RE: The Lake of Fire

RE: The Lake of Fire (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Christian Doctrine

[Poll]

The Lake of Fire

The man or woman burns in a real, literal, physical fire for eternity.

68% (17)

The fire is symbolic.

24% (6)

The man or woman is destroyed by the fire.

8% (2)

Total Votes : 25

(last vote on : 9/15/2008 6:51:49 PM)
(Poll will run till: -- )

Message

Beanteaser -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 5:34:17 PM)
Now I am confused......where were we disagreeing? It was my understanding that you thought Hades will be emptied and therefore those that were dwelling there, will be spared the lake of fire.

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 5:36:54 PM)
No, I was simply pointing out that Hades will be emptied for the judgment, and that the unsaved will be cast to their second death separately.

Beanteaser -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 5:56:56 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty No, I was simply pointing out that Hades will be emptied for the judgment, and that the unsaved will be cast to their second death separately. Okay. So both the unsaved and Hades will be thrown in the lake of fire but at separate times?

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 6:44:49 PM)
That's what I get from reading Revelation 20.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 6:49:44 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty quote: Secondly, I cannot believe a Christian would believe an unsaved person just ceases to exist upon death. While you may think I'm immature and unstable for preferring not to be associated in print with heretics, I must disagree. That's fine, though. As for this statement, what makes you so you "cannot believe" that? Just curious. I do not believe an unsaved person ceases to exist upon death. I believe they are destroyed in the lake of fire after the judgment. That's what the Bible says. Sorry to ask probably a stupid question, but where does the Bible state people will be "destroyed"? It doesn't make sense. I always thought the point of hell, lake of fire, eternal seperation from God, was for the person to be in torment for eternity...not just till the point of death. What would be so bad about that, if it's not eternal?

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 7:01:49 PM)
Peter, That is what a lot of people teach and is the tradition of the Catholic church. As for your question... "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14 The way isn't broad which leads to eternal conscious torment, according to our Lord. It leads to destruction. "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." - Romans 1:32 "Not so," says the Catholic church, "those people are worthy of eternal conscious torment. Paul was wrong." "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." - John 3:16 The most famous Bible verse says that we're saved from having to "perish", not having to "endure eternal conscious torment". "Perish" is a very specific word which means a very specific thing.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/17/2008 9:37:57 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty Peter, That is what a lot of people teach and is the tradition of the Catholic church. As for your question... "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14 The way isn't broad which leads to eternal conscious torment, according to our Lord. It leads to destruction. "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." - Romans 1:32 "Not so," says the Catholic church, "those people are worthy of eternal conscious torment. Paul was wrong." "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." - John 3:16 The most famous Bible verse says that we're saved from having to "perish", not having to "endure eternal conscious torment". "Perish" is a very specific word which means a very specific thing. Thank you, but I think I found my answer. In Jesus's parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus said the rich man died, *then* lifted up his eyes in torment (and the rich man also talked about being pretty warm). Essentially telling me that when an unsaved person dies an earthly death, they are immediately and consciously miserable. Ah, but there's more! In Revelation 20:13-15, we are told that the unsaved will die a second death. I don't see where the second death would result in unconscious, non-existance when the first doesn't. Then there's that interesting little passage in Isaiah 66:24 which tells us "their worm does not die and their fire is not quenched." In my Bible's commentary, that verse also references Isaiah 48:22 and 57:20, 21...where the wicked find no rest.

abraxas -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 12:30:10 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn Hell was created for the devil and his angels...not human beings. What difference do you see that making? quote: However, those that "trample on blood of Jesus and spit in the face of God's grace" (great line, Jimbo!!!) will have made the same choice the devil did...to try to usurp God's authority. Well I suppose if someone did that they'd know what they were getting themself into!

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 3:48:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty Peter, That is what a lot of people teach and is the tradition of the Catholic church. As for your question... "Enter through the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is small and the way is narrow that leads to life, and there are few who find it." - Matthew 7:13-14 The way isn't broad which leads to eternal conscious torment, according to our Lord. It leads to destruction. "and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them." - Romans 1:32 "Not so," says the Catholic church, "those people are worthy of eternal conscious torment. Paul was wrong." "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life." - John 3:16 The most famous Bible verse says that we're saved from having to "perish", not having to "endure eternal conscious torment". "Perish" is a very specific word which means a very specific thing. Thank you, but I think I found my answer. In Jesus's parable of the rich man and Lazarus, Jesus said the rich man died, *then* lifted up his eyes in torment (and the rich man also talked about being pretty warm). Essentially telling me that when an unsaved person dies an earthly death, they are immediately and consciously miserable. Ah, but there's more! In Revelation 20:13-15, we are told that the unsaved will die a second death. I don't see where the second death would result in unconscious, non-existance when the first doesn't. Then there's that interesting little passage in Isaiah 66:24 which tells us "their worm does not die and their fire is not quenched." In my Bible's commentary, that verse also references Isaiah 48:22 and 57:20, 21...where the wicked find no rest. I'm fully aware of the parable of the rich man, but even if this were completely literal (while Jesus preferred to teach in metaphors), there's no indication that this extended into eternity for the proverbial rich man. I've read Isaiah 66:24. The only way this can prove eternal conscious torment is if you assume first that it has to. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch. We're talking about carcasses here, and the worm. If those two words are to be interpreted as "immortal soul burning in hell", what kinds of other interpretations are we allowing from the words in the Bible? I'm afraid many people read backwards when reading this passage. They first read Mark 9, where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 66 three times, assuming that Mark 9 must refer to the lake of fire instead of the Valley of Hinnom, which "gehenna" means, and therefore meaning worms devouring carcasses. I don't see how it has stretched over the years to mean something totally different except for a long disastrous game of Telephone. In fact, you'll find that more than one of the NT verses quoted as "proof" of eternal conscious torment are indeed references to temporal disasters or destruction from the OT.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 8:32:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abraxas quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn Hell was created for the devil and his angels...not human beings. What difference do you see that making? Read the sentence after that one. quote: However, those that "trample on blood of Jesus and spit in the face of God's grace" (great line, Jimbo!!!) will have made the same choice the devil did...to try to usurp God's authority. Well I suppose if someone did that they'd know what they were getting themself into! I think a lot of people don't really understand (or won't accept) that they are doing that. And, furthermore, I think we're all quilty of that sin...after all, usurping God's authority was the original sin. I know I do that every day, many times, when I enforce my will and ignore God's. If it weren't for the blood, I'd have no hope. So, no...many people don't realize what they're getting themselves into...because the eyes of this world have been blinded.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 8:56:26 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty I'm fully aware of the parable of the rich man, but even if this were completely literal (while Jesus preferred to teach in metaphors), there's no indication that this extended into eternity for the proverbial rich man. If this were a real person, then no...eternity has not yet begun for that rich man...he still has a second death coming. Also, if there is no "eternity" to this rich man's soul, why the need for a "great gulf"? Something that doesn't exist cannot get to something that does. Additionally, if you take the Bible as a whole, without taking words or verses here and there, you'll see a coherency. When you do that, you cannot help but see the eternality of the soul of man...it's just a question of where eternity will be spent...with God or seperated from Him? quote: I've read Isaiah 66:24. The only way this can prove eternal conscious torment is if you assume first that it has to. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch. We're talking about carcasses here, and the worm. If those two words are to be interpreted as "immortal soul burning in hell", what kinds of other interpretations are we allowing from the words in the Bible? I'm afraid many people read backwards when reading this passage. They first read Mark 9, where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 66 three times, assuming that Mark 9 must refer to the lake of fire instead of the Valley of Hinnom, which "gehenna" means, and therefore meaning worms devouring carcasses. I don't see how it has stretched over the years to mean something totally different except for a long disastrous game of Telephone. In fact, you'll find that more than one of the NT verses quoted as "proof" of eternal conscious torment are indeed references to temporal disasters or destruction from the OT. Would this be one example of that: II Thessalonians 1:6-9? What does "everlasting" mean here? Destruction? Per Strong's, it means the eternal loss of everything worthwhile. For the same us of the Greek word, also see I Corinthians 5:5, I Thessalonians 5:3 and I Timothy 6:9. A little block in my Bible add this: "The penalty for sin is not annihilation, but eternal ruin, eternal separation from the love of Christ. Just as endless life belongs to Christians, endless ruin belongs to those who are oppsed to Christ". Honestly, how can annihilation and destruction (as we know it in the English language) make any sense as the penalty for non-believers? It's a nice lie, though, that Satan likes to spread. After all, what's so bad about something that's not eternal?

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 11:14:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Peter_Gunn quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty I'm fully aware of the parable of the rich man, but even if this were completely literal (while Jesus preferred to teach in metaphors), there's no indication that this extended into eternity for the proverbial rich man. If this were a real person, then no...eternity has not yet begun for that rich man...he still has a second death coming. Also, if there is no "eternity" to this rich man's soul, why the need for a "great gulf"? Something that doesn't exist cannot get to something that does. Additionally, if you take the Bible as a whole, without taking words or verses here and there, you'll see a coherency. When you do that, you cannot help but see the eternality of the soul of man...it's just a question of where eternity will be spent...with God or seperated from Him? quote: I've read Isaiah 66:24. The only way this can prove eternal conscious torment is if you assume first that it has to. Even then, it's a bit of a stretch. We're talking about carcasses here, and the worm. If those two words are to be interpreted as "immortal soul burning in hell", what kinds of other interpretations are we allowing from the words in the Bible? I'm afraid many people read backwards when reading this passage. They first read Mark 9, where Jesus quotes from Isaiah 66 three times, assuming that Mark 9 must refer to the lake of fire instead of the Valley of Hinnom, which "gehenna" means, and therefore meaning worms devouring carcasses. I don't see how it has stretched over the years to mean something totally different except for a long disastrous game of Telephone. In fact, you'll find that more than one of the NT verses quoted as "proof" of eternal conscious torment are indeed references to temporal disasters or destruction from the OT. Would this be one example of that: II Thessalonians 1:6-9? What does "everlasting" mean here? Destruction? Per Strong's, it means the eternal loss of everything worthwhile. For the same us of the Greek word, also see I Corinthians 5:5, I Thessalonians 5:3 and I Timothy 6:9. A little block in my Bible add this: "The penalty for sin is not annihilation, but eternal ruin, eternal separation from the love of Christ. Just as endless life belongs to Christians, endless ruin belongs to those who are oppsed to Christ". Honestly, how can annihilation and destruction (as we know it in the English language) make any sense as the penalty for non-believers? It's a nice lie, though, that Satan likes to spread. After all, what's so bad about something that's not eternal? It's easy to say Satan likes to spread anything you don't believe. The problem is that destruction DOES last for eternity. The destruction will never end. There will never be a point where the destruction wears off. It is a single punishment which lasts for eternity. The little block in your Bible is someone else's opinion based on what a church taught them, no? Would eternal destruction (words used in the 2 Thes.) not be "eternal loss of everything worthwhile"? A twelve hour tylenol is a pill whose effects last for twelve hours. Similarly, eternal destruction is a single act of destruction whose effects last into eternity. The word "destruction" is a very clear word, which means a very specific thing. If it meant "eternal conscious torment", why would God confuse by using the word "destruction" and not a word more closely associated with the other idea?

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 12:56:34 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty It's easy to say Satan likes to spread anything you don't believe. The problem is that destruction DOES last for eternity. The destruction will never end. There will never be a point where the destruction wears off. It is a single punishment which lasts for eternity. The little block in your Bible is someone else's opinion based on what a church taught them, no? Would eternal destruction (words used in the 2 Thes.) not be "eternal loss of everything worthwhile"? A twelve hour tylenol is a pill whose effects last for twelve hours. Similarly, eternal destruction is a single act of destruction whose effects last into eternity. The word "destruction" is a very clear word, which means a very specific thing. If it meant "eternal conscious torment", why would God confuse by using the word "destruction" and not a word more closely associated with the other idea? The little block in my Bible? Oh, I don't know...it's just a Nelson study Bible...so who can say? [8\|] I do know this...honestly, I have never before met a professing, born-again believer who did not clearly understand that the consequence of not accepting the gift of salvation is an eternity in torment. After all, we have been created in the image of the eternal God and I have yet to find anything to tell me He will mercifully change that fact for unbelievers. So I can only wonder why you believe as you say you do. Either you've accepted a three-dollar bill, you just enjoy arguing for the sake of it or...well, let's just hope it's one of the two and leave it at that. Now I must get away from this because I'm dancing around the brim of falling into I Timothy 1:3-7...and I don't want to dance around on God's patience! Just remember...the main things are the plain things and the plain things are the main things.

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/18/2008 2:44:28 PM)
I don't know who nelson is, so I can't help you with that. I don't find utter destruction of one's soul to be merciful, especially since the Bible says it's not. You are of course free to go. I am simply reading the Bible and taking what it says rather than putting preconceived ideas onto Scripture. If you believe I'm teaching from an impure heart, that's something I cannot help with unless we're face to face. I assure you that I have undergone a spiritual rebirth and have new life in Christ. God is clear in His word. Adding new meanings to old words only makes a clear thing confusing. The argument of "You're wrong because it's not what everyone else thinks," doesn't hold ground. If I'm wrong, I'll certainly accept that fact, but I can't see any Biblical evidence that I am. I have tried to discuss with patience. Others don't want to do that.

Dan1138 -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/19/2008 10:36:45 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abraxas Now to take the tongue out of my cheek, I see here the second time someone has argued against annhilation because annhilation wouldn't provide enough "threat" to stop people from being bad. 21Keep yourselves in the love of God, looking for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ unto eternal life. 22And of some have compassion, making a difference: 23And others save with fear, pulling them out of the fire; hating even the garment spotted by the flesh. 24Now unto him that is able to keep you from falling, and to present you faultless before the presence of his glory with exceeding joy, 25To the only wise God our Saviour, be glory and majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen. Abraxas are you a good person?

Dan1138 -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/19/2008 10:37:58 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: abraxas As I said before, there are plenty of decent Mormon folks--why are there ANY? And seriously Dan, is that why you're good? Is that why you're Christian? Fear of eternal torture? Jimbo took offense when I asked but really isn't that what you're implying? You judge me too swiftly. I in my natural state, am not good. You have no idea. I have known many Mormons including a Bishop closely. They do many good things, I suspect that this Bishop was instrumental in getting me out of a financial bind, but it also profited the LDS family quite well. With that said I have found LDS' to be as lusty as the next for Power, Money or Religious Passions. Romans 3:23 states that all have sinned and fallen short of the Glory of God. Even LDS families have fallen short. Family game night or not, it all comes down to the individual knowing God. Now I am like a doorpost and lentil in Egypt. I am unable to act but I serve the Master of the house. If I am covered in the Blood of Christ then My sin is covered. My filth is removed. Or If I am a slave in the house of Egypt, I am in bondage, unable to be free. If however I consume the Lamb of God who cleanses from all sin, then He lives in me. I know the Father through the Son. If I do not know the Son and He does not know me, how can I enter His kingdom? No unclean thing passes the gate. All this because the Destroyer comes quickly! I am afraid, but I love my Father. The Spirit of Christ has taught me to fear and to love and has written the law on my heart!!!! Praise God!!!! I am saved...even me a fool full of violence.

abraxas -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/20/2008 1:34:00 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dan1138 Abraxas are you a good person? What do have in mind by a "good person?"

abraxas -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/20/2008 1:41:28 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Dan1138 quote: You judge me too swiftly. I in my natural state, am not good. You have no idea. I appreciate your candor, Dan, but I imagine there's a good side to you as well, and I hope you don't beat yourself up because you aren't perfect. What idea of "good" do you have in mind in this and your previous post?

JimboFletch -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 9:49:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty ...That is what a lot of people teach and is the tradition of the Catholic church.... You seem to have great animosity or distrust of anything that may have origins in what we call the Catholic Church. But for about the first 1500 years of Church history, there were no denominations and all of us, like it or not, can trace our origins from them. Just because they might believe a certain thing has no bearing on its legitimacy. I guess I just find your recurring comments on Catholics ironic, considering it doesn't bother you that you share beliefs with Jehovah's Witnesses which sprang up apart from the Church and created a new religion with no similarity with the beliefs of the true Church, Protestant or Catholic, except for shared terminology but with widely differing definitions.

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 1:07:07 PM)
My comments about Catholics are hardly recurring. In fact, I don't remember commenting anywhere else about it. I don't see the big deal about this one comment... Like I've said several times, I simply read the Bible for what it says. I do not get anything from these other religions or anything like that.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 1:55:22 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch I guess I just find your recurring comments on Catholics ironic, considering it doesn't bother you that you share beliefs with Jehovah's Witnesses which sprang up apart from the Church and created a new religion with no similarity with the beliefs of the true Church, Protestant or Catholic, except for shared terminology but with widely differing definitions. Here's what Jimbo's talking about...right from the JW's own website. And...notice how they even provide scripture. quote: http://jw-media.org/beliefs/trueworship.htm Judgment Jesus is God's appointed Judge who determines what each one's future will be. Those judged righteous will be given everlasting life on a paradise earth. Those judged unrighteous will not be tormented but will die and cease to exist. Humans are not responsible for this judgment, nor will they be involved when God takes action to remove all wickedness from the earth.�Proverbs 2:21, 22; John 5:22; Acts 17:30, 31; Revelation 21:3, 4.

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 2:35:23 PM)
I realize that... again, until people on this thread told me, I never knew what they thought. I never cared. Are you arguing that if they think it's real it must not be?

JimboFletch -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 3:08:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: McFatty I realize that... again, until people on this thread told me, I never knew what they thought. I never cared. Are you arguing that if they think it's real it must not be? No, just that when one develops theology in a vacuum, there seems to be a tendency to repeat certain errors. It's like a person deciding to be a brain surgeon but decides to just buy a Grey's Anatomy and refusing to be exposed to possible wrong ideas by gong to med school or servicing residency under a senior surgeon. I have a problem putting a lot of trust in someone willing to discover "truth" without influence of accumulated knowledge.

McFatty -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 3:53:29 PM)
I have heard people speak regarding this accumulated "knowledge", but I cannot simply accept something because it is a widespread belief if I can't see it agreeing with Scripture, correct? When the epistles were written, gnosticism was widespread, and Christians were warned not to simply accept that belief. I have to go primarily off of what is in the Bible.

Peter_Gunn -> RE: The Lake of Fire (7/22/2008 4:09:35 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: JimboFletch No, just that when one develops theology in a vacuum, there seems to be a tendency to repeat certain errors. It's like a person deciding to be a brain surgeon but decides to just buy a Grey's Anatomy and refusing to be exposed to possible wrong ideas by gong to med school or servicing residency under a senior surgeon. I have a problem putting a lot of trust in someone willing to discover "truth" without influence of accumulated knowledge. Jimbo, sounds like you're talking about having a "teachable spirit"! If we harden our hearts, deciding we've learned all there is to learn, we become filled with pride and then..."let him who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall." Also, when we are careless to not learn anything about false teachings, we are unable to recognize them and we set ourselves up to fall prey to them. Especially if they use the same Bible we do to justify their points. That's exactly how so many people fall into cults.

Page: << < prev 2 3 [4] 5 6 next > >>