How did it come to be that Christians interpret the lake of fire as being literal? They know a lot of scripture are metaphors, they seem bright enough and have enough common sense or are shown by the Lord to figure that out, but when it comes to the lake of fire…they’re say…oh, but that’s literal.
You’d think just common sense and having the Holy Spirit and knowing that God is love would tell them otherwise.
Why are millions so quick to believe its a literal place of a real lake of fire where one is in sheer agony for all eternity, that even if they cried out to God, that He would ignore them.
I think many people think it’s safer to assume the worst & hope that it turns out better. Also after the fall even in the garden Adam was scared of God, it’s part of our sinful nature to mistrust Him
That’s true, i never thought of it that way. We seem to be a negative bunch us humans by nature, so why not with that. And also because maybe we think that if God saves ALL, that it would be too good to be true.
I’m not sure that most of this thread is particularly fair.
Caroleem, you’ve said previously you’re a futurist, taking most of Revelation to be literal, why wouldn’t you take the Lake of Fire to be literal? What hermeneutic allows you to pick and choose the bits you want to be a metaphor? Is Satan then a literal person? Is the resurrection? Is Jesus? No one chooses to believe it because it is base. Men choose to believe it because they respect scripture (poorly translated, understood or otherwise) and it simply reads to be painful and eternal. Common sense, the Holy Spirit and one Johannine declaration simply does not tell anyone that the Lake of Fire is non-literal. Universalists would do best to stop arguing from sentimentalities.
Is a literal star going to fall from the sky and crash on earth?
Is a literal 7 headed monster going to come out of the sea?
Is Jesus going to be a literal bloody lamb hanging out in heaven?
I’m not saying there won’t be a lake of fire, but I don’t think its going to be a literal physical lake of actual fire
I don’t think it’s literally physical either (I doubt most do); but I’m not sure anyone can claim that it’s that obvious to anyone with common sense and the Holy Spirit Neither should its temporality, or any potential deliverance from it be considered obvious to the average Christian because a simple reading of most Bibles seem to suggest otherwise.
Because it goes against the nature of God. Its mostly after i discovered/learned/shown by God if you will…that i don’t take the lake of fire to be a literal lake of fire in the way we know fire to be. Plus God and the Holy Spirit is always referred to as a consuming fire. Always a reference to fire. Of course i learned this after 30+ years of being a believer in ECT.
I’m not personally picking and choosing the bits i want and don’t want to be a metaphor. Some are just obvious because of the context its in and so on…
Yes to all three.
I see what you’re saying, but i think after ones becomes a universalist, one becomes a bit judgmental at ones who believes in ECT. Doesnt make sense since i was once there myself…for over 30 years mind you. Now all of a sudden i have no patience with those who think that way. Go figure.
I don’t think its just sentimentalities that makes us think otherwise. Its far beyond just being sentimental not wanting anyone to be in agony for all eternity.
And i know, most bibles suggest otherwise…so its like…what are they to think?
It might, in the form of a comet…
Maybe in someones nightmare. No, that one is a metaphor…
I have wondered about this quite a bit. God is a consuming fire. He was the literal pillar of fire by night, leading Israel. That is obviously symbolic as well but, could it be both at the time of the end? I think the stars will literally fall from the sky. At that time will we see all things, literal and spiritual? I may be being silly but, I think it may be so. Also, the beast, with all the technology is it possible? Then there is the Lamb slain, John saw Him like that in the vision. When the two realms begin to mesh, will literal and symbolic be the result of “meshed” vision? I kind of lean toward that idea. Not sure though, would love to hear more from others on it.
When should we decide to take things literal or figurative? Is it whenever we think something is too absurd to be real?
I’m not very firm on any of these questions because it’s hard to find a “it switches from literal to figurative here”. How do we know for sure?
Just talking with different religious people this has always been a hard one for me. (For example the Jehovah’s Witnesses I talked to claimed that the whole book of Revelation is figurative while other people take it totally literal.)
Revelation is translated from 4 significantly different perspectives - basicly.
Preterist - it was fulfilled in the destruction of Jerusalem.
Historically - Rev. was fulfilled in the rise and fall of Rome.
Metaphorically - it speaks of the ongoing evil within us and within our cultures.
Futuristically - speaks of end-time events
Why is it translated so variously? Because it is full of figurative language which lends itself to being widely translated and read into. Like any painting it can be interpreted from many different perspectives. Because of the dramatic, prophetic, pictorial and not didactic nature of Revelations, I do not appeal to it to establish doctrine, but to illustrate doctrine. From the UR perspective, the LoF is interesting in that before teh LoF the nations and the kings are anti-Christ; after the LoF the nations and kings are worshipping God and paying Him homage as subjects of His Kingdom.
Of course proponents of ECT will point to this painting, interpreting it from their perspective, and reading into it their beliefs. Annihilationists and Reconcilists will have the same tendency of interpreting this painting from their perspective.
What irritates me is when people appeal to the LoF as evidence of ECT AND refuse to consider any evidence to the contrary, and appeal to the LoF as being absolutely literal when they themselves interpret much of the rest of Revelation as being metaphorical. And relatively few futurists have even begun to consider the evidence supporting the other 3 views.
Also, even considering the Lake of Fire from a futuristic point of view, when I studied it in context I came away with a very different understanding of it. Note:
The LoF is in the presence of the Lamb and the presence of the angels. Where does Jesus, the Lamb sit? At the right hand of God. What surrounds the throne of God? Angels.
Brimstone, theon (theo - God) means divine fire.
Brimstone/sulfur was burnt as incense for both spiritual purification and physical healing by the Greeks and Romans.
Brimstone/sulfur was also used as medicine, and even today is the foundation for many medicines.
Torment, basanizo, was a word used to speak of the testing of precious metals for impurities. Such was part of the process of purification by fire.
Nations and Kings before the Lake of Fire are always pictured as being anti-Christ; after the LoF, the Nations and Kings are pictured as worshipping God and paying Him homage.
God is said to be a consuming fire.
When I consider these facts, the Lake of Fire takes on a very different meaning. It speaks of the volcanic lake of the fiery, purifying, healing presence of God! Those cast therein, well, have the hell burnt out of them!
No, that one is a metaphor…