The lake of fire - Punishment ie torture or destruction

[FreeGrace]

Free said: ↑
Where does Scripture say this?

the abyss is part of Hell, if you forgot, There are five parts of hell, see my last few posts. It's in revelation 20. I know I said lake of fire, but that doesn't happen till after judgment. Sorry about that.

Your posts are getting more and more confused. If the 5 parts are mentioned in ch 20, please cite the verse numbers.

Thanks.

 

[FreeGrace]

godsquadgeek said: ↑
they cannot die because they are outside of time space continum and will be in existence forever. If someone is beyond time, then there is no time in which they are not existing.

So far you have a lot of opinion and no Scripture, despite a few requests now to provide some. If someone exists outside of time, they are not bound by time and there was never a time when they did not exist, but that is God alone. Angels are created beings, and therefore exist in space and time.

Excellent point!

And, we have Ezek 28:15 - You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you.

The king of Sidon is about Satan. He was created on a day.

 

[PeterJens]

A Refutation of Annihilationism

1) Your statement, "Mortal man lives a short time, yet people feel justified to condemn humans to eternal suffering because of the failure to grasp life while on earth," falsely presumes that God does not provide a person enough time to reach a level of complete accountability to the Truth. Upon what do you base this? Also, contained in your statement is the false assertion that eternal punishment is the consequence of a person failing to "grasp life." Most definitely Scripture makes it clear that a person, in this life, is given sufficient evidence and knowledge--as well as a measure faith--to make an informed decision for Christ. In other words, any failure on the part of a person is not the result of failing to "grasp life," rather, that person fails to receive and act upon that which enables them to "grasp life," to do something they have been enabled to do; namely, to submit to the work and righteousness of their Maker. For if they act upon what evidence/revelation that is given to them (our "moral compass," God's natural creation, and His Word--in whatever measure available), then they will be saved.

2) Eternal Hell-fire is not "the end the ultimate resolution for sinners who refuse to be healed?" (I am not positive what you mean by this.) It's the consequence of rejecting God Almighty in this life. What is being resolved if it is a resolution? A resolution of what? The problem of sin is not resolved in Hell. In Hell, sin is still imputed to the condemned.

3) I believe the evidence weighs heavily in favor of everlasting punishment in a literal Hell. If there is no such thing, then there is no consequence for rejecting God in this life. If there is not such a Hell, then what is the alternative to Universal Salvation or limited/finite punishment in Hell? That would be Annihilationism. But if Annihilationism is proposed, then where does sin go after mortal death? It cannot not be imputed to Christ on the cross. It is not relegated to some state or place of limbo. So what happens to it? If we say it is destroyed along with the person, then is that not a claim for a second means of eradicating sin along side of the Cross? Shall we dare say that through the lack of faith (rebellion of man) sin can be destroyed, just as sin is destroyed through faith in the work of a cross? Would that not be equating a lack of faith with faith? Shall we dare equate transgression with the power of the cross? I think not. If it is otherwise, then all a godless person has to do is kill themselves and their sin is then eradicated, meaning they have the power not only to escape the wrath of God, and but also to thumb their nose at God. Do proponents of Annihilationism actually believe that man has such power over God Almighty and sin?

So what if God annihilates a person/soul; the annihilated person will not exist, so he/she would not care. In Annihilationism, there is no punishment, for punishment can only be inflicted where the object of such affliction actually exists. Is a comatose prisoner in a prison aware of their punishment? No? Then what would be the point in keeping them in prison, which is a form of punishment? Would a society waste money continuing to incarcerate an inmate pertaining to whom it is known that the inmate's comatose state is absolutely permanent? So annihilation is certainly not a form of punishment, for how can a person be punished if they are not even aware of such punishment?

I conclude, therefore, that Annihilationism is not an option. So let's resign that to the abyss of ignorance where it truly belongs. As far as I know, that only leaves Universal Salvation or finite/limited punishment in Hell. However, the arguments for Universal Salvation and finite/limited punishment in Hell are full of Scriptural and logical problems. And they are certainly refutable, which, by the grace, knowledge, and power of God Almighty and His Word, I believe I can certainly do.

4) I have heard it said that God does not send people to Hell; they send themselves to Hell. There is truth to this claim with respect to its point. An apt parallel would be a person who ends up in prison as a result of wicked behavior. If we say that it is the State that has sent the person to prison, and make no mention of the responsibility the person has concerning the cause of the person being sent to prison, are we not presenting a half truth? The State does not want to send people to prison (neither does God want to send people to Hell), but it has no choice because justice requires an answer to man's wickedness and unrepentance. What would we think if our government decided it would never again send anyone to prison no matter what crimes people commit? Would we not label such a government as unjust? And is not justice one of the very attributes of God? So we can begin to see that the necessity of an eternal hell lies in part in the very nature/character of God Himself.

Thankyou for this response. My observation is that you clearly believe all lost sinners are provided with
information to decide for or against God. Now imagine you are an unborn child in the womb. Or an indian
in the jungle cut off from any outside community. There are innumerable situations.
Or even those who cannot read or write and have no access to believers.

It strikes me you do not believe people are born completely lost, without a hope to choose God or good
things. And somehow this is no longer choosing God but Jesus. Again this seems to add detail where
there is none. And you are suggesting children who die before the age of consent know enough to be
judged for not choosing God. I am holding to a simple principle. A true encounter with Christ brings life,
and without this, there is only judgement. What I have experienced is in reality few who encounter Jesus
decide to follow, like the ten lepers, only one returns to say thankyou.

Now to justify eternal torture you need to wilful rebellion, but my experience is most just drift through life
never quite knowing what or how they should live. Only when you know Christ do you know the true treasure
within, and it is only His pursuit of us that keeps us true.

 

[FreeGrace]

and further more if you remember, God did die. and not only his body died but his actual being. In his son Jesus. Jesus died, but came back to life. So He would be an exception to the rule about immaterial beings cannot die. But I don't know for sure if God can simply remove them from existence in the same way he put them into existence. That is possible. But it would be timeless, so they would have never existed and always existed in the same essence, which is contradictory to our sciences.

James defined physical death; separation of soul from body, in 2:26 - As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Therefore, spiritual death is separation of the soul from God.

When Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, it wasn't His physical death that paid for sins. It was His spiritual death. He WAS separated from His Father. We know this from His question: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" He was quoting Psa 22, and making the point about what was actually going on. All the while He was physically very much alive.

And, when payment was completed, still while very much alive, His final words on this earth was "tetelestai", which means "paid in full" and generally translated "it is finished".

If His physical death accomplished payment for sins, He simply spoke too soon, and His words could not be true. But He was correct, because it was His spiritual death (separation from the Father) that accoplished payment for our sins.

That is why He could say "paid in full" while still very much alive. And what did He do after He said that? He dismissed His spirit, and died physically. John 20:30 - When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

English translations include "gave up", "released", "yielded up", and "delivered up".

This is what the lexicon says about the Greek word: to hand over, to give or deliver over, to betray

iow, He was in full control of the situation throughout His ordeal on the cross. And when His mission was completed, there was nothing left for Him to do on earth, so He left earth on His own terms. iow, He died physically AFTER He paid the sin debt through spiritual death.

 

[PeterJens]

A Refutation of Annihilationism
3) I believe the evidence weighs heavily in favor of everlasting punishment in a literal Hell. If there is no such thing, then there is no consequence for rejecting God in this life. If there is not such a Hell, then what is the alternative to Universal Salvation or limited/finite punishment in Hell? That would be Annihilationism. But if Annihilationism is proposed, then where does sin go after mortal death? It cannot not be imputed to Christ on the cross. It is not relegated to some state or place of limbo. So what happens to it? If we say it is destroyed along with the person, then is that not a claim for a second means of eradicating sin along side of the Cross? Shall we dare say that through the lack of faith (rebellion of man) sin can be destroyed, just as sin is destroyed through faith in the work of a cross? Would that not be equating a lack of faith with faith? Shall we dare equate transgression with the power of the cross? I think not. If it is otherwise, then all a godless person has to do is kill themselves and their sin is then eradicated, meaning they have the power not only to escape the wrath of God, and but also to thumb their nose at God. Do proponents of Annihilationism actually believe that man has such power over God Almighty and sin?

So what if God annihilates a person/soul; the annihilated person will not exist, so he/she would not care. In Annihilationism, there is no punishment, for punishment can only be inflicted where the object of such affliction actually exists. Is a comatose prisoner in a prison aware of their punishment? No? Then what would be the point in keeping them in prison, which is a form of punishment? Would a society waste money continuing to incarcerate an inmate pertaining to whom it is known that the inmate's comatose state is absolutely permanent? So annihilation is certainly not a form of punishment, for how can a person be punished if they are not even aware of such punishment?

I conclude, therefore, that Annihilationism is not an option. So let's resign that to the abyss of ignorance where it truly belongs. As far as I know, that only leaves Universal Salvation or finite/limited punishment in Hell. However, the arguments for Universal Salvation and finite/limited punishment in Hell are full of Scriptural and logical problems. And they are certainly refutable, which, by the grace, knowledge, and power of God Almighty and His Word, I believe I can certainly do.

The argument here appears to me to be, sin is a thing that exists outside the individual sinner.
For me sin is the problem of consequences, the destruction of ones heart and relationships.
It is this that needs to be repaired and set right. If the individual is destroyed then so is the need for
resolution.
Jesus died to set those who claimed His forgiveness to receive life. Some hold Jesus died for all sin
and resolved the debt for the world so sin no longer is the barrier between man and God. But this only
works if you think sin is just a debt that can be paid off without any change to the forgiven. For me this
is a kind of heresy, the removes the reality of our failure and broken relationship, and reduces salvation
down to an exam one passes, baggage and all.

If I read you right, being destroyed is an ok solution to existance, and not a problem.
Jesus disagrees with you. "Fear Him who can both destroy the body and soul."
I personally have no desire to see the lost suffer more than they deserve, or to have a view of justice
that they clearly had little understanding of. For me it is all too human to want those who have caused us
pain to be tortured and have pain inflicted upon them. But for what end? To teach them a lesson? But
they are beyond hope or lessons, beyond a good outcome. What bigger punishment is there to know you
could have partaken in the glory of the Son, but have missed it so completely.

 

[Butch5]

The argument, "Someone who doesn't exist isn't subject to sin, therefore, they cannot be freed from sin" is true, I believe, but it does not argue for or against annihilation; it presumes the reality of annihilation, and makes a claim based on that presumption.

It doesn't deal with annihilation. It deals with your argument about sin. Since you agree with the statement I think we can dispense with your argument.

 

[PeterJens]

I AGREE that those in the lof will experience eternal torment. Destruction, if you prefer. chessman believes unbeliever souls will cease to exist, which I reject.
I reject annihilation of the soul.

If one rejects annihilation of the soul one believes in universal life, whether in torture or not,
life is eternal. That would seemingly contradict Jesus's words, those who believe will receive
eternal life.

This very phrase assumes that man is doomed to die and be destroyed, while Jesus brings good
news.

It struck me yesterday, that if one thinks Jesus was a nutcase, or just not the type of person one would
get on with, that person has just missed the reality of eternity and existance, because He is the source of
the life we have, and calls us to walk with Him into eternity,

I think sinners want so badly to gain eternal existance, even existance in torture is better than destruction.
In many hearts the hope is God is not ultimately just, but partial and will relent, like the friends they knew,
or the loving parents or whoever who showed them love at some point, because they are not that bad.

Too many unbelievers have written on theology and biased it away from Gods intention, because unless you
walk with the Lord openly, that is what will happen.

 

[gr8grace3]

What is wrong here is your wildly incorrect claim that I believe in annihilation. That is ridiculous. Apparently you've not read any of my posts to chessman and others about it. I DENY annihilation. Got it?

I had to scroll through and see if you replied first before I commented on that one. Just goes to show who is actually paying attention.

Unbelievable.... Yet believable.

 

[godsquadgeek]

I'm just sorry that quoting from the Bible doesn't count as a qualified source.

If a Mormon does that, what does it make you if you do the same? You want to be orthodox.

 

[godsquadgeek]

What is wrong here is your wildly incorrect claim that I believe in annihilation. That is ridiculous. Apparently you've not read any of my posts to chessman and others about it. I DENY annihilation. Got it?

Oh sorry. Just figured since your fighting with me you must be the opposite party.

 

[godsquadgeek]

I AGREE that those in the lof will experience eternal torment. Destruction, if you prefer. chessman believes unbeliever souls will cease to exist, which I reject.


I reject annihilation of the soul.

Well then hopefully you appreciate the illustration of the junk yard.

 

[godsquadgeek]

Free said: ↑
Where does Scripture say this?

Your posts are getting more and more confused. If the 5 parts are mentioned in ch 20, please cite the verse numbers.

Thanks.

Five parts not in Rev 20, but throughout the bible

 

[godsquadgeek]

James defined physical death; separation of soul from body, in 2:26 - As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead.

Therefore, spiritual death is separation of the soul from God.

When Jesus died on the cross for the sins of mankind, it wasn't His physical death that paid for sins. It was His spiritual death. He WAS separated from His Father. We know this from His question: "My God, My God, why have you forsaken Me?" He was quoting Psa 22, and making the point about what was actually going on. All the while He was physically very much alive.

And, when payment was completed, still while very much alive, His final words on this earth was "tetelestai", which means "paid in full" and generally translated "it is finished".

If His physical death accomplished payment for sins, He simply spoke too soon, and His words could not be true. But He was correct, because it was His spiritual death (separation from the Father) that accoplished payment for our sins.

That is why He could say "paid in full" while still very much alive. And what did He do after He said that? He dismissed His spirit, and died physically. John 20:30 - When he had received the drink, Jesus said, “It is finished.” With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

English translations include "gave up", "released", "yielded up", and "delivered up".

This is what the lexicon says about the Greek word: to hand over, to give or deliver over, to betray

iow, He was in full control of the situation throughout His ordeal on the cross. And when His mission was completed, there was nothing left for Him to do on earth, so He left earth on His own terms. iow, He died physically AFTER He paid the sin debt through spiritual death.

I agree

 

[Politico]

It doesn't deal with annihilation. It deals with your argument about sin. Since you agree with the statement I think we can dispense with your argument.

Please explain how it deals with my argument about sin

 

[Butch5]

Please explain how it deals with my argument about sin

You said annihilation would be another way to be free of sin. However, one who is dead (annihilated) is not subject to sin

 

[Politico]

You said annihilation would be another way to be free of sin. However, one who is dead (annihilated) is not subject to sin

No, I contended that annihilation would be another way to be free of sin for a person who previously existed. You have misrepresented my argument.

Your short argument here only addresses non-existent persons. My argument addressed both existing and non-existing persons (a lack of existence).

You're starting point here is non-existence. It presumes certain non-existence. That does not reflect reality since the real starting point is persons who actually exist. So I believe you are not on the same page as myself and reality. I have not had to presume actual existence. So no, your argument here does not relate to my argument other than to support the fact that annihilation renders persons formerly subject to sin non-subject to sin; exactly the same thing as occurs in justification in Christ.

Annihilationism actually presents a savior other than the Lord Jesus. Annihilationsim's necessary savior is alluring to those who reject Christ but want to end it all to escape life's sorrows/trials and be subject to no accountability. In Annihilationism, there is simply no real accountability. With the slice of the razor, the rebel is free from all accountability, all that hurts, all that afflicts, and all that binds. A substitute saviour indeed. An imaginary substitute savior rooted in man's own understanding. Ahh yes, theology rooted in man's own understanding. I believe God's Word warns us not to rely on our own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

 

[Butch5]

Your short argument here only addresses non-existent persons. My argument addressed both existing and non-existing persons (a lack of existence).

You're starting point here is non-existence. It presumes non-exist. That does not reflect reality since the real starting point is persons who actually exist. So I believe you are not on the same page as myself and reality. I have not had to presume actual existence. So no, your argument here does not relate to my argument other than to support the fact that annihilation results in making existing persons non-subject to sin; exactly the same thing as occurs in justification in Christ.

Annihilationism actually presents a savior other than the Lord Jesus. Annihilationsim's necessary savior is alluring to those who reject Christ but want to end it all to escape life's sorrows/trials and be subject to no accountability. In Annihilationism, there is simply no real accountability. With the slice of the razor, the rebel is free from all accountability, all that hurts, all that afflicts, and all that binds. A substitute saviour indeed. A substitute savior rooted i the power of man. Ahh yes, theology rooted in man's own understanding. I believe God Word warns us not to rely on are own understanding (Proverbs 3:5).

Again, this argument is illogical. You see, in Christ one lives and is delivered from sin. They are not dead and delivered from sin. When they are dead the are not subject to sin and as such are not delivered from it. The whole point is to live not die.

However, your whole argument is moot because it is based on a false premise, that being that the dead are not dead. Your idea of eternal conscious torment requires that the dead are alive. However, no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. It is simple an idea inferred from misunderstanding and/or bringing certain unwarranted presuppositions to the text of Scripture.

 

[Politico]

. When they are dead the are not subject to sin and as such are not delivered from it.

LOL.

 

[Butch5]

LOL.

Is that a theological argument?

 

[Politico]

Again, this argument is illogical. You see, in Christ one lives and is delivered from sin. They are not dead and delivered from sin. When they are dead the are not subject to sin and as such are not delivered from it. The whole point is to live not die.

However, your whole argument is moot because it is based on a false premise, that being that the dead are not dead. Your idea of eternal conscious torment requires that the dead are alive. However, no such thing is taught in the Scriptures. It is simple an idea inferred from misunderstanding and/or bringing certain unwarranted presuppositions to the text of Scripture.

I can see how Annihilationism can be attractive to those who have friends or relatives that have killed themselves or have died in their sins. Feelings. Not always the best guide.