now in glory?
but it would be tedious to reckon up the several different senses of this place; some referring it to such in Noah's time, to whom the Gospel was preached, and who repented; and though they suffered in their bodies, in the general deluge, yet their souls were saved; whereas the apostle calls them all, "the world of the ungodly", 2Pe_2:5 and others, to the eight souls that were shut up in the ark, as in a prison, and were saved; though these are manifestly distinguished in the text from the disobedient spirits.
The plain and easy sense of the words is, that Christ, by his Spirit, by which he was quickened, went in the ministry of Noah, the preacher of righteousness, and preached both by words and deeds, by the personal ministry of Noah, and by the building of the ark, to that generation who was then in being; and who being disobedient, and continuing so, a flood was brought upon them which destroyed them all; and whose spirits, or separate souls, were then in the prison of hell, so the Syriac version renders it, בשיול, "in hell", see Rev_20:7 when the Apostle Peter wrote this epistle;
so that Christ neither went into this prison, nor preached in it, nor to spirits that were then in it when he preached, but to persons alive in the days of Noah, and who being disobedient, when they died, their separate souls were put into prison, and there they were when the apostle wrote: from whence we learn, that Christ was, that he existed in his divine nature before he was incarnate, he was before Abraham, he was in the days of Noah; and that Christ also, under the Old Testament, acted the part of a Mediator, in his divine nature, and by his Spirit discharged that branch of it, his prophetic office, before he appeared in human nature; and that the Gospel was preached in those early times, as unto Abraham, so before him.
The best I've read from Gill.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
(Note: The list of errors in the KJB is monolithically long)
Actually, Modern Translations teach false doctrines (See here, and here). So you have things reversed.
Modern bibles are actually based upon the Nestle & Aland (Which is supervised by the Vatican). Proof? It says so right in the 27th edition.
See here.
Were some Modern bibles (like the NIV) changed to favor the Catholic church? Yes.
You can check out page 21 here of the 14 changes in Modern Bibles that favor the Roman Catholic Church.
http://www.keithpiper.org/storage/books/NIV-Omissions-Cimatu-7July2018-pdf.pdf
New Age teachings are taught in Modern bibles.
See here.
I actually have 101 reasons for the King James Bible being the Word of God for today.
I hope to have it available here at the forums in upcoming future (Lord willing).
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
@Johann Most theologians are bibliolators.
www.christianityboard.com
Bibliolatry: Worship/knowledge of the book MORE than the author
I have encountered some that I thought had fallen into this trap. I asked them, "What would become of your faith if you put your whole library out on the curb on trash day?" The guilty are left mostly speechless. Or, alternatively VERY angry. How come? To be clear, I love the Bible and use...
www.christianityboard.com
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Good grief!
Who gave us the NT canon? The RCC.
If you don't want a Catholic Bible, you should burn the one you own.
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
My brother, I like to discuss and share. It's ok if you and I don't see eye-to-eye on everything. None of us have all of the answers.
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
The NIV translators removed the verses found in the King James that were NOT supported by the best manuscripts.
And are therefore charged with changing the Bible. - LOL
St. SteVen
Well-Known Member
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
I'm 56 and was Catholic for the first 50 years. Thereafter I delved into the Bible and, being that I was open-minded, discovered that much of Catholic theology is not only unbiblical but, in many cases, contrary to God's word.
However, I still couldn't understand the concept of ECT. Then, I found people online who discussed the mistranslations of the original Greek that gave us the theology of ECT and then I had an epiphany!
Most Christians, however, have been brainwashed with ECT for all their lives and they cannot accept the fact that they have been misled and deceived. Their own pride, ego, and vanity prevent them from seeing the truth.
I don't mind sharing the truth with them but it becomes evident that they are simply unwilling to accept God's word and so it isn't fruitful to engage them further on the subject.
However, I still couldn't understand the concept of ECT. Then, I found people online who discussed the mistranslations of the original Greek that gave us the theology of ECT and then I had an epiphany!
Most Christians, however, have been brainwashed with ECT for all their lives and they cannot accept the fact that they have been misled and deceived. Their own pride, ego, and vanity prevent them from seeing the truth.
I don't mind sharing the truth with them but it becomes evident that they are simply unwilling to accept God's word and so it isn't fruitful to engage them further on the subject.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
I am just saying that your method of study has to be replicatable that leaves no room for any error or mistake. When we talk about the original languages we get into the manuscript witnesses and not even all of the manuscripts say the exact same thing precisely. So not all Hebrew manuscripts agree. Not all Greek manuscripts agree. One has to choose which line of manuscripts they want to side with for one. So that’s a major strike out for your positon here. Second, Hebrew is a revived language but it is not exactly the same as the old one in every precise way. Even the grammar is slightly different according to certain linguists. Modern Greek is different than Biblical Greek (Koine Greek). To say that we can just learn these languages with 100% certainty from some expert who wrote a book way after these languages were dead and gone is highly problematic to say the least. We can make educated guesses as to what they mean, but that is about it. You don’t have a time machine to honestly know these languages in how they were actually spoken in that culture precisely.
Modern scholars like James Strong and his buddies put together his lexicon or Greek to English dictionary. But this was in the wake of the Modern Translation movement that departed from the King James Bible (that was THE BIBLE for hundreds of years). James Strong worked on the ASV (American Standard Version) of the Bible that was the first Modern Translation pitch to the US. Strong’s textual basis for the ASV was the Critical Text which is a line of manuscripts tied to the Catholic church. We can even see changes in Modern bibles like these that favor the Catholic church.
I did address your one post on Mattehw 25:46, and I showed that an ECT interpretation is not the only way to interpet such a verse.
I say this because you think your interpretation is the only way to read it.
While we are to be fruitful for the Kingdom, believers should not boast in any work they do because it is actually Jesus Christ doing the good work through them. It’s why 24 elders cast their crowns down before Jesus.
Again, you and I know nothing about these words than the man on the moon does. You can make educated guesses about what they say but the only real way we can have some glimpse to what they really say is to simply trust what our Bible says in the English.
God is not the God of the dead, but of the living.
The method you employ is actually from the wake of the Modern Translation movement. It’s a method that seeks to ascertain what God may have said because one does not really have His perfect and precise words. So the individual or the scholar becomes the final Word of authority and not the Bible.
And you would then be living in a fantasy world. They are dead languages. Kione Greek has died out as a language. Yes, recent scholars have tried to determine what this language says hindsight and by guesswork but they are not relying upon a culture that speaks this language. Biblical Hebrew died out and then it was revived in what is known as Modern Hebrew today. They are similar but not precisely the same.
Last edited:
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Ah, so you believe in Conditional Immortality.
Interesting.
I believe in Dualistic Conditional Immortality.
It is similar to Traditional Conditional Immortality in that the Lake of Fire will destroy or erase the wicked from existence.
The only difference is that Dualistic Conditional Immortality teaches that hell is a literal place of torment (that is temporary).
Side Note:
I am glad you came out of Catholicism. Praise the Lord Jesus Christ.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
There are two lines of Bible manuscripts in history.
You have the Catholic line of manuscripts (Which is where all the Modern bibles come from primarily).
Then you have the line of Bible manuscripts that the Catholics had sought to destroy (along with killing those who copied them).
Modern bibles are actually based upon the Nestle & Aland (Which is supervised by the Vatican). Proof? It says so right in the 27th edition.
See my post here in another thread, and keep reading.
It’s bone chilling (Unless one is a liberal).
Phoneman777
Well-Known Member
- Jan 14, 2015
- 8,121
- 2,764
- 113
- Faith
- Christian
- Country
- United States
No, Scripture says the Body + Breath = Living Soul applies to all creatures. Job says if God gathers His breath back to Himself, then all flesh shall perish together and turn back into dust.
See, death is the REVERSE of Genesis 2:7 KJV.
It's a shame I have to argue with people that death is the opposite of life - that's it's the CESSATION of life, not a continuation thereof. I'm glad you understand the truth.
Bible Highlighter
Well-Known Member
Most of your Modern bibles are influenced by the Catholic Church.
The King James Bible translators had used Erasmus work but he was saved by Luther and Erasmus was looking to reform the church from within instead of from without. Granted, that was a mistake, but Erasmus was not looked upon favorably in history by the Catholic church. The monks had said that Erasmus was the egg that Luther hatched. Erasmus was doing translation work that they did not sanction or approve of. Also, the KJB translators used other manuscripts for their translation, and they were not Catholic. In fact, the Catholics wanted to stop the translation of the KJB and they attempted to do so with a super bomb with a man named “Guy Fawkes.” In addition, the Catholics had in one of their older writings this…
Notice which version they don’t want you to read.
Granted, today, the Catholic Church has become more progressive. They have now published a Catholic Version of the King James Bible (that has their Apocrypha inserted within it) back in 2020. But skip back a couple of decades and you will discover that the KJB was not looked upon favorablly by the RCC.
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
Amen to that! Although I can't say that I was ever really "in" to Catholicism, I just didn't know any different and never cared to look.
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
The irony of that isn't lost on me with regard to all of the non-Catholics that despise the Catholic Church while simultaneously believing AND parroting early Catholic teachings which live on to this day.
Patrick1966
Well-Known Member
who translated that people are damned for eternity demonstrated to me that I better check the YLT and/or the Concordant Bible for verification of many verses. It's unfortunate that they didn't translate it correctly as most subsequent, English, translations continue to teach the lie that God condemns his children for an "eternity" of suffering.
Similar threads
