The Evangelical Universalist Forum

Why a literal lake of fire?

Concerning Israel not being abondened I agree that they have not been permanantly set aside, but certainly calloused “in part…until the compliment of the nations may be entering.” It was my intention to write a proper article on the outline, and nature of the book of Revelation, and to show evidence why it is much more literal than people suppose. It is important to know that it concerns the Day of the Lord. John himself says so “I came to be, in spirit, in the Lord’s day…” Rev 1.10 This connects the book immediately with much prophecy and scripture. It also helps to know a basic idea what is happening in the book. The main section of the book is divided into two sections from 4.1- 11.18 and 11.19-20.15 The first section is the throne section “…and lo! a throne, located in heaven” (4.2) and the second section is the temple section “And opened was the temple of God in heaven…” (11.19) The throne section refers to the political redemption of the earth, and the temple section refers to the religious redemption. These two sections cover the same time period. There is much value in this book, yet it is treated sometimes with less seriousness than the stupidity of Nostradamus.

There is a warning not to add or take away from the words of this book. It is obvious why the warning was given. We do not even accept John’s own explanations of what he has seen. One example: “And the woman whom you perceived is the great city which has a kingdom over the kings of the earth” Despite prophecy and the clear meantion of the city of Babylon, we just will not accept even clear statements. We have made up our minds that the book is too hard to understand, and lacks any true coherance.

If Noah’s ark was in Revelation, we would not take it literally. Maybe we would think it referred to the purification of our world system. If Jonah and the whale was in Revelation we would re-interpret it to maybe mean the underground persecution of the Church. If Exodus was in Revelation, we would not accept the 10 plagues as literal, or the crossing of the red sea, or Moses staff.

As I said before the demons in Luke 8 took the future place of Satan’s imprisonment seriously. John explains in Rev. 20 1-3 where Satan will be jailed, why he will be jailed, for how long he will be jailed and then explains he will be loosed a short time before he is imprisoned again. Well if the first imprisonment is an actual location, we must takes his second imprisonment as an actual location 1st time. "And he casts him into the submerged chaos.
2nd time. “was cast into the lake of fire” John connects the two locations. It is also “where the wild beast and where the false prophet are also” Don’t let those that believe in eternal torment fool you. These three beings are supernatural. It is also clear they do not suffer for eternity.

I guess this is the close for my Rantings. Yes, I know I made spelling mistakes, and even referred to Jonah and the ‘whale’ When I know it probably does not say whale. Anyway I guess I just have become too discouraged. I realize it could be a sudden attack from Satan (etc) Take care my friend Davo, and Cindy.

Hey, Puddy

Don’t be discouraged, bro. I figured I’d let you and Davo discuss this topic, since I’m not a Preterist. (I probably don’t even know how to spell it!) So hang around and he’ll be along. He’s not usually in every day, so don’t feel you’re being ignored. I just don’t feel the need to persuade or be persuaded, and I’ve read through the arguments before. I don’t find preterism offensive or anything – it’s just not persuasive to me. But that doesn’t mean I’m right and you’re wrong. I’m sure Jesus will sort it all out at the appointed time. :slight_smile:

Blessings, Cindy

Hey Puddy, it’s always good to have an exchange of ideas :slight_smile: and explore our different take on things, and as for you having “not represent what I believe very well” well that’s sometimes the nature of online forums… where you think you’ve made it perfectly clear, and it is to you, but as these message are then read according to our own particular mindsets they can inevitably get spun in some other direction – that’s just how it goes and so this is where it pays to remember to cut some slack, even towards yourself Puddy :slight_smile:.

I hear what you say about ‘spiritual death’ – what I DON’T mean by that term is something esoteric, ethereal or “out there”. My primary understanding is that of ‘relationship’ i.e., what covenant disobedience wrought upon those of the covenant in death, destruction and ruination of ‘relationship’ with God. This was originally seen in Adam and thus consequently with mankind who he was to represent [a story the subsequently outworked through the biblical story of Israel].

As I understand it, it was THIS relational death or separation that Jesus conquered – the Last Adam restoring the breach of the First Adam. It didn’t take any belief in, or confession of, or personal response to the first Adam for all and sundry to be affected by the first Adam did, and likewise it doesn’t take any belief in, or confession of or personal response to the last Adam for all and sundry to have been affected by the last Adam has done. Now, coming to a ‘personal knowledge’ of all that God did in Christ ON BEHALF OF ALL sure can bring a thankful response, and that has its own reward in terms of a more peaceable heart.

It was this prêteristic understanding of ‘death’ that eventually drew me to the inclusive conclusion that ‘God has no more enemies’, as I note HERE, and so led to no end of contention with fellow prêterists of which most are eternal hell-fire advocates or to the less annihilationists.

By way of background information: Paul struck two major problems in his ministry to the various churches – one was ‘Jewish exclusiveness’ and the other was ‘gentile separatism’.

There was among some of the early Jewish congregation “zealots” who were insisting upon gentile believers’ observance of circumcision and other ‘OC law’ rites, much to the consternation of Paul who said such zealots should go the whole way Gal 5:12; Acts 15:1-2] rather than impose that which God did away with in the sacrifice of Christ.

On the other side of the coin Paul had to deal with the growing superiority complex some gentile converts were exhibiting in their false and errant belief that God had now in fact by-passed Israel and transferred his blessing to them [it might be noted that this [i]belief is still present in various forms of what is call ‘replacement theology, where “the Church” is said to have replaced Israel - the first fruits church in fact FULFILLED Israel’s mandate].

These gentiles understood, correctly, that historic or OC Israel was “dead” – “dead in trespasses and sins” – what they had wrong however was the fact that God had promised “resurrection” i.e., covenant restoration to Israel, and this they had in Christ. They just hadn’t realised it, for had they, they would not have as Paul charged them… “crucified the Lord of Glory1Cor 2:8.

Now I gave that to say this… Paul says this in Acts 26:22-23:

Therefore, having obtained help from God, to this day I stand, witnessing both to small and great, saying no other things than those which the prophets and Moses said would come— that the Christ would suffer, that He would be the first to rise from the dead, and would proclaim light to the Jewish people and to the Gentiles.”

We know from Scripture that Jesus in fact WAS NOT “the first” to rise literally from the dead, and yet here Paul seemingly says otherwise – is this a contradiction? These are at least 9 occurrences of “literal physical resurrection” recorded in the Bible. So what was Paul really saying? He was saying that He, Jesus, was THE FIRST to rise up out of old covenant Israel i.e., “the dead”. Jesus was THE resurrection, THE new Israel.

Thus when in 1Cor 15 some were contending that “the dead rise not” what they were really saying was “Israel has been forsaken”. Paul rebukes this and points out the obvious, that if Israel [the dead] be not raised, then surely they are not as well BECAUSE the life that came to the world came through Israel, and in particular, Jesus, as Israel personified.

I can actually agree with you on this but for a totally different reason than you are making. Pantelism understands the narrative of scripture as being primarily pertinent to Israel, and thus the consequent judgment she was to come under for covenant unfaithfulness. Pantelism views the tribulations and conflagrations of Ad66-70 as being that which Jesus prophesies in the Gospels – Mt 24, Mk 13 and Lk 17, 21… IOW, “the end” Jesus spoke of was the end of the Mosaic OC world, NOT the end of our time-space universe. Grasp this one truth and a lot of other religious dominoes start to fall.

IF as I understand it the old covenant’s demise was final and there was to be no relevant working vestige of it into the new covenant age, then certainly there were those reprobates that clung to the old covenant mode of existence that indeed died in their sins 8:21, 24], not realising their forgiveness Lk 23:34] when the Jerusalem burnt as a molten ‘lake of fire’ when she [OC Israel] experienced her second and final death. It is in this sense alone I can agree that such a second death was [past tense] relevant to the “unbelievers” – fortunately even these were ultimately covered by the grace of God 1Cor 3:15].

PS: sorry about the delay in posting… it was late at night and I thought I’d lost an entire post only to realise now I’d saved it as a “draft” – guess that makes me a little “daft” lol. :unamused:

I feel I need to say that Davo did respond to me quickly. My 5 previous articles were one article, I just did not want to lose the whole article. I was not writing article after article waiting for him to respond. I feel I should not have told people I am depressed and lonely. This was true when I signed into the system. It is not true for me all the time. I think everyone here has been very nice. However I sincerely feel I need to stop. I worry I did more harm than good. I have learned that advocating my views tend to backfire. I probably helped form more bias against concordant teaching than anything positive.To my shame.
Davo I am sorry I won’t respond, but I promise to study your position. I feel guilty about this, but I just have to stop.
God bless

Hi Puddy… this is just my opinion, but I don’t think it necessary that you respond to everything I’ve written, and certainly now as you feel a sense of shame or guilt for how you present your thoughts – there need be no shame or guilt in sharing these things as we are all free to express ourselves accordingly, agree or not. Thank you anyway for interacting with me. :slight_smile:

Puddy

Don’t feel ashamed. I don’t think you did a bad job at all of presenting Concordant views. I’ve read a few Concordant authors’ books and they didn’t convince me either, though I AM fond of the CLV. Don’t be so hard on yourself – we’re all just average people. (Well most of us :laughing: Some of us are a little nuts.) You don’t know who’s sitting down at the other side of that computer screen or you wouldn’t be intimidated at all. I’m a potter and an artist and I went to school for nursing, not bible school. We have all sorts on the forum. This isn’t a collection off professional theologians here – we have a few of those yes, but they don’t post very often and they’re just people also. You’re doing just fine.

There are people here with all different flavors of opinion and the One we all have in common is Jesus (and of course the belief that He will ultimately reconcile all people to the Father). Davo and I don’t agree on eschatology either, but as far as I know, this doesn’t bother him and we respect and appreciate one another’s contributions all the same. I don’t respond to his posts in this vein only because it doesn’t interest me. And I didn’t think you were desperately posting and posting – all of your posts appeared more or less at the same time, so I understood they were all of a piece. I do that sometimes too.

Please don’t be discouraged brother. Honestly we’re not all sitting here thinking, “What a sad case” or anything like that. You are welcome here and no one looks down on you. There are many people here who struggle with depression and most of us greatly respect those honest and courageous enough to open up about the things they struggle with. This is the family of God here, Puddy. Maybe “only on-line” but nevertheless real people discussing real spiritual concepts and just trying to get things sorted out. Of course the most important thing is our relationship with Father, but these other exegetical/philosophical things do also matter so long as we don’t get too hung up on them.

You are a brother; you are valued; you are part of the family whether you choose to weigh in on the issues or not. You will be with us forever and forever and we will enjoy you and your company. God, the master artist and creator, made you and is making you, and there is nothing wrong with your sharing your thoughts with us.

Love and blessings, Cindy

Ah, you melted my heart. I admit I am a lunitic. It sounds like we are two strange ducks writing each other. You seem like an interesting person. You should show us pictures of your art!

I emailed a concordant believer to take my place on this system, but instead he really encouraged me and said he liked my articles, and that it is not about changing people’s minds.

I have the ability to become easily discouraged. I don’t mind people strongly disagreeing with me, but sometimes my emotions suddenly swing. It appears I have a social disorder. Possibly aspergers, and my parents are certain of this. I do see indications, such as my struggle with certain sounds, (etc) Still it is subjective.

We all struggle, don’t we? The real reason I had decided to quit, is when another member quit the system, and I felt I was responsible somehow. So I wondered If I harmed the faith of someone else. I really do want to strengthen people, and not be of a discouragement. With so many conflicting ideas on this site, it can be difficult for people. I have found the debates have strengthened me, and that everyone has been so gracious.

Also it has helped me become more devout. I have always struggled with one specific sin in my life, and I really feel God has brought me to this site as a help in that area as well. You have been a blessing to me Cindy. I also made a new concordant friend indirectly through this site. Anyway I will plug away again, and don’t be afraid people to debate me most strongly. This won’t bother me. I accept blunt and direct conversation. Just know from time to time, I will likely enter a dark mood.
God bless
Puddy

Puddy -

You’ve been on my mind for the past two days - and I’ve been praying for you. I realy don’t think you should worry about the member who quit. She hasn’t quit - she just wants a bti of a rest after a period of concentrated searching and questioning :slight_smile: And I think she’s quite happy to have a rest and a period of gestation - and I’m sure she’ll be back. I’m so glad you’ve been blessed by the lovely Cindy’s frienship. And you are doing so well here reaching out to people and learning to handle all this diversity of opinion. You are valued here - adn it’s not going to hurt anyone if you get frustrated or angry fomr time to time (your anger is mild compared to some of us - I assure you - including me)

Do stay with us

Dick

Dear Puddy – if you do feel you have a ‘social’ disorder’ why not go see a doctor for a chat. I’ve taught people with aspergers and have two friends who have children with aspergers. If this is what you have – well there is big spectrum of people this term covers. I’ve not done any serious reading on aspergers but I understand that, amongst other things, it entails difficulty with reading people’s faces to gauge their emotions; I know that psychologists can help a person with difficulties in this area that are making their life miserable through giving them certain exercises and procedures to help balance perceptions a bit more. I guess on website this sort of block in perception is going to translate into an exaggerated from of what we all have online – namely a difficulty in reading each other’s emotions. Just rest assured that if you do get upset sometimes it’s not your fault and you need not take it out on yourself or blame yourself.

I’m glad Puddy, that you’ve decided to stay with us for a while. :smiley: Please do continue to let us know if you’re needing reassurance. We all need that from time to time.

Boy did we ever get off topic eh? It is funny how it went from ‘why a literal lake of fire?’ to a counselling thread. Thanks so much for your thoughts and prayers sobernost, and your encouragement Cindy. Now I will drive this thread back to it’s purpose and respond at some point to Mr. Davo

Let’s put to ‘death’ a discussion about me. Cast it into ‘the lake of fire’

:laughing: Puddy, you’re a funny boy.

Hey Davo

I will respond to a small part of your article. Hope all is going well with you. I feel like I am back home ‘in the lake of fire’ thread. This is where I started out, and so I am like the devil in this thread walking around with a pitch fork in my hand.

You say you understand the narrative of scripture to be primarily pertaining to Israel. This I agree with you. I consider only the letters of Paul as being for us the gentiles, and only his prison epistles as being perfectly so.

I am confused how you can work all the prophecies concerning Israel into those few years leading up to 70 A.D. Do you spiritualize many of those passages, and make them for today? (NC)

When you refer to the end of the OC world, I feel you are bumping into the scriptural idea of the eons. You don’t believe the NC comes to an end? Unless I am wrong, you believe Christ reigns for ever? I am having difficulty with your position, but at least I have started studying it again.

When it comes to Israel, you believe the nation has experienced the second death? Does this not deny Israel’s future restoration.

I am having difficulty. I am not sure how to respond to your position, because I don’t think a can respond to your position from a literal stance. To you, 1 Cor. 15 doesn’t deal primarily with the physical resurrection, is that correct?

I am not being sarcastic with you. I just need more time. I do understand some of your arguments now, but it is a learning curve for me. Sorry about that bro!

You believe only in an afterlife for us, correct?

Puddy

Absolutely no problems there Puddy. :slight_smile:

No not really. I view the prophetic message of the OC as pointing to and being fulfilled in Jesus. Jesus in the gospels speaks of “this generation” i.e., HIS contemporaries. He noted that… “there are some standing here who shall not taste death till they see the Son of Man coming in His kingdom” – ‘the kingdom’ did NOT come with his transfiguration. The Kingdom came in its fullness when all vestiges of the OC age were destroyed in the Ad70 conflagrations when the epicentre of that OC world [age] was razed to the ground, “not one stone left upon another”.

You are right about “world” really meaning “age” or eon – the world-age-eon that Jesus said was coming to an end was the Mosaic world-age-eon NOT our time-space universe. And no, the NC age knows no end. IOW… it was only the OC that had an ‘eschaton’, that is ‘an end’ – thus the NC age has no end. This world will forever populate the next.

It pays to remember that biblical DEATH was EXILE… thus “the day” Adam sinned was “the day” he fell into EXILE in relation to God, i.e., with respect to his Creator he died relationally. We know he physically lived some 970 earth years, BUT ‘the death’ he died THAT DAY was a covenantal death.

I view Adam as proto-Israel, i.e., he is an early story of the birth of Israel personified. Now, when you look at the story of Israel you see her first death, i.e., EXILE was when she was banished to Babylon for her idolatries. When Israel refused to accept her Messiah she experienced ‘the second death’ aka ‘the lake of fire’ at the hands of God’s instrument Rome.

Correct!! In the OT Israel was continuously promised “resurrection” e.g., Ez 37:1-14 et al, and THIS is what 1Cor 15 is all about – national resurrection. In the Exodus story of Israel she spent 40yrs wandering in the wilderness, wandering in sin BEFORE she can into the newness of life of the Land of Promise. Jesus’ “this generation” likewise spent a 40yr period [Ad30-70] being witnessed to about the coming new age wherein righteousness would dwell. Some responded affirmatively to it.

Those who rejected this message missed the boat, and although redeemed did not walk in the fullness of it just as ancient Israel failed to gasp their redemption. Remember, ALL Israel WAS fully redeemed out of bondage [Egypt] yet only the faithful went on into the Promised Land to experience the greater blessing God’s redemption had wrought.

Now, in this period Ad30-70, Jesus’ “this generation” there were those in Israel AND certain among the gentiles whom God was calling Acts 13:48; 15:14, 17] who were rising up into this new covenant resurrection life. It is THIS that Paul’s 1Cor 15:42-44 passage addresses.

It is interesting to note that in this context of national resurrection, restoration and regeneration, again that which was promised to Israel, that when referring to “the resurrection” Paul in this passage according to the Greek text, without fail, uses the continuous tense… thus when he says “it is raised” the proper reading is “it is BEING raised” – this was an even or process that was occurring then at THAT time. IOW, the gospel was BRINGING people out of darkness [OC] into the light [NC]. And we know that what God was doing or going to do FOR the world He was first doing in and via His Chosen, Israel.

I know this perspective can be a bit to grasp at first but it makes so much sense when we read Scripture in its ‘audience relevance’.

Well written article, and appreciate your quick response. Ya this is difficult for me to get my head around. I will do some more reading… will probably write response in a week.
Thanks

I believe the lake of fire is literal. I try not to spiritualize things too much in the Bible, even though Revelation is full of metaphors. My approach is conservatism, i.e., stay with the literal meaning unless it’s clear that a figure is being employed, even in the book of Revelation. The Aramaic and Hebrew mindset was a lot more fluid in their transitions between the literal and the figurative.

However, I don’t believe a literal reading necessitates sheer agony for eternity. “Kolasin aionion” (Matt. 25:46) probably means “corrective punishment appropriate for the age”, and thus has an end and a holy purpose. God, as Love, is a consuming fire, and will consume away all that offends, in all his creatures. Also, God, as Love, will use whatever means His wisdom determines is appropriate to get people’s attention. And we don’t know what eternal bodies are capable of enduring, so we don’t know the nature of what people in the lake of fire will be experiencing. I certainly don’t believe the horrible picture given by Tertullian, Dante, Edwards, Spurgeon, et al.

Yes, but meteor or comet would be a better word.

No to both the 7 heads and the sea. Those are clearly symbols, and were familiar to John’s contemporaries. But they represent real people and real events (a powerful ruler emerging out of the gentiles), operating on a real timescale, with real, painful ramifications. And some people will literally worship the dragon, though I don’t think it’s a literal dragon they will be worshipping.

I don’t think so. However, when you talk of heaven, what is ‘literal’ anymore?

p.s., to any Genesis fans out there, I’m listening to Supper’s Ready as I write these comments. :slight_smile:

“Simple reading”? But what if some of the simple words are actually mistranslations, like *eternal *for aionios? If you translate aionios correctly wherever it occurs, the simple reading that emerges is very different from the simple reading found in the KJV, NIV, ESV, etc.

Hey Davo

Hope you are still on the system. I am sorry I did not respond to you sooner. It is also nice to have johnkw contributing. I am enjoying your comments. Please, continue.

One serious problem I have with your position, ‘davo’ is that you believe in the afterlife. I assume I am correct about this? If there is no resurrection, you must believe in some sort of ‘afterlife’? I just do not see this teaching in the scriptures. It is based on a very few passages, and ignoring some very clear teaching. Paul says we shall be forever with the Lord, through the snatching away, not through any other means, and he makes clear it will be at the same time.

There are promises given in the scriptures that have not been fulfilled yet, and will never be fulfilled if your position is true. The city of Babylon has never fallen as predicted by the prophets
(Is. 13.47 and Jer. 50-51) It’s destruction will be sudden (Is. 47.11) in the day of the Lord (Is. 13.10) and with no inhabitants (Jer. 51. 29) It is clear this prophecy has never been fulfilled. We see it, when we turn to the book of Revelation. This book concerns the day of the Lord. (Rev. 1.10) Which must still be future.

Also the promises to Israel are unconditional. They have not been permanently set aside. To me Romans 11 also makes this clear. I would be glad to carry on a conversation still with you. I know so far I have not dealt with many of your great points. And I am sure this will be a learning experience for me.

I admit still a great deal of ignorance with your position. It is true that even some dispensationalists see fulfillment of prophecy in 70 A.D. Hope all is well.

Puddy