popular arguments in favor for endless hell refuted


#1

I wrote a kind of article where I refuted some popluar arguments against endless torment, I didn’t defend universalism but left the question open if some verses rather support annihilationism, but the idea that some transgressors suffer an eschatolic death penalty and are literally destroyed (2Peter 3:7 does heavily support this in my opinion and might refer to the lake of fire) does not contradict universalism.

you’ll find it in the attachment (pdf file, 16 pages), maybe it helps you
hell refuted.pdf (133 KB)


#2

I find this verse tough for the universalist position:
Rev. 22:11
New American Standard Bible (©1995)
“Let the one who does wrong, still do wrong; and the one who is filthy, still be filthy; and let the one who is righteous, still practice righteousness; and the one who is holy, still keep himself holy.”
What do you think?


#3

this might refer to present times, men reap what they sow, but I see no reason why this should mean that those wo continue doing wrong will never be saved. The warning to add something to the Book of Revelation also refers to already past and present times (I’ve read the thread about this verse) and not to an eschatologic future though mentioned in the last chapter of Revelation.


#4

As you say “it might”. But then again, it might be more in sync with an eternal state of things.


#5

concerning the Revelation of John I must say, many use some parts of it to defend universalism, I see this as an error - I see not the slighest hint in favor for universalism in the Revelation, however 1. Corinthians 15 I think must chronologically go beyond the Revelation of John, this a thing that should be emphasized. Rev. 22:11 is therefore irrelevant in my opinion and Rev. 22:11 is no argument against the final extinction of the wicked.

My intention was in the first place to refute the doctrine of everlasting torment, not neccessarily annihilationism (though I’m convinced the Bible teaches universalism)

I understand Rev. 22:11 so: Those who (willingly?) do wrong, shall continue so until they bear the consequences; the idea that people (can) continue to do wrong for all eternity sounds strange to me, I see no eschatological context in this verse.


#6

Hey guys, look at this. It comes just after 2 Peter 3:7:

7But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been stored up (reserved) for fire, being kept until the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly people.

8Nevertheless, do not let this one fact escape you, beloved, that with the Lord one day is as a thousand years and a thousand years as one day.(A)

**9The Lord does not delay and is not tardy or slow about what He promises, according to some people's conception of slowness, but He is long-suffering (extraordinarily patient) toward you, not desiring that any should perish, but that all should turn to repentance.** 

I really don’t think it could be held that verse 7 holds for annihilation. Sounds like the “judgement and destruction” of the wicked is most likely symbolic language. In fact, perhaps it simply means the end of the ungodly (that is, they are transformed unto righteousness), and in that sense they are destroyed. Remember: when the Lord’s judgement comes the people of the Earth have learned righteousness. :mrgreen:


#7

Very quickly: I don’t recall where I’ve written at some length about this in recent weeks (though I’m sure that I have…) But if it is supposed to be applied to the post-mortem fate of the damned, then it sure doesn’t speak in favor of annihilationism either!

(But I don’t believe it’s supposed to be a reference to the fate of the post-mortem damned outside the city–who are not being annihilated either, for that matter, or at least not yet. Long analysis of this from me elsewhere. I’ll try to find it and link.)


#8

Right, okay, here was the analysis (and not too long, either). Plus a short note at the end of the thread, agreeing with Roofus on a point.

ETA: I also strongly recommend following the link, in that comment, back to the preceding discussion.